HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum to the Arboretum Specific Plan - Resort Village Update ProjectMarch 2026
A D D E N D U M
T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
E N V I R O N M E N TA L I M PA C T R E P O R T
( S TAT E C L E A R I N G H O U S E N O . 2 0 0 6 0 7 1 1 0 9 )
THE RESORT VILLAGE UPDATE PROJECT
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 23 -002
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23 -008
FONTANA , SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
This page intentionally left blank
March 2026
A D D E N D U M
T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
E N V I R O N M E N TA L I M PA C T R E P O R T
( S TAT E C L E A R I N G H O U S E N O . 2 0 0 6 0 7 1 1 0 9)
RESORT VILLAGE UPDATE PROJECT
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 23 -002
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23 -008
FONTANA , SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
(909) 350-6718
Contact: Cecily Session-Goins, Associate Planner
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
1504 Eureka Road, Suite 310
Roseville, California 95661
(916) 772-7450
LSA Project No. 20231028
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. i
FIGURES AND TABLES .......................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .......................................................................... v
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM......................................... 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS ................................................................ 1-1
1.3 CEQA COMPLIANCE ........................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ...................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 ARBORETUM SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION
SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1-6
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING .................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 LAND USE AND ZONING .................................................................................................... 2-9
2.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................... 2-9
2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT VS. “APPROVED PROJECT” ............................................................. 2-10
2.5 PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................................................ 2-15
2.6 PROJECT APPROVALS ...................................................................................................... 2-29
3.0 RESORT VILLAGE AMENDMENT TO THE ARBORETUM SPECIFIC PLAN
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND PROJECT APPROVALS ....... 3-1
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST ........................................................................... 3-2
3.2 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) ......................................... 3-3
3.3 AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.4 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................................................... 3-6
3.5 AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................................... 3-9
3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 3-35
3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................... 3-47
3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ....................................................................................................... 3-53
3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................ 3-60
3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................ 3-70
3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING .............................................................................................. 3-81
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 3-85
3.13 NOISE ............................................................................................................................... 3-87
3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................................ 3-106
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION ............................................................................. 3-110
3.16 TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................... 3-116
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 3-142
4.0 CEQA RESOURCE TOPICS NOT ANALYZED IN THE CERTIFIED FINAL EIR .............. 4-1
4.1 ENERGY .............................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.......................................................................................... 4-6
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 ii
4.3 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 4-7
4.4 WILDFIRE ......................................................................................................................... 4-10
5.0 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION ........................... 5-1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................... 6-1
7.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 7-1
8.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .................................. 8-1
APPENDICES
A: AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM
B: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
C: NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
D1: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
D2: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MEMORANDUM
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional and Project Location .............................................................................................. 2-3
Figure 2a: General Plan Land Use ........................................................................................................ 2-5
Figure 2b: Zoning ................................................................................................................................. 2-7
Figure 3a: Approved General Plan Land Use ..................................................................................... 2-17
Figure 3b: Proposed General Plan Land Use ..................................................................................... 2-19
Figure 4a: Resort Village Approved Specific Plan Land Use Plan ...................................................... 2-21
Figure 4b: Resort Village Proposed Specific Plan Land Use Plan ....................................................... 2-23
TABLES
Table 1: The Resort Village Proposed Land Use Changes.................................................................. 2-13
Table 2: Resort Village Construction Phasing .................................................................................... 2-29
Table 3: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions with Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................ 3-18
Table 4: Approved Project and Proposed Project Operational Emissions ........................................ 3-21
Table 5: Project Localized Construction Emissions ........................................................................... 3-25
Table 6: Project Localized Operational Emissions ............................................................................. 3-26
Table 7: Approved Project and Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................. 3-30
Table 8: Existing (2025) Traffic Noise Levels ..................................................................................... 3-91
Table 9: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ..................................................................... 3-93
Table 10: Summary of Construction Phase, Equipment, and Noise Levels ....................................... 3-94
Table 11: Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................................. 3-96
Table 12: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment ............................................. 3-100
Table 13: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance .................................................................. 3-100
Table 14: Potential Construction Vibration Damage ....................................................................... 3-102
Table 15: Level of Service for Approved Project and Proposed Project .......................................... 3-122
Table 16: Land Use and Ultimate Water Demand ........................................................................... 3-145
Table 17: Approved Project Estimated Sewage Generation for the Resort Planning Area ............ 3-147
Table 18: Proposed SPA Estimated Sewage Generation for the Resort Planning Area .................. 3-147
Table 19: Solid Waste from Approved Project versus Proposed Project ........................................ 3-151
Table 20: Estimated Electricity Consumption of the Arboretum Specific Plan ............................... 3-153
Table 21: Operational Natural Gas Demand Estimates ................................................................... 3-155
Table 22: Approved Project and Proposed Project Energy Consumption Estimates during
Operation ................................................................................................................................... 4-3
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update Project ............. 8-3
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 iv
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as
amended
4
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 vi
City City of Fontana
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2
2
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
eq
max
2
X
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 viii
PM2.5
10
X
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 x
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Fontana (City) is the lead agency for review of the proposed Resort Village Update
Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On September 23, 2009, the City
certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (Arboretum Specific Plan EIR) for the Arboretum
Specific Plan (approved project), State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2006071109, in compliance with
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Two Addendums to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR have
been adopted, one in 2016 and one in 2024. The current project is the Resort Village Update
Amendment to the Arboretum Specific Plan (proposed project), which includes minor residential
density and commercial use acreage modifications to the approved project and the environmental
conditions under which it would be implemented.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, is a comprehensive policy and regulatory guidance
document for the private use and development of all properties within the Arboretum Specific Plan
area. This Addendum to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR is intended for use in conjunction with the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR and will amend the Resort Village Planning Area of the Arboretum
Specific Plan to account for the proposed changes to residential density and commercial use
acreages within a portion of the Arboretum Specific Plan area. By providing the necessary regulatory
and design guidance, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, and this Addendum ensure
future development of parcels within the Arboretum Specific Plan area implements the goals and
policies of the City of Fontana General Plan (General Plan). The requested Specific Plan Amendment
(SPA) proposes changes to residential density and commercial use acreages and includes Tentative
Parcel Map (TPM) 23-008, Tentative Map 20646 for uses shown in Table 1 (provided in Section 2.4),
within the Resort Village Planning Area, one of four Planning Area villages previously approved
within the Arboretum Specific Plan area.
Following preliminary review of the proposed project, the City, as the Lead Agency, determined it is
subject to State CEQA Guidelines and regulations (Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000–
21177). The City has prepared this Addendum to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, to
analyze the potential impacts associated with the proposed project and satisfy the requirements of
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration.
1.2 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA (PRC Sections 21000
et seq.); the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] Sections 15000 et
seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as set forth by the City of
Fontana.
Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “the lead agency or a 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 the preparation of a subsequent
EIR or negative declaration have occurred.” Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the State CEQA
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 1-2
Guidelines, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or subsequent Negative Declaration is
required when:
1. 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;
2. 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
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, a Lead Agency may prepare an addendum to a previously
certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions detailed in
Section 15162 calling for the subsequent preparation of an EIR occurs.
An addendum is not required to be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to
the certified EIR or adopted Negative Declaration. The decision making body shall consider the
addendum with the certified EIR or adopted Negative Declaration before making a decision on the
project.
1.3 CEQA COMPLIANCE
This document is an Addendum to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended. State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15164 allows preparation of an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions calling for
preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. The City has determined that the proposed project
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
does not necessitate any changes/additions to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, and none of the
conditions calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred for the following reasons:
• The proposed project does not require revisions to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR. No new
significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects would occur with implementation of the proposed project.
• Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the
proposed project would be undertaken. Thus, revisions of the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects are not required.
• The new available information does not show that the proposed project would have one or
more significant effects not already discussed in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, or that the
significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR.
• Therefore, because the proposed project would not satisfy any of the conditions that warrant
preparation of a Subsequent EIR, the City, as Lead Agency, has determined that preparation of
an Addendum is appropriate.
1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The documents outlined below, which were utilized during preparation of this Addendum and are a
matter of public record, are hereby incorporated by reference. These documents are available for
public inspection at the City of Fontana Planning Department at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, and
on the City’s website at https://www.fontana.org/index.aspx?nid=834.
1.4.1 City of Fontana General Plan, 2017, Updated 2023
The City Council comprehensively adopted the City of Fontana General Plan (General Plan) on
November 13, 2018. The General Plan is the primary source of long-range planning and policy
direction that is used to guide the City’s growth and change, and preserve and enhance the
community’s quality of life. The General Plan, which contains the goals, policies, and plans to guide
land use and development decisions in the future, is organized into twelve elements, as follows:
• Community and Neighborhoods;
• Housing;
• Building a Healthier Fontana;
• Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails;
• Public and Community Services;
• Community, Mobility, and Circulation (updated July 2023);
• Infrastructure and Green Systems;
• Noise and Safety;
• Sustainability and Resilience;
• Economy, Education, and Workforce Development;
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 1-4
• Downtown Area Plan (updated July 2023); and
• Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Development (updated July 2023).
1.4.2 City of Fontana Municipal Code, as (Continuously) Updated
The Fontana Municipal Code (Municipal Code) establishes detailed zoning districts and regulations
based on the General Plan. The Fontana Zoning and Development Code (Municipal Code Chapter 30)
serves as the primary implementation tool for the General Plan. Whereas the General Plan is a
policy document that sets forth direction for development decisions, the Zoning Code is a regulatory
document that establishes specific standards for the use and development of all properties in the
City. The Zoning Code regulates development intensity using a variety of methods, such as setting
limits on building setbacks, yard landscaping standards, and building heights. The Zoning Code also
indicates which land uses are permitted in the various zones. The Municipal Code includes all of the
City’s zoning ordinance provisions and has been supplemented over time to include other related
procedures such as subdivision regulations, environmental review procedures, and an advertising
and sign code. Municipal code regulations and maps must be consistent with the General Plan land
uses, policies, and implementation programs. The Municipal Code is referenced throughout this
Addendum to establish the proposed project’s baseline requirements according to the City’s
regulatory framework.
1.4.3 Arboretum Specific Plan and EIR
In 2008, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR was prepared to provide an assessment of the potential
environmental consequences related to the adoption and implementation of the Arboretum Specific
Plan. The Arboretum Specific Plan is a master-planned development comprised of residential,
commercial, school, and parks/recreation uses on 531.3 gross acres, within four primary Planning
Area villages (The Meadows, The Gardens, The Resort, and The Arboretum). The Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR was completed to inform decision-makers, the City of Fontana, other agencies, and the
general public of the nature of the Arboretum Specific Plan and its effect on the environment. The
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR was prepared in accordance with and in fulfillment of CEQA
requirements. The action addressed in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR was the adoption and
implementation of the Arboretum Specific Plan.
A Draft Arboretum Specific Plan EIR was circulated for a required 45-day public review period
between May 6 and June 30, 2008. Responses to the public comments on the Draft EIR required
revisions to the Draft EIR. Revisions to the Draft Arboretum Specific Plan EIR made in response to
public comments were presented in a memorandum considered by the City Council as part of the
adoption of the Arboretum Specific Plan. None of these revisions resulted in significant changes to
the Project Description or findings of the Draft Arboretum Specific Plan EIR. These responses and
revisions, together with the Draft Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, constitute the Final Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR.
During consideration of the project, the City determined that environmental effects related to
Traffic and Circulation and Air Quality, with the implementation of all standard conditions and
feasible mitigation, could not be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. On September 23,
2009 the City Council adopted Resolution 2009-89 which, 1) certified the Final Arboretum Specific
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Plan EIR, 2) adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, 3) adopted the project’s Mitigation
Monitoring Program, 4) adopted the Statement of Facts and Findings, and 5) directed the filing of a
Notice of Determination for the project. In its resolution the City Council found that the City had
reviewed, analyzed and exercised independent judgement of the effects associated with the project.
Having reduced the significant impacts of the project to the extent feasible, and weighing the
benefits of the project against the unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the City
determined the social, economic and environmental benefits of the project outweighed the
potential unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts. These benefits included:
• Comprehensive development within the Specific Plan area;
• Provision of a livable community;
• Development of a regional arboretum;
• Provision of complementary land uses;
• Provision of a regional trail system;
• Meeting housing demand in the City and region;
• Provision of neighborhood commercial uses and employment;
• Provision of economically viable development.
1.4.4 2016 Addendum to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
In 2016, an Addendum to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR (referenced as the “2016 Addendum”
throughout this document) was completed. The 2016 Addendum was completed in order to analyze
changes specific to The Meadows village planning area, which included an increase of 12 residential
units and 20 residential acres, resulting in an increase of gross density of 0.4 residential units per
acre. Additionally, the 2016 Addendum revisions reduced school acreage by 9.9 acres, and reduced
park acreage by 0.3 acres. Collector streets within the Meadows Village planning area were
reconfigured and reduced by 12.3 acres, and one point of access along Citrus Avenue was removed.
1.4.5 2024 Addendum to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
In 2024, an Addendum to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR (referenced as the “2024 Addendum”
throughout this document) was completed by the Fontana Unified School District. The 2024
Addendum was completed in order to analyze any changes specific to the acquisition of the 12.1
acre School site in the Resort Village planning area by the school district, as well as the construction
and operation of Elementary School No. 37. The project evaluated in the 2024 Addendum was
limited to the School site within the Resort Village planning area, and included construction of 4
one-story buildings, outdoor recreational spaces, vehicle access from Duncan Canyon Road and
Cypress Avenue, parking, landscaping, and utilities at that site.
1.4.6 Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
The City and other regulatory agencies identified standard conditions applicable to the approved
project, which were determined to prevent or reduce potential adverse impacts associated with the
project. These were detailed in the Final Arboretum Specific Plan EIR and its Mitigation Monitoring
Program (Final Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, Table 10-1) adopted by the City. Mitigation measures
identified to reduce or avoid the potentially significant effects have been identified (Final Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, Table 10-2). Responsible parties, the time frame for implementation, and the
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 1-6
monitoring parties are also identified for each measure. As appropriate, these Standard Conditions
and Mitigation Measures have been identified for each topic of discussion in this Addendum. Unless
specifically stated, the Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures identified in the project’s
adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program remain valid and are in effect.
1.5 ARBORETUM SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION
SUMMARY
As stated in Section 1.1, the currently proposed SPA revises the original Arboretum Specific Plan to
account for proposed changes to residential density and commercial use acreages and includes
Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-008 - Tentative Map 20646, which includes 13 residential lots, two
commercial lots, and a lettered lot for park purposes; and allows for the development of a 9.3 acre
proposed community retail site in addition to the previously approved 8.8-acre community activity
center. The proposed project analyzed in this Addendum would be implemented under the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, and is intended for use in conjunction with the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended, to provide the necessary regulatory and design guidance to establish
a process and framework for “future projects” within the Arboretum Specific Plan area.
Since certification of the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, no changes have occurred in the
circumstances under which the original approved project as currently proposed would be
implemented that would change the severity of the physical impacts of implementing the proposed
project as explained herein, and no new information has emerged that would materially change the
analyses or conclusions set forth in the Final EIR.
The environmental impact findings of the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR are summarized below.
No Impact: The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR determined that no impact would occur with respect to
the following environmental topic areas below. These topic areas were discussed in the EIR’s
“Impacts Found to be Insignificant” section (Section 8.0) and “Environmental Impact Analysis”
section (Section 4.0) and are addressed in regard to the proposed project in this Addendum.
• Agricultural Resources (Section 8.1.3)
• Mineral Resources (Section 8.2.3)
• Land Use and Planning (Section 4.2.3)
• Geology and Soils (Section 4.7.3)
• Hydrology, Water Quality, and Flooding (Section 4.8.3)
• Biological Resources (Section 4.9.3)
Less Than Significant Impact: The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR identified less than significant
impacts in the following environmental topic areas:
• Land Use and Planning (Section 4.2.3)
• Population and Housing (Section 4.3.3)
• Transportation (Section 4.4.3)
• Air Quality [and Greenhouse Gas Emissions] (Section 4.5.3)
• Noise (Section 4.6.3)
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Geology and Soils (Section 4.7.3)
• Hydrology, Water Quality, and Flooding (Section 4.8.3)
• Biological Resources (Section 4.9.3)
• Cultural Resources (Section 4.10.3)
• Public Services and Recreation (Sections 4.11.1 through 4.11.6)
• Utilities (Sections 4.12.2, 4.12.3, 4.12.4, and 4.12.7)
• Human Health and Hazards (Section 4.13.3)
• Visual Quality and Aesthetics (Section 4.14.3)
Less Than Significant with Incorporation of Mitigation: The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR identified
impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant levels with incorporation of mitigation
measures in the following environmental topic areas:
• Transportation (Section 4.4.3, Impacts 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, and 4.4.4)
• Air Quality [and Greenhouse Gas Emissions] (Section 4.5.3, Impacts 4.5.1 and 4.5.2)
• Noise (Section 4.6.3, Impacts 4.6.1 through 4.6.7)
• Geology and Soils (Section 4.7.3, Impact 4.7.1)
• Hydrology, Water Quality, and Flooding (Section 4.8.3, Impacts 4.8.1 and 4.8.2)
• Biological Resources (Section 4.9.3, Impacts 4.9.1 and 4.9.2)
• Cultural Resources (Section 4.10.3, Impacts 4.10.1 and 4.10.2)
• Utilities (Sections 4.12.1, 4.12.5, and 4.12.6, Impacts 4.12.1, 4.12.2, and 4.12.3)
• Human Health and Hazards (Section 4.13.3, Impacts 4.13.1 through 4.13.4)
Significant and Unavoidable Impact: The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR identified significant and
unavoidable impacts in the following environmental topic areas:
• Transportation (Section 4.4.3, Impacts 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, and 4.4.4)
• Air Quality [and Greenhouse Gas Emissions] (Section 4.5.3, Impacts 4.5.3, 4.5.4, 4.5.5, and 4.5.6)
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 1-8
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Resort Village Amendment to the Arboretum Specific Plan (proposed project) would revise land
uses in the Resort Village to include approximately 73,558 square feet of neighborhood commercial
uses while maintaining the overall 3,532 dwelling units in the Arboretum Specific Plan in the City of
Fontana. The proposed project location and existing conditions, as well as the details of the project
itself, are described below.
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The project site is located within the Arboretum Specific Plan, which is located north of Casa Grande
Avenue, east of Citrus Avenue, west of Sierra Avenue, and south of Grapeland Street in the northern
portion of Fontana, in southwestern San Bernardino County, California.
The Resort Village Planning Area (Resort Village) is a square-shaped undeveloped property
consisting of 18 parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 0239-081-06, -09, -11, -15, -16, -18, -19,
-23, -24, -28, -29, -36, -37, and -40 through -43) totaling approximately 159.6 acres within the
northeast quadrant of the Arboretum Specific Plan area. The project site is located in Section 18 of
Township 1 North, Range 5 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted on the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute series Devore, California Quadrangle.1 Specifically, the
approximate center of The Resort Village project site is at latitude 34°10'07.4" N and longitude -
117°26’26.5" W at an elevation of approximately 1,860 feet above mean sea level. The project site
topography gently slopes down from north to south and lacks significant slopes. Figure 1: Regional
and Project Location depicts the location of the project site on a regional scale.
The project site has frontage of approximately 0.5 mile each on Duncan Canyon Road, Cypress
Avenue, Sierra Avenue, and Grapeland Street. The project site is predominantly vacant, except for
electric and natural gas utility easements and associated facilities. The majority of the site
historically consisted of undeveloped shrubland, except for a small area at the eastern boundary
that was in agricultural use for a short time. To the south across Duncan Canyon Road, The Gardens
Village is under development, while to the west across Cypress Avenue, The Arboretum Village is
planned for development. To the east across Sierra Avenue are residential uses and the Kordyak
Elementary School. To the north across the proposed Grapeland Street is a single residence and
undeveloped shrubland. Figure 2a: General Plan Land Use and Figure 2b: Zoning depict the project
site and surrounding development.
1 United States Geological Survey. 2001. Devore, California 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle map.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 2-2
This page intentionally left blank
.,>
<(
u Duncan Canyon Rd
LSA
1000 2000
FEET
SOURCE: Esri Topographic (2025)
l=l Project Location
.,>
<(
Ill Ill
C. >, u
Nealeys
Corner
Three Mile Rd
Augusta Or
Sierra Lakes Golf Course
.,>
<(
.,
V\
c,\el' \\e\el' �
�
-.:,1':l
#c, Q� 0re Cree'I-
..._.
.,>
<(
0 en C: "' � z
W Sunrise Dr
W Casa Grande Dr
Summit Ave
.. 1720 ft
Lytle
Creek
Wash
FIGURE 1
Resort Village Update Project
Regional and Project Location
l:\2023\20231028\GIS\Pro\The Arboretum Specific Plan Update\The Arboretum Specific Plan Update.aprx (11/11/2025)
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 2-4
This page intentionally left blank
LSA
375 750
FEET
E) Project Location General Plan Land Use D Residential Estates (R-E)
-Residential Planned Community (R-PC)
-Medium Density Residential (R-M)
-Multi Family Median/High Residenerial (RR-MFMH)
Community Commercial (C-C)
-General Commercial (G-G)
-Regional Mixed Use (RMU)
SOURCE: Nearmap (10/05/2025), City of Fontana (2023)
l:\2023\20231028\GIS\Pro\The Arboretum Specific Plan Update\The Arboretum Specific Plan Update.aprx (11/12/2025)
D Light Industrial (I-L) FIGURE 2a
-Public Facilities (P-PF)
-Recreational Facilities (P-R) D Public Utility (P-UC)
Resort Village Update Project
General Plan Land Use
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 2-6
This page intentionally left blank
LSA
0 375
FEET
750
(=I Project Location Zoning
-General Commercial (C-2)
-Open Space -Natural (OS-N)
-Public Facility (P-PF) D Public Utility Corridor (P-UC)
SOURCE: Nearmap (10/05/2025), City of Fontana (2023)
-Medium Density (R-2) FIGURE 2b
-Multi Family High Density Residential (R-5) D Residential Estate (R-E)
Regional Mixed Use (R-MU) D Specific Plan (SP)
Resort Village Update Project
Zoning
l:\2023\20231028\GIS\Pro\The Arboretum Specific Plan Update\The Arboretum Specific Plan Update.aprx (11/12/2025)
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 2-8
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
2.2 LAND USE AND ZONING
The existing land use and zoning designations within which the proposed project is located are as
follows:
• General Plan: Arboretum Specific Plan (SP #27); Land Use: Residential Planned Community (R-
PC) and Community Commercial (C-C).
• Zoning: Arboretum Specific Plan (SP #27).
• Arboretum Specific Plan: R-MF (8.0-16.0 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]), R-MF (16.0-24.0
du/ac), School, Activity Center, R-MF (3.0-8.0 du/ac), and Park.
The existing land uses surrounding the proposed project area include medium density residential,
residential planned community, regional mixed use, public facilities, and multifamily high density
residential.
2.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The Resort Village area is one of four planning areas or “villages” within the overall Arboretum
Specific Plan. The proposed Resort Village Amendment project (proposed project) includes a Specific
Plan Amendment (SPA) and General Plan Amendment (GPA), an amendment to the Development
Agreement, and a Tentative Parcel Map. Each of these are described below:
• General Plan Amendment No. 23-002 would amend the General Plan to allow development of a
proposed community retail site in the Resort Village, including changing the land use
designation of the proposed 9.3-acre retail site from R-PC to C-G.
• Specific Plan Amendment No. 23-002 would amend the Arboretum Specific Plan to add
approximately 9.3 acres of proposed community retail within the Resort Village at the
northwest corner of Sierra and Terra Vista. The proposed community retail site would be
anchored by a grocery store. The overall unit count in the Specific Plan would remain the same
as originally approved. Within the Resort Village, residential planning areas and park sites have
been relocated to accommodate the proposed community retail site.
• Development Agreement No. 23-012 would amend the development agreement, allowing the
proposed community retail site to use existing excess fee credits.
• Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-008 - Tentative Map 20646 includes 13 residential lots, two
commercial lots, and a lettered lot for park purposes; this allows for the development of a 9.3
acre proposed community retail site in addition to the previously approved 8.8-acre community
activity center.
As described above, the project includes an amendment to the Arboretum Specific Plan to convert
approximately 9.3 acres of the Resort Village planning area from R-MF (Residential Multi-Family, 8.0-
16.0 du/ac) to C-1 (Community Commercial) and develop the 9.3-acre property with approximately
73,558 square feet of commercial uses.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 2-10
Additionally, residential land use designations within the Resort Village planning area would be
revised to absorb the dwelling units initially attributed to the 9.3-acre parcel, in order to maintain
the overall 3,532 dwelling units previously approved for buildout of the Specific Plan in the City of
Fontana. The redistribution of units across the Resort Village planning area would preserve the
acreage of lower density (6-8 du/ac) residential uses, decrease the acreage of middle density (8-16
du/ac) residential uses, and increase the acreage of higher density (16-20 du/ac) residential uses to
make space for the proposed commercial uses in planning area C-1, as shown below in Table 1.
2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT VS. “APPROVED PROJECT”
The Arboretum Specific Plan, as amended (referenced as the “approved project” throughout this
document), is a master-planned development comprising four primary Planning Area villages (The
Meadows, The Gardens, The Resort, and The Arboretum) on 531.3 gross acres within which a total
of 3,532 residential units, 8.8 acres of commercial activity center, 36.5 acres of school, and 42.1
acres of parks/recreation were previously approved.1 Local street uses are proposed, and a network
of pedestrian trails and bike paths occur throughout the site. Infrastructure to support the site
includes water, sewer, electric, gas, telephone, cable television, drainage, and roadway extensions.
In the approved project, the Resort Village planning area covers 159.6 acres on the northeastern
quadrant of the overall Specific Plan area. As approved, this village would feature a mix of single-
family lots, medium and high-density residential units, an elementary school, and a commercial
activity center area. The commercial activity center would be located at the southeastern corner at
the Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road intersection. Scattered parks would be provided within
the village, connected by streets and walking trails. The high-density units would be clustered in the
central and southeastern sections. Lower density units would be located around the elementary
school site to be located in the southwestern corner of the village. Residential density would be 11.2
units per gross acre.
The proposed project is a SPA that would convert approximately 9.3 acres of the Resort Village
planning area from R-MF (Residential Multi-Family, 8.0-16.0 du/ac) to C-1 (Community Commercial)
and develop the 9.3-acre property with approximately 73,558 square feet of commercial uses. The
8.8-acre community activity center, currently designated C-1 with an Activity Center overlay, would
remain as previously approved. As proposed, the village would continue to feature a mix of single-
family lots, medium and high-density residential units, parks, and an elementary school, but would
add community commercial uses. As previously approved, one 8.8-acre commercial area would be
located at the southeastern corner of the planning area at the Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon
Road intersection, and as currently proposed, the second 9.3-acre commercial area would be
located along the eastern border of the site, northwest of the current intersection of Sierra Avenue
and Terra Vista Drive. Scattered parks would be provided within the village, connected by streets.
The high-density units would be clustered with parks, commercial, and school uses, and lower
1 The Arboretum Specific Plan approved in 2009 included a total of 3,526 residential units, 46.4 acres of
school, and 42.4 acres of school use. As discussed in Section 1.4.4, the 2016 Addendum increased the
residential units by 12 units, decreased school acreage by 9.9 acres, and decreased park uses by 0.3 acre.
The current maximum residential unit count is 3,532 units, which is reflected here.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
density units clustered in the northwestern section. Residential density would be reduced to 10.5
units per gross acre.
As shown in Table 1, changes from the approved project within the Resort Village planning area
include an increase from 8.8 acres of commercial uses to 18.1 acres of commercial uses, a decrease
in acreage of residential uses with density ranges between 8 and 16 du/ac, an increase in residential
uses with density ranges between 16 and 20 du/ac, and a decrease in Collector Street acreage.
There would be no change in the proposed acreage of residential uses with density ranges between
6 and 8 du/ac.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
16498.40231\44594469.1 2-12
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Table 1: The Resort Village Proposed Land Use Changes
PA PA
RM-F 10.1 8-12 10.0 RM-F 7.7 16-20 17.0
RM-F 9.5 8-12 10.0 RM-F 9.1 16-20 19.0
RM-F 11.7 10-15 12.0 RM-F 5.8 10-15 10.0
RM-F 8.3 16-20 20.0 RM-F 8.0 16-20 19.0
RM-F 5.5 16-20 18.0 RM-F 9.0 8-12 12.0
RM-F 5.6 6-8 7.0 RM-F 7.5 16-20 20.0
RM-F 6.6 6-8 7.0 RM-F 9.0 16-20 17.0
RM-F 8.1 14-16 16.0 RM-F 8.7 16-20 18.0
RM-F 9.0 14-16 14.0 RM-F 12.2 5-10 7.0
RM-F 7.7 16-20 18.0 RM-F 5.1 8-12 10.0
RM-F 7.5 16-20 19.0 RM-F 9.6 10-15 14.0
RM-F 6.0 16-20 20.0 RM-F 4.4 16-20 20.0
RM-F 6.0 16-20 20.0 RM-F 3.8 8-12 10.0
101.6 99.9
1,463 1,4631
- - - - C-1 Community Commercial 9.3 - -
- - - - C-2 Community Commercial 8.8 - -
Elementary School 12.1 - - Elementary School 12.1 - -
Neighborhood Park 2.6 - - Neighborhood Park 2.8 - -
Community Parks 5.9 - - Community Parks 5.7 - -
Activity Center 8.8 - - - - - -
38.7 29.4
131.0 138.6
11.2 10.5
1,463 1,4631
Perimeter Streets 14.0 14.0
Collector Streets 14.6 7.01
28.6 21.0
159.6 159.6
10.5
1,4631
Source: Lewis Management Corporation.
Notes:
1 Per Section 8.2 of the Specific Plan, up to 10 percent of the R-MF 3.0-8.0 units in a particular residential planning area may be transferred to another R-MF 3.0-8.0 planning area,
provided the maximum unit count for the Specific Plan as a whole does not exceed 3,532 units. Up to 15 percent of the R-MF 8.1-24.0 units in a particular residential planning area
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Compared to the approved project, implementation of the proposed project would decrease the
average adjusted gross density within the Resort Village from 11.2 to 10.5 residential units per acre.
Additionally, the proposed project would reduce Community Parks acreage from 5.9 to 5.7 acres,
while increasing Neighborhood Parks from 2.6 to 2.8 acres. Collector streets within the Resort
Village planning area will be reconfigured and reduced in acreage from 14.6 acres to 7.01 acres
under the proposed project. Primary gated entries would remain on Duncan Canyon Road and
Cypress Avenue, and secondary gates would remain on Grapeland Street and Sierra Avenue.
As discussed previously, the proposed project analyzed in this Addendum to the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR accounts for proposed changes in residential units and density, commercial acreage, and
park acreages originally analyzed under the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR. This Addendum to the EIR
is intended for use in conjunction with the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR to provide the necessary
regulatory and design guidance to establish a process and framework for “future projects” within
the Arboretum Specific Plan area. The analysis of the SPA tiers off of the analysis of the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR. Each section will first summarize the environmental analysis findings of the
approved project from the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, with the environmental analysis of the
proposed project immediately following.
The proposed project does not represent significant changes to the approved project relative to
CEQA in that any environmental impacts identified in the proposed project are either equal to or not
more severe or significant than those identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR for the approved
project. Any mitigation measures developed in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR for the approved
project would apply to the proposed project where appropriate, and any new mitigation measures
identified in the proposed project would achieve the same goals and reductions in potential impacts
as analyzed in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR for the approved project.
Figures 1, 2a and 2b identify the location of the project site and existing site conditions, existing
General Plan land use designations, and zoning in the project area. Figure 3a shows the Resort
Village General Plan Land Use as it appeared in the approved project, while Figure 3b shows the
Resort Village General Plan Land Use as it appears in the proposed project. Figure 4a shows the
Resort Village Specific Plan Land Use plan under the approved project, and Figure 4b shows the
Resort Village Specific Plan Land Use plan under the proposed project.
2.5 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project includes demolition of any existing pavement or structures, and removal of all
vegetation. The project would result in development of up to 1,463 residential units, three parks,
and two community retail areas. Additionally, the project would include perimeter and collector
streets, landscaping, lighting, walls and/or fencing, and gates at entry points along each perimeter
street.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank
The Arboretum 6SHFLÀF3ODQ
2–4
PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE
FIGURE 2.2
Ease
m
e
n
t
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAPELAND STREET
DUNCAN CANYON ROAD
SI
E
R
R
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
The Resort
The
Arboretum
The Meadows The Gardens
LEGEND
R-MF (Residential Multi Family)
C-C (Community Commercial)
0.1-1.0 FAR
P-UC (Public Utility Corridor)
SI
E
R
R
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
The Arboretum 6SHFLÀF3ODQ
2–4
PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE
FIGURE 2.2
Ease
m
e
n
t
CASA GRANDE AVENUE
CI
T
R
U
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAPELAND STREET
DUNCAN CANYON ROAD
SI
E
R
R
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
The Resort
The
Arboretum
The Meadows The Gardens
LEGEND
R-MF (Residential Multi Family)
C-C (Community Commercial)
0.1-1.0 FAR
P-UC (Public Utility Corridor)
The Arboretum 6SHFLÀF3ODQ
2–4
PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE
FIGURE 2.2
EAS
E
M
E
N
T
DUNCAN CANYON ROAD
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CI
T
R
U
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CASA GRANDE AVENUE
SI
E
R
R
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAPELAND STREET
The Resort
FIGURE 2.2
The MeadowsThe Gardens
The
Arboretum
LEGEND
R-MF (Residential Multi Family)
C-C (Community Commercial)
0.1-1.0 FAR
P-UC (Public Utility Corridor)
SOURCE: Lewis Management Corporation 2023
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 3a
Resort Village Update Project
Approved General Plan Land Use
I:\2023\20231028\G\Fig 3a Approved Project General Plan Land Use.ai (11/2/2025)
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank
The Arboretum 6SHFLÀF3ODQ
2–4
PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE
FIGURE 2.2
EAS
E
M
E
N
T
DUNCAN CANYON ROAD
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
SI
E
R
R
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAPELAND STREET
The Resort
The Meadows The Gardens
The
Arboretum
LEGEND
R-MF (Residential Multi Family)
C-C (Community Commercial)
0.1-1.0 FAR
P-UC (Public Utility Corridor)
SI
E
R
R
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
The Arboretum 6SHFLÀF3ODQ
2–4
PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE
FIGURE 2.2
EAS
E
M
E
N
T
DUNCAN CANYON ROAD
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CI
T
R
U
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CASA GRANDE AVENUE
SI
E
R
R
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAPELAND STREET
The Resort
FIGURE 2.2
The Meadows The Gardens
The
Arboretum
LEGEND
R-MF (Residential Multi Family)
C-C (Community Commercial)
0.1-1.0 FAR
P-UC (Public Utility Corridor)
The Arboretum 6SHFLÀF3ODQ
2–4
PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE
FIGURE 2.2
EAS
E
M
E
N
T
DUNCAN CANYON ROAD
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CI
T
R
U
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CASA GRANDE AVENUE
SI
E
R
R
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAPELAND STREET
The Resort
FIGURE 2.2
The MeadowsThe Gardens
The
Arboretum
LEGEND
R-MF (Residential Multi Family)
C-C (Community Commercial)
0.1-1.0 FAR
P-UC (Public Utility Corridor)
SOURCE: Lewis Management Corporation 2023
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 3b
Resort Village Update Project
Proposed General Plan Land Use
I:\2023\20231028\G\Fig 3b Proposed General Plan Land Use.ai (7/2/2025)
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank
The Arboretum 6SHFLÀF3ODQ
4–13
THE RESORT
LAND USE PLAN
FIGURE 4.5
GRAPELAND STREET
DUNCAN CANYON ROAD
SI
E
R
R
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
P
0.5
Activity
Center
8.8 Ac
Elementary
School12.1 Ac
P
2.0 Ac
P
3.0 Ac
.9 Ac
R-1
R-MF 10.0
10.1 Ac
R-2
R-MF 10.0
9.5 Ac
R-9
R-MF 14.0
9.0 Ac
R-8
R-MF 16.0
8.1 Ac P
0.7
R-7
R-MF 7.0
6.6 Ac
R-6R-MF 7.0
5.6 Ac
R-5R-MF 18.0
5.5 Ac
P
0.7
P
0.7
Conceptual Plan
R-4
R-MF 20.0
8.3 Ac
R-3
R-MF 12.0
11.7 Ac
R-10
R-MF 18.0
7.7 Ac
R-13
R-MF 20.0
6.0 Acc
R-10
R-MF 19.0
7.5 Ac
R-12
R-MF 20.0
6.0 Ac
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
SI
E
R
R
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SOURCE: Translutions 2023
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
Project Site
FIGURE 4a
Resort Village Update Project
Resort Village Approved Specific Plan Land Use Plan
I:\2023\20231028\G\Fig 4a Approved Specific Plan Land Use.ai (7/2/2025)
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank
FIGURE 2.1
The Resort Village
Land Use Plan
the trans ortation solutions com any...
P:\Lewis - Arboretum\Analysis\xFigure 2-1 Land Use Plan (4/14/2025)7
SI
E
R
R
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SOURCE: Translutions 2023
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
Project Site
FIGURE 4b
Resort Village Update Project
Resort Village Proposed Specific Plan Land Use Plan
I:\2023\20231028\G\Fig 4b Proposed Specific Plan Land Use.ai (7/2/2025)
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
2.5.1 Site Design and Operations
Residential
Residential structure types may include medium and high-density townhomes, 4,000-square-foot-lot
single-family homes, and detached cluster homes. Residential buildings would consist of one to four-
story buildings featuring the Santa Barbara, Spanish Colonial, Monterey, Tuscan, Provence,
Italianate, California Craftsman, Prairie, and European Cottage architectural styles. All residential
development would comply with Chapter 8.0, Development Standards, and specifically Section 8.3,
Residential Development Standards, and Table 8.1, Residential Development Standards, of the
Arboretum Specific Plan.
All homes would include solar panels, per California Building Code requirements. Additionally, the
proposed project will comply with the City of Fontana’s Model Water Efficiency Ordinance
(MWELO).3
The proposed project would not increase the number of residential units in the Resort Village.
Similar to the approved project, the proposed project is anticipated to include up to 1,463
residential units. The formula used for the approved project assumed the City’s 2007 average
household size of 3.976 persons per household. Based on that formula, full occupancy of the Resort
Village would increase the City’s resident population by approximately 3,817 residents.
Parks and Recreation Facilities
The Resort Village Primary Recreation Center (5.7-acre area designated as Community Parks) would
be located in the center of the community and would contain a 15,000-square-foot clubhouse
facility, pool complex, and parking area. An additional 2.0-acre secondary recreation center with a
swimming pool, game courts, picnic areas, gardens and outdoor lounge would be provided in an
area designated as Neighborhood Park. One 0.7-acre neighborhood park would also be provided
within this village.
Commercial Area
A Commercial Activity Center would be located on 8.8 acres at the northwest corner of Sierra
Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road, and at the southeast corner of the Resort village, and the
proposed community retail site would be located on 9.3-acres at the northwest corner of Sierra and
Terra Vista. The proposed community retail site would be anchored by a grocery store.
As stated in the proposed Arboretum Specific Plan, the Commercial Activity Center would be
developed with commercial uses as allowed under the City’s C-1 zoning. Permitted uses in the City’s
C-1 zone include retail sales, offices and businesses providing administrative and professional
services, medical offices, and clinics. The proposed 9.3-acre commercial retail site would be
developed with commercial uses as allowed under the City’s C-2 zoning. Permitted uses in the City’s
C-2 zone include a wider range of commercial activities; in addition to the permitted uses under C-1,
uses could also include retail and wholesale activities, as well as automobile-related sales and
3 Fontana City Code 28-91 through 28-120.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
services. Thus, the Commercial Activity Center and the proposed community retail site are expected
to be developed as multi-tenant commercial centers.
Future development of the Commercial Activity Center would have to comply with all development
standards and guidelines in the City’s Zoning and Development Code. Thus, setbacks for the abutting
residential zone and along major and secondary highways would have to be provided within this
development. This includes 20-foot setbacks along the northern and western site boundaries, a 25-
foot setback along Sierra Avenue, and a 15-foot setback along the future continuation of Terra Vista.
In addition, landscaping requirements at 15 percent of the unbuilt area would have to be provided
to meet existing City standards. Buildout of the City was estimated in the Fontana General Plan in
light of the City’s development standards and assumed a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25 for
Community Commercial areas. Thus, while a maximum allowable FAR of 0.50 may be built on this
site, a more realistic assumption using an FAR of 0.25 is used (based on the Fontana General Plan
buildout estimates). At this FAR, approximately 95,832 square feet of commercial floor area is
anticipated on the Commercial Activity Center site, as described in the approved project, while
approximately 73,558 square feet of commercial floor area is anticipated on the proposed
community retail site. These square footage estimates account for setback, landscaping, and parking
requirements.
The approved project anticipated that the 95,832 square feet of commercial uses at the Community
Activity Center would create approximately 192 jobs, based on the formula of one employee for
every 500 square feet. The proposed community retail site would construct approximately 73,558
square feet of commercial uses. Based on the same formula, it is anticipated that construction of the
proposed community retail site would result in 147 jobs. Additionally, it was estimated that the
proposed elementary school would generate 58 employees. The proposed project would result in an
increase of 147 jobs at the Resort Village, for a total of 397 employment positions that could be
generated by the Resort Village, and a total of 533 employment positions within the entire
Arboretum Specific Plan area.
2.5.2 Site Access and Parking
As in the approved project, roadway improvements would be made to the surrounding circulation
system, including new roadways, roadway widening, parkway landscaping, and street lighting and
sidewalk installation along the project’s frontages on Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street, as well as
the extension and improvement of Cypress Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road through the site.
Internal streets would also be provided throughout the project site.
Similar to the approved project, the proposed project also includes solid 6-foot-high wall systems
along perimeter roads, in compliance with Section 6.5, Walls and Fencing of the Arboretum Specific
Plan, and four gated entries would allow access, one along each of the perimeter roads, in
compliance with Section 6.2.1, Primary Gated Entry, and 6.2.3, Secondary Gated Entry of the
Arboretum Specific Plan. All fencing on the project site would be installed in accordance with
standards and guidelines prescribed in Section 7.4.9, Walls and Fences, of the Arboretum Specific
Plan.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Residential parking at the project site would comply with 8.3.6, Parking Standards of the Arboretum
Specific Plan. Other sections of the Specific Plan regulating parking for the proposed project include
8.4, Activity Center Development Standards, 8.5.5, Parking (for Parks and Recreation Development),
and 7.1.6, Commercial Parking.
2.5.3 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Connectivity
Sierra Avenue, Grapeland Street, Duncan Canyon Road, and Cypress Avenue would all contain a 6-
foot-wide sidewalk separated from the street by an 8-foot-wide landscape area, with the exception
of the portion of Duncan Canyon Road between Cypress Avenue and Cassava Drive and the portion
of Cypress Avenue between Duncan Canyon Road and the future continuation of Terra Vista. In
these areas, the 10-foot-wide Arboretum Trail would be constructed on the north and south sides of
Duncan Canyon Road and on the western side of Cypress Avenue. The Arboretum Trail would also
be separated from the street by an 8-foot-wide landscape area. Local streets within the Resort
Village would contain a 5-foot-wide curb-separated sidewalk on both sides of the street. In addition
to the pedestrian sidewalks, Class II bicycle lanes would be included adjacent to Sierra Avenue,
Grapeland Street, Duncan Canyon Road, and Cypress Avenue.
2.5.4 Landscaping
As in the approved project, streetscaping and landscaping for the proposed project would comply
with the standards prescribed in Section 6.1, Street Typologies and Landscaping, Section 6.2, Entries
and Monumentation, Table 7.3, Streetscape Landscaping Requirements, and Section 7.4, Landscape
Design Guidelines.
Lighting elements would be constructed along roadways, pedestrian areas, and public common
areas in compliance with 7.4.10, General Lighting, and 7.4.11, Outdoor Lighting, of the Arboretum
Specific Plan, which requires light shielding, functional and aesthetic design, and compatibility with
surrounding uses.
2.5.5 Drainage
Currently, the project site consists of 159.6 acres of pervious surface area. The proposed project
would follow the drainage plan outlined in the approved project, described in Section 9.4.3,
Drainage Plan, of the Arboretum Specific Plan. Proposed on-site drainage facilities for the Resort
Village would drain to Duncan Canyon Road. Drainage facilities would include Line A1 and Line A2
along Sierra Ave and Cypress Ave, respectively. Proposed storm drains on Duncan Canyon Road
would connect to the San Sevaine Channel to the west, while the existing lines on Cypress Avenue
convey runoff to the Sierra Lakes to the south.
• Curb cuts would be installed to allow stormwater flows to drain to permeable or landscaped
areas. Where practical, pervious or open grid paving would be used for driveways, walkways,
plazas, and parking areas.
• Small-scale design features would be implemented throughout the development where
practicable, including dual-track driveways for single-family homes.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Recycled-content aggregate (reused and crushed concrete and asphalt) may be incorporated
wherever aggregate is specified, such as drainage backfill and under driveways, sidewalks, and
building slabs.
• Pervious paving materials would be used where practical to reduce the negative effects of
stormwater runoff and to facilitate groundwater recharge.
• Grass swales, particularly with native or drought-tolerant grasses, would be utilized to collect
and filter water runoff where practicable.
2.5.6 Utilities and Infrastructure
The project would involve the extension and provision of utility lines and infrastructure systems to
serve individual dwelling units and facilities at the site. These include water, sewer and storm drain
lines, as well as power, natural gas, telephone, and cable lines.
On-site infrastructure improvements would be constructed as described in the approved project,
including utility service connections provided for individual parcels and building pads, extension of
existing water lines, and movement of water hydrants and valves to locations outside the widened
roadway pavement as necessary. The developer would also extend existing sewer lines to run along
major streets on-site and to individual parcels and structures, and construction of a storm drain line
on Duncan Canyon Road from Citrus Avenue to Sierra Avenue (through the site). As described
above, on-site storm drainage system would be provided for the individual villages and would
include curbs and gutters on local streets, catch basins and inlets, and underground storm drain
lines connecting to receiving waters.
Similarly, power, natural gas, telephone, and cable line extensions would be made to the project site
and service connections provided to individual dwelling units and building pads to serve individual
users. Existing overhead power and telephone lines within the proposed Grapeland Street would
also be placed underground as part of the project.
2.5.7 Construction
Demolition activities include demolition of any existing pavement, structures, and fencing, and
removal of all existing vegetation. Construction would include excavation for grading, paving, and
construction of the proposed building, parking areas, and the installation of lighting, fencing,
landscaping, and utility connections. During grading, on-site soils would be excavated and
recompacted in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) to accommodate the proposed
residential, recreational, and commercial buildings, as well as parks and parking areas.
Construction parking and staging would occur on the project site. However, temporary lane closures
and/or detours may be necessary along Cypress Avenue, Duncan Canyon Road, and Sierra Avenue
during project construction. Construction hours would conform to City standards and be limited to
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. According to the approved project, grading is
expected to balance on-site and will not require import or export of materials. Approximately
1,400,000 cubic yards of cut and fill will be necessary to accommodate development of the entire
Arboretum Specific Plan site.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in March 2026. Construction is
anticipated over the course of four phases, as shown in Table 2, below.
Table 2: Resort Village Construction Phasing
Site Preparation (Entire Site) 3/1/2026 3/30/2026
Grading (Entire Site) 4/2026 11/2026
Building Construction 8/2026 8/2027
Architectural Coating 11/2026 12/2026
Paving (Offsite) 8/2026 8/2026
Paving (Retail Site) 2/2027 2/2027
Site Preparation Completed with Phase 1 Completed with Phase 1
Grading Completed with Phase 1 Completed with Phase 1
Building Construction 8/2027 8/2028
Architectural Coating 11/2027 11/2028
Paving 8/2027 9/2028
Site Preparation Completed with Phase 1 Completed with Phase 1
Grading Completed with Phase 1 Completed with Phase 1
Building Construction 8/2029 8/2030
Architectural Coating 11/2029 11/2030
Paving 8/2029 8/2030
Site Preparation Completed with Phase 1 Completed with Phase 1
Grading Completed with Phase 1 Completed with Phase 1
Building Construction 8/2031 8/2032
Architectural Coating 11/2031 11/2032
Paving 8/2031 8/2032
Source: Lewis Management Corporation (August 2025).
2.6 PROJECT APPROVALS
The City of Fontana is the Lead Agency as set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 21067 and
is expected to use this Addendum in consideration of the proposed Resort Village Amendment to
the Arboretum Specific Plan Project and associated actions. These actions may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
• Master Case Number (MCN) 23-044;
• Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 23-002;
• General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-002;
• Grading Permit.
The project may require approvals from other regulatory agencies and are listed as follows:
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• State Water Resources Control Board: Applicant must submit a Notice of Intent to comply with
the General Construction Activity National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) Permit;4
• Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board: Applicant must submit a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); and
• Utility Providers: Connection permits.
4 Construction General Permit requirements are transferred to local agencies by way of the NPDES
program. Since the City of Fontana (lead agency) complies with the NPDES program guidelines, the State
Water Resources Control Board is not a responsible agency or trustee agency with jurisdiction over the
proposed project.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.0 RESORT VILLAGE AMENDMENT TO THE
ARBORETUM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ANALYSIS AND PROJECT APPROVALS
The scope of the City’s review of the proposed project is limited by provisions set forth in CEQA and
the State CEQA Guidelines. This review is limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated
with the proposed project and comparing those impacts to the impacts associated with the
approved project as set forth in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended. This Addendum also
reviews new information, if any, of substantial importance that was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable due diligence at the time the Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR was certified. This evaluation also determines whether the changes proposed for the project
would result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in a previously identified
significant impact.
Although State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 does not stipulate the format or content of an
Addendum, the topical areas identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, plus
“energy”, “greenhouse gas emissions”, “tribal cultural resources”, and “wildfire” topical areas, are
the environmental factors evaluated in this Addendum. This comparative analysis provides the City
with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the proposed project, any changes in
circumstances, or any new information since the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR was certified would
require additional environmental review or preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR.
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined, on the basis of
substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that implementation of the proposed project
does not propose substantial changes to the approved project, no substantial changes in
circumstances would occur which would require major revisions to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR,
and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR that would result in either new significant effects or an increase in the
severity of previously analyzed significant effects.
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was adopted as part of the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR that minimized impacts associated with implementation of the approved project.
The previously adopted mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project would be imposed
as conditions of the project. The MMRP, as applicable to the proposed project, is contained in
Section 8.0 of this document.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.2 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)
On the basis of the 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:
Rina Leung, Senior Planner
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.3 AESTHETICS
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista?
scenic resources, including, but not limited
to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway
the existing visual character or quality of
substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect daytime or nighttime
3.3.1 Impact Analysis
The certified Arboretum Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impacts to visual quality and aesthetics in
Section 4.14.
Threshold A: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. Per the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, the approved
project would not change views of the mountains from areas north, east, and west, as future
development on the site would not block these views. However, the approved project would result
in changes to views to the north from areas south of the site, as the proposed residential villages,
schools and commercial activity center would lead to residential structures up to four stories high
that would change the foreground views of adjacent areas from vacant land to residential
structures, a commercial center, parking areas, streets, schools, parks, and landscaped open space.
While on-site structures and improvements related to the approved project would partially block
views of the mountains, the mountains rise to heights over 6,000 feet above mean sea level or over
4,000 feet above the project site. Thus, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR determined that the
mountains would remain visible above the foreground views of the approved project.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR also determined that building separation and setback requirements
for individual structures would preserve distant mountain views and prevent total view obstruction.
Existing single-family residences located southwest of the site would likely experience a change in
views of the mountains. However, the height of the mountains would allow them to remain visible
from these homes. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR determined that view impacts would be less
than significant.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that implementation of the approved
project would have no impact on scenic vistas, and no mitigation measures were identified.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project would convert approximately 9.3 acres of
the Resort Village planning area from residential to commercial uses, and would develop
approximately 73,558 square feet of commercial uses. The proposed project would also reconfigure
the proposed residential mix, resulting in a decrease of the average adjusted gross density within
the Resort Village from 11.2 to 10.5 residential units per acre, and a decrease of the acreage of
collector streets from 14.6 acres to 7.01 acres. The proposed project would not increase the number
of residential units in the Resort Village. Future development of commercial uses at the previously
approved 8.8-acre Commercial Activity Center and the proposed 9.3-acre commercial retail site
would have to comply with all development standards and guidelines in the City’s Zoning and
Development Code.
According to the General Plan, Fontana considers several areas viewable from different points in the
city to be scenic resources or scenic vistas, including the La Sierra Hills, the Jurupa Hills, the Pedley
Hills and the San Gabriel Mountains. Of these, the San Gabriel Mountains are visible from the
proposed project site. The other hill areas are partially or completely obstructed from view by
intervening development. The proposed project would be developed in accordance with
development standards and design guidelines that regulate bulk, massing, and building height as set
forth by the Arboretum Specific Plan. Benches shall be placed to take advantage of views of the San
Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains. While site lines from collector streets may be partially or
completely blocked by existing and proposed development, street layouts, particularly along Sierra,
Cypress, and Duncan Canyon Road, would include wide sidewalks and parkways to provide site lines
to the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains.
Similar to the approved project, the proposed project would not change views of the mountains
from areas north, east, and west, as proposed development on the site would not block these views.
However, as for the approved project, the proposed project would result in changes to views from
areas to the south of the site, as the proposed residential and commercial uses would lead to
structures up to four stories high that would change the foreground views of adjacent areas from
vacant land to residential structures, commercial centers, parking areas, streets, schools, parks, and
landscaped open space.
Similar to the approved project, on-site structures and improvements related to the approved
project would block some views of the mountains, they would remain visible above the foreground
views of the proposed project.
Implementation of the proposed project would maintain views of the San Bernardino and San
Gabriel Mountains through project design and use of setbacks. Sierra Avenue has been designated a
view corridor by the City, but the approved project would not significantly obstruct views along
Sierra Avenue.
Since the proposed project does not alter project site location, structure height, or design standards,
and it would not obstruct scenic views as previously analyzed under the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR,
project-specific impacts would be less than significant.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact on
scenic vistas compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific
Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
Threshold B: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway and/or local scenic
road?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that the approved project would have no impact on State Scenic Highways and no
mitigation measures were identified.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic
Highway Program does not identify any State-designated scenic highways near the project site.5
Because there are no designated local scenic highways or scenic roadways near the project site, the
proposed project would not affect scenic resources within a State scenic highway or local scenic
road. The proposed project would not alter the project site location, structure height, or design
standards, and it would not result in impacts not previously analyzed under the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR. Therefore, no impact would occur from implementation of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to scenic
resources when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
Threshold C: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The approved project would change the open land
character of the site to one with several structures surrounded by improved landscapes and
streetscapes. However, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR determined that compliance with applicable
standards, regulations, and guidelines governing visual character, including Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR Standard Condition 4.14.1, would ensure that future development is consistent with the
development anticipated under the proposed Specific Plan and does not result in negative aesthetic
5 Caltrans. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Website:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/
index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa (accessed October 2025).
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
impacts. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR determined the approved project would have a less than
significant impact on the visual character of the Specific Plan area.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.14.1: Future development on the project site
shall be subject to site plan and design review for compliance with the development regulations
and design guidelines in the adopted Specific Plan and applicable regulations in the City’s Zoning
and Development Code.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project would develop approximately 73,558
square feet of commercial uses, reconfigure the residential mix and open space proposed in the
approved project, and decrease of the acreage of collector streets. The proposed project would not
increase the number of residential units in the Resort Village compared to the approved project.
Future development of commercial uses at the previously approved 8.8-acre Commercial Activity
Center and the proposed 9.3-acre commercial retail site would comply with all development
standards and guidelines in the City’s Zoning and Development Code.
The proposed project would not result in substantial changes to the design elements of the
community layout or structural features as originally proposed in the approved project and analyzed
in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.14.1, identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, requires future development on the project site to be subject to site plan and design review for
compliance with the development regulations and design guidelines in the adopted Specific Plan
and applicable regulations in the City’s Zoning and Development Code. This standard condition
remains valid and in effect.
Since the proposed project would be consistent with the development standards and design
guidelines under the Arboretum Specific Plan, the proposed project would not conflict with
applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, impacts to scenic quality
of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to visual
quality when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific
Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
Threshold D: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely
affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that compliance with the City’s Zoning and Development Code and design guidelines
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
outlined in the Arboretum Specific Plan would reduce impacts of the approved project from light
and glare to a less than significant level and no mitigation measures were identified.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the
number of residential dwelling units, but would construct an additional 9.3 acres of commercial
uses. Lighting elements would be constructed along roadways, pedestrian areas, and public
common areas in compliance with 7.4.10, General Lighting, and 7.4.11, Outdoor Lighting, of the
Arboretum Specific Plan, which requires light shielding, functional and aesthetic design, and
compatibility with surrounding uses. Therefore, none of the changes in the proposed project would
introduce new sources of substantial light or glare that were not previously analyzed in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR. Implementation of the Specific Plan and applicable regulations in the
City’s Zoning and Development Code would reduce impacts from light and glare to less than
significant levels.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact from
light and glare when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
3.3.2 Conclusion
The proposed project would be designed consistent with the development standards and design
guidelines that were implemented for the approved project. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes related to the proposed project would not
result in any new impacts or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts of the
approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, with respect to scenic vistas,
scenic resources, visual character, and/or light and glare. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent
environmental document to address impacts related to aesthetics is not warranted.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.4 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the project result in the conversion
of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson
Act contract?
the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural
3.4.1 Impact Analysis
The certified Arboretum Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impacts to agricultural and forestry resources
in Section 8.1.
Threshold A: Would the project result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural land use?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded
that no Important Farmland (Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance) exists within the boundary of the approved project. Therefore, implementation of the
approved project would not result in the conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural uses.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that no impact would occur.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. As discussed in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, there is no
Important Farmland within or adjacent to the proposed project site. According to the California
Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the project site
is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land.”6 There are no properties within the City of Fontana
under the Williamson Act contract, and the project site is not zoned for agricultural use. Finally, the
6 California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, San Bernardino
County Data 2016. Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp (accessed May 10, 2023).
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
project site is not located on forest or timberland and therefore would not result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Since the proposed project includes only land previously analyzed under the Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, there would be no impact related to conversion of agricultural lands to a non-agricultural use..
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to
Farmland when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan area would remain no impact, as determined in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
Threshold B: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that there are no Williamson Act contracts within the boundary of the approved project.
None of the parcels located in the boundary of the approved project are zoned for agricultural use.
Because the approved project would not conflict with any Williamson Act contracts or agricultural
zoning, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that no impact would occur with
implementation of the approved project.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. There are no Williamson Act contracts or land zoned for
agricultural use within the project site or adjacent properties. Therefore, there would be no impact
related to conflicts with existing agricultural zoning designations or Williamson Act contracts.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to land
zoned for agricultural use or Williamson Act contacts when compared to the approved project. The
overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain no impact, as specified in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold C: 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? (Threshold 1c)
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. As discussed in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, the approved project is located in an urbanized area of the City that is not occupied by
farmland. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that implementation of the
approved project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which could result in
the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, implementation of the approved
project would result in no impact to farmland.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The project site and adjacent land are not occupied by farmland.
As such, implementation of the proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing
environment which could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Similar to the
approved project, no impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to
farmland when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific
Plan would remain no impact, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
3.4.2 Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project; therefore, no
new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to agricultural resources.
Regarding CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes related to
the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of the previously
identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, with
respect to agricultural resources. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental document
to address impacts related to agricultural resources is not warranted.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.5 AIR QUALITY
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the proposed project conflict with
or obstruct implementation of the
standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is in
non-attainment under an applicable
or State ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
objectionable odors affecting a substantial
greenhouse gas emissions that may have a
significant impact on the environment and
conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
3.5.1 Impact Analysis
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR analyzed the approved project’s impacts on air quality in Section
4.5. This section is based on the project-specific Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas analysis (Appendix
A)7 that was conducted for the proposed project.
Threshold A: Would the proposed project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan? (Impact 4.2-4)
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR evaluated the approved
project pursuant to the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Generally, if a proposed project
is consistent with the growth projections in the City General Plan, then it can be assumed to have
been accounted for in the growth projections of the most current AQMP.
7 LSA. 2025a. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Arboretum Specific
Plan Amendment. October 15.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
A consistency determination plays an essential role in local agency project review by linking local
planning and unique individual projects to the air quality plans. A consistency determination fulfills
the CEQA goal of fully informing local agency decision-makers of the environmental costs of the
project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are
addressed. Only new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significantly unique
projects need to undergo a consistency review due to the air quality plan strategy being based on
projections from local General Plans.
Since the approved project was not consistent with the land use designations in place in the City’s
General Plan at the time of the air quality analysis, the approved project was not considered
consistent with the 2007 AQMP. However, the analysis determined that the approved project would
not exceed the growth (population and employment) projections for the City as a whole, and it
would meet the City’s demand for housing and would provide schools, parks, and employment in
proximity to housing, pursuant to land use measures and goals outlined in the 2007 AQMP.
Additionally, the approved project would not result in localized significance thresholds (LST)
violations for the Western San Bernardino Valley, based on the 2007 Urban Emissions (URBEMIS)
model, version 9.2.4, initiated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Therefore, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that implementation of the
approved project would be consistent with the 2007 AQMP, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. As discussed above, only new or amended General Plan
elements, Specific Plans, and significantly unique projects need to undergo a consistency review due
to the air quality plan strategy being based on projections from local General Plans.
The proposed project would change the land use designations originally analyzed under the
approved project. The primary change is within the Resort Village planning area and consists of
updating the land use designation and zoning of a 9.25-acre parcel from residential to commercial.
Additionally, residential land use designations are revised to absorb the dwelling units initially
attributed to the 9.25-acre parcel and accommodate the same maximum total dwelling unit count
per the current Specific Plan. On November 13, 2018, the City of Fontana adopted the General Plan
Update 2015 – 2035 8 which was last updated July 2023. The 2021 Amended Arboretum Specific Plan
demonstrated that the approved project is consistent with the Fontana General Plan Update 2015-
2035. Fontana General Plan Amendment No. GPA 23-000002 would update the General Plan land
use designations included as part of the proposed project.
The development density proposed on the site is different than what is allowed under the current
land use designations for the site. Both the approved project and the proposed project would
increase residential development on the site and decrease commercial and light industrial
development over that planned under the Fontana General Plan. Thus, neither are consistent with
8 City of Fontana, General Plan Update 2015 – 2035. Website: www.fontanaca.gov/2632/General-Plan-
Update-2015---2035 (accessed July 2025).
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
projections used in the 2007 AQMP. However, neither the approved project nor the proposed
project would exceed population and employment projections for the City. Both the approved
project and the proposed project would also meet the demand for housing in the area and would
provide schools, parks, goods, services, and jobs in proximity to housing.
Future development on the site would be required to comply with applicable regulations of the
SCAQMD regarding fugitive dust control, pollutant reductions, architectural coatings, toxic
emissions, and other stationary equipment controls. Thus, it would comply with the regulations that
have been developed to help meet air quality objectives for the region.
The adopted AQMP contains a number of land use measures and goals that would benefit regional
air quality. These include intensification of land uses near points of multiple transportation system
access, mixed land uses to encourage non-vehicular mobility between homes, jobs and
goods/services, and economic revitalization of depressed and blighted urban core areas. The
proposed project meets these objectives through the development of residential uses, with on-site
schools and parks and a commercial activity center.
The City of Fontana promotes development that provides revenue for needed infrastructure; that
provides commercial uses to serve residential neighborhoods and the community as a whole; and
that provides employment opportunities to City residents. The proposed project would provide both
housing and employment opportunities for the City’s residents.
The AQMP encourages better jobs/housing balance as a means of reducing vehicle trips and vehicle
miles traveled (VMT). The creation of job opportunities at the project site and the provision of goods
and services to serve the residential uses within the project and adjacent to the site would result in
a reduction in vehicle trips and VMT. Both the approved project and the proposed project include
development of the elementary school and combined elementary and middle school at the site,
which would reduce off-site travel by students and their parents/guardians. Both would provide on-
site trails, bikeways and pedestrian walkways to encourage the use of alternatives to the
automobile.
Thus, both the approved project and the proposed project are consistent with air quality planning
objectives and therefore are consistent with job and housing goals for the region. Also, a secondary
consistency criterion from SCAQMD relates to violations of localized significance thresholds (LST). As
discussed below, neither the approved project nor the proposed project would lead to violations of
LSTs for the Western San Bernardino Valley. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impacts related
to conflict with an applicable air quality plan. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan
would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Threshold B: Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR determined that
construction and operation of the approved project would generate short-term and long-term
vehicle and stationary emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Future
commercial and residential development would comply with Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard
Condition 4.5.1, which requires compliance with SCAQMD regulations regarding fugitive dust
control, toxic emissions, architectural coatings, and emissions from equipment use and processing.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.5.1: Future development under the proposed
Arboretum Specific Plan shall comply with pertinent SCAQMD regulations in order to contribute
to the incremental reduction in air pollution levels in the region.
The Arboretum Specific Plan Use determined that the implementation of best available control
measures (BACMs) would potentially allow disturbance of as much as 75 acres in one day without
exceeding thresholds provided in the SCAQMD Handbook. Therefore, to reduce impacts from PM10
during grading and soil disturbance to a less than significant level, mass grading activities would
have to occur at intervals of 75 acres or less per day in conjunction with implementation of BACMs.
However, However, restricting mass grading activities could extend the project construction period
and would result in more construction equipment operating near occupied homes. The Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR determined that during mass grading, PM10 emissions would be significant and
cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR anticipated that during final grading, ground disturbance activities
would be confined to smaller areas within each Planning Area, so only limited amounts of PM2.5
would be generated from construction activities and associated impacts from PM2.5 during
construction would be less than significant. Additionally, implementation of Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.5.1 and enhanced dust control measures detailed in Mitigation
Measures 4.5.1, 4.5.3a, and 4.5.3c would reduce impacts from PM10 to less than significant levels
during final grading.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR also identified Mitigation Measures 4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3a, 4.5.3b,
4.5.3c, 4.5.4, 4.5.5, and 4.5.6 to reduce emissions at area roadways and intersections.
However, implementation of the mitigation measures would not fully reduce construction-related
and operational emissions to below SCAQMD thresholds for particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), reactive organic gas (ROG), and carbon monoxide (CO), and the approved
project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality standards, except for
impacts related to ROG evaporative emissions, which would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, requires the following measures:
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Mitigation Measure 4.5.1: Dust control during grading activities on the site shall
implement best available control measures (BACMs) exceeding
the minimum dust control requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403.
Recommended construction activity mitigation includes:
• Disturb, grade or clear no more than 75 acres per day.
• Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas.
• Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan
elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds
exceed 25 miles per hour.
• Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an area
as practical when winds exceed 25 mph.
• Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent
construction is delayed.
• Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times per day.
• Cover all stock piles with tarps.
• Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly.
• Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per
hour.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.2: Grading, excavation, and ground disturbance activities within
100 feet of an existing residence, school or park shall implement
enhanced dust control procedures such as continual soil
wetting, use of supplemental binders or chemical stabilizers,
early paving of roadways, driveways and other paved surfaces,
early landscaping of exposed areas, and use of sand fences.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.3a: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce
exhaust emissions during construction:
• Construction and paving shall be segregated into at least 5
non-overlapping phases.
• Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off-road equipment.
Such controls are expected to reduce daily NOx emissions
from all off- and on-road equipment, but not to less-than-
significant levels.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy
equipment before shutting the equipment down.
• Require use of Tier 3-rated engines for all equipment
exceeding 100 horsepower, during site grading.
• Use aqueous diesel fuel for construction equipment.
• Utilize diesel particulate filter for construction equipment
• Give preference to contractors using equipment with
oxidation catalysts, soot traps or other modern emissions
control technology.
• Use low emission mobile construction equipment. The
property owner/developer shall comply with CARB
requirements for heavy construction equipment.
• Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them
tuned.
• Avoid unnecessary idling by shutting of engines that are
expected to idle for more than five minutes
• Use low sulfur fuel for all diesel powered construction
equipment. This is required by SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and
431.2.
• Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when
available.
• Configure construction parking to minimize traffic
interference
• Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Construction
shall be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are
kept to a minimum.
• Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-
peak hours to the best extent, when possible.
• Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference
from construction activities (the plan may include advance
public notice of routing, use of public transportation and
satellite parking areas with a shuttle service
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Mitigation Measure 4.5.3b: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce ROG
pollutant emissions during construction:
• Minimize the amount of paint used by using pre-coated,
pre-colored and naturally colored building materials.
• Use high transfer efficiency painting methods such as High
Volume Low Pressure (HVLP) sprayers and brushes/rollers
where possible.
• Use SCAQMD-required low-VOC coatings where practical.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.3c: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce off-site
emissions during construction:
• Encourage car pooling for construction workers.
• Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
• Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
• Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site.
• Wash or sweep access points daily.
• Encourage receipt of construction materials during non-
peak traffic hours.
• Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
• Erect dust control fencing around individual construction
area perimeters.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.4: The proposed project shall implement transportation control
measures (TCMs) to reduce vehicle emissions generated by the
project, which may include the following:
Non-Motorized Strategies
1. Bicycle Lanes and Storage Facilities – Bicycle paths and bike
racks shall be provided at scattered locations on-site,
including bicycle lanes on project arterial roads and bike
racks at schools and commercial uses.
2. Pedestrian Improvements – Sidewalks and pedestrian
walkways shall be provided throughout the site for land use
interconnections.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Telecommunications
1. Adequate and modern system connections in all homes –
Telecommunication systems shall be provided in residential
villages.
2. Wi-Fi “hot spots” within the community - High-speed
wireless local area network shall be provided at select
locations on-site.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.5: Prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall demonstrate compliance with the
following measures to reduce criteria pollutant emissions from
stationary sources directly related to the project:
• Install low-emission water heaters.
• Use built-in, energy-efficient appliances.
• Incorporate bus turnouts into roadway design and
construction.
• Ensure that sidewalks and pedestrian paths are installed
throughout the project area.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.6: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from project construction and
operation:
• Utilize high efficiency HVAC equipment.
• Install Energy Star labeled roof materials.
• Wire homes to facilitate installation of roof-top solar panels.
• Exceed 2005 Title 24 energy conservation design by 20%.
(Energy conservation may be reduced from 20% to a
minimum of 10% over 2005 Title 24 requirements if it can
be demonstrated to the City’s Community Development
Director that 20% reductions are infeasible.)
• Incorporate solar orientation into site planning.
• Hardwire buildings to incorporate current
telecommunication technologies.
• Install 220-volt electric vehicle charging system in garages.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Utilize light-colored hardscape in common areas.
• Use highly reflective “cool roofs” in commercial uses.
• Utilize recycled building materials, where feasible.
• Install energy-reducing day lighting (skylights).
• Use low-water use appliances.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants,
SCAQMD considered the emissions levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be
cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions
would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the
region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is
not necessary. The following analysis assesses the potential project-level air quality impacts
associated with construction and operation of the proposed project.
Construction Emissions. During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur
due to the release of particulate matter emissions (i.e., fugitive dust) generated by demolition,
grading, building construction, paving, and other activities. Emissions from construction
equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOX, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
directly emitted PM2.5 or PM10, and toxic air contaminants such as diesel exhaust particulate
matter.
Project construction activities would include grading, site preparation, building construction,
architectural coating, and paving activities. Construction-related effects on air quality from the
proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of
soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulate
emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless
properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which
could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day
to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather
conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and
amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, whereas
fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.
Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of
50 percent or more. SCAQMD has established Rule 403: Fugitive Dust, which would require the
applicant to implement measures that would reduce the amount of particulate matter
generated during the construction period. The Rule 403 measures that were incorporated in this
analysis include:
• Water active sites at least twice daily (locations where grading is to occur shall be
thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 2 feet
(0.6 meter) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and the top of the
trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
• Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less.
In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered
by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, sulfur oxides (SOX), NOX, VOCs, and some
soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase
traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while
those vehicles idle in traffic. These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the
immediate area surrounding the construction site.
The California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) computer program was
used to calculate emissions from on-site construction equipment and emissions from worker
and vehicle trips to the site. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in early
2026 and end in late 2032. This analysis assumes that the proposed project would comply with
the Mitigation Measure 4.5.1 for dust control (see the Mitigation Measures section). Grading
and building activities would involve the use of standard earthmoving equipment such as large
excavators, cranes, and other related equipment. The Mitigation Measure 4.5.3a specifies that
all construction equipment having more than 100 horsepower shall meet or exceed the EPA Tier
3 standards. Therefore, equipment having 100 horsepower or more was adjusted to meet Tier 3
standards. The rest of the equipment was assumed to meet Tier 2 standards. The Mitigation
Measure 4.5.3b specifies sub-measures to reduce ROG emissions. CalEEMod does not have a
provision for the first two 4.5.3b sub-measures; the third sub-measure was included. Grading for
the proposed project would be assumed to be balanced, thus no soil import or export would be
required. All other construction details are not yet known; therefore, default assumptions (e.g.,
construction worker and truck trips and fleet activities) from CalEEMod were used.
Construction emissions were estimated for each phase of the project using CalEEMod and
summarized in Table 3. Emissions shown include all applicable Mitigation Measures (described
in the Mitigation Measures section). Attachment B to Appendix A provides CalEEMod output
sheets.
Table 3: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions with Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Grading 19.2 150.2 88.0 0.0 168.3 36.0
Construction and
Paving 320.2 202.7 559.1 0.8 11.0 8.1
Site Preparation 1.2 28.5 29.3 <0.1 7.8 1.1 4.0 1.0
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Table 3: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions with Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Grading 1.3 32.6 36.4 0.1 3.8 1.3 1.5 1.2
Building Construction 3.1 22.7 46.3 0.1 8.7 0.7 2.1 0.7
Architectural Coating 11.3 1.2 4.7 <0.1 1.5 0.1 0.3 0.1
Paving 0.9 13.3 11.0 <0.1 0.1 0.6 <0.1 0.5
Source: Compiled by LSA (October 2025).
Note = Some values may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. Maximum emissions of VOC occur during the
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
10
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
As shown in Table 3, none of the peak daily construction emissions for any phase of the
proposed project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds with the implementation of Mitigation
Measures 4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3a, 4.5.3.b, and 4.5.3c. The construction activity emissions in the
approved project with mitigation were based on a worst-case grading scenario wherein 180.3
would be graded simultaneously. Therefore, the construction emissions for the 159.6-acre
proposed project site also assume the whole site would be graded in simultaneously. Estimated
construction activity emissions for the approved project are shown in Table 3 for comparison
with the proposed project. As shown in the table, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions during construction
and paving would be relatively higher for the proposed project than was determined for the
approved project, though still well below the SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, air quality impacts
related to construction of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Operational Air Quality Impacts. Long-term air pollutant emissions associated with operation of
the proposed project include emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources. Area-source
emissions include architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping. Energy-source
emissions result from activities in buildings that use natural gas. Mobile-source emissions are
from vehicle trips associated with operation of the project. Area-source emissions consist of
direct sources of air emissions at the project site, including architectural coatings, consumer
products, and use of landscape maintenance equipment.
PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust
into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs
when vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement, and the vehicle wakes generate airborne
dust. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other particulate matter
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
emissions processes. Gasoline-powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions
compared with diesel-powered vehicles.
Energy-source emissions result from activities in buildings that use natural gas. The quantity of
emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of natural gas) and the emissions
factor of the fuel source. The primary sources of energy demand for the proposed project would
include building mechanical systems such as water and space heating. Greater building or
appliance efficiency reduces the amount of energy for a given activity and thus lowers the
resultant emissions.
Consistent with SCAQMD guidance for estimating emissions associated with land use
development projects, the CalEEMod computer program was used to calculate the long-term
operational emissions associated with the project. The proposed project would include the
construction of single family and multifamily residential, retail uses and an elementary school.
Full buildout of the proposed project was assumed to occur in 2032. Since the analysis of the
approved project was prepared, CalEEMod version 2022.1 was approved and serves as the most
up-to-date version of CalEEMod. As such, CalEEMod version 2022.1 was used to quantify the
criteria pollutant emissions associated with operation of the approved project to provide a
consistent comparison of changes between the approved project and the proposed project. The
proposed project analysis was conducted using land use codes Single Family Housing,
Apartments Low Rise, Supermarket, Strip Mall, Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru, City Park,
Other Asphalt Surfaces, and Elementary School. Similarly, the approved project analysis was
conducted using land use codes Single Family Housing, Apartments Low Rise, Strip Mall, City
Park, Other Asphalt Surfaces and Elementary School. The approved project analysis assumes an
operational year of 2026. To provide a consistent comparison of changes between the approved
project and the proposed project, the trip rates used for the proposed project are consistent
with the trip rates used for the approved project analysis, which uses the 7th edition of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates. When project-specific data were not available,
default assumptions from CalEEMod were used to estimate project emissions.
Long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated using
CalEEMod. Table 4 provides the proposed project’s estimated operational emissions. Table 4
also shows the comparison to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR operational emissions.
Attachment B of Appendix A provides CalEEMod output sheets.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR identified that vehicle emissions associated with the proposed
project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG (VOC), NOX, CO, and PM10 and would result
in a significant and unavoidable impact even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5.4
and 4.5.5.
The results shown in Table 4 indicate the proposed project operations would result in daily VOC,
NOX, CO, and PM10 emissions that would exceed established significance criteria at project
buildout. Daily emissions of SOX and PM2.5 would not be expected to exceed applicable
thresholds during the operational phases of the project.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Comparing these emissions to the Resort Village planning area evaluated in the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, at full project buildout, NOX and CO would be less than those estimated to
occur under the approved project. However, the proposed project would slightly increase
emissions of VOCs, PM10, and PM2.5. In all cases where the proposed project daily emissions
would be more than the estimated emissions expected to result from the operation of the
Resort Village portion of the approved project, those emissions increases would be minimal as
demonstrated by being less than the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. As shown in Table 4, the
mobile source emissions for the proposed project continue to be the vast majority of the total
project emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5.4 and 4.5.5 would serve to
reduce emissions associated with the proposed project. However, there are no measures that
are feasible to reduce emissions for the proposed project below the applicable significance
thresholds. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. The Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact related to operational emissions due to
exceedances of established SCAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutant emissions of VOC, NOX,
CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Although there would be a slight increase in some emission categories, the
increase would not be substantial. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in
less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated.
Table 4: Approved Project and Proposed Project Operational Emissions
Emission Type
Mobile Sources 59.0 54.7 534.8 1.5 147.8 38.1
Area Sources 71.7 21.5 102.2 0.1 1.7 1.7
Energy Sources 0.5 9.2 4.3 0.1 0.7 0.7
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Mobile Sources 61.7 66.6 599.7 1.5 133.2 34.5
Area Sources 60.7 21.5 98.5 0.1 1.7 1.7
Energy Sources 0.5 8.6 3.9 0.1 0.7 0.7
Resort Village Portion of
Source: Compiled by LSA (October 2025).
Notes: Some values may not appear to add correctly due to rounding.
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
10
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
Long-Term Microscale (CO Hot Spot) Analysis. Vehicular trips associated with the proposed
project would contribute to congestion at intersections and along roadway segments in the
vicinity of the proposed project site. Localized air quality impacts would occur when emissions
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
from vehicular traffic increase as a result of the proposed project. The primary mobile-source
pollutant of local concern is CO, a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, of traffic flow
conditions. CO transport is extremely limited; under normal meteorological conditions, it
disperses rapidly with distance from the source. However, under certain extreme
meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may
reach unhealthful levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the
elderly, and hospital patients).
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR conducted a CO screening analysis at intersections near the
project site, concluding that there would not be any CO Hot Spots from traffic from the entire
Arboretum Specific Plan. As the CO impacts from the traffic from the proposed project would be
a subset of the full Arboretum Specific Plan EIR CO screening analysis and the lack of traffic
impacts at any intersections, project-related vehicles are not expected to result in CO
concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. No CO hot spots would occur, and
the proposed project would have no impact related to project-related CO concentrations.
Mitigation Measures. Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures 4.5.1,
4.5.2, 4.5.3a, 4.5.3.b, and 4.5.3c would be applicable to the proposed project. No new
mitigation would be required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have similar or reduced impacts when
compared to the approved project. Therefore, the proposed project would have no new or more
severe impacts related to conflict with an applicable air quality plan. However, the overall impact
within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain significant and unavoidable, as specified in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold C: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality
standard? (Impact 4.2-1 and Impact 4.2-2)
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that construction, vehicle, and stationary emissions from the project would result in
violations of CO, ROG, NOX, and particulate matter standards in the region. Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR Standard Condition 4.5.1, which states that future development under the proposed Arboretum
Specific Plan must comply with pertinent SCAQMD regulations in order to contribute to the
incremental reduction in air pollution levels in the region, would be implemented.
In addition, Mitigation Measures 4.5.1 through 4.5.5 were identified to reduce these emissions. The
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR determined, however, that pollutant emissions resulting from project-
related traffic, including ROG, NOX, and particulate matter, which are criteria pollutants, could not
be mitigated to less than significant levels, and would contribute to adverse health effects to
sensitive individuals in the South Coast Air Basin. Although implementation of the standard
condition and recommended mitigation measures would reduce air quality impacts from future
development under the proposed Specific Plan, the extent to which air quality impacts would be
reduced by the standard condition and mitigation measures outlined above would not be adequate
to bring projected emissions below SCAQMD thresholds. The exceedances would largely result from
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
the size of project site and the amount of development that is proposed. If the proposed project is
developed incrementally as several small-scale projects (individual villages or planning areas),
SCAQMD thresholds may be reduced below thresholds. However, if the entire site is developed at
one time, as evaluated above under a worst-case scenario, impacts would be significant and would
remain significant and unavoidable, even after mitigation. Construction emissions of PM10 and PM2.5
would be mitigated to less than significant levels with Mitigation Measures 4.5.1, 4.5.3a, and
4.5.3c. Operational emissions, however, would remain significant and cumulatively considerable.
Thus, air quality impacts are expected to be significant and unavoidable even after mitigation.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 4.5.1
through 4.5.5 were identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The Basin is currently designated as nonattainment for the
federal and State standards for ozone and PM2.5. and nonattainment for the State standard for PM10.
The Basin’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present,
and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a
cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is
sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards (AAQS).
Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air
quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the
project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.
The approved project evaluated the entirety of the Arboretum Specific Plan area, while the
proposed project is one part of the planning area. To clarify that the evaluation of construction-
related cumulative contributions in this document is an apples-to-apples comparison, it should be
noted that the 159.6-acre proposed project area is smaller than the worst-case scenario grading
phase assumed by the approved project, so comparing emissions during grading should represent a
conservative apples-to-apples comparison. Additionally, for construction, paving, and architectural
coatings, it should be noted that the Resort Village portion of the approved project included 41.4
percent of dwelling units and all commercial uses in the Arboretum Specific Plan area. The proposed
project would maintain the number of dwelling units and continues to contain all commercial uses.
Therefore, while the proposed project would have more than 41.4 percent of the PM10 and PM2.5
emissions estimated for construction, paving, and architectural coatings for the approved project,
even if emissions of the approved project were adjusted so that proposed project emissions
represented 41.4 percent of emissions, these PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would be well under
SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, as discussed in the preceding section and as shown in Table 4,
construction emissions associated with the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds for
VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM2.5, and PM10. Since the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s
thresholds during construction, and would implement measures to further reduce emissions, the
proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standard. Therefore, air quality impacts during construction of the proposed project would
be less than significant.
Furthermore, as shown in Table 5 above, the proposed project operations would result in daily VOC,
NOX, CO, and PM10 emissions that would exceed established significance criteria at project buildout.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Comparing these emissions to the Resort Village planning area of the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, at
full project buildout, NOX and CO would be less than those estimated to occur under the approved
project. VOCs, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions associated with the proposed project would be slightly
higher than those under the approved project. However, in all cases where the proposed project
daily emissions would be more than the estimated emissions expected to result from the operation
of the Resort Village planning area of the approved project, those emissions increases would be less
than the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5.4 and 4.5.5
would serve to reduce emissions associated with the proposed project. However, there are no
measures that are feasible to reduce emissions for the proposed project below the applicable
significance thresholds. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR identified a significant and unavoidable
impact related to operational emissions due to exceedances of established SCAQMD thresholds for
criteria air pollutant emissions of ROG (VOC), NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Therefore, consistent with
the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable
increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable
federal or State ambient air quality standard. Therefore, this impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, requires all development
projects within the approved project planning area, including the proposed project, to
implement Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, mitigation measures to further reduce
construction and operational emissions. Refer to Mitigation Measures 4.5.1 through 4.5.6.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact from
criteria pollutants compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would remain significant and unavoidable, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended.
Threshold D: Would the proposed project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Impact 4.2-3)
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. As stated above, emissions related to ozone precursors
(ROG, NOX) and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), which are criteria pollutants, would contribute to
adverse health effects to sensitive individuals in the South Coast Air Basin under the approved
project. Construction emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would be mitigated to less than significant levels
with Mitigation Measures 4.5.1, 4.5.3a, and 4.5.3c, while operational emissions, however, would
remain significant and cumulatively considerable.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR found that, because the prevailing wind direction would result in
few residences being downwind of the project site, no LST analysis was required and therefore
neither a construction nor an operational LST analysis was completed.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Sensitive receptors are defined as people who have an increased
sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations include
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
schools, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling
units. As discussed above, the closest sensitive receptors during construction include the new
residential land uses that are part of the project. As stated above, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
found that, because the prevailing wind direction would result in few residences being downwind of
the project site, no LST analysis was required and therefore neither a construction nor an
operational LST analysis was completed. Due to subsequent buildout of the area surrounding the
proposed project area, this analysis includes an LST analysis for both construction and operations.
The LST analysis completed showed the construction impacts at the SCAQMD-recommended
minimum distance of 25 meters (80 feet) to a sensitive receptor. By design, the localized impacts
analysis only includes on-site sources; the CalEEMod output lists all emissions by location. Table 5
shows the results of the LST analysis for construction. As shown, the onsite construction emissions
would all be less than their respective LST thresholds, meaning that the concentrations of the
pollutants would not exceed their respective AAQS, which are set at levels that protect human
health. Thus, the health risks to all sensitive receptors from construction would be less than
thresholds and the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts.
Table 5: Project Localized Construction Emissions
Peak Daily On-Site Emissions 32.5 35.3 8.8 5.0
Source: Compiled by LSA (October 2025).
Note: Source Receptor Area 34, based on a 5-acre construction disturbance daily area, at a distance of 80 feet from the project
lbs/day = pounds per day
X
2.5
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
Similar to the construction LST analysis, for the proposed project, the emissions that would occur
onsite during operations were estimated and compared to the LSTs to determine the health risk
levels to sensitive receptors from operations. To estimate the portion of regional emissions shown in
Table 4 (the maximum operational emissions occurs when the entire project is complete) that would
occur onsite, it was assumed that all area and energy source emissions would occur on site.
However, given that the average vehicle trip length included in the CalEEMod analysis is 12 miles, it
was estimated that 1 percent of the project-related mobile emissions would occur on site.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR did not distinguish which operational emissions would occur onsite,
so similar to the technique used for the proposed project’s operational emissions (assuming 1
percent of the total vehicle emissions would occur onsite), Table 6 shows the approved project’s
estimated onsite operational emissions, as included in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as well as
the proposed project estimated onsite operational emissions as compared to the LST thresholds
established by SCAQMD.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
As shown in Table 6, the estimated onsite operational emissions would all be less than applicable
LST thresholds, meaning that the concentrations of the pollutants would not exceed the respective
AAQS, which are set at levels that protect human health. Thus, the health risks to all sensitive
receptors from operations would be less than thresholds. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR did not
include an operational LST analysis, but based on the emissions shown in Table 6, the Resort Village
portion of the approved project onsite operational emissions would be less than the LSTs, thus the
proposed project would not result in a new significant LST impact from project operations and
impacts would be less than significant.
Table 6: Project Localized Operational Emissions
Source
Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project
Localized Significance Thresholds 270 1,746 4 2
Significant? No No No No
The Resort Village Portion of the Approved Project Emissions
Approved
Difference (Proposed Project –
Approved Project) 0.5 3.4 0.2 0.1
Source: Compiled by LSA (October 2025).
Note: Source Receptor Area 34, based on a 5-acre operational daily area, distance of 80 feet from project boundary.
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
2.5
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
As detailed in Tables 4 and 5, the emissions levels indicate that the project would not exceed
SCAQMD LSTs during project construction or operation. The project’s peak operational on-site NOX
emissions are approximately 31.2 pounds per day (lbs/day). Due to the small size of the proposed
project in relation to the overall Basin, the level of emissions is not sufficiently high enough to use a
regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a Basin-wide level. On a regional scale, the
quantity of emissions from the project is incrementally minor. Because the SCAQMD has not
identified any other methods to quantify health impacts from small projects and due to the size of
the project, it is speculative to assign any specific health effects to small project-related emissions.
However, based on this localized analysis, the proposed project would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to health risk to nearby sensitive receptors when compared to the approved project. The overall
impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain significant and unavoidable, as specified in
the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Threshold E: Would the proposed project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that the
approved project would not result in objectionable odors caused by solid waste materials,
chemicals, food products, or other materials. Diesel exhaust odor may be noticeable during
construction activities; however, these instances would be temporary and isolated. Therefore, the
impact of odors is less than significant, and no mitigation for odor control was identified.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Heavy-duty equipment on the project site during construction
would emit odors, primarily from equipment exhaust. However, the construction activity would
cease after individual construction is completed. No other sources of objectionable odors have been
identified for the proposed project. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that adverse impact
in terms of objectionable odors during construction would be less than significant, thus the
proposed project would not result in a new significant impact.
SCAQMD Rule 402 regarding nuisances states: “A person shall not discharge from any source
whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment,
nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger
the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a
natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” The proposed uses are not
anticipated to emit any objectionable odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in
other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people
and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to objectionable odors when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold F: Would the proposed project generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a
significant impact on the environment and conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The approved project would generate emissions that
would contribute to climate change. The approved project’s generation of construction and
operational carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e), which is the unit of measurement used to standardize
the climate effects of greenhouse gases, would be 4,071 tons per year and 70,794 tons per year,
respectively. These represent a respective 0.0007 percent and 0.013 percent of the Statewide
burden. In 2009, when the approved project was certified, neither the SCAQMD nor the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) had adopted significance criteria for greenhouse gas (GHG) for
evaluating its significance.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that the approved project would comply with the
majority of existing strategies, policies, and regulations to reduce potential GHG emissions and thus,
the impacts of the approved project related to global warming were considered less than significant
with the implementation of energy conservation measures included as Mitigation Measure 4.5.4,
and trip reduction measures included as Mitigation Measures 4.5.5 and 4.5.6.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 4.5.4
and 4.5.6 were identified for the approved project.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) provides that the
“determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for
careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific
and factual data,” and further states that an “ironclad definition of significant effect is not always
possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting.” Currently, there is no
Statewide GHG emissions threshold that has been used to determine the potential GHG emissions
impacts of a project. Threshold methodology and thresholds are currently developed and revised by
air districts in California.
To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their
CEQA documents, the SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group
(Working Group).9 The Working Group has identified a tiered approach for evaluating GHG
emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency:
• Tier 1. If a project is exempt from CEQA, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less
than significant.
• Tier 2. If the project complies with a GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation program that
avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions in the project’s geographic area (i.e., city or
county), project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.
• Tier 3. If GHG emissions are less than the screening-level threshold, project-level and cumulative
GHG emissions are less than significant.
For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly
applicable, SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD, under Option 1, is
proposing a “bright-line” screening-level threshold of 3,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2e (or MT
CO2e) per year (MT CO2e/year) for all land use types or, under Option 2, the following land use-
specific thresholds: 1,400 MT CO2e for commercial projects; 3,500 MT CO2e for residential
projects; or 3,000 MT CO2e for mixed-use projects. This bright-line threshold is based on a
review of the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) database of CEQA projects. Based on their
review of 711 CEQA projects, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed the bright-line
thresholds identified above. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the bright-line threshold
9 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance
Thresholds. Website: www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-
significance-thresholds (accessed July 2025).
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
would have a nominal and therefore less than cumulatively considerable impact on GHG
emissions.
• Tier 4. If emissions exceed the numerical screening threshold, a more detailed review of the
project’s GHG emissions is warranted. The SCAQMD has proposed an efficiency target for
projects that exceed the bright-line threshold. The current recommended approach is per-capita
efficiency targets. The SCAQMD is not recommending use of a percentage emissions reduction
target. Instead, the SCAQMD proposes proposed a 2020 efficiency target of 4.8 MT CO2e/year
per service population for project-level analyses and 6.6 MT CO2e/year per service population
for plan-level projects (e.g., program-level projects such as General Plans).
For the purpose of this analysis, the proposed project is compared to the threshold of 3,000 MT
CO2e/year for all land use types. The project is also evaluated for compliance with the 2022 Scoping
Plan and the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
The following sections describe the proposed project’s construction- and operation-related GHG
impacts.
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Construction activities associated with the proposed
project would produce combustion emissions from various sources. Construction would emit
GHGs through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply
vendor vehicles for the duration of the approximately 6-year construction period. The
combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and
nitrous oxide (N2O). Furthermore, the fueling of construction equipment emits CH4. Exhaust
emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels
change. The implementation of air quality mitigation measures required under the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, including Mitigation Measures 4.5.3a, 4.5.3c. and 4.5.6 would also support the
reduction of construction related GHG emissions.
As indicated above, SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for
construction-related GHG emissions. Instead, the construction GHG emissions should be
amortized over the life of the project, defined as 30 years, added to the operational emissions,
and that total compared to the applicable interim GHG significance threshold tier.
Using CalEEMod, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate approximately 21,032
MT CO2e during construction of the proposed project. When annualized over the 30-year life of
the project, annual construction emissions would be 701.1 MT CO2e per year.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR estimated that construction of the approved project would
generate approximately 4,071 MT CO2e per year over approximately 7 to 8 years. Using 7 years,
the total construction CO2e emissions from the approved project would be 28,497 MT CO2e.
When annualized over the 30-year life of the project, annual construction emissions of the
approved project are estimated to be 949.9 MT CO2e per year.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Thus, construction of the proposed project would emit less CO2e than the Resort Village portion
of the approved project. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that construction GHG
emissions would be less than significant.
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Long-term operation of the proposed project would
generate GHG emissions from mobile, area, waste, water, and refrigerant sources as well as
indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption. Mobile-source GHG
emissions would include project-generated vehicle trips associated with trips to and from the
proposed project. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping
and maintenance on the project site and other sources. Waste source emissions generated by
the proposed project include energy generated by landfilling and other methods of disposal
related to transporting and managing project-generated waste. In addition, water source
emissions associated with the proposed project are generated by water supply and conveyance,
water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment.
GHG emissions for the proposed project were estimated using CalEEMod. Table 7 shows the
estimated amortized construction and operational GHG emissions for the completed proposed
project compared to the Resort Village portion of the approved project.
Table 7: Approved Project and Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mobile Sources 23,842 1.0 1.1 24,228
Area Sources 326.8 <0.1 <0.1 327.2
Energy Sources 5,414.4 0.4 <0.1 5,432.6
Water Sources 156.0 2.6 0.1 239.6
Waste Sources 170.6 17.0 0.0 596.8
Refrigerant Sources 1,596.4
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions 701.1
Source: LSA (October 2025).
CH4
CO2 = carbon dioxide N2O = nitrous oxide
As shown in Table 7, the proposed project would generate 33,121.1 MT CO2e/yr, which is above
the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded
that since the SCAQMD and the CARB have no proposed or adopted significance criteria or
methodologies for estimating a project’s contribution of greenhouse gases or evaluating its
significance related to global climate change, no significance determination could be made at
that time. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR then demonstrated that future development under
the approved project would comply with the majority of existing strategies, policies, and
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
regulations to reduce potential GHG emissions. Thus, the impacts of the project related to global
warming were considered less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures
4.5.4, 4.5.5, and 4.5.6.
As shown in Table 7, the estimated emissions for the approved project are 30,458.9 MT CO2e
per year; thus, when compared to the approved project emissions, the proposed project would
result in an increase of 2,662.2 MT CO2e per year. While the proposed project would result in
slightly greater emissions than those estimated to occur under the approved project, the
increase in emissions would be below the SCAQMD recommended thresholds of significance for
GHG emissions. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5.4, 4.5.5, and 4.5.6
would serve to reduce emissions associated with the proposed project. Since the increase in
emissions associated with the proposed project would be below the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MT CO2e
per year threshold, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact with
implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5.4, 4.5.5, and 4.5.6.
Consistency with Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plans. The following section analyzes
the proposed project’s consistency with current GHG emissions reduction plans. The proposed
project was analyzed for consistency with the goals of the City General Plan, 2022 Scoping Plan,
and the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS.
Fontana General Plan The proposed project includes a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) and
General Plan Amendment (GPA), an amendment to the Development Agreement, and a
revised Tentative Parcel Map. Each of these are described below:
• General Plan Amendment No. 23-002 – would amend the General Plan to allow
development of a proposed community retail site in the Resort Village, including
changing the land use designation of the proposed 9.3-acre retail site from R-PC to C-G.
• Specific Plan Amendment No. 23-002 – would amend the Arboretum Specific Plan to
add approximately 9.3 acres of proposed community retail within the Resort Village at
the northwest corner of Sierra and Terra Vista. The proposed community retail site
would be anchored by a grocery store. The overall unit count in the Specific Plan would
remain the same as originally approved. Within the Resort Village, residential planning
areas and park sites have been relocated to accommodate the proposed community
retail site.
• Development Agreement No. 23-012 – would amend the development agreement,
allowing the proposed community retail site to use existing excess fee credits.
• Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-008 - Tentative Map 20646 includes 13 residential lots,
one commercial lot, and a lettered lot for park purposes; this allows for the
development of a 9.3 acre proposed community retail site.
As described above, the project includes an amendment to the Arboretum Specific Plan to
convert approximately 9.3 acres of the Resort Village planning area from R-MF (Residential
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Multi-Family, 8.0-16.0 du/ac) to C-1 (Community Commercial) and develop the 9.3-acre
property with approximately 73,558 square feet of commercial uses.
Additionally, residential land use designations within the Resort Village planning area would
be revised to absorb the dwelling units initially attributed to the 9.3-acre parcel, in order to
maintain the overall 3,532 dwelling units previously approved for buildout of the Specific
Plan in the City of Fontana. The redistribution of units across the Resort Village planning
area would preserve the acreage of lower density (6-8 du/ac) residential uses, decrease the
acreage of middle density (8-16 du/ac) residential uses, and increase the acreage of higher
density (16-20 du/ac) residential uses to make space for the proposed commercial uses in
planning area C-1.
The programmatic GHG reduction goals designed for City-wide implementation inherently
reduce the GHG contribution of the proposed project because it is consistent with the City
General Plan, zoning ordinance, and City growth projections and shall be developed in
accordance with the latest edition of Title 24/CBC and CALGreen Code pursuant to Article
XVIII (California Green Building Standards Code) of the City Municipal Code.
Compliance with the latest edition of Title 24/CBC and CALGreen Code for energy and water
conservation is required for all development projects as a matter of City and State policy.
Through implementation of Title 24/CBC and CALGreen Code, the project would be
developed in accordance with Goal 5 (Policy 1), Goal 6 (Policy 1 and Policy 2), and Goal 7
(Policy 1) outlined in Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience of the City General Plan
Update for purposes of reducing GHG emissions.
Scoping Plan. Executive Order (EO) B-30-15 added the immediate target of reducing GHG
emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Senate Bill (SB) 32 affirms the
importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions
reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in EO B-30-15.
The 2022 Scoping Plan assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target, while laying out
a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on
outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology,
energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the
State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental,
energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities. The measures applicable
to the proposed project include energy efficiency measures, water conservation and
efficiency measures, and transportation and motor vehicle measures, as discussed below.
The project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under
the 2022 Scoping Plan. The project would be required to comply with applicable current and
future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan and is subject
to applicable provisions of the California Energy Code and California Green Building Code,
which identify minimum standards related to various building features, including electric
vehicle charging capacity; appliances; water and space heating/cooling equipment; building
insulation and roofing; and lighting. These measures are designed to expand the use of
green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
inventory of buildings. With implementation of these green building practices, the project
would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022
Scoping Plan.
Water conservation and efficiency measures are intended to continue efficiency programs
and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Increasing the efficiency of water
transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions. As noted above, the
proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the CCR,
which include a variety of different measures, including reduction of wastewater and water
use. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with water conservation and
efficiency measures.
The goal of transportation and motor vehicle measures is to develop regional GHG
emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. Vehicles traveling to the project site
would comply with the Pavley II (LEV III) Advanced Clean Cars Program. The project would
also comply with the following additional transportation sector policies (through vehicle
manufacturer compliance): Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean
Fleets, Zero Emission Forklifts, the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule,
Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation,
Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition
Program, Amendments to the In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, carbon
pricing through the Cap-and-Trade Program, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Therefore,
the proposed project would not conflict with the identified transportation and motor
vehicle measures.
As such, the project would not conflict with implementation of the State’s Scoping Plan.
SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. SCAG’s 2024–2050
RTP/SCS identifies land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas
served by high-quality transit and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land
use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation
network. The core vision in the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS is to better manage the existing
transportation system through design management strategies, integrate land use decisions
and technological advancements, create complete streets that are safe for all roadway
users, preserve the transportation system, and expand transit and foster development in
transit-oriented communities. The 2024–2050 RTP/SCS contains transportation projects to
help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, as well as a
forecasted development pattern that is generally consistent with regional-level General Plan
data. The forecasted development pattern, when integrated with the financially constrained
transportation investments identified in the 2024–2050 RTP/SCS, would reach the regional
target of reducing GHG emissions from autos and light-duty trucks by 8 percent per capita
by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels). The 2024–2050 RTP/SCS does
not require that local General Plans, Specific Plans, or zoning be consistent with the 2024–
2050 RTP/SCS, but it provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Implementing SCAG’s RTP/SCS would greatly reduce the regional GHG emissions from
transportation, helping to achieve statewide emissions reduction targets. The proposed
project is not regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 and as such, it
would not conflict with the SCAG RTP/SCS targets since those targets were established and
are applicable on a regional level. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with
growth forecasts and is not expected to alter the demographic projections of SCAG;
therefore, the proposed project is already reflected in SCAG’s 2024-2050 RTP/SCS and
would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG reduction target of 19
percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035. Furthermore, the proposed project
is not regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 and as such, it would
not conflict with the SCAG RTP/SCS targets since those targets were established and are
applicable on a regional level.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that the approved project would comply with
the majority of existing strategies, policies, and regulations to reduce potential GHG
emissions and thus, the operational GHG emissions were less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5.6. Similar to the approved project, the proposed
project would have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact related to GHG
emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions that would
have a significant impact on the environment, nor would the project conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
GHGs. Associated impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, requires all development
projects within the approved project planning area, including the proposed project, to
implement Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.5.4 and 4.5.6 to further reduce
construction and operational emissions.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to
greenhouse gas emissions when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as
specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
3.5.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to air quality and GHGs. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent
environmental document to address impacts related to air quality is not warranted.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the proposed project have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special-status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
substantial adverse effect on any riparian
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
substantial adverse effect state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
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
any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance or conflict
with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
3.6.1 Impact Analysis
The approved project’s impacts on biological resources were analyzed in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR Section 4.9. This section is based on the project-specific Biological Resources Assessment10
(Appendix B) that was conducted for the proposed project.
Threshold A: Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in
10 ELMT Consulting. 2026. Biological Resources Assessment for The Resort at the Arboretum Project Located
in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. February 6.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. Development under the approved project would replace
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) and Riversidean Sage Scrub (RSS) within the Specific Plan
area with buildings, roadways, pavements, and landscaped areas containing introduced plant
materials. The loss of on-site vegetation would render the existing site unavailable for wildlife
species that may be using this habitat. The removal of RAFSS was identified as a significant impact,
as RAFSS provides suitable habitat for various sensitive plant and animal species (including the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat [SBKR] and California gnatcatcher [CAGN]) and is considered a sensitive
plant community by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
At the time of the approval of the Arboretum Specific Plan, the North Fontana Interim Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Program required a project developer to pay a fee to
the City for the future acquisition of preserved habitat if protocol surveys performed within the
proposed MSHCP boundaries for the SBKR and CAGN yielded negative results. Neither species was
identified during focused surveys conducted within the Specific Plan area in 2007. The Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR determined that future development on the site would have to comply with the
interim MSHCP program and shall pay fees to the City to mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitats.
At the time, it was determined that payment of the fees would reduce potential impacts to less than
significant levels.
The project site also serves as foraging habitat for several animal species, including raptors. While
raptors are not uncommon in southern California, urban development has eliminated the majority
of open foraging habitats in the region. Future development within the Specific Plan area would add
to the incremental loss of foraging habitat in the long term. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
determined that the Interim Program for the North Fontana MSHCP addressed the cumulative
impacts to sensitive species in the area, including the incremental loss of foraging habitat.
Per the EIR for the Arboretum Specific Plan, impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species
would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.9.1, shown below, as well as Mitigation Measures 4.9.1a–d and
4.9.2.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.9.1: In accordance with the City’s interim
program for the North Fontana MSHCP, the developer shall pay a fee for the future acquisition
of preserved habitat for sensitive species.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that implementation of standard conditions and
mitigation would prevent significant impacts related to the loss of existing plant communities, trees
and animal habitats, migratory birds, raptors, and burrowing owls to less than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation
measures were identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended:
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1a Focused surveys for the burrowing owl shall be conducted
during the nesting season (March to August) and no more than
30 days prior to the onset of construction to ensure avoidance
of this species. If no occupied burrows are found, a report shall
be submitted to the City and construction may begin without
further actions. Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during
the nesting season unless a qualified biologist approved by
CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either: (1) the
birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation, or (2) that
juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently
and are capable of independent survival.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1b Mitigation for loss of burrowing owl habitat shall include passive
relocation of resident animals on the project site to the
approved replacement habitat location. The Burrowing Owl
Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines shall be utilized for
current methods for passive relocation of any owls found during
the survey. A qualified biologist shall conduct the relocation
activities and provide construction monitoring during
construction activities near the burrows.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1c If burrowing owls are found on site, off-site relocation shall be
provided in conformance with the 1995 CDFW Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation, which requires the acquisition and
permanent protection of a minimum of 6.5 acres of off-site
foraging habitat (based on providing a 100-yard foraging radius
around the burrow) per pair or unpaired resident bird. The
protected lands should be within the vicinity of the project site
in suitable habitat and at a location approved by the CDFG. Any
occupied burrows within the project site that will be destroyed
by implementation of the project shall be mitigated through
enhancement of existing unsuitable burrows or creation of
artificial burrows at a ratio of 2:1 on the protected site.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1d The developer shall pay the adopted mitigation fee for the loss
of burrowing owl habitat from the project area. Fees shall be as
set forth in the interim program for the North Fontana MSHCP.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.2 Removal of vegetation or other potential nesting bird habitat
shall be conducted outside of the avian nesting season
(February through August). If removal of vegetation must occur
during the avian nesting season, a preconstruction nesting bird
survey shall be conducted within 7 days prior to any ground
disturbing activities. If at any time, birds are found to be nesting
inside or within 250 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the proposed
construction disturbance area, construction activities within 250
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
feet (500 feet for raptors) of the nest must cease and the area
flagged and protected from any ground disturbing activities
until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no
longer active.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The North Fontana Interim MSHCP is no longer active, and
therefore Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.9.1 is no longer applicable for the
proposed project. The proposed project remains located within the planning boundaries of the
Arboretum Specific Plan. As with the Specific Plan as a whole, potential effects to covered species
and habitats resulting from development within the proposed project area would require mitigation.
As part of the Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the proposed project, a literature
review and records search were conducted to determine which special-status biological resources
have the potential to occur on or within the general vicinity of the project site. In addition to the
literature review, a general habitat assessment or field investigation of the project site was
conducted on December 12, 2025 to document existing conditions and assess the potential for
special-status biological resources to occur within the project site.
Burrowing Owl. The burrowing owl is currently listed as a California Candidate Endangered
Species. It is a grassland specialist distributed throughout western North America where it
occupies open areas with short vegetation and bare ground within shrub, desert, and grassland
environments. Burrowing owls use a wide variety of arid and semi-arid environments with well-
drained, level to gently-sloping areas characterized by sparse vegetation and bare ground.11,12
Burrowing owls are dependent upon the presence of burrowing mammals (such as ground
squirrels) whose burrows are used for roosting and nesting.13 The presence or absence of
colonial mammal burrows is often a major factor that limits the presence or absence of
burrowing owls. Where mammal burrows are scarce, burrowing owls have been found
occupying man-made cavities, such as buried and non-functioning drain pipes, standpipes, and
dry culverts. Burrowing mammals may burrow beneath rocks and debris or large, heavy objects
such as abandoned cars, concrete blocks, or concrete pads. They also require open vegetation
allowing line-of-sight observation of the surrounding habitat to forage as well as watch for
predators.
No burrowing owls or recent sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) were observed
during the 2025 field investigation. The project site is primarily vegetated with a fairly dense
chamise chaparral plant community which does not allow for line-of-sight observation favored
by burrowing owls. Additionally, the project site lacks suitable burrows (larger than 4 inches in
diameter) capable of providing nesting opportunities.
11 Haug, Elizabeth A. and Andrew B. Didiuk. 1993. “Use of Recorded Calls to Detect Burrowing Owls,” Journal
of Field Ornithology, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Spring, 1993), pp. 188-194.
12 Dechant, Jill A., et al. 1999. “Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds: Burrowing Owl,” USGS
Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 123.
13 Haug, Elizabeth A. and Andrew B. Didiuk. 1993. “Use of Recorded Calls to Detect Burrowing Owls,” Journal
of Field Ornithology, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Spring, 1993), pp. 188-194.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Based on the results of the field investigation, it was determined that the project site does not
have potential to support burrowing owl, and focused surveys are not recommended. However,
out of an abundance of caution, a preconstruction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be
conducted prior to development to ensure burrowing owl remain absent from the project site.
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The SBKR, federally listed as endangered, is one of several
kangaroo rat species in its range. The Dulzura, the Pacific kangaroo rat (Dipodomys agilis) and
the Stephens kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) occur in areas occupied by the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat, but these other species have a wider habitat range. The habitat of the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat is described as being confined to pioneer and intermediate Riversidean
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) habitats, and SBKR is known to occur within nearby Lytle Creek.
However, the project site has been generally disconnected from Lytle Creek since the
installation of Interstate 15 and associated flood control infrastructure since the mid-1900s,
resulting in the on-site RAFSS plant community no longer exhibiting the dynamic vegetative
succession and diversity typical of this plant community. In addition, the development of
extensive residential neighborhood tracts in the mid-1990s thoroughly isolated the project site
from suitable habitats within downstream portions of Lytle Creek, and areas of the project site
have been continually disturbed from vehicle access and adjacent development.
The project is located in an area where surveys for SBKR were conducted in 2002, 2004, and
2007, including a trapping study conducted in 2007 to determine the presence of SBKR on the
site. No SBKR were captured during the 2,160 total trap nights, although 117 Dulzura kangaroo
rats and 36 deer mouse were captured. SBKR have not been observed since 2004. Field sign for
kangaroo rat, including San Bernardino kangaroo rat, is distinctive and readily noted in the field.
No signs (e.g., San Bernardino kangaroo rat characteristic burrows, dusting baths, and/or tail
drags) were observed during the field investigations in 2007 or 2025.
Based on these conditions, it was determined that the project site does not provide the
requisite habitat elements needed by San Bernardino kangaroo rat to be present. Therefore, it
was determined that San Bernardino kangaroo rat is presumed absent from the project site. No
focused surveys are recommended.
California gnatcatcher. The CAGN is a federally threatened species with restricted habitat
requirements, being an obligate resident of sage scrub habitats that are dominated by California
sagebrush. This species generally occurs below 750 feet elevation in coastal regions and below
1,500 feet inland, and ranges from Ventura County south to San Diego County and northern Baja
California. CAGN are ground and shrub-foraging insectivores, feeding on small insects and other
arthropods.
The project site ranges in approximate elevation from 1,826 to 1,847 feet above mean sea level,
which is above the known elevational range of CAGN. Ninety-nine percent of all CAGN
observations occur below 950 feet above msl. The project site does not support coastal sage
scrub habitat. In addition, the site is isolated from California gnatcatcher occupied coastal sage
scrub habitats and linkage areas in the region by surrounding development. Similar to the SBKR,
surveys for CAGN were conducted in 2002, 2004, and 2007. CAGN were not observed during
those surveys nor during the 2025 field investigation. Given the natural community present
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
onsite, the lack of any observation of CAGN in north Fontana, and the isolation of the site due to
the recent development of surrounding properties, it is considered highly unlikely that the site
might support this species. Therefore, California gnatcatcher is presumed to be absent from the
project site. No further surveys are recommended.
As described above, there is low potential for SBKR and CAGN to be observed in the project site, and
they are considered absent from the project site. No other listed plant or animal species are likely to
occur within the project site.
The proposed project could also impact other special status species, including burrowing owls and
nesting birds. Mitigation measures that comply with the MSHCP program are no longer available, so
mitigation measures from the Arboretum Specific Plan have been updated to comply with current
requirements. A pre-construction focused burrowing owl survey would be required, as outlined in
Mitigation Measures 4.9.1a–c. These measures would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. The proposed project would be required to implement Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures 4.9.1a–c and 4.9.2. These measures have
been amended as shown below; these changes have not been made to address a new or more
severe impact, but rather to clarify the necessary compliance with current requirements in the
absence of the MSHCP. Changes to mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project are
shown in strikeout text to indicate deletions and underline text to signify additions.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1a Preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted
prior to vegetation clearing or grading of the residential
development site. Two surveys are required and shall follow the
methods described in the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFWs) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. The
first survey shall be conducted between 30 and 14 days before
initial ground disturbance (grading, grubbing, and construction),
and the second survey shall be conducted no more than 24
hours prior to initial ground disturbance. If burrowing owls
and/or suitable burrowing owl burrows are identified on the
residential development site during the survey, the project
applicant(s) shall consult with CDFW and follow the methods
listed in the CDFWs Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
for avoidance and/or passive relocation. Focused surveys for
the burrowing owl shall be conducted during the nesting season
(March to August) and no more than 30 days prior to the onset
of construction to ensure avoidance of this species. If no
occupied burrows are found, a report shall be submitted to the
City and construction may begin without further actions.
Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting
season unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies
through non-invasive methods that either: (1) the birds have
not begun egg-laying and incubation, or (2) that juveniles from
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are
capable of independent survival.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1b Mitigation methods may include passive relocation conducted
outside of the owl breeding season (between September 1 and
February 28). If an active owl burrow is identified, and
construction is to proceed, then a qualified biologist (with two
or more years of burrowing owl experience) must establish an
initial disturbance-limit buffer of 500 feet around the burrow
using flagging or staking. The buffer distance may be reduced in
coordination with CDFW depending on time of year (i.e., in or
out of breeding season), level of construction activity, and
observed behavior of the burrowing owls. Construction
activities shall not occur within any buffer zones until the
burrow is deemed inactive by the qualified biologist. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of
Fontana Community Development Director or designee.
Mitigation for loss of burrowing owl habitat shall include passive
relocation of resident animals on the project site to the
approved replacement habitat location. The Burrowing Owl
Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines shall be utilized for
current methods for passive relocation of any owls found during
the survey. A qualified biologist shall conduct the relocation
activities and provide construction monitoring during
construction activities near the burrows.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1c If burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl burrows with sign
(e.g., whitewash, pellets, feathers, prey remains) are identified
on the residential development site during the survey(s), these
features must be completely avoided. If impacts to those
features are unavoidable, then the project applicant(s) must
develop a burrowing owl mitigation plan in consultation with
CDFW. If burrowing owls are found on site, off-site relocation
shall be provided in conformance with the 1995 CDFW Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, which requires the
acquisition and permanent protection of a minimum of 6.5
acres of off-site foraging habitat (based on providing a 100-yard
foraging radius around the burrow) per pair or unpaired
resident bird. The protected lands should be within the vicinity
of the project site in suitable habitat and at a location approved
by the CDFG. Any occupied burrows within the project site that
will be destroyed by implementation of the project shall be
mitigated through enhancement of existing unsuitable burrows
or creation of artificial burrows at a ratio of 2:1 on the
protected site.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1d The developer shall pay the adopted mitigation fee for the loss
of burrowing owl habitat from the project area. Fees shall be as
set forth in the interim program for the North Fontana MSHCP.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.2 If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a
pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be
conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation
removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no
nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist
conducting the clearance survey should document a negative
survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to
active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered
during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction
activities should stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer. The
size of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the
wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or
surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between
the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of
construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and
topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances.
Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established
in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers;
and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity
of nest areas. A biological monitor should be present to
delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the
active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely
affected by the construction activity. Once the young have
fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes
inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within
the buffer area can occur. Removal of vegetation or other
potential nesting bird habitat shall be conducted outside of the
avian nesting season (February through August). If removal of
vegetation must occur during the avian nesting season, a
preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted within 7
days prior to any ground disturbing activities. If at any time,
birds are found to be nesting inside or within 250 feet (500 feet
for raptors) of the proposed construction disturbance area,
construction activities within 250 feet (500 feet for raptors) of
the nest must cease and the area flagged and protected from
any ground disturbing activities until it is determined by a
qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impacts to
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species when compared to the approved project. The overall
impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant with mitigation
incorporated, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold B: Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Jurisdictional Delineation prepared for the Specific
Plan 14 determined that no jurisdictional waters, wetland areas, or riparian habitats were located
within the project limits; therefore, no impact on those resources would occur with implementation
of the approved project.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. No water features, ephemeral streambed, or riparian habitat
occurs on the project site. Therefore, like the approved project, no impact on those resources would
occur with implementation of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impacts related
to sensitive natural communities and riparian habitat when compared to the approved project. The
overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain no impact, as specified in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold C: Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. As stated previously, it was determined that no
jurisdictional waters, wetland areas, or riparian habitats are located within the project limits;
therefore, no impact on those resources would occur with implementation of the approved project.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. No water features, ephemeral streambed, or riparian habitat
occurs on the project site. Therefore, like the approved project, no impact on those resources would
occur with implementation of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
14 Michael Brandman Associates. 2004. Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Summary Report.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impacts related
to sensitive natural communities and riparian habitat when compared to the approved project. The
overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain no impact, as specified in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold D: Would the proposed project interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native nursery sites?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The EIR concluded that due to the presence of I-15 and
the presence of urban development to the east and south cutting the site off from the nearby
mountains, the Specific Plan area does not serve as a major wildlife corridor in the region. On-site
wildlife movement in the project area was expected to be confined to the nearby open areas, and
on- and off-site utility corridors vacant lands to the north, east, and west of the Specific Plan area.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that impacts to migratory corridors and
native nursery sites would be less than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Regional wildlife movement planning has been focused on the
mountain areas, the foothills, and Lytle Creek and other large tributaries flowing out of the Cajon
Pass area. Residential development to the south and east, as well as I-15 to the west, precludes the
development within the Arboretum Specific Plan area, including the project site, from serving as a
major regional wildlife corridor. The proposed project would result in substantially the same level of
development within the same area as that envisioned in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR. In the
proposed project area, the site conditions are substantially similar to that previously identified in
the Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, similar to the approved project, the project would have a less than
significant impact on regional wildlife movement or nursery sites.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impacts to
migratory corridors or native nursery sites when compared to the approved project. The overall
impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold E: Would the proposed project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance or conflict with the provisions of
an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. According to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, future
development of the Arboretum Specific Plan would lead to the removal of existing trees. In
compliance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, the determination if on-site trees are
considered Heritage, Significant, or Specimen trees shall be made prior to the removal of any tree
on the project site. The EIR contained the following standard measure:
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.9.2: The removal of trees on-site shall be
subject to the City’s Preservation of Heritage, Significant, and Specimen Trees (Municipal Code
Section 28-60) for the replacement of any Heritage, Significant, and Specimen Trees that may be
affected by the project.
Compliance with Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.9.2 would require relocation,
preservation and/or replacement of protected trees. Thus, removal of trees as part of future
development under the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with the City’s Tree Preservation
Ordinance.
The EIR concluded the Arboretum Specific Plan would comply with the interim North Fontana
MSHCP, which required the payment of fees in accordance with the adopted fee schedule to provide
mitigation for the project’s incremental impacts on the loss of habitat areas for sensitive plants and
animals through the conservation of off-site habitat. It was determined at the time that
implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.9.1, as described above,
would ensure compliance with the City’s interim program for the MSHCP. No California gnatcatcher
or San Bernardino kangaroo rat were identified on site; therefore, the EIR concluded that occupied
habitat for these species would not be affected by future within the Specific Plan area. It was
determined that the project as approved would comply with the City’s then-established programs to
conserve off-site habitat, and no conflict with the former MSHCP was identified. Impacts related to
this issue were determined to be less than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. As previously discussed, the project site consists primarily of
ruderal vegetation, with few if any trees. For any trees that would be removed during construction
of the proposed project, Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.9.2 would be applicable.
Similar to the approved project, if any of the existing trees on the project site are protected under
the City’s tree protection ordinance, any removal associated with the proposed project would need
to be replaced in order to comply with the City’s tree protection ordinance in Chapter 28, Article III
of the City Municipal Code. As such, similar to the approved project, the proposed project would
comply with the City’s tree protection ordinance and impacts would be less than significant.
The MSHCP program is no longer active, so compliance with its requirements is no longer necessary.
There are no other applicable Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans,
or any other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans in the project area. Therefore, like
the approved project, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan, and no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to ordinances protecting biological resources, including a tree protection ordinance, or to
conservation plan conflicts when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended.
3.6.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to biological resources. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent
environmental document to address impacts related to biological resources is not warranted.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the proposed project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State
?
substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
human remains, including those interred
3.7.1 Impact Analysis
The approved project’s impacts on cultural resources were analyzed in Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
Section 4.10.
Threshold A: Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, included
a records and archival search within the boundary of the approved project planning area and
determined that the area and vicinity have a low sensitivity for cultural resources. However, the
approved project also proposed the use of Southern California Edison (SCE) and SoCal Gas (SCG)
easements as passive recreational areas.
According to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, a 1901 USGS map of the Arboretum Specific Plan area
identified a number of structures in the project vicinity. Subsequent archaeological investigations at
these locations found the presence of two foundations, a circular ground depression, and wall
remains in the vicinity of the SCE easement along the northwestern boundary of the Arboretum
Specific Plan area. These building remains are believed to have been those depicted in 1901 USGS
maps and may be associated with the historical location of the Perdew Ditch. Though not possessing
good integrity, these resources may represent the remains of the early structures associated with
the Grapeland Irrigation District.
While no specific structures or improvements were proposed on these easements, ground
disturbance activities for proposed trails, gardens, or other land clearing may disturb unknown
historic period archaeological resources associated with the foundation remains. As such, in order to
reduce potential impacts to historic period cultural resources, the approved project was required to
implement Mitigation Measures 4.10.1. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.10.1,
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
impacts to historic period cultural resources were determined to be less than significant impact
with mitigation incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation
measures were identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended:
Mitigation Measure 4.10.1: Prior to removal of the foundation remains at the SCE/SCG
easements, a formal evaluation of the area shall be completed,
to determine eligibility to the California Register of Historic
Places.
Initial evaluation of significance for this site will focus on
archival research, including a title search to identify former
property owners, historical research at the Fontana Historical
Society and the San Bernardino Historical Society to identify
historical maps, aerial photographs and photographs of the
building. Oral interviews with local residents and Historical
Society members shall also be conducted. This initial evaluation
will seek to determine when the building was constructed, its
function and history of use, and whether it was associated at
any time with important people or events in the past. This initial
evaluation will not include subsurface testing. However, if the
evaluation determines that the site has archaeological or
historical research potential, subsurface testing may be
recommended to identify subsurface features and deposits, and
to evaluate such deposits under criterion D of the State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.a3.
If the foundation is determined to be significant, then a
mitigation plan shall be developed, in accordance with Section
21084.1 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, to ensure mitigation below a level of significance.
Mitigation shall include photograph, recordation, collection, and
archival of collected materials. In the event that significant
cultural resources cannot be mitigated, avoidance shall be
required.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project site has remained vacant since
certification of the EIR and project approval. As the project site has not changed, the proposed
project area and vicinity have a low sensitivity for historic period cultural resources. Although there
are no known historic period cultural resources on the project site, there is potential for unknown
subsurface cultural resources to be encountered during ground-disturbing activities.
Similar to the approved project, ground disturbance activities on the SCE and SCG easements for
proposed trails, gardens, or other land clearing may disturb unknown historic period archaeological
resources associated with the foundation remains discussed in Section 3.7.1.a of this document. As
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
such, in order to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources, the approved project was required
to implement Mitigation Measures 4.10.1. With implementation of this measure, impact would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. The proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure 4.10.1 as
prescribed in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended. No additional mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to
historic period cultural resources when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within
the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as
specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold B: Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, included a
records and archival search within the boundary of the approved project planning area and
determined that the area and vicinity have a low sensitivity for archaeological resources. However,
as discussed under Threshold A, ground disturbance activities on SCE and SCG easements for
proposed trails, gardens, or other land clearing may disturb unknown historic period archaeological
resources associated with the foundation remains discussed above. As such, in order to reduce
potential impacts to archaeological resources, the approved project was required to implement
Mitigation Measures 4.10.1. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.10.1, impacts to
archaeological resources were determined to be less than significant impact with mitigation
incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, would implement Mitigation Measure 4.10.1, as described above.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project site has remained vacant in the interim
between approval of the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR and the currently proposed Specific Plan
Amendment. As the project site has not changed, the proposed project area and vicinity continue to
have a low sensitivity for archaeological cultural resources. Although there are no known
archaeological cultural resources on the project site, there is potential for unknown subsurface
archaeological resources to be encountered during ground-disturbing activities.
Similar to the approved project, however, ground disturbance activities on the SCE and SCG
easements for proposed trails, gardens, or other land clearing may disturb unknown archaeological
resources associated with the foundation remains. As such, in order to reduce potential impacts to
cultural resources, the proposed project is required to implement Mitigation Measures 4.10.1. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10.1, impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures. The proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure 4.10.1 as
prescribed in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended. No additional mitigation is required.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to
archaeological resources when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as
specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold C: Would the proposed Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. According to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, grading
and excavation activities that extend 10 feet or more below the ground surface may disturb native
soils that have the potential to yield paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure 4.10.2 would
ensure any unearthed paleontological resources would be handled accordingly.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that implementation of Mitigation
Measure 4.10.2 would ensure that the impacts of the approved project on paleontological resources
would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, would implement Mitigation Measure 4.10.2.
Mitigation Measure 4.10.2 Monitoring shall be conducted for excavation activities extending to
estimated depths of 10 feet or more below the existing ground
surface. If required, the paleontological monitor shall be equipped
to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays
and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the
remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors are
empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow
removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be
reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the
subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and
examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low
potential to contain fossil resources. Also, the following measures
shall be made during the monitoring of excavation activities on
undisturbed subsurface Pleistocene sediments.
• During monitoring, preparation of recovered specimens to a
point of identification and permanent preservation, including
washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and
vertebrates shall occur.
• During monitoring, identification and curation of specimens into
a museum repository with permanent retrievable storage shall
occur. The paleontologist must have a written repository
agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• During monitoring, preparation of a report of findings with an
itemized inventory of specimens shall occur. The report and
inventory, when submitted to the City of Fontana (as the Lead
Agency), will signify completion of the program to mitigate
impacts to paleontological resources.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project site has remained vacant in the interim
between the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR and the currently proposed Specific Plan Amendment. As
the project site has not changed, the proposed project area has the potential to yield
paleontological resources 10 feet or more below the ground surface. Although no paleontological
resources have been identified in the City, there is potential for unknown subsurface paleontological
resources to be encountered during ground-disturbing activities.
Similar to the approved project, however, ground disturbance activities on the project site may
unearth unknown paleontological resources associated. As such, in order to reduce potential
impacts to paleontological resources, the proposed project was required to implement Mitigation
Measures 4.10.2.
Mitigation Measures. The proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure 4.10.2 as
prescribed in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended. No additional mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to
paleontological resources when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold D: Would the proposed project disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. According to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, there are
no known cemeteries on or near the approved project site. Thus, a low potential for the discovery of
human remains is expected on the site. Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.10.1
would ensure that any uncovered human remains are handled and protected in accordance with
State regulations.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.10.1: If human remains are encountered
during excavation activities at the site, all work shall halt and the County Coroner shall be
notified (Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The Coroner will determine whether
the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of the County-approved
archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, he/she will contact the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will be responsible for designating the most
likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as
required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD will make his/her
recommendation within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. The recommendation of the
MLD shall be followed and may include scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of the
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
human remains and any items associated with Native American burials (Section 70580.5 of the
Health and Safety Code).
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that compliance with Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.10.1 would ensure that the approved project would have a less than
significant impact on human remains including those interned outside formal cemeteries.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Similar to the approved project, there are no known cemeteries
on or near the approved project site, and it is expected that there would be a low potential for the
discovery of human remains on the site. Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.10.1
would be applicable to the proposed project, and would ensure that any uncovered human remains
are handled and protected in accordance with State regulations. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to
human remains when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
3.7.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to cultural resources. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental
document to address impacts related to cultural resources is not warranted.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the proposed project expose
persons 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 Zone Maps issued
by the State Geologist for the area based
on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? (ii) Strong seismic shaking? (iii)
Seismic-related ground failure, including
substantial soil erosion or the loss of
a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on-site
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not
3.8.1 Impact Analysis
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR analyzed the approved project’s impacts on geology and soils in
Section 4.7.
Threshold A: Would the proposed project expose persons 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 Zone Maps issued
by the State Geologist for the area based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (ii) Strong
seismic shaking? (iii) Seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction? (iv) Landslides?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The significance conclusion and analysis summary for
the approved project is discussed for each subcategory below.
i. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that the approved project planning
area is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the State of California in the
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act or as defined by the City General Plan. The Sierra
Madre Fault Zone is located directly north of the approved project area. In addition, the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR notes Groundwater Barrier “J” as a fault that runs through the
southeastern corner of the approved project site. However, this fault is covered by alluvial
deposits and has no surface expression. Therefore, surface rupture is unlikely and impacts from
surface rupture are less than significant.
ii. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, analyzed the occurrence of a Magnitude 7.0
earthquake under the California Building Code and found that soils within the approved project
area would result in horizontal ground acceleration of 1.5 to 2.0 g (gravity). Groundwater under
the approved project area is approximately 150 feet below grade. The Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR concluded that the implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions
4.7.1 and 4.7.2, listed below, would reduce ground-shaking hazards to less than significant.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.7.1: The project shall comply with
seismic design criteria in the California Building Code, the City’s building standards, and
other pertinent building regulations.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.7.2: Recommendations of the
geotechnical investigation for the project site, as they pertain to structural design and
construction recommendations for earthwork, grading, slopes, foundations, pavements, and
other necessary geologic and seismic considerations would need to be implemented for
building construction.
iii. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that the approved project is not within
an area with shallow groundwater and contains soils that do not promote liquefaction. The
approved project area is underlain with very coarse cobble and boulder alluvium that likely
relieves pore pressure and naturally prevents liquefaction. Therefore, seismic-related ground
failure including liquefaction is unlikely and impacts are less than significant.
iv. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that the approved project site is not
subject to landslides since the site features slopes of 2 percent or less. The Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR concluded that no adverse impacts related to landslides are expected. Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.7.2 implements recommendations of a geotechnical
investigation pertaining to grading, slopes, and other seismic considerations. Therefore, with
implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.7.2, adverse effects
related to landslides would be less than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The significance conclusion and analysis summary for the
proposed project is discussed for each subcategory below.
i. Similar to the approved project, the project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone
as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act of 1972.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Although the proposed project site is adjacent to the Sierra Madre Fault Zone, the potential for
surface rupture is considered low. Since the proposed project does not alter project site
location, it would not include impacts not previously analyzed under the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR. Project-specific impacts from potential surface fault rupture would be less than
significant.
ii. The project site is located within a seismically active region, with a number of faults traversing
or in proximity to the City. The closest fault in proximity to the project site is the Cucamonga
Fault Zone located approximately 0.75 miles northwest of the site.15 Due to the presence of
active and inferred faults in proximity to the project site, the project site is expected to be
subject to occasionally moderate to severe ground-shaking, as well as some background shaking
from other seismically active areas of the Southern California region. The extent of ground-
shaking associated with an earthquake is dependent upon the size of the earthquake and the
geologic material of the underlying area. Therefore, the project would have the potential to
directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death from seismic ground-shaking.
However, similar to the approved project, construction and development of the project would
be required to comply with applicable provisions of the CBC, per Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
Standard Condition 4.7.1. State law requires the design and construction of new structures to
comply with current CBC requirements, which address general geologic, seismic (including
ground shaking), and soil constraints for new buildings. Therefore, with compliance with current
CBC requirements, impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would remain less than
significant.
iii. Liquefaction occurs when loose, unconsolidated, water-laden soils are subject to shaking,
causing the soils to lose cohesion. The primary factors that influence the potential for
liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and plasticity characteristics, relative
density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The
depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is
generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface.
The project site is not located within an area identified by the City of Fontana as having a
potential for liquefication.16 Since the proposed project does not alter project site location, it
would not include impacts not previously analyzed under the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR.
Similar to the approved project, project-specific impacts from liquefaction would be less than
significant.
15 Department of Conservation. 2025. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/ (accessed October 2025).
16 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report. SCH #201621099. Map 8 : Geologic Hazard Overlays – Landslide & Liquefaction Susceptibility Page
E-8. Website : https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed October 2025).
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
iv. Factors that contribute to slope failure include slope height and steepness, shear strength and
orientation of weak layers in the underlying geologic units, and pore water pressures. The
project site is characterized by topography gently sloping down to the south and is not within an
area identified by the County of San Bernardino as being subject to earthquake-induced
landslides.17 Similar to the approved project, Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions
4.7.1 and 4.7.2 would be implemented to ensure project-specific impacts from landslides would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides when compared to the approved
project. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as
specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold B: Would the proposed project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that soils on-site have slight erosion hazard, and grading and excavation activities may
lead to localized erosion. Impacts from soil erosion and/or the loss of topsoil during construction
would be mitigated through daily watering of soils, use of soil binders and silt fences,
implementation of high-wind work stoppage restrictions, and prompt revegetation, as outlined in
Mitigation Measure 4.5.1 (see Addendum Section 3.5, Air Quality) to reduce air quality impacts
during construction, in conjunction with implementation of standard engineering practices.
Additionally, the approved project is subject to compliance with the NPDES Permit, which requires
implementation of a SWPPP to reduce erosion impacts during construction. With compliance with
Mitigation Measure 4.5.1, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that impacts
related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, would implement Mitigation Measure 4.5.1, as described above in Section
3.5, Air Quality.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The project site is predominately vacant. Development of the
proposed project would increase the impervious surface on the site. Therefore, similar to the
approved project, earthwork activities as part of the construction process would expose soils to the
potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
Similar to the approved project, potential erosion impacts from project construction would be
reduced through the implementation of a SWPPP and implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5.1.
As discussed above, the potential for soil erosion from the site would be low once the proposed
17 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report. SCH #201621099. Page 11. Website :
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-
General-Plan-Update (accessed October 2025).
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
project is developed. Refer to Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional information
regarding the project’s compliance with regulations to reduce potential erosion impacts during
project construction and operation. Therefore, impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil
would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation
Measure 4.5.1, as described above in Section 3.5, Air Quality.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to soil erosion or loss of topsoil when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within
the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as
specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold C: Would the proposed 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-site or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The approved project area contains soils that could be
unstable. Excavations and utility trenching may encounter trench-wall instability because soils are
gravelly and susceptible to caving. Temporary excavation up to five feet may be made without
rigorous lateral support. However, deeper excavations would require shoring. Mitigation Measure
4.7.1 is required to reduce potential impacts related to unstable soils, impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation
measures were identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended:
Mitigation Measure 4.7.1: Excavations shall be constructed in accordance with the
recommendations of the geotechnical investigation for the site,
including the following:
• Temporary excavations may be constructed to a vertical
depth of five feet without rigorous lateral supports.
• Excavated surfaces shall be wetted during construction in
order to minimize potential surface soil raveling.
• No surcharge loading (from, vehicles, materials, or
workmen on the surface adjacent to the trench excavation)
shall be allowed within an imaginary 1:1 line drawn upward
from the toe of temporary excavations.
• Should excavations exceed five feet, those shall be made
using cantilevered or braced shoring to support side walls.
• Temporary excavations in excess of five feet shall be made
at a slope of 2:1 (H:V) or flatter, and as per the construction
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
guidelines provided by the California Construction and
General Industry Safety Orders, the Occupational Safety and
Health Act and current amendments, and the Construction
Safety Act.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. As discussed above in Threshold A, the project site is not subject
to significant impacts from liquefaction or landslides. Similar to the approved project, Mitigation
Measure 4.7.1 would be implemented to reduce impacts related to unstable geologic units or soils.
Therefore, impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Mitigation Measures. The proposed project would be required to implement Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measure 4.7.1, as described above.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to secondary seismic hazards from being located on an unstable geologic unit or soil when
compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would
remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as specified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold D: Would the proposed 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?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
concluded that soil expansion is not expected to occur due to the gravelly nature of the approved
project site. Implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.7.2 and
Mitigation Measure 4.7.1 would ensure impacts related to expansive soils are reduced to a less than
significant level. Therefore, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, would implement Mitigation Measure 4.7.1, as described above.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Expansive soils generally have a substantial amount of clay
particles, which can give up water (shrink) or absorb water (swell). The change in the volume exerts
stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils. The amount and types of clay present in
the soil influence the extent or range of the shrink/swell. The occurrence of clayey soils is often
associated with geologic units having marginal stability. Expansive soils can be widely dispersed, and
they can occur along hillside areas as well as low-lying alluvial basins.
The soils underlying the project site consist of Soboba gravelly loamy sand (0 to 9 percent slopes),
and Soboba stony loamy sand (2 to 9 percent slopes).18 Similar to the approved project,
18 United States Department of Agriculture. n.d. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey.
Website: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed October 2025).
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.7.2 and Mitigation Measure
4.7.1 would ensure impacts related to expansive soils are reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation
Measure 4.7.1, as described above.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to expansive soils when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as
specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold E: Would the proposed project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. All proposed uses within the approved project area
would connect to existing sewer facilities and would not require the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems. As such, there would be no impact relative to septic
system or alternative wastewater disposal systems with implementation of the approved project.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Similar to the approved project, the proposed project would
connect to the existing wastewater collection system, and no septic systems are proposed.
Therefore, no impact related to the septic system or alternative wastewater disposal systems would
occur.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to the use of septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems when compared to the
approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain no impact,
as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
3.8.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to geology and soils. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental
document to address impacts related to geology and soils is not warranted.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the proposed project create a
significant hazard to the public through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one quarter mile of an
a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5
airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan
or structures, either directly or indirectly,
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
3.9.1 Impact Analysis
The certified Arboretum Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impacts to health and human hazards in
Section 4.13.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Threshold A: Would the proposed project create a significant hazard to the public through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that school and commercial uses associated with the approved project may require the
routine transport, storage, and/or disposal of small quantities of hazardous materials. Additionally,
dry cleaners, gas stations, print shops, photography stores, paint stores, hardware stores, liquor
stores, auto repair shops, and other similar uses would involve the use of hazardous materials, in
the approved project vicinity. All future development within the boundary of the approved project
would be subject to compliance with existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State, County, and City related to the storage, use, and
disposal of hazardous materials. Implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard
Conditions 4.13.1 and 4.13.2 would ensure impacts to the environment remain less than significant.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.13.1: Construction activities, school
maintenance, and commercial uses that utilize hazardous materials shall comply with applicable
regulations regarding hazardous materials use, handling, storage, transport, and disposal.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.13.2: As needed, future commercial uses and
schools shall obtain a hazardous materials handler permit from the San Bernardino County Fire
Department, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, which would include the
development of a business emergency/contingency plan for hazardous materials and wastes
that would be stored, generated, or treated at these facilities.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that adherence to existing regulations
and implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.13.1 and 4.13.2 would
ensure impacts associated with the routine transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous
materials remain less than significant. As such, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
concluded that impacts would be less than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Construction of the project has the potential to create a hazard
to the public or environment through the routine transportation, use, and disposal of construction-
related hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, and other materials. The transport, use, and
disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be regulated by the San Bernardino
County Fire Department, the Fontana Fire Protection District, and the California Occupational Safety
and Health Administration.
The proposed project would convert approximately 9.3 acres of the Resort Village planning area
from residential to commercial uses and would develop an additional approximately 73,558 square
feet of commercial uses. Although the proposed project would increase commercial uses on the
project site, compliance with Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.13.1 and 4.13.2
would ensure impacts from significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials remain less than significant. Similar to the
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
approved project, adherence to existing regulations and implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR Standard Conditions 4.13.1 and 4.13.2 would reduce impacts from the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials during project operation. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact from the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials when compared to the approved project.
The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as
specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold B: Would the proposed project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, disclosed
that construction activities associated with future development within the boundary of the
approved project could create a significant hazard to the public through the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. Specifically, hazardous materials could be released during mass
grading of the project site. In addition, the disturbance of contaminated soils and/or groundwater
and demolition of contaminated structures could expose construction workers or employees to
health or safety risks. Therefore, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that
Mitigation Measures 4.13.1 through 4.13.5 would be required to reduce potential impacts
associated with the release of hazardous materials to less-than-significant levels. With
implementation of these measures, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation
measures were identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended:
Mitigation Measure 4.13.1 Waste oil drums, television, and other illegally dumped
hazardous wastes on the site shall be disposed at a facility
licensed to accept such hazardous wastes, prior to grading and
excavation activities at the site.
Mitigation Measure 4.13.2: Prior to the development of the eastern central section of the
site (APN 0239-131-045), shallow soil sampling shall be made at
areas which were formally utilized for agricultural purposes, to
determine if residues from pesticide applications remain in the
soil. If the results of the soil testing show chemical levels are
below regulatory levels, grading and excavation may proceed
accordingly. Remediation and/or removal of contaminated soils
shall be made prior to development, if chemical levels are
above regulatory standards. Remediation shall be made in
coordination with the local health department, SCAQMD, the
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory agencies
in compliance with established maximum contaminant levels.
Mitigation Measure 4.13.3: In order to protect the gas pipelines and pumping facility, the
developer shall coordinate and obtain approval from the
Southern California Gas Company for grading and construction
activities and any improvements and structures on or near the
100-foot wide gas line easement along the northwestern
boundary of the site and the pumping facility at the western
section of the site. Specifically, the following measures shall be
followed:
• No structures shall be built over the 100-foot wide gas line
easement although parking areas, driveways and
landscaped areas may be developed over the easement.
• Structures and uses that would preclude or obstruct access
to the aboveground or underground gas lines, through an
approximately 50-foot wide trench along the gas lines, are
not allowed.
• Deep-rooting trees and shrubs that would need to be pulled
out to obtain access to the gas lines are not allowed over
the easement.
• Mechanical equipment are not allowed within three
horizontal feet of the gas lines, in order to prevent damage
to the lines during construction and grading activities. Any
closer work would have to be done by hand.
• At least seven feet of fill is needed over the gas lines where
heavy construction equipment will be crossing over the
easement during construction activities.
• Approval by the Southern California Gas Company would be
needed for any plans over the easement.
• A representative of the Southern California Gas Company
must observe excavation work around and near the facilities
to insure protection of the gas lines.
Mitigation Measure 4.13.4: A perimeter wall and/or security fence shall be provided around
the gas pumping facility, along with a secured gate to prevent
unauthorized entry and damage to the facility.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Mitigation Measure 4.13.5: The applicant shall provide information on the presence of high-
voltage power transmission lines to all potential home buyers.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The project site is predominantly vacant except for electric and
natural gas utility easements and associated facilities. The majority of the site historically consisted
of undeveloped shrubland, except for a small area at the eastern boundary that was in agricultural
use for a short time.
The proposed project would be subject to applicable mitigation measures prescribed by the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, to reduce impacts from the release of hazardous
materials during project construction. However, since the proposed project site is predominately
vacant except for electric and natural gas utility easements and associated facilities, Mitigation
Measure 4.13.1 is not applicable. However, if unanticipated hazardous wastes are identified during
site preparation, Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures 4.13.1 would be
implemented to ensure hazardous materials are handled and transported off-site in accordance
with regulatory standards. Additionally, since a small area at the eastern boundary was in
agricultural use for a short time, Mitigation Measure 4.13.2 applies to the proposed project in order
to reduce impacts from the possible release of hazardous materials during construction. The
proposed project would implement Mitigation Measures 4.13.3 in order to protect the natural gas
utility easements and associated facilities. Mitigation Measure 4.13.4 does not apply to the
proposed project because the SCG Fontana Station is not located within the project site. Similar to
the approved project, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure 4.13.5 and notify
all potential homebuyers of the presence of high-voltage power transmission lines. Although
scientific data are inconclusive and potential impacts are speculative, Mitigation Measure 4.13.5
was identified to ensure any potential effects caused by existing transmission lines are reduced to
below significance.
Implementation of the proposed project would incorporate applicable mitigation measures to
ensure impacts from the release of hazardous materials remain less than significant, and it would
not include impacts not previously analyzed under the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 4.13.1 as prescribed by the Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, would be implemented during site preparation if hazardous waste is identified
on the project site; Mitigation Measures 4.13.2 through 4.13.3 would be implemented during
construction of the proposed project; and Mitigation Measure 4.13.5 would be implemented to
ensure any potential effects caused by existing transmission lines are reduced to below
significance.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impacts related
to a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment when compared to the
approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than
significant with mitigation incorporated, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Threshold C: Would the proposed project emit hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
concluded that neither uses within the approved project nor surrounding uses that exist within one-
quarter mile of the approved project area would generate hazardous emissions or materials that
would affect existing or proposed schools.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, disclosed that hazardous materials could be used in
the construction and operation of new commercial development on parcels within the boundary of
the approved project, 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. However, uses
under the approved project are not expected to emit hazardous or toxic emissions that may affect
schools since no industrial or manufacturing uses are proposed. Although temporary construction
activities would include the use of paints, thinners, solvents, acids, curing compounds, grease, oils,
diesel fuel and gasoline, and other chemicals, routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
waste are subject to local, State, and federal regulations and therefore also are not expected to
affect schools within one-quarter mile of the project.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that compliance with existing regulations
and implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.13.1 and 4.13.2 would
minimize exposure of hazardous materials to nearby schools. Therefore, the Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, concluded that impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials or
emissions of hazardous substances within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would
be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were identified.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Kordyak Elementary School (4580 Mango Avenue) is located
approximately 200 feet east of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project has the potential to
handle hazardous materials or release emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing school.
However, similar to the approved project, any transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials
would be subject to applicable regulations intended to minimize the risks to schools associated with
the exposure to hazardous materials. For instance, the transport of hazardous materials associated
with construction of the proposed project would be in accordance with the U.S. Department of
Transportation, which regulates the transport of hazardous materials and waste and requires
carriers to register with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Additionally,
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.13.1 and 4.13.2 identified by the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended, to reduce impacts would also apply to the proposed project prior to
and during construction.
Similar to the approved project, adherence to existing regulations and implementation of
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.13.1 and 4.13.2 would reduce impacts related
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
to the accidental release of hazardous materials or emissions of hazardous substances within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact from the
accidental release of hazardous materials or emissions of hazardous substances within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school when compared to the approved project. The overall impact
within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold D: Would the proposed project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that the approved project site is not listed on any hazardous materials database of
environmental concern. However, environmental site assessments identified select parcels within
the approved project area that may contain agricultural chemical residues and other hazardous
wastes from historical uses that could pose a hazard to construction workers and future occupants.
Impacts related to hazardous materials would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation
Measures 4.13.1 and 4.13.2 (see Threshold B above). As such, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, concluded that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. Refer to Mitigation Measures
4.13.1 and 4.13.2.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 are listed on the “Cortese List” (named after the Legislator who authored the
legislation that enacted it), which is maintained by the DTSC. The proposed project site is not listed
on any hazardous materials database of environmental concern. However, a portion of the project
site was formally used for agricultural activities for a short time. Accordingly, Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.13.1 and 4.13.2 and Mitigation Measures 4.13.1 and 4.13.2 will be
implemented to ensure impacts from construction of the proposed project site are less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 4.13.1 and 4.13.2 as prescribed by the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended, would be implemented to ensure impacts related to hazardous
waste and past agriculture uses on the project site are less than significant.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact
associated with the Cortese List or other governmental databases compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 when compared to the approved project. The overall impact
within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated,
as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Threshold E: Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, identified
that the approved project is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport that could cause affect the approved project area. The Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that the approved project would have no impact from
local airports and no mitigation measures were identified.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The project site is located approximately 11.75 miles north of
the Ontario International Airport. The project site is not located within two miles of a public use
airport. The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) was revised in July
2018 (after the October 2012 certification of the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,);
therefore, the ALUCP’s Policy Maps have changed since the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, was prepared and certified. Similar to the approved project, the project site is not located
within the Airport Influence Area of the Ontario International Airport.19 The proposed project would
not alter the project site location, and it would not include impacts not previously analyzed under
the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, no impact would occur from implementation of the
proposed project.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to airport hazards or noise when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain no impact, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
Threshold 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?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined no private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the approved project. The
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that the approved project would have no
impact relating to private airstrip safety hazards and no mitigation measures were identified.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
19 Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Policy Map 2-1, Airport Influence Area. July
2018. Website: https://www.ont-iac.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ONT-AIA-policy-map-2-1.pdf
(accessed October 2025).
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip. Because no private airstrips are near the project site, the proposed project would not result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The proposed project would not
alter the project site location, and it would not include impacts not previously analyzed under the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, no impact would occur from implementation of the
proposed project.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to private airstrip hazards when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain no impact, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
Threshold G: Would the proposed project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. Implementation of the approved project would not
obstruct emergency evacuation of nearby areas along surrounding streets; additionally, emergency
evacuation from within the project site would occur along Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road.
Compliance with the Uniform Fire Code and Fire Protection District regulations on emergency access
will ensure impacts are less than significant and no mitigation measures were identified.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed SPA project site is currently vacant and is not part
of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Emergency evacuation from
the proposed project site will be provided via primary gated entries along Duncan Canyon Road and
Cypress Avenue, and secondary gates would remain on Grapeland Street and Sierra Avenue. Under
the proposed project, a decrease in collector street acreage is proposed compared to the approved
project. Similar to the approved project, the proposed project would adhere to established
regulations regarding adequate ingress and egress for public and emergency purposes. Additionally,
the proposed project would be compliant with the Uniform Fire Code and Fire Protection District
regulations on emergency access. Since the proposed project would be consistent with the
established regulations regarding site access, the proposed project would not impair with an
emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts relating to an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to
adopted emergency response plans and/or evacuation plans when compared to the approved
project. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as
specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Threshold H: Would the proposed project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, 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?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. According to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, the approved project would develop a vacant property with urban uses that would
eliminate the potential for brush fires. However, SCG high-pressure gas lines proceed underground
through an SCG easement along the northwestern boundary of the approved project. To mitigate
the potential fire risk from natural gas equipment failure, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, Mitigation Measures 4.13.3 and 4.13.4 require SCE to review development plans
proposed within 100 feet of the equipment and construction of a perimeter wall and/or security
fence around the pumping facility to reduce the risk of fire hazards. As such, the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. Refer to Mitigation Measures
4.13.3 and 4.13.4 above.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Similar to the approved project, the proposed project would
comply with the Uniform Fire Code and Fire Protection District regulations. As discussed in Section
2.0, Project Description, natural gas easements are within a portion of the project site. Therefore,
the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measures 4.13.3 to ensure no structures are
built over the 100-foot wide gas line easement. Mitigation Measure 4.13.4, requiring the
construction of a perimeter wall around the SCG Fontana Station, does not apply to the proposed
project because the SCG Fontana Station is not located within the proposed project area. The
proposed project would not include impacts not previously analyzed under the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, project-specific impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures. Refer to Mitigation Measures 4.13.3.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact
associated with wildland fire hazards when compared to the approved project. The overall impact
within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated,
as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
3.9.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent
environmental document to address impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials is not
warranted.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the proposed project violate any
water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially
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 we
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
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-
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site; creates or
contributes runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
quality;
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation
structures which would impede or redirect
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam; or,
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.10.1 Impact Analysis
The approved project’s impacts on hydrology, water quality, and flooding were analyzed in
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Section 4.8.
Threshold A: Would the proposed project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. According to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, water quality could be degraded during construction and operation of individual, site-
specific development within the approved project boundary. However, the Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, determined that with Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.8.1
through 4.8.4, these impacts would be minimized.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.8.1: The project shall comply with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction
Activity, which requires projects on one acre or more to notify the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for
construction activities. SWPPPs shall be prepared for each construction phase or construction
area.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.8.2: The project shall comply with the NPDES
regarding the implementation of source and treatment control measures and other best
management practices for long-term storm water pollutant mitigation, as contained in the
project’s Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and as approved by the City. WQMPs shall
be prepared for each village or planning area, which provide specific locations, sizes, and
calculations for BMPs to be implemented on-site.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.8.3: The project shall construct the necessary
on-site and off-site storm drain infrastructure to connect to the City of Fontana’s storm drainage
system, in order to prevent the creation of flood hazards on-site and in downstream areas, as
approved by the Fontana City Engineer.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.8.4: The project shall provide temporary
detention basins on site to maintain runoff flows at 90 percent of existing volume and at existing
rates, if downstream storm drain lines, channels, detention basins, and other related facilities
are not in place or fully improved at the time of development, subject to approval of the City
Engineer.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR discusses potential effects related to an existing septic tank located
on a former residential property in the northwest corner of the approved project area, which is not
located within the Resort Village area. The abandonment and removal of the septic tank would have
the potential to cause an adverse impact to groundwater if not properly abandoned or removed.
The EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8.1, which requires removal of
the septic tank in accordance with San Bernardino County Environmental Health Department
permits and procedures, would reduce this impact to less than significant.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR also states that stormwater runoff from the southern portion of the
site, which does not include the Resort Village area, would not be treated on-site but would be
directed into Sierra Lakes for percolation and settlement of pollutants, prior to discharge into the
SR-210 Freeway storm drain channel. Mitigation Measures 4.8.2a and 4.8.2b were identified to
reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Therefore, the EIR determined that the resulting conveyance of stormwater pollutants into off-site
storm drains would result in impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation
measures were identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended:
Mitigation Measure 4.8.1: The existing septic tank shall be abandoned and removed prior
to redevelopment of the parcel occupied by the former
residence, in accordance with San Bernardino County
Environmental Health Department permits and procedures.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.2a: Future developments on the southern section of the site would
need to prepare and implement a WQMP that provides
hydrologic and hydraulic calculations showing there is capacity
at Sierra Lakes to handle additional stormwater volume and
stormwater pollutants from the site and other tributary areas of
the lake and that no adverse impacts on downstream water
bodies and other hydrologic conditions of concern would occur,
subject to approval by the Sierra Lakes Golf Course
Management Company and the City of Fontana.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.2b: Improvements needed to allow the existing risers, drainage
pipes, and Sierra Lakes to serve the stormwater treatment
needs of future developments on the southern section of the
site would need to be provided prior to the connection of on-
site storm drain lines to the Sierra Lakes system and as part of
the development, subject to approval by the Sierra Lakes Golf
Course Management Company and the City of Fontana.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. As determined in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
construction and operation of development projects within the approved project planning area,
including the proposed project, could result in the degradation of water quality.
Pollutants of concern during construction include sediment, trash, petroleum products, concrete
waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in
combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During demolition
and construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased
potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals,
liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
may be spilled or leaked during construction. Any of these pollutants have the potential to be
transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters (i.e., San Sevaine Creek, Santa Ana River,
and Pacific Ocean).
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.8.1 through 4.8.4 would remain relevant for the
proposed project, and would require: compliance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction
General Permit including preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of best management
practices (BMPs) to ensure that construction practices include measures to protect water quality
and prevent illegal discharges; preparation of a WQMP and treatment BMPs to reduce stormwater
pollution potential and prevent adverse impacts to stormwater quality; connection of appropriate
storm-drain infrastructure with the City’s system; and implementation of temporary measures to
contain runoff flows if infrastructure is not fully in place at time of development.
Mitigation Measures 4.8.1, 4.8.2a, and 4.8.2b would not be relevant to the proposed project, as the
existing septic tank in the approved project area was not located within the Resort Village area, and
the stormwater runoff from the southern portion of the site to Sierra Lakes would not include the
Resort Village area. The project site is in the northern portion of the approved project area and
stormwater would not be directed to Sierra Lakes.
With adherence to NPDES regulations and applicable City Municipal Code requirements identified
above, impacts associated with a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or a substantial degradation of surface or groundwater quality during project
construction and operation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. None of the mitigation measures identified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR would apply to the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have reduced impacts compared to the
approved project, and therefore there would be no new or more severe impact related to water
quality when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific
Plan would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as specified in the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold B: Substantially depletes 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);
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. According to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, groundwater beneath the approved project area was found to be deeper than 150 feet
below ground. Therefore, construction activities would not directly affect groundwater. Additionally,
the approved project would be served by the West Valley Water District (WVWD) from five regional
groundwater basins and two surface water sources. The Water Supply Assessment for the approved
project concluded there would be sufficient water supply to serve the approved project until 2025
under various conditions (normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years) assuming no limited
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
groundwater pumping. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that the approved project’s
impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Similar to the approved project, groundwater at the proposed
project site is expected to be approximately 150 feet below the ground surface. Therefore,
construction activities would not directly affect groundwater quality or supply. Construction of the
proposed project would include excavation activities on the project site, and full build out and
operation of the proposed project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces on the project
site, both of which could decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR referenced the 2004 WVWD Water Master Plan in its determination
that the WVWD would have adequate water supply to serve the approved project, including
development at the proposed project site, until 2025 under normal year, single-dry year, and
multiple-dry year conditions. The most recent water supply assessment prepared by the WVWD is
the Water Facilities Master Plan, approved in July 2020.20 This report accounts for the planned
development of the approved project, including the Resort Village, and indicates that WVWD will
continue to use wells to extract groundwater, including from the Bunker Hill Basin, along with other
water sources, such as the purchase of baseline feeder water from the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District, to supply water to future developments, including the proposed project.
Therefore, the proposed project would not deplete ground supplies or interfere with groundwater
recharge activities. Impacts to groundwater and groundwater supply remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge when compared to the approved project. The
overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in
the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold C: Substantially alters 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 (i.e. within a watershed)?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that the approved project would alter drainage patterns on the project site due to an
increase in impervious groundcover which would lead to decreased infiltration and increased
stormwater runoff. Increased stormwater runoff would increase the potential of erosion, siltation,
and on- and off-site flooding. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that the effects caused by
increased stormwater runoff would be reduced through the implementation of Mitigation
20 West Valley Water District. 2020. Water Facilities Master Plan. July. Website: 2020-Water-Facilities-
Master-Plan_Final_20200716.pdf (accessed October 2025).
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Measures 4.8.2a and 4.8.2b and compliance with Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions
4.8.1 through 4.8.4 to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, identified Mitigation Measures 4.8.2a and 4.8.2b, included under Threshold A,
above.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The project site is in the northeastern portion of the approved
project area and does not contain a stream or river. Similar to the proposed project, development of
the proposed project would alter the drainage pattern of the site which would lead to decreased
infiltration and increased stormwater runoff. As discussed above, Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
Standard Conditions 4.8.1 through 4.8.4 would remain relevant for the proposed project, and would
require: compliance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit including
preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs to ensure that construction practices include
measures to protect water quality and prevent illegal discharges including erosion and siltation;
preparation of a WQMP and treatment BMPs to reduce stormwater pollution potential and prevent
adverse impacts to stormwater quality including erosion and siltation; connection of appropriate
storm-drain infrastructure with the City’s system; and implementation of temporary measures to
contain runoff flows if infrastructure is not fully in place at time of development. The proposed
project would include a stormwater drainage system that would be designed to capture and treat
stormwater runoff to limit erosion, siltation, and flooding on and off the project site. The treated
stormwater from the project site would connect to the City’s stormwater system in Duncan Canyon
Road and Cypress Avenue. The project site is in the northern portion of the approved project area
and stormwater would not be directed to Sierra Lakes. Although the proposed project would modify
the drainage pattern of the project site, no streams or rivers located downstream of the project site
would be directly impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, impacts on existing or planned
drainage systems resulting in siltation and erosion during project construction and operation would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. None of the mitigation measures identified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR would apply to the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have reduced impacts compared to the
approved project, therefore there would be no new or more severe impact related to on- or off-site
erosion or siltation. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than
significant with mitigation incorporated, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
Threshold D: 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 substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff (e.g., due to increased impervious surfaces) in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site (i.e. within a watershed)?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR further concluded that
while the approved project would alter drainage patterns within the project area, the proposed
storm drain lines proposed within the approved project would connect to off-site facilities that have
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
been sized to accommodate the approved project. To ensure the approved project would not cause
flooding on- and off-site, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR identified Mitigation Measures 4.8.2a and
4.8.2b, and compliance with Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.8.1 through 4.8.4.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR determined that implementation of these measures would ensure
impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, identified Mitigation Measures 4.8.2a and 4.8.2b, included under Threshold A,
above.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Please refer to the above analysis in Sections 5.7.2(a) and (c). The
proposed project would be designed to capture and treat surface runoff. As designed and with
compliance with Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.8.1 through 4.8.4, the
proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of stormwater runoff that
would cause flooding on- and off-site or significantly contribute to runoff water that would exceed
the capacity of the surrounding stormwater drainage system. Project impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures. None of the mitigation measures identified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR would apply to the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have reduced impacts compared to the
approved project, therefore there would be no new or more severe impact related to changes to
drainage patterns causing flooding on- or off-site. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific
Plan would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as specified in the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold E: Would the proposed project 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?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that while
the approved project would alter drainage patterns within the project area, the proposed storm
drain lines proposed within the approved project would connect to off-site facilities that have been
sized to accommodate the approved project. To ensure the approved project would not exceed the
capacity of existing and planned stormwater drainage systems, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
identified Mitigation Measures 4.8.2a and 4.8.2b, and compliance with Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
Standard Conditions 4.8.1 through 4.8.4. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR determined that
implementation of these measures would ensure impacts would be reduced to less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, identified Mitigation Measures 4.8.2a and 4.8.2b, included under Threshold A,
above.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Please refer to the above analysis in Sections 5.7.2(a) and (c).
With compliance with Standard Measures 4.8.1 through 4.8.4, the proposed project would be
designed to capture and treat surface runoff. As designed, the proposed project would not
substantially increase the rate or amount of stormwater runoff that would significantly contribute to
runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the surrounding stormwater drainage system.
Project impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. None of the mitigation measures identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR would apply to the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have reduced impacts compared to the
approved project, therefore there would be no new or more severe impact related to change to
drainage causing exceedances of the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant with
mitigation incorporated, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold F: Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that the
approved project would be subject to the Clean Water Act and NPDES, including preparation of a
SWPPP and WQMP, which would ensure construction activities and the proposed improvements
within the Specific Plan area would be designed to limit water quality impacts. The Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Similar to the approved project, the proposed project would be
subject to the Clean Water Act and NPDES, including preparation of a SWPPP and WQMP.
Construction activities and the proposed improvements within the Specific Plan area would be
designed to limit water quality impacts. Similar to the approved project, impacts related to
degradation of water quality resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to a degradation of water quality. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would
remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold G: Would the project 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?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that no
housing or structures would be placed within a 100-year flood hazard area, and no people or
structures would be exposed to significant risk caused by flooding. No impact would occur.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Similar to the approved project, the proposed project is not
located within a 100-year floodplain.21 No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would remain no impact, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold H: Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that no
housing or structures would be placed within a 100-year flood hazard area, and no people or
structures would be exposed to significant risk caused by flooding. No impact would occur.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Similar to the approved project, the proposed project is not
located within a 100-year floodplain.22 No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to placing structures which would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard
area. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain no impact, as specified in
the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold I: Would the project 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?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that, as the
approved project is located in an inland area and not near a large open body of water, and the site
does not feature step slopes that may lead to mudflow hazards, the approved project is therefore
not subject to potential inundation including as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Future
development on the site would not be exposed to inundation including as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR determined that there would be no impacts.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
21 FEMA. 2008. Flood Maps 06071C7915H and 06071C7920H. Effective August 28, 2008.
22 FEMA. 2008. Flood Maps 06071C7915H and 06071C7920H. Effective August 28, 2008.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project site is within the approved project site,
and therefore the proposed project site would similarly not be subject to potential inundation
including as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Further, inundation mapping gathered by the
California Department of Water Resource, Division of Safety of Dams shows that the project site is
not within the inundation risk mapping for any nearby dams or levees.23 Future development on the
site resulting from the proposed project would not be exposed to inundation including as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam. There would be no impacts.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to inundation including as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain no impact, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
Threshold J: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that, as the
approved project is located in an inland area and not near a large open body of water, and the site
does not feature step slopes that may lead to mudflow hazards, the approved project is therefore
not subject to potential inundation including by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Future development
on the site would not be exposed to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
determined that there would be no impacts.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. As previously discussed, the proposed project site is within the
approved project site, and therefore the proposed project site would similarly not be subject to
potential inundation including by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to potential inundation including by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain no impact, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
3.10.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the
23 Department of Water Resource, Division of Safety of Dams. 2025. California Dam Breach Inundation Map
Web Publisher. Website: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 (accessed
October 2025).
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent
environmental document to address impacts related to hydrology and water quality is not
warranted.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the proposed project physically
divide an established community?
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
any applicable habitat conservation plan or
3.11.1 Impact Analysis
The certified Arboretum Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impacts on land use and planning in Section
4.2.
Threshold A: Would the proposed project physically divide an established community?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. According to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, the
approved project would develop the vacant project site with residential commercial, school, and
park uses. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that the approved project
would develop four residential villages but would not divide an established community since the
project site is undeveloped and adjacent lands are also largely vacant. Therefore, the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that no impact would occur.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The physical division of an established community typically
refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate or railroad tracks) or removal
of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing
community, or between a community and outlying area. For instance, the construction of an
interstate highway or railroad track through an existing community may constrain travel from one
side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also impair travel to areas
outside the community.
The proposed project is predominantly vacant, except for electric and natural gas utility easements
and associated facilities. The project site is located between a single residence and undeveloped
shrubland to the north, Duncan Canyon Road to the south, and is bounded by Sierra Avenue to the
east, and The Gardens Village under development to the west.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
The proposed project would convert approximately 9.3 acres of the Resort Village planning area
from residential to commercial uses, and would develop approximately 73,558 square feet of
commercial uses. The proposed project would also reconfigure the proposed residential mix,
resulting in a decrease in the average adjusted gross density within the Resort Village from 11.2 to
10.5 residential units per acre, and a decrease in the acreage of collector streets from 14.6 acres to
7.01 acres. The proposed project includes roadway and infrastructure improvements to support the
proposed development, none of which would divide an existing community in the project vicinity.
Therefore, none of the changes in the proposed project would divide an established community and
would not include impacts not previously analyzed under the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR.
Therefore, no impact would occur from implementation of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact on an
established community when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain no impact, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
Threshold B: Would the proposed project 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?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. To address this threshold, the Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, analyzed the consistency of the approved project with the City of Fontana General
Plan, the City of Fontana Zoning and Development Code, the North Fontana Redevelopment Plan,
and SCAG regional plans. The approved project amended the land use designations and zoning
districts for the entire Arboretum Specific Plan area, including the project site. Per the EIR for the
Arboretum Specific Plan, Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 were
identified to limit conflicts on land use plans, policies, and regulations associated with future
commercial land uses near residential uses of the approved project.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.2.1: Future developments on the project site
shall comply with the development and design standards in the Arboretum Specific Plan and the
City’s Zoning and Development Code for requirements not superseded by the Specific Plan.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.2.2: Future developments on the project site
shall comply with the City’s performance standards and the development policies for land use
compatibility.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that implementation of standard conditions would
reduce significant impacts related to conflicts on land use plans, policies, and regulations to less
than significant.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. As discussed above, the proposed project includes a density
decrease from 11.2 residential units per acre, to 10.5 residential units per acre, and a decrease of
the acreage of collector streets from 14.6 acres to 7.01 acres. The proposed project would also
convert approximately 9.3 acres of the Resort Village planning area from residential to commercial
uses, and would develop approximately 73,558 square feet of commercial uses. As approved, this
village would feature a mix of single-family lots, medium and high-density residential units, an
elementary school, and a commercial activity center area. As proposed, the village would continue
to feature a mix of single-family lots, medium and high-density residential units, parks, and an
elementary school, but would add community commercial uses. As previously approved, one 8.8-
acre commercial area would be located at the southeastern corner of the planning area at the Sierra
Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road intersection, and as currently proposed, the second 9.3-acre
commercial area would be located along the eastern border of the site, northwest of the current
intersection of Sierra Avenue and Terra Vista Drive. The proposed project would remain consistent
with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Code, and regional plans because the changes in scope involve
land use designations previously analyzed to be consistent under the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR.
Implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 would limit
conflicts on land use plans, policies, and regulations associated with future commercial land uses
near residential uses of the proposed project.
Since the project would be developed in accordance with all applicable development regulations,
which is confirmed during the City’s review process; none of the changes in the proposed project
would conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact on any
land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold C: Would the proposed project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The EIR concluded the Arboretum Specific Plan would
comply with the then-active interim North Fontana MSHCP, which required the payment of fees in
accordance with the adopted fee schedule to provide mitigation for the project’s incremental
impacts on the loss of habitat areas for sensitive plants and animals through the conservation of off-
site habitat. It was determined that implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard
Condition 4.9.1 would ensure compliance with the City’s interim program for the MSHCP. The
project as approved would comply with the City’s established programs to conserve off-site habitat
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
and no conflict with the then-active MSHCP was identified. Impacts related to this issue were
determined to be less than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. As discussed in Section 3.6, Biological Resources, the North
Fontana Interim MSHCP no longer exists and Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.9.1 is
no longer applicable. There are no other applicable Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community
Conservation Plans, or any other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans in the project
area. Therefore, like the approved project, the proposed project would not conflict with the
provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact on any
applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan when compared to the
approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than
significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
3.11.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to land use and planning. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent
environmental document to address impacts related to land use and planning is not warranted.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the proposed result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and
loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or
3.12.1 Impact Analysis
The certified Arboretum Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impacts to mineral resources in Section 8.2.
Threshold A: Would the proposed 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
Threshold B: Would the proposed 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
plans?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that there are no mining activities within the City, including the approved project
planning area. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR also determined that the approved project area is
currently planned for residential, commercial, and mixed uses, which would not be compatible with
mineral extraction activities. As such, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that
implementation of the approved project would not result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resources or locally important mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would occur and no
mitigation measures were identified.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-
3) which is defined as an area containing mineral deposits, but the significance of which cannot be
evaluated.24 The project site is surrounded by existing development or planned development,
including The Arboretum Village planned for development to the west, a single-family residence and
undeveloped shrubland to the north, residential uses and Kordyak Elementary School to the east,
and The Gardens Village under development to the south. Mineral resources mining is not a use
compatible with either the existing or the proposed on-site and surrounding land uses. Additionally,
24 California Department of Conservation. Mineral Land Classification Map, San Bernardino P-C Region.
Devore Quadrangle, Special Report 143, Plate 7.2. 1975.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
the City’s General Plan does not account for mineral resource land conservation within its City limits,
and City Municipal Code (Chapter 9 - Environmental Protection and Resource Extraction) establishes
regulations to ensure future mining activities do not obstruct existing and planned urban land uses.
The proposed project would not alter the project site location, and it would not include impacts not
previously analyzed under the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, no impact would occur from
implementation of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to
mineral resources when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain no impact, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
3.12.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to mineral resources. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental
document to address impacts related to mineral resources is not warranted.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.13 NOISE
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the proposed project cause
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
exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
3.13.1 Impact Analysis
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR analyzed the approved project’s impacts on noise in Section 4.6.
This section is based on the project-specific Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis25 (Appendix C) that
was conducted for the proposed project.
Threshold A: Would the proposed project cause 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?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, used the
City Noise Ordinance to analyze short-term construction-related impacts, and used standards in the
City’s General Plan Noise Element to evaluate the approved project’s long-term operational noise
levels. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR requires City-sponsored development applications to comply
with Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.6.1, as follows:
25 LSA. 2025b. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis for the proposed Resort Village Amendment to the
Arboretum Specific Plan Project in Fontana, California. July 16.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.6.1: Construction activities on the project
site shall comply with City regulations on time limits for construction activity. Construction
activities would have to comply with the construction time limits (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
weekdays, unless otherwise approved by the City and the Engineer or in case of an emergency);
loading/unloading of boxes; transport of metal rails, pillars and columns; and the use of pile
drivers, steam shovels, pneumatic hammers and other noisy construction equipment shall be
conducted within allowable times (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) as set by the Fontana Noise
Ordinance.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR concluded that construction activities would generate potentially
significant noise levels that could be mitigated to less than significant through the implementation
of Mitigation Measures 4.6.1a and 4.6.1b.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that the approved project would cause an
incremental increase in area-wide noise levels within the project site and surrounding areas. Citrus
Avenue, Duncan Canyon Road, Cypress Avenue, Casa Grande Avenue, Grapeland Street, and Sierra
Avenue would experience noise levels over 65 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL). Perimeter block walls and building setbacks would reduce traffic noise at sensitive receptors
to less than 65 dB CNEL. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, identified Mitigation
Measures 4.6.2a and 4.6.2b to minimize operational noise impacts on nearby residences.
According to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, high traffic volumes on Citrus Avenue,
Duncan Canyon Road, Cypress Avenue, Casa Grande Avenue, Grapeland Street, and Sierra Avenue
may exceed the City of Fontana’s interior residential and school noise standards of 45 dB CNEL.
However, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that implementation of
Mitigation Measures 4.6.4 and 4.6.5 would minimize the severity of interior noise impacts.
Therefore, noise impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation
measures were identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended:
Mitigation Measure 4.6.1a: During construction, the following measures shall be
implemented to reduce noise on sensitive receptors:
• All off-road construction equipment shall have properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
• Stockpiling and equipment/vehicle staging shall be
conducted as far as practicable from occupied dwelling
units or other nearby noise-sensitive land uses.
• Idling of construction equipment shall be limited to 5
minutes, as required by law. Equipment shall be turned off
when not in use.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Schedule noisy activities and impulsive noise generation,
such as pile driving or jackhammers, during the late morning
and early afternoon hours near residences, or temporary
barriers shall be erected, if necessary.
• Schedule noisy activities and impulsive noise generation,
such as pile driving or jackhammers, near schools when
schools are not in session or temporary barriers shall be
erected, if necessary.
• Inform abutting residents and schools of the construction
schedule for areas under construction.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.1b: A noise impact mitigation plan shall be submitted and
implemented for major construction within 500 feet of any
occupied residence that incorporates temporary barriers,
maximum set-backs and upgraded equipment as necessary.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.2a: Perimeter walls shall be provided along residential areas to
meet the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL, as
follows:
Roadway Segment
Citrus Avenue 6
Sierra Avenue 6
Grapeland Street 5
Duncan Canyon Road 6
Casa Grande Avenue 5
Mitigation Measure 4.6.2b: Increased setbacks from the roadway centerline shall be
provided if noise wall heights are less than those listed above,
which are capable of achieving an exterior noise level of 65 dBA
CNEL or less. Setback requirements are as follows:
Roadway Segment Noise Contour
Citrus Avenue 260
Cypress Avenue 50
Sierra Avenue 275
Grapeland Street 115
Duncan Canyon Road 200
Casa Grande Avenue 110
Mitigation Measure 4.6.3: The proposed commercial retail center shall be required to
provide supplemental noise analysis to show that indoor
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
commercial areas would meet the interior standard of 55 dBA
CNEL and outdoor use areas (such as patio dining areas) would
meet the exterior standard of 70 dBA CNEL.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.4: A supplemental acoustical analysis shall be submitted in
conjunction with the issuance of building permits to verify that
adequate structural noise protection will be provided in
residences adjoining arterial roadways to meet the 45 dBA CNEL
interior standard. This includes the provision of closed dual-
paned windows with supplemental ventilation for residences
along Duncan Canyon Road, Cypress Avenue, and Casa Grande
Avenue. The use of upgraded dualpaned windows, with
supplemental ventilation, baffles in vents, and absorbers in
ducts shall be provided for residences along Citrus Avenue. Dual
layer drywall, triple-paned windows, steel doors and other
custom upgrades shall be provided for residences along Sierra
Avenue.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.5: Design and planning of the schools shall implement structural
noise protection as necessary to meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior
standard.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. As required by Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
Mitigation Measure 4.6.3, a Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix C)26 was prepared to
evaluate noise impacts during construction and operation of the proposed project. The findings of
that analysis are included in this section.
Similar to the approved project, analysis for the proposed project used the City Noise Ordinance to
analyze short-term construction-related impacts, and used standards in the City’s General Plan
Noise Element to evaluate the approved project’s long-term operational noise levels.
The City’s residential noise control guidelines, codified in Section 30-469 of the City’s Municipal
Code, establishes an exterior noise level standard of 65 A-weighted decibels (dBA) as measured at
the property line of any residential-zoned property. Section 18-63(b)(7) of the City’s Municipal Code
establishes exemption criteria for construction activities, specifically exempting noise generated
from construction between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
The City has not established daytime construction noise level limits for construction activities that
occur within the specified hours prescribed in the City Municipal Code; therefore, construction noise
standards from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment Manual (FTA Manual) are used to determine the potential noise impacts during project
26 LSA. 2025. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis for the proposed Resort Village Amendment to the
Arboretum Specific Plan Project in Fontana, California.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
construction. The FTA criteria establishes daytime exterior noise standards of 80 dBA for residential,
85 dBA for commercial, and 90 for dBA for industrial land uses.27
Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts. Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur
during project construction. The first type would be from construction crew commutes and the
transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site and would incrementally
raise noise levels on roadways leading to the site. The pieces of construction equipment for
construction activities would move on site, would remain for the duration of each construction
phase, and would not add to the daily traffic volume in the project vicinity. Although there
would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise
nuisance (passing trucks at 50 feet would generate up to a maximum of 84 dBA), the effect of
daily construction-related vehicle trips on longer-term (daily) ambient noise levels would be
small compared to the daily traffic volume on Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road, which
would be used to access the project site. Based on the detailed calculations in the project-
specific Traffic Impact Analysis,28 construction-related traffic would increase noise by up to 1.9
dBA. A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an
outdoor environment. However, similar to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, the new elementary
school and residences constructed in the earlier phases would potentially be impacted by
construction-related traffic of later phases. Implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
Standard Condition 4.6.1 and Mitigation Measures 4.6.1a and 4.6.1b, as identified in the EIR,
would reduce noise impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Table 8: Existing (2025) Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
from Centerline
of Outermost
Duncan Canyon Road Between I-15 NB Ramps
and John Previti Avenue 11,000 < 50 85 173 65.4
10,995 < 50 79 171 67.3
5,275 < 50 < 50 69 61.4
4,375 < 50 < 50 61 60.6
3,820 < 50 < 50 56 60.0
3,870 < 50 < 50 57 60.1
3,575 < 50 < 50 55 59.1
27 LSA. 2025. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis for the proposed Resort Village Amendment to the
Arboretum Specific Plan Project in Fontana, California.
28 Translutions. 2025. The Resort Village Traffic Impact Analysis.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Table 8: Existing (2025) Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
from Centerline
of Outermost
Duncan Canyon Road East of Sierra Avenue 660 < 50 < 50 < 50 48.9
Sierra Avenue Between I-15 NB Ramps and
Riverside Avenue 20,900 82 172 367 70.8
11,530 54 115 247 69.7
11,460 57 116 246 68.5
11,460 57 116 246 68.5
15,240 68 140 298 69.4
15,240 68 140 298 69.4
13,945 65 132 281 69.0
13,890 65 132 280 69.0
13,800 64 131 279 69.0
6,575 < 50 61 123 63.6
--1 -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- --
North Driveway and Elementary School South -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- --
1,350 < 50 < 50 < 50 54.0
1,655 < 50 < 50 < 50 54.9
-- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- --
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Table 8: Existing (2025) Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 65 dBA
CNEL (ft)
Centerline
to 60 dBA
CNEL (ft)
from Centerline
of Outermost
ADT = average daily traffic
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level I-15 = Interstate 15
The second type of short-term noise impact is related noise generated from construction
activities. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of
equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. The proposed project would be
constructed in four phases in response to market demand. The following phases are anticipated:
• Phase 1 Opening Year (2026): This phase includes the elementary school and retail C-1
planning areas. Site preparation and grading would be conducted for the entire site.
• Phase 2 Opening Year (2028): This phase includes half of the residential units located in the
northeast quadrant, half of the residential units located in the southwest quadrant, and half
of the residential units located in the southeast quadrant.
• Phase 3 Opening Year (2030): This phase includes all remaining residential units (all
quadrants).
• Phase 4 Opening Year (2032): This phase includes the retail C-2 planning area, which
completes the project.
Project construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction,
paving, and architectural coating phases of construction. These various sequential phases
change the character of the noise generated on a project site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as
construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment,
similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related
noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 9 lists the maximum instantaneous noise
level (Lmax) recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment
included in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Construction Noise Handbook
(2006), based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor.
Table 9: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Description 1 (%) Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 feet2
Backhoe 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Crane 16 85
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Table 9: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Description 1 (%) Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 feet2
Dozer 40 85
Dump Truck 40 84
Excavator 40 85
Flatbed Truck 40 84
Man Lift (Forklift) 20 85
Front-End Loader 40 80
Generator 50 82
Generator (<25kVA, VMS) 50 70
Grader 40 85
Jackhammer 20 85
Pavement Scarifier 20 85
Paver 50 85
Pickup Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pump 50 77
Rock Drill 20 85
Roller 20 85
Scraper 40 85
Tractor 40 84
Welder/Torch 40 73
Source: Table 9.1, FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook (FHWA 2006).
Note: The noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number.
1 Usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction equipment is
operating at full power.
2 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Specification 721.560 from the CA/T program to be consistent with the
FHWA = Federal Highway
Administration
max
VMS = variable message sign
Table 10 lists the anticipated construction equipment for each construction phase within each
project phase based on the CalEEMod (version 2022.1) results contained in Attachment B of the
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Arboretum Specific Plan
Amendment (LSA 2025). Table 10 shows the combined noise level at 50 feet from all of the
equipment in each phase and the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) noise level for each
equipment at 50 feet based on the quantity, reference Lmax noise level at 50 feet, and the
acoustical usage factor. As shown in Table 10, construction noise levels would reach up to 87.6
Leq at a distance of 50 feet.
Table 10: Summary of Construction Phase, Equipment, and Noise Levels
Project
Phase
Construction
Phase
Construction
Equipment Quantity Noise Level
at 50 ft
Acoustical
Usage
Factor1 (%)
Level
at 50 ft
Noise Level
at 50 ft
Phase 1 Site Preparation Dozer 3 85 40 85.8 87.3
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Table 10: Summary of Construction Phase, Equipment, and Noise Levels
Project
Phase
Construction
Phase
Construction
Equipment Quantity Noise Level
at 50 ft
Acoustical
Usage
Factor1 (%)
Level
at 50 ft
Noise Level
at 50 ft
Front End Loader 4 80 40 82.0
Grading
Building
Construction
Paving
Compressor (air)
Phase 2,
3, and 4
Building
Construction
Paving
Compressor (air)
eq
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Table 11 shows that the construction noise levels at the closest off-site residence and off-site
school properties would reach up to 64.5 dBA Leq and 67.9 dBA Leq, respectively, from the center
of the closest Planning Area. Construction noise is temporary and would stop once project
construction is completed. Furthermore, construction related noise levels would be below the
FTA noise level standard of 80 dBA Leq. However, similar to the approved EIR, the new
elementary school and residences constructed in the earlier phases would potentially be
impacted by project construction activities of later phases.
Table 11: Construction Noise Levels
Land Use Direction Noise Level at Distance1
(ft) Attenuation Shielding
(dBA)
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Residence Northeast 87.6 640 22.1 52 60.5
School East 87.6 485 19.7 0 67.9
Residence East 87.6 445 19.0 53 63.6
Residence South 87.6 410 18.3 54 64.3
Source: Compiled by LSA (2025).
1 Distance from the center of the closest Planning Area to the property line.
2 Existing residences have an 8-ft-high property wall and would provide a minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA.
3 Existing residences have a 7-ft-high property wall and would provide a minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA.
4
eq
Implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.6.1 and Mitigation
Measures 4.6.1a and 4.6.1b as identified in the EIR would reduce noise impacts to less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
Long-Term Traffic Noise Impacts. The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-
77-108) was used to evaluate traffic-related noise conditions along roadways in the project
vicinity. This model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle
speed, and roadway geometry, to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime,
evening, and nighttime hours. The resulting noise levels are weighted and summed over 24-hour
periods to determine the CNEL values. The Opening Year (2026) Phase 1, 2028 Phase 2, 2030
Phase 3, 2032 Phase 4, and 2050 without and with project average daily traffic volumes were
derived from The Resort Village Traffic Impact Analysis.29 The standard vehicle mix for Southern
California roadways obtained from Appendix I-1 of the Riverside County General Plan30 was used
for traffic on these roadway segments. Tables N, O, P, Q, and R, found in the Noise and Vibration
Impact Analysis, list the traffic noise levels for the Opening Year (2026) Phase 1, 2028 Phase 2,
2030 Phase 3, 2032 Phase 4, and 2050 without and with project scenarios, respectively. These
noise levels represent the worst-case scenario, which assumes that no shielding is provided
between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. The specific
29 Translutions. 2025. The Resort Village Traffic Impact Analysis.
30 County of Riverside. 2015. Riverside County General Plan: Appendix I-1.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
assumptions used in developing these noise levels and the model printouts are provided in
Attachment D of the Noise Analysis Report, located in Appendix C of this Addendum.
Off-Site Traffic Noise. Tables N, O, P, Q, and R, found in the Noise and Vibration Impact
Analysis, show that the project-related traffic would increase noise by up to 2.3 dBA. This
noise increase would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. In
addition, this noise increase would be slightly less than the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR (as
amended).
On-Site Traffic Noise.Proposed On-Site Residential Uses. Table R of the Noise and Vibration
Impact Analysis shows that 2050 with project traffic noise levels along Grapeland Street,
Sierra Avenue, Duncan Canyon Road, and Cypress Avenue would range from 57.8 to 72.6
dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost lane. These traffic
noise levels exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL for residential uses. In
addition, interior noise levels at proposed on-site residential buildings would likely exceed
the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL due to high exterior noise levels. Exterior
and interior noise levels would be similar to exterior and interior noise levels in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR (as amended). Mitigation Measures 4.6.2a and 4.6.2b identified
in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR (as amended), remain applicable to provide noise
attenuation needed to comply with the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL.
Although Mitigation Measures 4.6.2a and 4.6.2b remain applicable, the measures have been
modified to reflect site- and project-specific requirements aligned with current standards.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.6.2c has been added to require a supplemental acoustical
analysis once grading plans and project plans are completed to ensure and verify that
adequate noise attenuation will be provided to meet the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard.
Also, Mitigation Measure 4.6.4 identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR (as amended),
would require a supplemental acoustical analysis to verify that adequate structural noise
protection are provided in residences along Grapeland Street, Sierra Avenue, Duncan Canyon
Road, and Cypress Avenue to meet the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL.
Proposed On-Site Commercial Uses. Table R of the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
shows that 2050 with project traffic noise levels along Sierra Avenue and Duncan
Canyon Road would range from 66.7 to 72.6 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the
centerline of the outermost lane. These traffic noise levels exceed the City’s exterior
noise standard of 70 dBA CNEL. Interior noise levels in proposed on-site commercial
buildings would likely exceed the City’s interior noise standard of 55 dBA CNEL due to
high exterior noise levels. Exterior and interior noise levels would be similar to exterior
and interior noise levels in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR (as amended). Mitigation
Measure 4.6.3, identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR (as amended), would
demonstrate that outdoor use areas (e.g., patio dining areas) and the interior of
commercial uses meet the City’s exterior and interior noise standards of 70 dBA CNEL and
55 dBA CNEL, respectively.
Proposed On-Site School Uses. Table R of the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis shows
that 2050 with project traffic noise levels along Duncan Canyon Road and Cypress
Avenue would range from 57.8 to 67.4 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
centerline of the outermost lane. Interior noise levels at proposed on-site school
buildings would likely exceed the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL due to
high exterior noise levels. Interior noise levels would be similar to interior noise levels in
the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR (as amended). Mitigation Measure 4.6.5, identified in
the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR (as amended), requires the implementation of structural
noise protection as part of the design and planning of proposed on-site schools to meet
the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL.
As described above, the proposed project would result in impacts related to construction crew
commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials, project construction
activities, aircraft noise, project-related traffic noise, proposed exterior and interior on-site
residences, proposed exterior and interior on-site commercial uses, proposed on-site school interior
uses, that would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures. Refer to Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures
4.6.1a, 4.6.2a, 4.6.2b, 4.6.3, and 4.6.5. Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation
Measures 4.6.1b, and 4.6.4 have been amended as shown below, and Mitigation Measure
4.6.2c was identified, not to address a new or more severe impact, but rather to clarify the
necessary compliance with the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL detailed in the
Mitigation Measures 4.6.2a and 4.6.2b. Changes to mitigation measures applicable to the
proposed project are shown in strikeout text to indicate deletions and underline text to signify
additions.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.1b A noise impact mitigation plan shall be submitted and
implemented for major construction within 500 feet of any
occupied residence or school that incorporates temporary
barriers, maximum set-backs and upgraded equipment as
necessary.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.2c A supplemental acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a
qualified acoustical consultant once grading plans and project
plans are completed to verify that adequate noise attenuation,
as preliminarily provided in Mitigation Measures 4.6.2a and
4.6.2b, will be provided to meet the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise
standard for outdoor use areas of proposed on-site residences
along Grapeland Street, Sierra Avenue, Duncan Canyon Road,
and Cypress Avenue.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.4 A supplemental acoustical analysis shall be submitted in
conjunction with the issuance of building permits to verify that
adequate structural noise protection will be provided in
residences adjoining arterial roadways to meet the 45 dBA CNEL
interior standard. This could includes the provision of closed
dual paned windows with supplemental ventilation or other
standard design measures that achieve the standard. This
measure applies to future residences along Duncan Canyon
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Road, Cypress Avenue, Casa Grande Avenue, Citrus Avenue, and
Sierra Avenue. for residences along Duncan Canyon Road,
Cypress Avenue, and Casa Grande Avenue. The use of upgraded
dual-paned windows, with supplemental ventilation, baffles in
vents, and absorbers in ducts shall be provided for residences
along Citrus Avenue. Dual layer drywall, triple-paned windows,
steel doors and other custom upgrades shall be provided for
residences along Sierra Avenue.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to construction or operational noise when compared to the approved project. The overall impact
within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated
for construction noise impacts, less than significant with mitigation incorporated for stationary
noise impacts, and significant and unavoidable for mobile noise impacts, as specified in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold B: Would the proposed project cause exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that the approved project would have the potential to generate groundborne vibration
and noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. The impacts to nearby residences would not be
significant as the vibration nuisance threshold (0.1 inches per second root mean square) would not
be exceeded either during construction or operation of the approved project. Groundborne
vibration impacts on sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis.
Short-Term Construction Vibration Impacts. This construction vibration impact analysis
discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in root-mean-square (RMS)
(vibration velocity decibels [VdB]) and assesses the potential for building damage using vibration
levels in peak particle velocity (PPV) (inches per second [in/sec]). Vibration levels calculated in
RMS velocity are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, whereas
vibration levels in PPV are best for characterizing damage potential.
Table 12 shows the reference vibration levels at a distance of 25 feet for each type of standard
construction equipment from the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA
2018). Project construction is expected to require the use of large bulldozers and loaded trucks,
which would generate ground-borne vibration levels of up to 87 VdB (0.089 PPV [in/sec]) and
86 VdB (0.076 PPV [in/sec]), respectively, when measured at 25 feet.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Table 12: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644 104
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170 93
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
2
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
2
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018).
1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 µin/sec.
2 bold
ft = foot/feet
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
V
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root-mean-square
The greatest vibration levels are anticipated to occur during the site preparation and grading
phase. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels. The distance to the
nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off-site
buildings and the project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or
near the project boundary) because vibration impacts normally occur within the buildings.
The formula for vibration transmission is provided below:
LvdB (D) = LvdB (25 ft) - 30 Log (D/25)
PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
Table 13 lists the projected vibration levels from various construction equipment expected to be
used on the project site in the active construction area to the nearest buildings in the project
vicinity. As shown in Table 13, the closest building structure is approximately 425 feet from the
center of the project site and would experience a vibration level of up to 50 VdB. This vibration
level would not have the potential to result in community annoyance because vibration levels
would not exceed the FTA community annoyance threshold of 78 VdB for daytime residences.
The school was evaluated using the FTA community annoyance threshold of 78 VdB for daytime
residences because schools would have similar vibration sensitivity as daytime residences. Other
existing building structures that surround the project site would experience lower vibration
Table 13: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance
Land Use Direction Equipment/
Activity Vibration Level Distance to
Structure (ft)1
Vibration Level
(VdB)
Residence Northeast Large bulldozers 87 700 44
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Table 13: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance
Land Use Direction Equipment/
Activity Vibration Level Distance to
Structure (ft)1
Vibration Level
(VdB)
Loaded trucks 86 700 43
School East
Residence East
Residence South
1
levels because they are farther away. In addition, project construction activities would not result
in annoyance to on-site building structures because site preparation and grading activities,
which generate the highest vibration levels, would either be completed before the construction
of on-site buildings or new on-site building structures would not yet be occupied.
Similarly, Table 14 lists the projected vibration levels from various construction equipment
expected to be used on the project site at the project construction boundary to the nearest
buildings in the project vicinity. As shown in Table 14, the closest building structure is
approximately 130 feet from the project construction boundary and would experience a
vibration level of up to 0.008 PPV (in/sec). This vibration level would not have the potential to
result in building damage because the building is conservatively assumed to be constructed of
non-engineered timber and masonry or better, and the anticipated project-related vibration
levels would not exceed the FTA vibration damage threshold of 0.20 PPV (in/sec). Other existing
building structures that surround the project site would experience lower vibration levels
because they are farther away and are also conservatively assumed to be constructed of non-
engineered timber and masonry or better, and the anticipated project-related vibration levels
would not exceed the FTA vibration damage threshold of 0.20 PPV (in/sec).
In addition, vibration levels generated from project construction activities of later phases would
not have the potential to damage on-site building structures constructed in earlier phases
because site preparation and grading activities, which generate the highest vibration levels,
would be completed before the construction of on-site buildings. Impacts related to vibration
generated by construction would be less than significant.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Table 14: Potential Construction Vibration Damage
Land Use Direction Equipment/
Activity
Vibration Level Distance to
Structure1 (ft)
Vibration Level
Residence Northeast
School East
Residence East
Residence South
1
Long-Term Vibration Impacts. The residential, school, and commercial uses associated with the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not generate vibration. In addition, vibration levels
generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways (i.e., Sierra Avenue, Duncan
Canyon Road, and other roadways) are unusual for on-road vehicles because the rubber tires
and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation. Vibration generated
from operations of residential, school, and commercial uses from the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment would not exceed the FTA vibration perception threshold of 65 VdB. Impacts
related to long-term vibration would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to construction or operational vibration when compared to the approved project. The overall impact
within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold C: Would the proposed project cause a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that proposed commercial uses under the approved project have the potential to
exceed City standards of 70 dBA CNEL (exterior) and 55 dBA CNEL (interior) and may also generate
stationary noise impacts on adjacent residential uses. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6.3 and 4.6.6 would minimize the
severity of these impacts. Additionally, proposed school sites under the approved project would
generate stationary noise impacts due to outdoor fields, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) equipment, loading docks, and trash compactors on adjacent residences. The Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6.7 would
minimize the severity of these impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation
measures were identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended:
Mitigation Measure 4.6.6: Conditional use permits for proposed commercial uses shall
contain measures that control noise generation from goods
deliveries, facility maintenance, and mechanical equipment to
meet the City’s interior and exterior noise standards at adjacent
land uses. These may include:
• Location of commercial HVAC equipment away from
residences or shielding of HVAC equipment
• Location of loading docks and trash compactors away from
residences
• Time restrictions on deliveries to commercial uses
• Orientation of fast-food restaurant sound boards away from
nearby residences; sound walls around the order boards; or
time restrictions on sound board use
• Time restrictions on refuse collection or parking lot
sweeping, or stacking or retrieval of temporary outdoor
storage
Mitigation Measure 4.6.7: Design and planning of the schools shall install or implement the
following provisions, as necessary, to keep noise levels within
the City’s interior and exterior noise standards at adjacent land
uses: sound walls, setbacks between abutting residences and
the schools’ outdoor fields; location of HVAC equipment away
from residences or provision of shielding around HVAC
equipment; location of loading docks and trash compactors
away from residences; and time restrictions on truck deliveries,
trash pick-ups, and parking lot sweeping.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The following sections describe impacts related to increased
ambient noise generated from the operation of proposed on-site commercial uses or the proposed
on-site school.
Commercial Activities. Noise generated from the operations of proposed on-site commercial
uses has the potential to impact adjacent existing off-site and proposed on-site residences.
Noise generated from commercial operations would include delivery trucks and truck loading
and unloading activities, drive-through speakerphones, trash compactors, refuse collection,
parking lot sweeping, and HVAC equipment. Commercial operational activities under the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment would remain the same as the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
(as amended). Mitigation Measure 4.6.6, identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR (as
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
amended), would include measures to control noise from commercial operational activities in the
Conditional Use Permit for proposed commercial uses to meet the City’s interior and exterior
noise standards at adjacent land uses.
School Activities. Noise generated from the operations of the proposed schools have the
potential to impact adjacent existing off-site and proposed on-site residences. Noise generated
from school operations would include outdoor recreational areas, HVAC equipment, loading
docks and trash compactors, truck deliveries, trash pick-ups, and parking lot sweeping. School
operational activities under the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would remain the same as
the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR (as amended). Mitigation Measure 4.6.7, identified in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR (as amended), would install or implement provisions, as necessary,
as part of the design and planning of proposed on-site schools to keep noise levels within the
City’s interior and exterior noise standards at adjacent land uses.
Therefore, similar to the approved project, the proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts with mitigation incorporated related to increased ambient noise generated from the
operation of proposed on-site commercial uses or the proposed on-site school.
Mitigation Measures. Refer to Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures
4.6.6 and 4.6.7.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to increased ambient noise in the project vicinity when compared to the approved project. The
overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant with
mitigation incorporated, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold D: 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 expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that the approved project is not located within the vicinity of a public airport or an
airport land use plan. Thus, there would be a less than significant impact associated with airport
noise impacts.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Similar to the approved project, the proposed project site is not
located within the vicinity of a public airport or an airport land use plan. The closest airport to the
project site is the Rialto Municipal Airport, which is 2.8 miles southeast of the Resort Village
Planning Area. However, this airport has been closed and redeveloped for non-airport uses. The
next closest airport is Ontario International Airport, which is 11.2 miles southwest of the Resort
Village Planning Area. The Compatibility Policy Map: Noise Impact Zones from the LA/Ontario
International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 31 shows that the project site is outside the 60 to
31 City of Ontario. 2011. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
65 dBA CNEL noise contour. In addition, there are no private airstrips within 2 miles of the project
site. Therefore, similar to the approved project, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not
expose people working or residing in the project vicinity to aviation-related excessive noise levels,
and there would be a less than significant impact associated with airport noise impacts.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to aircraft noise when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would remain less than significant for public airport noise, as specified in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold E: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that the approved project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus,
there would be no impact associated with private airport noise impacts.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Similar to the approved project, the proposed project site is not
located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus, there would be no impact associated with
airport noise impacts.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to aircraft noise when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would remain no impact for private airport noise, as specified in the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
3.13.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to noise. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental document
to address impacts related to noise is not warranted.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the proposed project induce
substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g., extension of
substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of
substantial numbers of existing people,
necessitating the construction of
3.14.1 Impact Analysis
The certified Arboretum Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impacts on population and housing in Section
4.3.
Threshold A: Would the proposed project induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (e.g., new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., extension of roads and infrastructure)?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that the approved project would induce population growth directly through the
development of up to 3,526 new dwelling units, which would generate approximately 14,019
residents. Direct impacts from population growth are expected to be less than significant; however,
there may be indirect impacts from increased demand for goods and services as a result of
population growth, which are discussed in Section 3.15-Public Services and Recreation and Section
3.17-Utilities and Service Systems of the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR.
The anticipated population growth from the approved project would represent 17.4 percent of the
projected population increase in the City between 2005 and 2030 (80,635 new residents) and
therefore would be consistent with regional population growth forecasts. The proposed school and
commercial uses are expected to create approximately 386 new jobs, an increase of approximately
1.8 percent of the anticipated job growth in the City between 2005 and 2030 (21,958 jobs), and
would be consistent with regional job growth forecasts. Additionally, any induced growth triggered
by the approved project would be subject to City review and approval and required to comply with
applicable environmental regulations pursuant to CEQA, so growth-inducing impacts from the
proposed project will be less than significant. Therefore, impacts from population growth would be
less than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[d] identifies a project as
growth inducing if it fosters economic or population growth, or the construction of additional
housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. New employees from
commercial or industrial development and new population from residential development represent
direct forms of growth, which have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and
inducing additional economic activity in the area.
Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little
significance to the environment. Typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project would be
considered substantial if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is
assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning
agencies (e.g., SCAG).
As discussed in Section 2.5, Proposed Project, the project would result in the development of up to
1,463 residential units, three parks, and two community retail areas. The proposed project would
not increase the number of residential units in the Resort Village. Under the approved project,
95,832 square feet of commercial use at the Community Activity Center was anticipated to generate
approximately 192 jobs, based on the formula of one employee for every 500 square feet. Under the
proposed project, the proposed community retail site would construct an additional 73,558 square
feet of commercial uses, generating approximately 147 additional jobs. Similar to the approved
project, the proposed elementary school would generate approximately 58 employees. The
proposed project would therefore result in a total of 397 jobs that could be generated by the Resort
Village, and a total of 533 jobs within the entire Arboretum Specific Plan area.
Although the project would generate approximately 147 more employees compared to the
approved project, growth-inducing potential of a project would only be considered substantial
under CEQA if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in
pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies (e.g.,
SCAG).
Although the proposed project would increase employment in the City, the approved project
anticipated school and commercial uses on the project site. Therefore, the increase in employment
projected under the approved project has been anticipated and planned for in the City’s General
Plan and applicable regional projection assessments. An additional employee increase of 0.66
percent is incremental and therefore not a significant increase beyond that which was anticipated
and planned for in the City’s General Plan for the approved project. Therefore, growth-inducing
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact because
although the proposed project contributes to growth in the Arboretum Specific Plan area, the
proposed project does not exceed regional growth projections. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan area would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Threshold B: Would the proposed project displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that the approved project would not displace existing houses as the approved project
area is mostly vacant, i.e., there was one residential unit that burned down. Therefore, no impact on
the displacement of housing would occur.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. As discussed in Section 2.1, Project Location and Setting, the
project site is predominately vacant and consists of utility easements and undeveloped shrubland.
Therefore, no housing currently occupies the project site. Implementation of the proposed project
would not displace substantial numbers of housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to
existing housing when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would remain no impact, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold C: Would the proposed project displace substantial numbers of existing people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that the approved project would not displace any people on the approved project site.
Since no housing displacement is expected from implementation of the approved project, no
population displacement is expected. Therefore, no impact on the displacement of people would
occur.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. As discussed in Section 2.1, Project Location and Setting, the
project site is predominately vacant and consists of utility easements and undeveloped shrubland.
Therefore, no housing or people currently occupy the project site. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to
existing people when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would remain no impact, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.14.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to population and housing. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent
environmental document to address impacts related to population and housing is not warranted.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the proposed project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire Protection
ii) Police Protection
iii) Schools
increased use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities where substantial physical
deterioration would occur or be
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that would have an adverse
3.15.1 Impact Analysis
The certified Arboretum Specific Plan EIR analyzed the impacts on public services and recreation in
Section 4.11.
Threshold A: Would the proposed project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire Protection;
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
concluded that, while the approved project would remove brush fire hazards through the
development of a vacant lot, the increase in the on-site population and introduction of structures to
the site would result in an increase in demand for fire protection services associated with urban
fires, and therefore the approved project would create a direct increase in demand for fire
protection services. However, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that no
new facilities would be needed at the approved project site as there are adequate fire protection
facilities to meet the increased demand resulting from the approved project in the North Fontana
Area. Therefore, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that no adverse impacts
on fire protection services were expected. With implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Standard Conditions 4.11.3 and 4.11.4, impacts related to fire protection services would be less
than significant.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.11.3: Future developments shall be subject
to building and site plan review by the San Bernardino County Fire District, for compliance with
pertinent fire safety and emergency access standards and to identify additional development
features which could reduce demand for fire services, prevent the creation of fire hazards, and
facilitate emergency response to the project site.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.11.4: Future developments would be
required to pay development impact fees for fire services. Payment of development impact fees
would assist in funding the needed public facility expansion and service improvements needed
to serve the proposed developments on the site.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project includes the development of up to 1,463
residential units, three parks, and two community retail areas. The proposed project would not
increase the number of residential units in the Resort Village. Although the proposed project would
increase employment in the City, the approved project anticipated school and commercial uses on
the project site. An additional employee increase of 0.66 percent is incremental and therefore not a
significant increase beyond that which was anticipated and planned for in the City’s General Plan for
the approved project. With implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions
4.11.3 and 4.11.4, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to fire
protection services when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended.
ii) Police Protection;
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
concluded that the approved project would create a direct demand for police protection services
due to the introduction of new structures, increase of on-site population, and additional vehicle
trips in the area. The approved project would also create a demand for police services associated
with the potential incidence of property crimes and personal crimes. However, the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that no new facilities would be needed at the approved
project site as there are adequate police protection facilities to meet the increased demand
resulting from the approved project in the North Fontana Area. Therefore, the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that no adverse impacts on police protection services were
expected. With implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.11.1 and
4.11.2, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.11.1 states future developments shall
implement Building Security Specifications and shall be consistent with the principles of Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design, as required by the Fontana Police Department. To
ensure compliance, all developments shall be subject to building and site plan review and
approval by the Fontana Police Department.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.11.2 states future developments would be
required to pay development impact fees for police services. Payment of development impact
fees would assist in funding the needed public facility expansion and service improvements
needed to serve the proposed developments on the site.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project includes the development of up to 1,463
residential units, three parks, and two community retail areas. The proposed project would not
increase the number of residential units in the Resort Village. Although the proposed project would
increase employment in the City, the approved project anticipated school and commercial uses on
the project site. An additional employee increase of 0.66 percent is incremental and therefore not a
significant increase beyond that which was anticipated and planned for in the City’s General Plan for
the approved project. With implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions
4.11.1 and 4.11.2, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to police
protection services when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended.
iii) Schools;
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
concluded that the approved project would create a demand for schools through the proposed
residential development. The approved project includes the dedication of two school sites within
the Specific Plan: an elementary school and a combined elementary and middle school. These
schools are intended to serve the residents of the approved project and relieve overcrowding at
other schools in the area. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that through
payment of school impact fees as outlined in Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition
4.11.5, impacts would be less than significant.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.11.5: Future developments would be
required to pay school impact fees to the Fontana Unified School District, which would help fund
the needed school facility expansion and service improvements to serve the proposed project.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project includes the development of up to 1,463
residential units, three parks, two community retail areas, and an elementary school. The proposed
project would not increase the number of residential units in the Resort Village compared to the
approved project. Therefore, the proposed project would not change the number of school-aged
children that was previously analyzed under the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR. With implementation
of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.11.5, impacts related to schools would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to
schools when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific
Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
iv) Other Public Facilities?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
concluded that the future residents of the approved project would create a direct demand for
library services. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that through payment of
development impact fees as specified in Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.11.8,
impacts would be less than significant.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.11.8: Future developments would be
required to pay development impact fees for library services. Payment of development impact
fees would assist in funding the needed public facility expansion and service improvements
needed to serve the project.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project includes the development of up to 1,463
residential units, three parks, two community retail areas, and an elementary school. The proposed
project would not increase the number of residential units in the Resort Village compared to the
approved project. Therefore, the proposed project would not change the number of residents that
was previously analyzed under the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR. With implementation of Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.11.8, impacts related to libraries would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to
libraries when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
Threshold B: Would the proposed project result in increased use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities where substantial physical deterioration would occur or
be accelerated?
Threshold C: Would the proposed project result in construction or expansion of recreational facilities
that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that the proposed residential developments would create a direct demand for parks
and recreational facilities in the City. Additionally, the Fontana General Plan has a parkland standard
of 2 acres per thousand residents of community parkland and 3 acres per thousand residents of
neighborhood parkland. Thus, the 14,019 residents proposed under the Arboretum Specific Plan
would require 70.10 acres of community and neighborhood parks. The Arboretum Specific Plan
includes a total of 31.9 acres of parkland. Therefore, the developer would have to pay park fees for
the development of an additional 38.2 acres of parkland. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, concluded that with the implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard
Conditions 4.11.6 and 4.11.7, impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than
significant.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.11.6: As required under the City’s Municipal
Code (Chapter 21, Article IV), the proposed development shall pay Quimby fees for the
development of parks and recreational facilities in North Fontana. The collected fee will be used
for the development of neighborhood and community parks in the area, to serve the approved
project.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.11.7: Recreational facilities would be
provided on-site as part of the proposed residential developments, in compliance with the City’s
Optional Density Standard Policy.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project includes the development of up to 1,463
residential units, three parks, two community retail areas, and an elementary school. The proposed
project would not increase the number of residential units in the Resort Village compared to the
approved project. However, the proposed project would increase the number of employees than
what was previously analyzed under the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR by 147 new employees.
Therefore, 147 new employees may visit existing parks and recreational facilities in the City.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.11.6 and 4.11.7 would be implemented to
reduce impacts to parks and recreational facilities to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to parks
and recreational facilities when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended.
3.15.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to public services and recreation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent
environmental document to address impacts related to public services and facilities is not
warranted.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.16 TRANSPORTATION
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the proposed project cause an
increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in
a substantial increase in either the number
of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in
increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
inadequate emergency access?
inadequate parking capacity?
adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,
3.16.1 Impact Analysis
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR analyzed the approved project’s impacts on transportation and
circulation in Section 4.4. This section is based on the project-specific Traffic Impact Analysis32
(Appendix D1) that was conducted for the proposed project.
Threshold A: Would the proposed project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
32 Translutions. 2025. The Resort Village Traffic Impact Analysis.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, evaluated
the approved project’s impact to level of service (LOS) at study area roadway segments and
intersections during existing plus project conditions (2010) and long-term (2030) plus project
conditions. The approved project would generate up to 35,236 gross vehicle trips, including 3,454
trips during the morning peak hour and 3,256 trips in the afternoon peak hour. The Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR determined that, with the exception of trips from schools within The Arboretum
Specific Plan which would remain on local streets within the planning area, the approved project
would result in vehicle trips that would create significant impacts at roadways and freeway
segments outside the planning area. Therefore, the approved project would contribute to
unacceptable levels of service at study area intersections and freeway segments. The Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR included Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.4.1, 4.4.2, and 4.4.3
for City-sponsored, future developments located within the Specific Plan area:
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.4.1: The project shall pay development
impact fees as set by the City to fund roadway maintenance and improvement projects in the
area.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.4.2: Future developments would be subject
to plan check review to ensure that the necessary access, parking, and roadway improvements
are provided as part of individual developments, in accordance with the City’s traffic safety
design criteria.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.4.3: The proposed roundabout shall be
constructed per FHWA standards and subject to review and approval by the City during plan
check of the final roadway improvement plans.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR identified Mitigation Measures 4.4.1a, 4.4.1b, 4.4.2, 4.4.3a, 4.4.3b,
and 4.4.4 to reduce impacts on roadways and highways, and concluded that because payment of
fair share fees for off-site intersections would be limited at the beginning, and because roadway
improvements required by the mitigation measures would not be implemented until after the
proposed improvements were fully funded with fair share fees, the project would therefore have a
short-term significant and unavoidable impacts on traffic until the improvements were funded and
implemented. However, after the improvements (i.e., mitigation measures) are installed, the long-
term traffic impacts of the approved project would be less than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation
measures were identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended:
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1a: In order to maintain acceptable LOS in 2010 during the AM and
PM peak hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
pay its fair share contribution to the City of Fontana for the
implementation of the following improvements:
• Sierra Avenue and I-15 Southbound Ramp: Install a traffic
signal.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Sierra Avenue and I-15 Northbound Ramp: Install traffic
signal.
• Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Add a northbound
through lane, a southbound through lane and a southbound
right turn lane. Convert the southbound shared right-
through lane into a through lane
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1b: In order to maintain acceptable LOS in 2010 during the AM and
PM peak hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
implement the following improvements:
• Project Access 4 and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a traffic
signal.
• Project Access 5 and Duncan Canyon Road: Add a
dedicated southbound left turn lane.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.2: The impacts of the proposed project on freeway segments and
interchanges that would result in degraded LOS by 2010 would
be mitigated by the following:
• I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the southbound segment
from Glen Helen Parkway to Sierra Avenue
• I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the southbound segment
from Baseline Road to Foothill Boulevard
• I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the northbound segment
from Foothill Boulevard to Baseline Road
• I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the northbound segment
from Sierra Avenue to Glen Helen Parkway
Mitigation Measure 4.4.3a: In order to maintain acceptable LOS in 2030 during the AM and
PM peak hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
pay its fair share contribution to the City of Fontana for the
implementation of the following improvements:
• Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Add a second
northbound left-turn lane and two northbound through
lanes. Add a second southbound left turn lane and two
southbound through lanes. Convert the shared southbound
through-right lane into a dedicated right-turn lane. Add a
westbound left turn lane and convert the existing shared
left-through into a through lane.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street: Add a second
northbound left turn lane and a dedicated northbound right
turn lane. Add a second southbound left turn lane and a
dedicated southbound right turn lane. Add a westbound left
turn lane and an eastbound left turn lane.
• Lytle Creek Road (E) and Duncan Canyon Road: Convert
one northbound through lane to a dedicated right turn lane.
Provide overlap phasing for the eastbound right turn and
the northbound right turn. Add an additional eastbound
through lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add a second left
turn lane and a dedicated right turn lane on each approach.
Provide overlap phasing for the eastbound and southbound
right turn. Add a second westbound left turn lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Casa Grande Avenue: Add a second
eastbound and westbound left turn lane.
• I-15 Southbound Ramps and Beech Avenue: Add a second
eastbound left turn lane.
• I-15 Northbound Ramps and Beech Avenue: Add a second
southbound left turn lane and a dedicated westbound right
turn lane. Provide overlap phasing for the westbound right
turn.
• Citrus Avenue and SR-210 Westbound Ramps: Add a
second westbound left turn lane and a southbound shared
through/right turn lane.
• Citrus Avenue and SR-210 Eastbound Ramps: Reconfigure
the off-ramp to include one left turn lane, one shared
through/left turn lane, and a free right turn lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Highland Avenue: Provide overlap
phasing for the westbound right turn.
• Sierra Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Provide overlap
phasing for the eastbound right turn.
• Sierra Avenue and SR-210 Eastbound Ramps: Convert the
eastbound left turn lane into a shared left through lane.
Convert the eastbound shared left-right lane into an
exclusive right-turn lane.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Sierra Avenue and Highland Avenue: Convert the existing
northbound right turn lane into a shared through/right turn
lane. Provide overlap phasing for the eastbound right turn
and the westbound right turn.
• Sierra Avenue and Casa Grande Avenue: Add a second
northbound left turn lane and a second southbound left
turn lane. Convert the shared through/right turn lane at
each approach to a through lane. Add a right turn lane to
each approach.
• Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add dual left turn
lanes and a dedicated right turn lane at the northbound and
southbound approaches.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.3b: In order to maintain acceptable LOS in 2030 during the AM and
PM peak hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
implement the following improvements:
• Project Access 1 and Grapeland Street: Provide exclusive
left and right turning lanes at the northbound approach and
provide a westbound left-turn lane.
• Project Access 4 and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a traffic
signal.
• Project Access 5 and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a traffic
signal and add a dedicated southbound and northbound left
turn lane.
• Project Access 6 and Cypress Avenue: Install a traffic signal.
• Project Access 10 and Citrus Avenue: Install a traffic signal.
• Cypress Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Convert the
eastbound shared through/right turn lane into a through
lane and add a right turn lane.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.4: The proposed project shall pay its fair share costs for the
improvement of freeway segments and interchanges that would
operate at degraded LOS in 2030. These improvements include:
• I-15 Freeway: Construction of additional lane to provide a
total of seven travel lanes in each direction.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• SR-210 Westbound from Citrus Avenue to I-15:
Construction of one additional travel lane.
• SR-210 Westbound from I-15 to Day Creek Boulevard:
Construction of one additional travel lane.
• SR-210 Eastbound from Day Creek Boulevard to I-15:
Construction of one additional travel lane.
• SR-210 Eastbound from Riverside Avenue to Pepper
Avenue: Construction of one additional travel lane.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority’s (SBCTA)
Congestion Management Plan (CMP) TIA Guidelines (dated June 2016) indicate any project that
generates 250 or more two-way peak hour trips of which at least 50 two-way peak hour trips would
occur on a State highway facility is required to prepare a TIA report for City and Caltrans’ review.
The City of Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and
Level of Service Assessment requires TIAs to determine if project-generated vehicle trips would
adversely affect the surrounding transportation network if a project generates 50 or more trips
during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour.33 For projects anticipated to generate fewer than 50 peak hour
trips, a trip generation analysis generally is considered sufficient unless the City has specific
concerns related to project access and interaction with adjacent intersections.
A TIA was prepared for the proposed project to assess the impacts of traffic generated by the
proposed project on the surrounding transportation network under Opening Year/Phase 1 (2026),
Phase 2 (2028), Phase 3 (2030), Phase 4 (2032), and Future Year (2050) conditions. The TIA evaluates
46 intersections and project driveways under 11 analysis scenarios; analysis intersections were
approved by the City during the scoping process. In addition, the TIA evaluates alternative modes of
travel in the vicinity of the project.
The project is anticipated to be built in several phases in response to market demand. The following
phases are anticipated:
• Opening Year (2026) Phase 1: This phase includes the Elementary School and Retail C-1 planning
areas.
• Year (2028) Phase 2: This phase includes the Elementary School, Retail C-1, and ½ of the
residential units located in northeast quadrant, ½ of the residential units located in the
southwest quadrant, and ½ of the residential units located in the southeast quadrant.
• Year (2030) Phase 3: This phase includes all planning areas with the exception of the Retail C-2
center.
33 City of Fontana. 2020. Department of Engineering, Traffic Engineering Division. Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment. Page 4. October 21.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Year (2032) Phase 4: This phase includes all planning areas.
A level of service analysis was conducted for each of the analysis scenarios below:
• Existing Conditions (9 intersections are currently operating at unsatisfactory LOS).
• Opening Year (2026) Phase 1
○ Without Project Conditions (9 intersections are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS).
○ With Project Conditions (13 intersections are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS).
• Year (2028) Phase 2
○ Without Project Conditions (10 intersections are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS).
○ With Project Conditions (15 intersections are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS).
• Year (2030) Phase 3
○ Without Project Conditions (11 intersections are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS).
○ With Project Conditions (17 intersections are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS).
• Year (2032) Phase 4
○ Without Project Conditions (12 intersections are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS).
○ With Project Conditions (17 intersections are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS).
• Future Year (2050)
○ Without Project Conditions (23 intersections are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS).
○ With Project Conditions (24 intersections are forecast to operate at unsatisfactory LOS).
As shown in Table 15, for Opening Year With Project Conditions, the approved project would result
in 3 additional intersections operating at unacceptable LOS compared to Without Project
Conditions, while the proposed project would result in 4 additional intersections operating at
unacceptable LOS compared to Without Project Conditions. For Future Year With Project Conditions,
the approved project would result in 6 additional intersections operating at unacceptable LOS
compared to Without Project Conditions, while the proposed project would result in 1 additional
intersection operating at unacceptable LOS compared to Without Project Conditions. With the
implementation of recommended circulation improvements for the approved project, all study
intersections were projected to operate at LOS D or better, with 8 intersections operating at LOS D.
With the implementation of recommended circulation improvements for the proposed project, all
intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service, with only 1 intersection that
would operate at LOS D, while all others would operate at LOS C or better.
Table 15: Level of Service for Approved Project and Proposed Project
Opening Year 4 7 9 13
Future Year 14 20 23 24
Future Year with Project
Improvements 8 at LOS D 1 at LOS D
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
With the implementation of the circulation improvements outlined in Mitigation Measures 4.4.1a
through 4.4.3b, as well as improvements identified in the Ventana Specific Plan Amendment Traffic
Study,34 which would implement circulation improvements in the proposed project area, all
intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service, as shown in Tables 11.B, 11.C,
11.D, 11.E, and 11.F of the TIA. Peak hour signal warrants were conducted for unsignalized
intersections within the project site under future year (2050) with project conditions. The peak hour
warrants are met at the intersections of Cypress Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road, Cassava Drive
and Duncan Canyon Road, and Sierra Avenue and C-1 Retail Driveway 1.
Overall, both short- and long-term level of service impacts resulting from the proposed would be
less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures. The mitigation measures identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR to
reduce impacts resulting from the approved project, listed above, were evaluated for
applicability for the proposed project. Those that have been completed have been deleted as
shown in strikeout text below. Due to development in the vicinity of the proposed project in the
intervening time between approval of the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR and the currently
proposed project, some changes to the previously approved mitigation were required to ensure
compliance with the City’s level-of-service requirements. For example, Project Access 4 in the
approved project is now called Arboretum Avenue, Project Access 5 in the approved project is
now called Cassava Drive, and improvements to intersections of each with Duncan Canyon Road
were required for Future Year (Phase 3, 2030) conditions under the proposed project, rather
than Opening Year conditions as found in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Therefore the measures for Opening Year conditions have been struck, and improvements
added instead to the Future Year measure. Further, additional intersections were studied,
including Elementary School, C-1 Retail, and C-2 Retail Driveways, so that the changes to the
roadway network reflected in the proposed project compared to the approved project could be
adequately evaluated. Finally, some intersections studied for the approved project, including
intersections along Beech Avenue, were removed from evaluation for the proposed project, as
trips generated were below the threshold requiring analysis (50 trips). These changes were
identified not to address new or more severe impacts, but rather to update the steps necessary
for compliance with the City’s requirements while accounting for current circulation conditions.
Changes to mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project are shown in strikeout text
to indicate deletions and underline text to signify additions.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1a: In order to maintain acceptable LOS in 20102026 during the AM
and PM peak hours at local roadway intersections, the project
shall pay its fair share contribution to the City of Fontana for the
implementation of the following improvements:
34 Urban Crossroads. 2022. Ventana Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Study, City of Fontana. April. Website:
https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/273706-2/attachment/YlOMIuP_DYvD44UEhg6-oWoxgfiQdM-
mxFZdR8Squ6USGyRcJoCImUEzzklZSp4h6JzmPmZ6Q-2E5V6M0 (accessed October 2025).
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Citrus Ave and Summit Avenue: Add a northbound left-turn
lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the northbound right-turn lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap phasing to
the westbound right-turn lane.
• Cypress Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a traffic
signal.
• Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Install a traffic signal.
Add overlap phasing to the westbound right-turn lanes. The
traffic signal is included in the CIP.
• Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street-Segovia Avenue: Add a
southbound through lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Terra Vista Drive: Add a southbound
through lane. The City is purchasing right of way from
Southern California Edison to obtain the land needed to
widen Sierra Avenue to the ultimate width of six lanes from
Summit Avenue to I-15.
• Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add a southbound
through lane and a northbound through lane. The City is
purchasing right of way from Southern California Edison to
obtain the land needed to widen Sierra Avenue to the
ultimate width of six lanes from Summit Avenue to I-15.
• Sierra Avenue and Summit Avenue: Add overlap phasing to
the eastbound right-turn lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the eastbound right-turn lane and add overlap
phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap phasing to
the westbound right-turn lane.
• Sierra Avenue and I-15 Southbound Ramp: Install a traffic
signal.
• Sierra Avenue and I-15 Northbound Ramp: Install traffic
signal.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Add a northbound
through lane, a southbound through lane and a southbound
right turn lane. Convert the southbound shared right-
though lane into a through lane
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1b: In order to maintain acceptable LOS in 20102026 during the AM
and PM peak hours at local roadway intersections, the project
shall implement the following improvements:
• Sierra Avenue and C-1 Retail Driveway 1: Install a traffic
signal.
• Project Access 4 [Arboretum Avenue] and Duncan Canyon
Road: Install a traffic signal.
• Project Access 5 [Cassava Drive] and Duncan Canyon Road:
Add a dedicated southbound left turn lane.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1c: In order to maintain acceptable LOS in 2028 during the AM and
PM peak hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
pay its fair share contribution to the City of Fontana for the
implementation of the following improvements:
• Citrus Ave and Summit Avenue: Add a northbound left-turn
lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the northbound right-turn lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap phasing to
the westbound right-turn lane.
• Arboretum Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal.
• Cypress Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a traffic
signal.
• Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Install a traffic signal.
Add overlap phasing to the westbound right-turn lane. The
traffic signal is included in the CIP.
• Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street-Segovia Avenue: Add a
traffic signal.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Sierra Avenue and Terra Vista Drive: Add a southbound
through lane. The City is purchasing right of way from
Southern California Edison to obtain the land needed to
widen Sierra Avenue to the ultimate width of six lanes from
Summit Avenue to I-15.
• Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add a southbound
through lane and a northbound through lane. The City is
purchasing right of way from Southern California Edison to
obtain the land needed to widen Sierra Avenue to the
ultimate width of six lanes from Summit Avenue to I-15.
• Sierra Avenue and Summit Avenue: Add overlap phasing to
the eastbound right-turn lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the eastbound right-turn lane and add overlap
phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap phasing to
the westbound right-turn lane.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1d: In order to maintain acceptable LOS in 2028 during the AM and
PM peak hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
implement the following improvements:
• Sierra Avenue and C-1 Retail Driveway 1: Install a traffic
signal.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1e: In order to maintain acceptable LOS in 2030 during the AM and
PM peak hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
pay its fair share contribution to the City of Fontana for the
implementation of the following improvements:
• Citrus Ave and Summit Avenue: Add a northbound left-turn
lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the northbound right-turn lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap phasing to
the westbound right-turn lane.
• Arboretum Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Cassava Drive and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a traffic
signal.
• Sierra Avenue and I-15 Southbound Ramps. Add a free
southbound right-turn lane. This improvement is consistent
with the future year geometrics included in the Arboretum
at North Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis (March 2008).
• Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Install a traffic signal.
Add a northbound through lane. Add overlap phasing to the
westbound right-turn lane. The traffic signal is included in
the CIP.
• Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street-Segovia Avenue: Add a
traffic signal.
• Sierra Avenue and Terra Vista Drive: Add a southbound
through lane. The City is purchasing right of way from
Southern California Edison to obtain the land needed to
widen Sierra Avenue to the ultimate width of six lanes from
Summit Avenue to I-15.
• Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add a southbound
through lane and a northbound through lane. The City is
purchasing right of way from Southern California Edison to
obtain the land needed to widen Sierra Avenue to the
ultimate width of six lanes from Summit Avenue to I-15.
• Sierra Avenue and Summit Avenue: Add overlap phasing to
the eastbound right-turn lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the eastbound right-turn lane and add overlap
phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap phasing to
the westbound right-turn lane and add overlap phasing to
the southbound right-turn lane.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1f: In order to maintain acceptable LOS in 2030 during the AM and
PM peak hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
implement the following improvements:
• Sierra Avenue and C-1 Retail Driveway 1: Install a traffic
signal.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1g: In order to maintain acceptable LOS in 2032 during the AM and
PM peak hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
pay its fair share contribution to the City of Fontana for the
implementation of the following improvements:
• Citrus Ave and Summit Avenue: Add a northbound left-turn
lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the northbound right-turn lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap phasing to
the westbound right-turn lane.
• Arboretum Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal.
• Cassava Drive and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a traffic
signal.
• Sierra Avenue and I-15 Southbound Ramps. Add a free
southbound right-turn lane. This improvement is consistent
with the future year geometrics included in the Arboretum
at North Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis (March 2008).
• Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Install a traffic signal.
Add a northbound through lane. Add overlap phasing to the
westbound right-turn lane. The traffic signal is included in
the CIP.
• Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street-Segovia Avenue: Add a
traffic signal.
• Sierra Avenue and Terra Vista Drive: Add a southbound
through lane. The City is purchasing right of way from
Southern California Edison to obtain the land needed to
widen Sierra Avenue to the ultimate width of six lanes from
Summit Avenue to I-15.
• Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add an eastbound
left-turn lane, a northbound left-turn lane, a southbound
through lane, and a northbound through lane. The City is
purchasing right of way from Southern California Edison to
obtain the land needed to widen Sierra Avenue to the
ultimate width of six lanes from Summit Avenue to I-15.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Sierra Avenue and Summit Avenue: Add overlap phasing to
the eastbound right-turn lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the eastbound right-turn lane and add overlap
phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap phasing to
the westbound right-turn lane and add overlap phasing to
the southbound right-turn lane.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1h: In order to maintain acceptable LOS in 2032 during the AM and
PM peak hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
implement the following improvements:
• Sierra Avenue and C-1 Retail Driveway 1: Install a traffic
signal.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.2: The impacts of the proposed project on freeway segments and
interchanges that would result in degraded LOS by 20102026
would be mitigated by the following:
• I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the southbound segment
from Glen Helen Parkway to Sierra Avenue
• I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the southbound segment
from Baseline Road to Foothill Boulevard
• I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the northbound segment
from Foothill Boulevard to Baseline Road
• I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the northbound segment
from Sierra Avenue to Glen Helen Parkway
Mitigation Measure 4.4.3a: In order to maintain acceptable LOS in 20302050 during the AM
and PM peak hours at local roadway intersections, the project
shall pay its fair share contribution to the City of Fontana for the
implementation of the following improvements:
• Coyote Canyon Road and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal. This improvement is included in the City’s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
• Citrus Avenue and Casa Grande Drive: Add overlap phasing
to the northbound right-turn lane, add a southbound left-
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
turn lane, add a westbound right-turn lane, and a
westbound right-turn with overlap phasing.
• Citrus Ave and Summit Avenue: Add a northbound left-turn
lane, add a southbound left-turn lane, and add overlap
phasing to the southbound right-turn lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the northbound right-turn lane.
• Casa Grande Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue: Install a traffic
signal.
• Arboretum Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal. Add an eastbound and westbound left-turn
lane.
• Cypress Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a traffic
signal. Add an eastbound left-turn lane, a westbound left-
turn lane, and a southbound left-turn lane.
• Cypress Avenue and Casa Grande Drive: Install a traffic
signal.
• Cassava Drive and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a traffic
signal. Add an eastbound left-turn lane, an eastbound
through lane, a westbound left-turn lane, a westbound
through lane, a southbound left-turn lane, and overlap
phasing to the northbound right-turn lane.
• Montelena Road and Casa Grande Road: Install a traffic
signal.
• Sierra Avenue and I-15 Southbound Ramps. Add a free
southbound right-turn lane. Re-stripe the westbound
through-left-turn lane to left-turn lane, and re-stripe the
westbound right-turn lane to through-right turn lane. These
improvements are consistent with the future year
geometrics included in the Arboretum at North Fontana
Traffic Impact Analysis (March 2008).
• Sierra Avenue and I-15 Northbound Ramps. Add a free
northbound right-turn lane. This improvement is consistent
with the future year geometrics included in the Arboretum
at North Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis (March 2008).
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Install a traffic signal.
Add a northbound through lane, a northbound right-turn
lane, a southbound left-turn lane, a southbound through
lane, a westbound right-turn lane, and overlap phasing to
the westbound right-turn lanes. The traffic signal is included
in the CIP and the City is purchasing right of way from
Southern California Edison to obtain the land needed to
widen Sierra Avenue to the ultimate width of six lanes from
Summit Avenue to I-15.
• Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street-Segovia Avenue: Add a
traffic signal. Add a southbound through lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Terra Vista Drive: Add a northbound
through lane, overlap phasing to the northbound right-turn
lane, a southbound left-turn lane, two southbound through
lanes, re-stripe westbound left to through-left, and add a
westbound right-turn lane with overlap phasing. The City is
purchasing right of way from Southern California Edison to
obtain the land needed to widen Sierra Avenue to the
ultimate width of six lanes from Summit Avenue to I-15.
• Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add an eastbound
left-turn lane, add two southbound through lanes, and two
northbound through lanes. The City is purchasing right of
way from Southern California Edison to obtain the land
needed to widen Sierra Avenue to the ultimate width of six
lanes from Summit Avenue to I-15.
• Sierra Avenue and Casa Grande Drive: Add a westbound
left-turn lane, overlap phasing to the westbound right-turn
lane, and overlap phasing to the northbound right-turn
lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Summit Avenue: Add overlap phasing to
the eastbound right-turn lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Highland Avenue: Provide overlap
phasing for the westbound right turn.
• Sierra Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Provide overlap
phasing for the eastbound right turn lane and add overlap
phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Highland Avenue: Convert the existing
northbound right turn lane into a shared through/right turn
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
lane. Provide overlap phasing for the eastbound right turn
and the westbound right-turn lane and add overlap phasing
to the southbound right-turn lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Add a second
northbound left-turn lane and two northbound through
lanes. Add a second southbound left turn lane and two
southbound through lanes. Convert the shared southbound
through-right lane into a dedicated right-turn lane. Add a
westbound left turn lane and convert the existing shared
left-through into a through lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street: Add a second
northbound left turn lane and a dedicated northbound right
turn lane. Add a second southbound left turn lane and a
dedicated southbound right turn lane. Add a westbound left
turn lane and an eastbound left turn lane.
• Lytle Creek Road (E) and Duncan Canyon Road: Convert one
northbound through lane to a dedicated right turn lane.
Provide overlap phasing for the eastbound right turn and
the northbound right turn. Add an additional eastbound
through lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add a second left
turn lane and a dedicated right turn lane on each approach.
Provide overlap phasing for the eastbound and southbound
right turn. Add a second westbound left turn lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Casa Grande Avenue: Add a second
eastbound and westbound left turn lane.
• I-15 Southbound Ramps and Beech Avenue: Add a second
eastbound left turn lane.
• I-15 Northbound Ramps and Beech Avenue: Add a second
southbound left turn lane and a dedicated westbound right
turn lane. Provide overlap phasing for the westbound right
turn.
• Citrus Avenue and SR-210 Westbound Ramps: Add a second
westbound left turn lane and a southbound shared
through/right turn lane.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Citrus Avenue and SR-210 Eastbound Ramps: Reconfigure
the off-ramp to include one left turn lane, one shared
through/left turn lane, and a free right turn lane.
• Sierra Avenue and SR-210 Eastbound Ramps: Convert the
eastbound left turn lane into a shared left through lane.
Convert the eastbound shared left-right lane into an
exclusive right-turn lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Casa Grande Avenue: Add a second
northbound left turn lane and a second southbound left
turn lane. Convert the shared through/right turn lane at
each approach to a through lane. Add a right turn lane to
each approach.
• Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add dual left turn
lanes and a dedicated right turn lane at the northbound and
southbound approaches.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.3b: In order to maintain acceptable LOS in 20302050 during the AM
and PM peak hours at local roadway intersections, the project
shall implement the following improvements:
• Sierra Avenue and C-1 Retail Driveway 1: Install a traffic signal.
Add a southbound through lane.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.4: The proposed project shall pay its fair share costs for the
improvement of freeway segments and interchanges that would
operate at degraded LOS in 2030. These improvements include:
• I-15 Freeway: Construction of additional lane to provide a
total of seven travel lanes in each direction.
• SR-210 Westbound from Citrus Avenue to I-15: Construction
of one additional travel lane.
• SR-210 Westbound from I-15 to Day Creek Boulevard:
Construction of one additional travel lane.
• SR-210 Eastbound from Day Creek Boulevard to I-15:
Construction of one additional travel lane.
• SR-210 Eastbound from Riverside Avenue to Pepper
Avenue: Construction of one additional travel lane.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Significance Conclusion. Because the proposed project would be able to reduce short-term impacts
to less than significant, the proposed project would have a reduced impact compared to the
approved project. The proposed project would result in no new or more severe impacts related to
roadway facilities because after mitigation, the proposed project would not result in unsatisfactory
LOS at any roadway intersection. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would
remain significant and unavoidable, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold B: Would the proposed project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, evaluated
the approved project for consistency with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) by the San
Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG).35 The CMP addresses County-wide traffic
congestion through an interrelation of transportation, land use, and air quality programs. Further,
the CMP sets level of service standards for the County’s CMP-designated highway system and
implements an enhanced transportation management program to ensure that the designated
roadways and intersections meet set standards.
The CMP also outlines the requirements for Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) needed for proposed
development projects. However, cities that adopt a development impact fee (DIF) program
consistent with the requirements of Measure I are exempt from the TIA requirements. The City of
Fontana’s DIF program is consistent with Measure I requirements, which requires the City to fund
regional transportation projects through its DIF program. The analysis in the Traffic Study prepared
for the approved project follows the guidelines of the CMP.
According to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, the San Bernardino County CMP standard was LOS E
for roadway intersections and freeway interchanges in the County’s CMP-designated highway
system. The LOS standard set by the City of Fontana for roadway segments and intersections in the
City is LOS C, with exceptions allowed at LOS D. The North Fontana Circulation Plan also set a
standard of LOS C, with LOS D allowed at freeway interchanges and select locations. Since the City’s
LOS standard was more stringent than the CMP standard, the traffic analysis in the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR used a more restrictive roadway LOS standard of C. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
determined that intersections would operate at LOS C or better with mitigation, that the project
would not exceed standards in the CMP, and that impacts would therefore be less than significant
with mitigation incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended identified Mitigation Measures 4.4.1a, 4.4.1b, 4.4.2, 4.4.3a, 4.4.3b, and 4.4.4
to address impacts.
35 In January 2017, SANBAG split into the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) and San
Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG).
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The most recent update to the San Bernardino County CMP 36
maintained the previous standard of LOS E for roadway intersections and freeway interchanges in
the County’s CMP-designated highway system. As described above, the City of Fontana has
established a LOS standard of LOS C as the minimum level of service standard for intersection
operations, while Caltrans uses LOS D as the minimum level of service standard. Similar to the
approved project, the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project used the City’s LOS
standard, which is more stringent than the CMP standard. The TIA prepared for the proposed
project determined that intersections would operate at LOS C or better with mitigation. Therefore,
like the approved project, the proposed project would not exceed standards in the CMP, and
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures. The revised mitigation measures identified above for the proposed
project under Threshold A would be required: Mitigation Measures 4.4.1a through 4.4.1h,
4.4.2, 4.4.3a, 4.4.3b, and 4.4.4, revised for applicability to the proposed project.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would result in no new or more severe impacts
related to congestion management plan level of service standards because after mitigation, the
proposed project would not result in unsatisfactory LOS at any roadway intersection. Impacts within
the Arboretum Specific Plan area would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated,
as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold C: Would the proposed project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that there are no airports or airstrips near the project site and aircraft traffic patterns
would not be directly affected by the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. As discussed above, there are no airports or airstrips near the
project site and aircraft traffic patterns would not be directed affected by the proposed project. The
nearest airports are Ontario International Airport, located approximately 10.3 miles to the
southwest, and San Bernardino International Airport, located approximately 11.5 miles to the
southeast of the proposed project site. The Rialto Municipal Airport, discussed in the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended, closed in 2014.37 Therefore, aircraft traffic patterns would not be
directly affected by the proposed project. As such, similar to the approved project, impacts would
be less than significant.
36 SANBAG. 2016. San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan, 2016 Update. Website:
https://www.gosbcta.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2016-Congestion-Management-Plan-.pdf.
(accessed October 2025).
37 Parrilla, Leslie. 2014. “Final Closure of Rialto Municipal Airport is Now Almost Guaranteed,” San
Bernardino Sun. Website: https://www.sbsun.com/2014/09/14/final-closure-of-rialto-municipal-airport-
is-now-almost-guaranteed/ (accessed October 2025).
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would result in no new or more severe impacts
related to air traffic patterns when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold D: Would the proposed project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that the approved project would not create traffic hazards due to design features.
Perpendicular street intersections would be provided on major roadways at the site and on abutting
roadways. Traffic signals would also be provided at major intersections at and near the site. No
sharp curves or dangerous intersections would be created by the approved project.
One roundabout was proposed at the intersection of Cypress Avenue and Grapeland Street. The
roundabout would be designed in accordance with FHWA standards and is expected to serve as a
traffic calming device for the driveway and roadway at this location.
Additionally, for the elementary school, the Fontana Unified School District would prepare a
“Suggested Routes to School” to identify safe routes for students walking to and from school, which
would be communicated to parents, students, and the City. The school district would also provide
appropriate signs, crosswalks, and pavement markings near the school.
Traffic volumes on internal streets were anticipated to be low, since the site is configured as
independent villages or planning areas. Thus, stop sign controls on minor streets would provide
adequate traffic control. Future developments would be subject to plan check review to ensure that
sight distance, driveway locations, street intersection design, and signal warrants meet the City’s
traffic safety design criteria. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less
than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Construction and operation of the proposed project is not
expected to increase substantially hazards due to a geometric design feature or an incompatible
use.
Construction. Similar to the approved project, standard construction safety measures would be
implemented, including appropriate signage and flaggers visible to approaching motorists and
pedestrians indicating roadway access limitations and other necessary warnings. Full road
closures are not anticipated during construction. In the event that partial lane closures are
required during construction, detour/safety signage would be installed to direct drivers around
construction activities along adjacent streets. Typical City requirements as codified in Section
Nos. 30-488 (Public Safety) and 30-508 (Site Plan Design) of the City Municipal Code include
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
prior notification of any lane or road closures with sufficient signage before and during any
closures, flag crews with radio communication when necessary to coordinate traffic flow, etc.
The developer would be required to comply with these requirements, which would maintain
emergency access and allow for evacuation if needed during construction activities.
Roadway improvements in and around the proposed project would be designed and
constructed to satisfy all City and Arboretum Specific Plan requirements for street widths,
corner radii, intersection control, as well as incorporate design standards tailored specifically to
site access requirements. Similar to the approved project, compliance with these requirements
would ensure that short-term impacts related to geometric hazards would be less than
significant.
Operation. Access to and from residential areas of the proposed project would be provided via
gated entrances along new roadways connecting to Grapeland Street to the north, Cypress
Street to the west, Sierra Avenue to the east, and Duncan Canyon Road to the south. The C-1
Retail Center would include two driveways on Terra Vista Drive and one driveway on Sierra
Avenue. The driveway on Sierra Avenue would be a full-access signalized driveway. The western
driveway on Terra Vista Drive would be a left-in/left-out-access driveway. The eastern driveway
on Terra Vista Drive would be a right-in/right-out driveway. The driveway locations for the C-2
Retail Center located on the northwest corner of Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road are
unknown at this time, therefore, one driveway on Sierra Avenue and one driveway on Duncan
Canyon Road were assumed for the traffic analysis in the TIA prepared for the proposed project
for informational purposes only.
All entry gates would include an override switch to allow access by emergency responders. All
points of site access and driveway aprons are designed and would be constructed to adequate
widths for public safety pursuant to local requirements. Adherence to applicable City
requirements would ensure the proposed development would not include any sharp curves or
dangerous intersections. Therefore, no substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature
would occur. Similar to the approved project, compliance with requirements would ensure that
operational impacts related to geometric hazards would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to geometric hazards when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold E: Would the proposed project result in inadequate emergency access?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. Per the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
regional access to the approved project site would be provided through the Sierra Avenue
interchange at the I-15 Freeway and at the future Duncan Canyon Road interchange with I-15, while
local access would be provided by planned roads near and within the project site, including Citrus
Avenue, Duncan Canyon Road, Cypress Avenue, and Sierra Avenue. Further, access for individual
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
lots would be provided on the site through local streets and cul-de-sacs, and at least two access
points would be provided for each village or planning area. Roadway improvement plans would be
subject to plan check for compliance with the City’s traffic safety design criteria for sight distance,
driveway locations, street intersection design, and signal warrants. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
determined that no access conflicts with through traffic on the abutting roadways are expected with
the proposed project and impacts resulting from the approved project would be less than
significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis.
Construction. Similar to the approved project, construction activities that may temporarily
restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate the
passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. Typical City
requirements include prior notification of any lane or road closures with sufficient signage
before and during any closures, flag crews with radio communication when necessary to
coordinate traffic flow, etc. The project applicant would be required to comply with these
requirements, which would maintain emergency access and allow for evacuation if needed
during construction activities. Similar to the approved project, compliance with these
requirements would ensure that short-term impacts related to this issue are less than
significant.
Operation. As stated above under Threshold D, all entry gates would include an override switch
to allow access by emergency responders. All points of site access and driveway aprons are
designed and would be constructed to adequate widths for public safety pursuant to local
requirements.
Additionally, the project applicant would be required to design, construct, and maintain
structures, roadways, and facilities to maintain appropriate emergency/evacuation access to
and from the project site pursuant to California Fire Code. These improvements would be
subject to the City’s Administrative Site Plan review process to ensure compliance with local
requirements and would also be reviewed by the Fontana Fire Protection District and Police
Department through the City’s general development review process. Proper site design and
compliance with standard and emergency City access requirements would allow for evacuation
if necessary during ongoing business operations. This would ensure that long-term impacts
related to this issue are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to emergency access when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Threshold F: Would the proposed project result in inadequate parking capacity?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. Per the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
parking standards in the City’s Zoning and Development Code would continue to be applicable to
future development on the site and no deviations to the parking requirements contained in the
City’s Zoning and Development Code would be allowed. The residential, commercial, park and
school uses developed as part of the approved project would have to provide off-street parking
spaces as part of individual developments, based on the City’s parking requirements for single-
family and multi-family developments, retail commercial uses, schools, and parks.
Therefore, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR determined that no inadequacy in parking would occur
from the approved project and impacts associated with parking would be less than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. This threshold is no longer applicable under CEQA; therefore,
this section is provided for informational purposes. Similar to the approved project, parking
constructed for the proposed project would comply with parking standards described in the
Arboretum Specific Plan, including: 7.1.6, Commercial Parking; 8.3.6, Parking Standards (which
regulates residential parking); 8.4, Activity Center Development Standards; and 8.5.5, Parking (which
regulates parking for recreational uses). Per the Specific Plan, these parking standards align with the
City’s Zoning and Development Code, and any future development on the site would be subject to
the City’s regulations. No deviations to the parking requirements contained in the City’s Zoning and
Development Code are allowed. Similar to the approved project, the proposed project would be
required to provide off-street parking spaces based on the City’s parking requirements for single-
family and multi-family developments, retail commercial uses, schools, and parks.
The City’s parking requirements state that single-family units are required to provide a two-car
garage, with an additional garage space required for every two bedrooms over three bedrooms in a
unit. Multi-family units are required to provide from 1.5 to 2.5 parking spaces per unit, depending
on the number of bedrooms, with one space in an enclosed garage, plus one guest parking space per
three units. Recreational vehicles parking would be regulated by Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) specific to the proposed project.
Under the City Code, commercial retail uses are required to provide parking according to the specific
land use. Retail sales are required to provide one parking space per 175 square feet of gross floor
area for the initial 5,000 square feet, beyond which one space must be provided per 200 square feet
of gross floor area for the next 5,000 square feet. One space must be provided per 225 square feet
of additional gross floor area greater than 10,000 square feet. Parking requirements for other
commercial uses are highly variable and depend on the proposed land use or occupancy. Because
the developments within the Specific Plan would be required to adhere to the City’s parking
requirements, no inadequacy in parking would occur from the proposed project. Therefore, impacts
related to parking would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to inadequate parking capacity when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within
the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold G: Would the proposed project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that impacts related to conflicts with policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation would be less than significant. Per the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
Omnitrans may or may not initiate future bus transit services in the area, and the approved Specific
Plan would not conflict or interfere with public transit at the time of approval nor in the future
should service be initiated. Additionally, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, noted that
future residents and employees of the approved project may use Metrolink commuter trains to get
to and from work and home, but that due to the distance of the nearest Metrolink Station to the
site, residents and employees were likely to travel in private vehicles between the station and the
approved project. Therefore, an increase in train traffic on the Metrolink tracks was not anticipated
to occur as a result of the approved project, and the approved project would not conflict with
adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting public transportation, nor would it preclude the
future use of bus transit.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Along the boundaries of the proposed project, Sierra Avenue,
Grapeland Street, Duncan Canyon Road, and Cypress Avenue would all contain a 6-foot-wide
sidewalk separated from the street by an 8-foot-wide landscape area, with the exception of the
portion of Duncan Canyon Road between Cypress Avenue and Cassava Drive and the portion of
Cypress Avenue between Duncan Canyon Road and the future continuation of Terra Vista. In these
areas, the 10-foot-wide Arboretum Trail would be constructed on the north and south sides of
Duncan Canyon Road and on the western side of Cypress Avenue. The Arboretum Trail would also
be separated from the street by an 8-foot-wide landscape area. Local streets within the proposed
project would contain a 5-foot-wide curb-separated sidewalk on both sides of the street. In addition
to the pedestrian sidewalks, Class II bicycle lanes would be included adjacent to Sierra Avenue,
Grapeland Street, Duncan Canyon Road, and Cypress Avenue. The bicycle and pedestrian facilities
proposed by the Arboretum Specific Plan, including the proposed project, are included in the City of
Fontana Active Transportation Plan (ATP), adopted November 14, 2017.38
The nearest transit services are provided by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving San
Bernardino County. Two Omnitrans lines are located near the proposed project: the nearest bus
stop for Route 22, which travels between the adjacent neighborhood to the east of the proposed
project and the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, is approximately 0.5 mile from the proposed
38 City of Fontana. 2017. Fontana Active Transportation Plan. Website: https://www.fontanaca.gov/
DocumentCenter/View/27009/ATP-Final-Report (accessed October 2025).
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
project; while the nearest bus stop for Route 82, which travels through Fontana to Rancho
Cucamonga via the Fontana Metrolink Transit Center, is approximately 1.1 miles from the proposed
project.
Implementation of the proposed project would not affect potential future bus routes or bus stops
proposed next to the project site. The approved project includes a Class II bicycle lane and walking
paths adjacent to the project site, and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities have been
incorporated into the City’s ATP. Project implementation would not affect bike lanes or sidewalks, or
any other alternative modes of transportation. The proposed project would not conflict with current
policies or plans that support alternative transportation modes. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to conflicts with policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation when compared
to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less
than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
3.16.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to transportation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental
document to address impacts related to transportation is not warranted.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Water Services. Would the proposed
project require or result in the construction
of new water facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects and have sufficient water supplies
not available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
would new or expanded entitlements be
proposed project require or result in the
construction of new wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects, and
exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board, and result in
a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it does not have
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
project require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
project be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs and comply with federal,
state, and local statutes and regulations
proposed project result in inadequate
electrical services to existing customers,
and require or result in the construction of
new utility facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects,
and have sufficient energy resources not
project result in inadequate natural gas
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
result in the construction of new utility
facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects, and have
sufficient resources not available to serve
Would the proposed project require or
result in the construction of new
telecommunication facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects and result in
3.17.1 Impact Analysis
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR analyzed the approved project’s impacts on utility systems in
Section 4.12, including the provision of water and wastewater services and facilities needed to meet
the demand of the approved project.
Threshold A: Water Services. Would the proposed project require or result in the construction of new
water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects and have sufficient water supplies not available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. There are existing water lines within and near the
approved project area that would serve water to the future developments. The approved project
also includes new water main lines along Cypress Avenue and Grapeland Street that would extend
to existing water lines on Sierra Avenue, Duncan Canyon Road, and Casa Grande Avenue. These lines
would be in the public right-of-way, and future developments may require water line extensions.
The below standard conditions will be required for future developments to ensure adequate
infrastructure is available to serve the future uses:
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.1: The developer shall comply with the
requirements of the West Valley Water District on water line extensions to serve individual
developments on the site.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.2: The developer shall comply with the
requirements of the West Valley Water District, Fontana Water Company, San Gabriel Municipal
Water District, and/or the Cucamonga Water District on excavation and construction near
existing water lines on and near the site.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that there would be sufficient water
supplies during normal, dry, and multiple dry years for the approved project. However, the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, included projections indicating that contracted water
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
deliveries would be reduced by 20 percent for one out of every four future years and may be
reduced by up to 30 percent for one out of every six future years. Therefore, the below standard
condition is required to implement water conservations measures as a project design feature.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.3: Future developments shall implement
water conservation measures into the project design of the individual developments on the site
to reduce water demand, in accordance with the Water Conservation Plan of the West Valley
Water District.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, also identified a potential conflict with construction
of the approved project and existing water lines located adjacent to the approved project area.
Specifically, the Metropolitan Water District operates the Rialto Pipeline under Casa Grande Avenue,
which is along the southern perimeter of the approved project area. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures 4.12.1a and 4.12.1b would reduce potential impacts to existing water service providers to
below significance.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation
measures were identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended:
Mitigation Measure 4.12.1a: The City of Fontana shall submit a letter of intent to the MWD
for their approval to use the MWD right-of-way as a public
street right-of-way.
Mitigation Measure 4.12.1b: Any grading, excavation, or construction work near the MWD
right-of-way or the MWD pipelines shall follow the MWD’s
guidelines, with plans submitted for review and approval by the
MWD prior to the start of work.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project would be developed on a parcel that is
located within the approved project boundary; as such, the utility impact analysis presented in the
approved project has considered the utility demand for the proposed project. Like the approved
project, the proposed project is in the service area of the WVWD. A Water Supply Assessment
(WSA)39 prepared for the approved project concluded that there would be sufficient water supplies
available during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. While the mix of housing types has changed
slightly in the proposed project since the assessment of water supply for the approved project, the
total number of units remains the same and the change would lead to fewer detached units, leading
to a minor overestimate in the water consumption numbers projected in the WSA, as shown in
Table 16. To ensure reliable water supplies and reduce the demand for water, the proposed project
would subject to Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.12.1 through 4.12.3.
On-site infrastructure improvements would be constructed as described in the approved project,
including utility service connections provided for individual parcels and building pads, extension of
39 West Valley Water District. 2007. Water Supply Assessment for Arboretum Specific Plan. January.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
existing water lines, and movement of water hydrants and valves to locations outside the widened
roadway pavement as necessary.
Table 16: Land Use and Ultimate Water Demand
1 2
Rate
(gpm/ Ultimate Water
Water Use
Rate Ultimate Water
69.2 2.0 138.4
Community
102.8 1.75 179.9
26.6 2.83 75.278 — — —
35 2.43 85.05 24.4 2.43 59.292
7.3 2.43 17.739 5.9 2.43 14.337
1 Water Supply Assessment for Arboretum Specific Plan. Page 11. Prepared by Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc.
January 19, 2007.
2 2012 Water Master Plan. Pages 5-12, 5-14, and 7-32. West Valley Water District. August 2012.
As the project would interconnect to existing water and proposed water utility infrastructure as
discussed in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, WVWD would have adequate supply and
capacity to serve the proposed project, similar to the approved project, no new or expanded water
facilities are anticipated to be constructed with implementation of the proposed project.
The approved project noted that construction of Casa Grande Avenue would conflict with a 120 to
121.5 inch water line (Rialto Pipeline) owned by Metropolitan Water District. The construction of
Casa Grande Avenue is not part of the proposed project, as it is outside of the Resort Village
planning area. Based on the information and analysis above, the proposed project would not require
new or expanded water facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts. Additionally, the proposed project would not impact the Rialto Pipeline. Therefore, the
proposed project would have less than significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures. The mitigation measures identified for the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR,
as amended, Mitigation Measures 4.12.1a and 4.12.1b, would not be applicable to the proposed
project. No additional mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to new or expanded utility infrastructure when compared to the approved project; because the
proposed project would not impact the Rialto Pipeline, impacts resulting from the proposed project
would be reduced compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as specified in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Threshold B: Wastewater and Sewer Services. Would the proposed project require or result in the
construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and exceed wastewater
treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, and result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The approved project would be subject to a standard
condition that requires the developer to provide sewer lines throughout the project area, including
12-, 15, and 18-inch sewer lines under Duncan Canyon Road, Cypress Avenue, Citrus Avenue, and
Casa Grande Avenue that would connect to existing laterals and mains, located off-site.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.4: The developer shall comply with the
requirements of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the City of Fontana on sewer line
extensions and service connections to serve individual parcels and building pads on the site.
Wastewater generated by the approved project would be conveyed to a wastewater treatment
facility operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). According to the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended, there would be adequate capacity at the treatment facility to accommodate
the approved project, and construction of a new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment
facilities would not be required. Moreover, wastewater generated by the approved project would
include typical constituents of residential wastewater, and the commercial uses would not produce
industrial-type wastewater that would require special treatment. The Arboretum Specific Plan
identified an existing septic tank in the Norwest corner of the Specific Plan area, which would need
to be abandoned and removed prior to redevelopment of the parcel. Mitigation Measure 4.8.1,
discussed in Section 3.10.1 of this Addendum, would reduce impacts related to the septic tank.
Therefore, the approved project would not exceed standard wastewater treatment requirements.
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, identified Mitigation Measure 4.8.1, discussed in Section 3.10.1 of this
Addendum. No further mitigation measures were identified.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. On-site infrastructure improvements would be constructed as
described in the approved project, including utility service connections provided for individual
parcels and building pads. The developer would extend existing sewer lines to run along major
streets on-site and to individual parcels and structures. Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard
Condition 4.12.4 would remain applicable to the proposed project. As described under Threshold A,
the proposed project would be developed on a parcel that is located within the approved project
planning area; as such, the utility impact analysis presented in the approved project has considered
the utility demand for the proposed project. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that the wastewater generated by the approved project would be adequately disposed
of by IEUA’s infrastructure. While the mix of housing types has changed slightly in the proposed
project since the assessment of sewage generated by the approved project, the total number of
units remains the same and the change would result in a small increase (approximately three
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
percent) in sewage generation compared to what was estimated for the approved project in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, as shown in Table 17 and Table 18.
Table 17: Approved Project Estimated Sewage Generation for the
Resort Planning Area
Attached Units 41 acres 5,747.4 gpd/acre 235,643.4 gpd
HD Detached Units/Condos 48.4 acres 3,264.3 gpd/acre 157,992.12 gpd
Small Lot SFD 12.2 acres 1,311.3 gpd/acre 15,997.86 gpd
Large Lot SFD
8.5 acres 200 gpd/acre 1,700 gpd
12.1 acres 2,400 gpd/acre 29,040 gpd
8.8 acres 1,200 gpd/acre 10,560 gpd
0 acres 200 gpd/acre 0 gpd
28.6 acres 0 gpd/acre 0 gpd
0 acres 0 gpd/acre 0 gpd
Sources: Citrus Avenue Sewer System Analysis, 2007; and Section 3 Project Description. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Proposed Arboretum Specific Plan. Table 3-1 and Page 3-2. SCH No. 2006071109. May 2008.
gpd = gallons per day
HD = High Density
SFD = Single Family Dwelling
Table 18: Proposed SPA Estimated Sewage Generation for the Resort Planning Area
Attached Units 54.4 acres 5,747.4 gpd/acre 312,658.6 gpd
HD Detached Units 20.5 acres 3,264.3 gpd/acre 66,918.15 gpd
Small Lot SFD 25 acres 1,311.3 gpd/acre 32,782.5 gpd
Large Lot SFD
8.5 acres 200 gpd/acre 1,700 gpd
12.1 acres 2,400 gpd/acre 29,040 gpd
18.1 acres 1,200 gpd/acre 21,720 gpd
0 acres 200 gpd/acre 0 gpd
21.01 acres 0 gpd/acre 0 gpd
0 acres 0 gpd/acre 0 gpd
Source: Citrus Avenue Sewer System Analysis, 2007.
gpd = gallons per day
HD = High Density
SFD = Single Family Dwelling
Additionally, although there would be an increase in commercial uses in the proposed project
compared to the approved project, the commercial uses would not produce industrial-type
wastewater that would require special treatment. Because the proposed project would only
increase wastewater generation by three percent compared to the Resort Village evaluated as part
of the approved project, the total demand resulting from the proposed project would still be well
within the IEUA infrastructure service capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would not require
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required. Because the proposed project would not
impact the existing septic tank, Mitigation Measure 4.8.1, identified for the approved project, is
not applicable to the proposed project.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to wastewater and sewer services when compared to the approved project. Because the proposed
project would not impact the existing septic tank, the proposed project would result in reduced
impacts compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum Specific Plan
would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as specified in the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold C: Storm Drainage. Would the proposed project require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The approved project would be subject to the below
standard condition that requires the installation of a storm drain system to serve the approved
project:
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.5: The developer shall comply with the
requirements of the City of Fontana on the construction of needed storm drain lines and
facilities to prevent flood hazards in the area and to provide adequate storm drainage for the
future developments under the proposed Arboretum Specific Plan.
Downstream storm drainage systems were not constructed at the time the Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR was prepared. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, provides that if the downstream
drainage systems are not implemented, temporary basins would be created to allow runoff to
dissipate through evaporation or percolation into the ground. Upon the completion of the
downstream storm drainage facilities, the basins would be removed. Potential impacts caused by
stormwater pollution would be reduced through the compliance to NPDES under Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 (see Addendum Section 3.10.1). Therefore,
impacts to storm drain facilities would be less than significant.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended. Stormwater pollution and flood
hazards are addressed in Section 4.8, Hydrology, Water Quality and Flooding, of the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The developer would construct a storm drain line on Duncan
Canyon Road from Citrus Avenue to Sierra Avenue (through the site). As described above, on-site
storm drainage system would be provided for the individual villages and would include curbs and
gutters on local streets, catch basins and inlets, and underground storm drain lines connecting to
receiving waters.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
As discussed in the Arboretum Specific Plan, development within the Specific Plan, including the
proposed project, would be accompanied by the construction of a storm drainage system that
would include reinforced concrete pipes and reinforced concrete boxes along Sierra Avenue, Duncan
Canyon Road, and Cypress Avenue. As discussed in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, if
downstream facilities are not constructed prior to construction of the proposed project, temporary
detention basins would be used to contain runoff. Although construction of the proposed project
would result in an increase in stormwater generation and corresponding increase in demand on
stormwater infrastructure due to the increase in impervious surfaces on the project site,
construction of the proposed on-site storm drain facilities would provide adequate storm drainage
for the proposed project.
Based on the information and analysis above, the proposed project would require any new or
expanded drainage facilities compared to the approved project. Impacts related to storm water
drainage resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to storm drain facilities when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the
Arboretum Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold D: Solid Waste Disposal. Would the proposed project be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs and comply with
federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The approved project would be served by Mid-Valley
Sanitary Landfill, which according to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, has a sufficient
capacity to accommodate solid waste generated by the approved project. Construction-related
wastes would be short-term and incremental, based on the phased developments of the approved
project. Depending on whether special handling would be required, construction waste would be
disposed of at the West Valley Material Recovery Facilities and Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, which
according to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, has sufficient capacity to accept
construction waste.
In compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 939), the City
works with Burrtec Waste to divert at least 50 percent of its waste stream away from landfills either
through waste reduction or recycling. Solid waste disposal services are provided by Burrtec Waste
Industries, Inc. in the City. To ensure solid wastes and hazardous wastes are collected and disposed
of accordingly, the below standard conditions are required for future residential and commercial
developments. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR determined that compliance with Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.12.6 and 4.12.7 would ensure that impacts would be less
than significant.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.6: The developer shall comply with the
requirements of Burrtec on the provision of solid waste collection services to individual
developments on the project site.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.7: Burrtec and the City shall promote the
recycling of wastes through the provision of informational brochures, recycling bins, barrel
service, and recycled waste collection services to future residential and commercial
developments on the site. Information on hazardous waste collection facilities would also be
provided to allow for convenient and proper disposal of hazardous wastes.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has a surplus solid waste
capacity of 4,124 tons per day.40 During construction, the approved project was expected to
generate a total of approximately 11,570 tons of incremental solid waste from activities conducted
in phases, based on an average of 4 pounds of solid waste per square foot of construction, average
of 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit, and approximately 95,832 square feet of commercial space
and 400,000 square feet of school floor area. The 2016 Addendum to the EIR added 12 dwelling
units and reduced the school floor area from the proposed 400,000 square feet to approximately
314,800 square feet of school floor area. Per the 2016 Addendum, the solid waste from construction
activities would subsequently be approximately 268,800 pounds less than analyzed under the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR.
The currently proposed project would not increase the number of dwelling units. The proposed
project would however increase the commercial uses by 73,558 square feet from the overall
approved project. Therefore, the proposed project would include a total of 169,690 square feet of
commercial floor area. Using the same assumptions as the approved project, the proposed project
would generate an average of 4 pounds of solid waste per square foot of construction, average of
1,500 square feet per dwelling unit. Per the 2016 Addendum, school floor area would be 314,800
square feet. Therefore, under the proposed project, solid waste from construction activities would
be approximately 11,564.4 pounds, or 5.6 tons less than analyzed under the Final Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR. No significant impacts to landfills from construction of the proposed project would
occur.
Operation of the approved project will require 31 tons of solid waste per day from the 4,124 tons
per day surplus capacity of the Mid-Valley Sanitary landfill, and a 4,093 tons-per-day surplus
capacity will remain. Table 19 details the production of solid waste from the approved project, as
amended, compared to the proposed project.
40 Per the CalRecycle Recycling and Disposal Reporting System (RDRS) Report 3: Disposal Facility Summary of
Total Tons For Disposal and Beneficial Reuse Material Streams, Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill received an
average of 3,376 tons of solid waste per day in 2023 and 2024. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/
RecyclingDisposalReporting/Reports/DisposalFacilitesAllocationTons (accessed October 2025).
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
The proposed project would develop an additional 73,558 square feet of commercial uses compared
to the approved project, as amended, but would not increase the number of dwelling units within
the planning area. Similar to the approved project, the proposed project is in an area of Fontana
that is urbanized and is served by existing solid waste haulers. Solid waste collection is a “demand-
responsive” service, and current service levels can be expanded and funded through user fees. Solid
waste from the proposed project would be hauled by Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. and transferred
to the West Valley Materials Recycling Facility (MRF)/Transfer Station. From the MRF, the non-
recyclable material would be sent to Mid-Valley Landfill. Mid-Valley Landfill has a daily throughput
of 7,500 tons with a remaining capacity of 54,219,377 cubic yards.41
Table 19: Solid Waste from Approved Project versus Proposed Project
1
Residential
Uses
3,532
units
14,063
residents
1,500 lbs/
person/year
21.09 million
lbs/year
Residential
Uses
3,532
units
14,063
residents
1,500 lbs/
person/year
21.09 million
lbs/year
Commercial
Uses sf employees employee/year Uses sf employees employee/lbs/year
sf employees employee/year sf employees employee/year
Totals: 22.35
million lbs/million lbs/
Source: Factors from San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, 2006.
1 Section 4.12 Utilities. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Arboretum Specific Plan. Page 4.12-23. SCH No.
2006071109. May 2008. Section 4.17 Utilities. Addendum to Environmental Impact Report for the Arboretum Specific Plan. Page
104. SCH No. 2006071109. June 2016.
lbs = pounds
Development of the proposed project and the potential generation of an additional 147 employees
could increase the demand for solid waste service. Further, based on a generation rate of 19.6
pounds per employee per day,42 the project would generate up to 2,881 additional pounds of solid
waste per day compared to the approved project.43 This amount is equivalent to as much as 0.035
41 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Solid Waste Information System
(SWIS). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055). Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662 (accessed October 23,
2025).
42 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Fontana Jursidiction Per Capita
Disposal Rate Trends: 2023. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/
ReviewReports (accessed October 2025).
43 19.6 pounds per employee per day × 147 employees = 2,881 pounds of solid waste per day.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
percent of the daily surplus capacity at Mid-Valley Landfill.44 As this increase would be negligible, the
Mid-Valley Landfill has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. As adequate daily surplus
capacity exists at the receiving landfill, and the project would comply with local and State waste
reduction strategies, the project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure.
In addition, Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.12.6 and 4.12.7 would be applicable
to the proposed project. Based on the information and analysis above, the proposed project would
be adequately served by existing solid waste infrastructure and would comply with all federal, state,
and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore,
similar to the approved project, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to solid waste when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
Threshold E: Electrical Power Service. Would the proposed project result in inadequate electrical
services to existing customers, and require or result in the construction of new utility facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects, and have sufficient energy resources not available to serve the project?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. Electricity would be provided to the approved project by
SCE. Future developments under the approved project would generate a demand of electrical
power. The implementation of the following standard conditions would reduce the approved
project’s potential adverse impacts on power services and to encourage energy conservation.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.8: The developer shall comply with the
requirements of SCE online extensions to serve individual parcels and building pads on the site.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.9: Future developments shall incorporate
energy conservation measures into the project design of the individual developments, in
compliance with the California Energy Efficiency Standards and as mandated under Title 24 of
the California Code of Regulations (California Building Standards Code).
The approved project proposes improvements through the SCE and SoCal Gas easement, located on
the northwestern perimeter of the approved project area. The improvements may potentially
damage the existing transmission power facilities. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.12.2 (see
Addendum Section 5.11.3) has been identified to reduce this potentially significant impact to less
than significant with mitigation incorporated.
44 2,881 pounds of solid waste per day ÷ 3,376 tons (8,248,540 pounds) daily surplus = 0.035 percent.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation
measures were identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,:
Mitigation Measure 4.12.2: Improvements proposed within the SCE easement shall be subject
to review and approval by SCE to ensure no adverse impacts to the
high-voltage transmission lines and for compliance with SCE’s
development guidelines.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Like the approved project, SCE will serve the Resort Village
Planning Area under the proposed project. As outlined in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, the
proposed project will require proper coordination with SCE to ensure construction of necessary
electrical facilities is conducted in accordance with SCE requirements to ensure adequate electrical
service. Estimated electricity consumption in the entire Arboretum Specific Plan under the proposed
project compared to the Arboretum Specific Plan under approved project is shown in Table 20. As
shown in Table 20, the proposed project would result in an increase in approximately one million
kilowatt-hours per year, a four percent increase. Total electricity consumption in San Bernardino
County in 2024 was 16,206 gigawatt hours (GWh) (16,206,000,000 kWh). Therefore, operation of
the Arboretum Specific Plan under the proposed project would increase the annual electricity
consumption in San Bernardino County by 0.006 percent compared to the approved project. With
implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Conditions 4.12.8 and 4.12.9 and
Mitigation Measure 4.12.2, the proposed project would receive adequate electrical service and not
have significant impacts to electrical facilities. As stated in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, this
represents a relatively minor amount of SCE’s total power generation when compared to the service
area and existing developments served by SCE in the region.
Table 20: Estimated Electricity Consumption of the Arboretum Specific Plan
Land Use Size Land Use Size
Residential
Uses
3,532
units
5,626.5 kWh/
unit/year
19.87 million
kWh
Residential
Uses
3,532
units
5,626.5 kWh/
unit/year
19.87 million
kWh
Commercial
Uses 95,832 sf
Schools Schools
Totals: Totals:
Source: Consumption factors from SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook.
1 Section 4.12 Utilities. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Arboretum Specific Plan. Table 4.12-5 and Page 4.12-
26. SCH No. 2006071109. May 2008.
Section 4.17 Utilities. Addendum to Environmental Impact Report for the Arboretum Specific Plan. Page 104. SCH No. 2006071109.
June 2016.
kWh = kilowatt hour
As the project would interconnect to existing electricity infrastructure on Sierra Avenue, Citrus
Avenue, and the dirt road proposed as Grapeland Street and SCE would be able to accommodate
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
the electricity needs of the proposed project, similar to the approved project, no new or expanded
electricity facilities are anticipated to be constructed with implementation of the proposed project.
In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with Arboretum Specific Plan EIR
Standard Conditions 4.12.8 and 4.12.9 and Mitigation Measure 4.12.2, as prescribed by the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, to ensure potentially significant impacts to electricity
facilities would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Based on the information and analysis
above, the proposed project would not require new or expanded electricity facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, similar to the
approved project, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures. Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measure 4.12.2
would be implemented. No additional mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to solid waste when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as specified in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold F: Natural Gas Service. Would the proposed project result in inadequate natural gas
services to existing customers, require or result in the construction of new utility facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects, and have sufficient resources not available to serve the project?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The SCG would provide natural gas to the approved
project. The nearest gas line is located on the east side of Sierra Avenue, east of the site. Two high-
pressure gas lines also run southwesterly through North Fontana and run along the northwestern
boundary of the site, with a gas pumping facility located east of these gas lines, north of Duncan
Canyon Road.
To ensure safe and reliable services, Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.10 would
be required.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.10: The developer shall comply with the
requirements of SCG on gas line extensions to serve individual parcels and building pads on the
site, as well as for construction in or near the SCG right-of-way.
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR further provides that project development of Duncan Canyon Road
through and grading activities near a SCG gas pumping facility near the SCG easement, located along
the northwest perimeter of the approved project, could potentially damage SCG’s facilities and
interrupt services. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12.3 would be required to
ensure impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation
measures were identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended:
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Mitigation Measure 4.12.3: Improvements proposed within the SCG easement and near the gas
pumping facility shall be subject to review and approval by SCG to
ensure no adverse impacts to the natural gas lines and facilities and
for compliance with SCG’s development guidelines.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project would develop an additional 73,558
square feet of commercial uses, but would not increase the number of dwelling units within the
planning area. The additional commercial uses are anticipated to generate approximately 147
additional employees compared to the approved project. Like the approved project, the proposed
project would be served by SCG for natural gas utilities. Also like the approved project,
implementation of the proposed project would create a demand for natural gas services.
Construction of the proposed project would not include natural gas consumption. Estimated
operational natural gas demand associated with the proposed project, as shown in Table 21, would
increase the natural gas demand by 86,824 therms per year compared to the approved project.
Total natural gas consumption in San Bernardino County in 2024 was 547,200,000 therms per year.
Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual natural gas consumption in
San Bernardino County by 0.02 percent.
Table 21: Operational Natural Gas Demand Estimates
Proposed Project 426,408
Approved Project 339,584
Net Increase Demand 86,824
Source: Compiled by LSA (October 2025).
As for the approved project, natural gas lines will need to be extended from the existing lines on
Sierra Avenue to the proposed project site and service connections would need to be provided to
individual parcels, in coordination with SCG regulations. SCG states that the availability of natural
gas service is based on conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. However, as shown above,
the gas consumption from the proposed project is not expected to represent a significant amount of
SCG’s natural gas supplies, and supplies are available to serve the project.
Coordination with SCG and compliance with their requirements would be needed to allow for timely
and adequate service to the site. Implementation of energy efficiency measures would also reduce
gas consumption by the proposed residential and commercial developments. Adherence to
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.10 and implementation of Mitigation
Measure 4.12.10 would ensure that operational impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures. Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures 4.12.10
would be required. No additional mitigation is required.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to solid waste when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as specified in the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Threshold G: Telephone and Cable Television Services. Would the proposed project require or result
in the construction of new telecommunication facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects and result in inadequate services
to existing customers?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The approved project would be served by AT&T and
Time Warner Communications on demand through all phases of the project and full buildout. Proper
coordination with the service providers is required under Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard
Condition 4.12.11. No significant impacts to telecommunications facilities would occur, and no
mitigation is required.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.11: The developer shall comply with the
requirements of AT&T and Time Warner on telephone and cable line extensions to serve
individual parcels and building pads on the site.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures were
identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended.
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. Like the approved project, the proposed project will be served
by AT&T and Time Warner. As outlined in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, the proposed project will
require proper coordination with AT&T and Time Warner to ensure construction of necessary
telecommunications facilities is conducted in accordance with AT&T and Time Warner requirements
to ensure adequate telecommunications service. With implementation of Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR Standard Condition 4.12.11, the proposed project would receive adequate telecommunications
service and not have significant impacts to telecommunications facilities. Impacts related to
telecommunications resources associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to solid waste when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would remain less than significant, as specified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended.
3.17.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity and natural gas, or solid waste.
Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental document to address impacts related to
utilities and service systems is not warranted.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
4.0 CEQA RESOURCE TOPICS NOT ANALYZED IN THE CERTIFIED FINAL EIR
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, was certified prior to the 2019 CEQA Statute and
Guidelines update that occurred in December 2018. This Addendum includes three resource topics
that were not previously included in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, but that warrant
analysis due to the 2019 CEQA Statute and Guidelines update, including energy, greenhouse gas
emissions, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
included a greenhouse gas emissions analysis in Section 4.5 (Air Quality); however, that analysis was
based on the CEQA Statute and Guidelines at the time the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
was certified (2009). The information in Section 4.5 of the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
is used to provide an analytical comparison on greenhouse gas emissions impacts between the
approved project and proposed project based on the 2019 CEQA Statute and Guidelines Energy
Thresholds. As the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, did not include an analysis of energy,
tribal cultural resources, or wildfire impacts, the Energy, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Wildfire
sections below provide an analysis for potential impacts to tribal cultural resources and wildfire for
the approved project and proposed project.
4.1 ENERGY
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the project result in significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
a State or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
4.1.1 Impact Analysis
Threshold A: Would the project result in significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; and
Threshold B: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Approved Project Significance Conclusion. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended,
determined that future developments under the proposed Arboretum Specific Plan would generate
a demand for electrical power and natural gas and would require services from SCE and SCG, and
coordination following Mitigation Measures 4.12.2 and 4.12.3. Existing power supplies are available
to serve future development on the site. Implementation of energy conservation measures
according to Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.9 would also reduce power use.
Extension of existing lines to individual parcels and building pads according to Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.8 and implementation of the standard conditions are expected to
provide adequate service and reduce energy demands.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.8: The developer shall comply with the
requirements of SCE on line extensions to serve individual parcels and building pads on the site.
• Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.9: Future developments shall incorporate
energy conservation measures into the project design of the individual developments, in
compliance with the California Energy Efficiency Standards and as mandated under Title 24 of
the California Code of Regulations (California Building Standards Code).
Overall, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, concluded that impacts to energy demand
would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Mitigation Measures. The Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, requires the following measures.
Mitigation Measure 4.12.2: Improvements proposed within the SCE easement shall be
subject to review and approval by SCE to ensure no adverse
impacts to the high-voltage transmission lines and for
compliance with SCE’s development guidelines.
Mitigation Measure 4.12.3: Improvements proposed within the SCG easement and near the
gas pumping facility shall be subject to review and approval by
SCG to ensure no adverse impacts to the natural gas lines and
facilities and for compliance with SCG’s development guidelines
Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The proposed project would increase the demand for electricity
and gasoline when compared to existing site conditions. The discussion and analysis provided below
is based on the data included in the CalEEMod output, which is included in Appendix A.45
Construction-Period Energy Use. The anticipated construction schedule assumes that the
proposed project would be built over approximately 6-years months. The proposed project
would require energy for construction activities, including manufacturing and transporting
building materials, grading, and building, and powering construction-related equipment.
Construction of the proposed project would not include natural gas consumption.
Transportation energy would the largest energy use during construction and would occur from
the transport of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction
worker vehicles that use petroleum (e.g., diesel fuel and/or gasoline).Impacts related to energy
use during construction would be temporary and relatively small in comparison to San
Bernardino County’s overall use of the State’s available energy resources. Similar to the
approved project, the proposed project does not include any unusual project characteristics
would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient when
compared to similar projects in the region or State. Additionally, construction activities are not
anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied
by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their
45 LSA. 2025. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for the proposed Resort Village Amendment to
the Arboretum Specific Plan Project in Fontana, California. October. Appendix A.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
costs on the project. The project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy
facilities or an additional or expanded delivery system. Therefore, construction of the proposed
project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption.
Operational Energy Use. Operational energy use is typically associated with natural gas use,
electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with a project. Energy
consumption was estimated for the proposed project using default energy intensities by land
use type in CalEEMod.
The proposed project would also result in energy consumption associated with gasoline and
diesel fuel consumed by project-related vehicle and truck trips. To provide a consistent
comparison of changes between the approved project and the proposed project, the trip rates
used for the proposed project are consistent with the trip rates used for the approved project
analysis, which uses the 7th edition of the ITE rates. Fuel consumption was estimated using
CalEEMod’s trip generation and VMT outputs, and CARB’s EMFAC2021 model, which provided
projections for typical daily fuel consumption in San Bernardino County. Electricity and fuel
consumption estimates associated with the proposed project are shown below in Table 22.
Table 22: Approved Project and Proposed Project Energy Consumption
Estimates during Operation
Natural Gas (therms/year) 426,408
Gasoline (gallons/year) 2,571,605
Diesel Fuel (gallons/year) 1,898,919
Electricity Consumption (kWh/year) 9,698,917
Natural Gas (therms/year) 339,584
Gasoline (gallons/year) 2,337,343
Diesel Fuel (gallons/year) 1,671,626
Source: Compiled by LSA (October 2025).
kWh = kilowatt-hours
As shown in Table 22, the estimated potential increase in electricity demand associated with the
operation of the proposed project is 3,362,875 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. Total electricity
consumption in San Bernardino County in 2024 was 16,206 gigawatt hours (GWh)
(16,206,000,000 kWh). Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual
electricity consumption in San Bernardino County by 0.02 percent.
As shown in Table 22, the estimated potential increase in natural gas demand associated with
the operation of the proposed project is 86,824 therms per year. Total natural gas consumption
in San Bernardino County in 2024 was 547,200,000 therms per year. Therefore, operation of the
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
proposed project would increase the annual natural gas consumption in San Bernardino County
by 0.02 percent.
Similar to the approved project, the project would be required to adhere to all federal, State,
and local requirements for energy efficiency, including CCR Title 24 standards. Therefore, similar
to the approved project, electrical demand associated with project operations would not be
considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in
the region.
As shown in Table 22, the net increase in fuel consumption for vehicle trips generated by the
proposed project is estimated at 234,262 gallons of gasoline and 227,293 gallons of diesel fuel
per year. This analysis conservatively assumes that all vehicle trips generated as a result of
project operation would be new to San Bernardino County. Based on fuel consumption obtained
from EMFAC2021, approximately 542.3 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 288.5
million gallons of diesel will be consumed from vehicle trips in San Bernardino County in 2032.
Therefore, vehicle and truck trips associated with the proposed project would increase the
annual fuel consumption in San Bernardino County by 0.04 percent for gasoline fuel and by
approximately 0.08 percent for diesel fuel. Therefore, similar to the approved project, fuel
consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by project operations would not be
considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in
the region.
As indicated above, energy consumption during project construction and operation would be
relatively small in comparison to the County’s available energy sources and similar to the energy
consumption of other similar developments in the region. Because California’s energy
conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the project’s total
impacts to regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict
with California’s energy conservation plans as described in the California Energy Commission’s
(CEC) 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report and 2024 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. In
addition, the proposed project would comply with Title 24 and CALGreen standards. Finally, as
required by the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, all development projects within the
approved project planning area, including the proposed project, would be required to
implement Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard
Condition 4.12.8 and 4.12.9 as well as Mitigation Measures 4.12.2 and 4.12.3 to further reduce
energy consumption. Therefore, similar to the approved project, the project would not result in
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption nor would it conflict with or obstruct a
State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Similar to the approved project,
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, requires all development
projects within the approved project planning area, including the proposed project, to
implement Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, mitigation measures to further reduce
energy consumption. Refer to Arboretum Specific Plan EIR Standard Condition 4.12.8 and
4.12.9 and Mitigation Measures 4.5.4 and 4.5.6.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Significance Conclusion. The proposed project would have no new or more severe impact related
to energy when compared to the approved project. The overall impact within the Arboretum
Specific Plan would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
4.1.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to energy demand. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental
document to address impacts related to energy is not warranted.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
4.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the proposed project generate
greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact
applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing
Impact Analysis
Threshold A and B: Would the proposed project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?; or
Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Impact 4.2-5)
Responses to the questions posed under the Greenhouse Gas Emissions resource topic were
provided for the approved project and the proposed project under Threshold F of Section 3.5, Air
Quality, of this document.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
4.3 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
a. Would the proposed project cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
4.3.1 Impact Analysis
Threshold A: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: (i) Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined
in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? (ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Approved Project and Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The term “California Native American
tribe” is defined as “a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally
recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC).”
Senate Bill 18, signed into law in September 2004, requires local (city and county) governments to
consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
places through local land use planning. The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American
tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the
purpose of protecting or mitigating impacts to traditional tribal cultural places. The consultation and
notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (Government Code
Section 65300 et seq.) and specific plans (Government Code Section 65450 et seq.). Specifically,
Government Code Section 65352.3 requires local governments, prior to making a decision to adopt
or amend a general plan, to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the NAHC
for the purpose of protecting or mitigating impacts to traditional tribal cultural places. Pursuant to
provisions of SB 18, the City sent letters to tribal contacts on October 23, 2025, informing tribes of
the proposed project and requesting the initiation of consultation. Two responses were received
within the 90-day response period, both of which declined to comment on the proposed project.
CEQA defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria:
(1) is listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources
(California Register); (2) is listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section
5020.1(k); (3) is identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of
PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) is determined to be a historical resource by a project’s Lead Agency
(PRC Section 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]).
“Local register of historical resources” means a list of properties officially designated or recognized
as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.
A resource may be listed as a historical resource in the California Register of Historical Resources if it
meets any of the following National Register of Historic Places criteria as defined in PRC Section
5024.1(C):
a. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage.
b. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
c. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
d. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
A “substantial adverse change” to a historical resource, according to PRC Section 5020.1(q), “means
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource
would be impaired.”
The State CEQA Guidelines do not preclude identification of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5[c][4], if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical
resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the
Initial Study, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.46
Per Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (specifically California Public Resources Code 21080.3.1), Native American
consultation is required upon request by interested California Native American tribes that have
previously requested that the City provide them with notice of such projects. Section 11(c) of AB 52
reads, “This act shall apply 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.”
The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, was certified in 2009. Therefore, Native American
consultation pursuant to AB 52 is not required as part of this Addendum to the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended. The Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, prescribed mitigation
measures that would apply to future development projects in the approved project planning area,
including the proposed project, to protect cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources. The
proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 4.10.1 and 4.10.2,
described in Section 3.7.1 of this document, to ensure historic and archaeological resources,
including tribal cultural resources and human remains, would be protected if encountered during
project construction. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.10.1 and 4.10.2,
impacts to tribal cultural resources would remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. The proposed project would implement Mitigation Measures 4.10.1 and
4.10.2 as prescribed in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, to ensure impacts to
cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources, are protected during project construction.
No additional mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources were not evaluated in the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended, in accordance with the 2019 CEQA Statute and Guidelines update.
However, given the above analysis, which compares impacts to tribal cultural resources between the
approved project and proposed project, the proposed project would have no new or more severe
impact to tribal cultural resources, when compared to the approved project.
4.3.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent
environmental document to address impacts related to tribal cultural resources is not warranted.
46 Pursuant to Section 21082.3(c) of the Public Resources Code, details on the nature, extent, and location of
Tribal Cultural Resources identified by Native American Tribes shall remain confidential for the purposes
of this analysis.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
4.4 WILDFIRE
Issues: New Potentially
Significant Impact
New Mitigation
Required Reduced Impact More Severe
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
Areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project,
due to slope and/or prevailing winds, expose
project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
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
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
4.4.1 Impact Analysis
Threshold 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?
Approved Project and Proposed Project Impact Analysis. The project site is located within the
approved project planning area. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE), the project site is not located within a wildfire State Responsibility Area (SRA).
CAL FIRE designates the City of Fontana as a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). The project site is
classified as being in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ) and Moderate Fire Hazard Severity
Zone (MFHSZ).47 The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) is located approximately
47 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). City of Fontana – San Bernardino County.
Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-
do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones (accessed October 2025).
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
0.5 mile west of the site. The project site is located in an area that is developed with local roads and
regional highways that provide adequate access and departure from the area in the event of an
emergency, such as a wildfire. The proposed project would be designed to comply with the current
California Fire Code standards for development for residential uses, Fontana Building Code
Standards, and standards as set forth by the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD). Adequate
emergency access points also are included in the design of the project.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.13, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended, the approved project would change the largely vacant site to developed land,
eliminating the potential for brush fire. Additionally, future development of the project site would
be subject to review and approval by the FFPD. Compliance with Fire Protection District and Uniform
Fire Code regulations would prevent fire hazards on the project site. Therefore, as discussed in
Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, impacts to an adopted emergency response plans
and/or evacuation plan within a VHFHSZ would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.Significance Conclusion. Wildfire-related
impacts specific to an adopted emergency response plans and/or evacuation plan within a
VHFHSZ were not evaluated in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, since the 2019
CEQA Statute and Guidelines update occurred after the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, was certified in 2009. However, given the above analysis based on the emergency
evacuation discussion in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, which compares impacts
to an adopted emergency response plans and/or evacuation plan between the approved project
and proposed project, the proposed project would have no new or more severe impact to an
adopted emergency response plans and/or evacuation plan within a VHFHSZ, when compared to
the approved project.
Threshold 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 and/or prevailing winds, expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Approved Project and Proposed Project Impact Analysis. As described above, the proposed project
is not located within a wildfire State Responsibility Area. However, the proposed project (Resort
Village) is within an area classified as HFHSZ and MFHSZ. The land adjacent to the proposed project
is classified as VHFHSZ. The project site topography gently slopes down from north to the south and
lacks significant slopes. Wildfires have the tendency for uncontrolled spread when the terrain is hilly
lacks significant slopes. The likelihood of uncontrolled spread of a wildfire near or on the project site
is relatively low since the surrounding topography is relatively flat and developed.
San Bernardino County and Fontana are subject to seasonal wind events including times during the
fall when Santa Ana Wind conditions are prevalent. Santa Ana Wind conditions in the area of the
proposed project typically blow from a northeast to southwest direction (an offshore flow).
Wildfires have been recorded to occur in such Santa Ana Wind events sometimes leading to
uncontrolled spread of wildfires. CAL FIRE and the San Bernardino County Fire Department have
taken these conditions and the locations of Fire Hazard Severity Zones into consideration when
determining potential impacts associated with wildfire spread within the City of Fontana and
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
surrounding cities. If such a conflagration48 driven by winds were to get out of control, the City’s
FFPD and San Bernardino County Fire Department have procedures in place to respond to such an
emergency and evacuate residents and employees as needed.49
Wind events can also result in smoke drift from nearby wildfires resulting in smoke settling in low-
lying areas. The City is located in a valley between the San Bernardino/San Gabriel Mountains and
the Jurupa Mountains; as such, the potential for smoke settlement from nearby wildfires is a
possibility. Such smoke settlement would be temporary and would more than likely clear out within
a couple days of when settlement commenced (based on weather conditions).
Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of this Addendum, the
Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that since future developments would be
subject to review and approval by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District for fire safety
and preparedness, as well as the provision for adequate emergency access and evacuation.
Overall, implementation of the proposed project would have a low probability of exposing
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to
slope or prevailing winds. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance Conclusion. Based on the above analysis, which compares impacts associated with
exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of
a wildfire between the approved project and proposed project, the proposed project would have no
new or more severe impact when compared to the approved project.
Threshold 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?
Approved project and Proposed Project Impact Analysis. As previously discussed, the proposed
project (Resort Village) is within an area classified as HFHSZ and MFHSZ, and the land adjacent to the
proposed project is classified as VHFHSZ. The proposed project includes development of residential
development, three parks, community retail areas, collector streets, landscaping, and on-site
infrastructure improvements including utility service connections. The proposed project would not
incorporate infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or
other non-existing utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk because all improvements would be
implemented in an urbanized setting in accordance with the CBC, California Fire Code, and
applicable local ordinances. Therefore, similar to the approved project, impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
48 Conflagration is an extensive fire that destroys a great deal of land or property.
49 City of Fontana. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Page 176. June 2017; approved and adopted August 14, 2018.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Significance Conclusion. Wildfire-related impacts specific to including 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 were not evaluated in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, since the 2019 CEQA Statute and Guidelines update occurred after the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended, was certified in 2012. However, given the above analysis, which
compares impacts associated with 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 between the
approved project and proposed project, the proposed project would have no new or more severe
impact when compared to the approved project.
Threshold 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?
Approved Project and Proposed Project Impact Analysis. According to the City’s Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan no portion of the Arboretum Specific Plan area is located within the 100-year base
flood plain.50 As such, the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended, determined that future
development would not occur within an existing floodway. Additionally, the FEMA FIRM No.
06071C7915H indicates the proposed project site is located in Zone X, defined by FEMA as areas of
minimal flood hazard,51 and the site is not located near bodies of water or enclosed water storage
features which could result in tsunamis or seiches. Therefore, risks associated with runoff caused by
post-fire slope instability or post-fire drainage change are low.
The project site is located on land gently sloping down to the south without significant slopes, and
the foothills of the Jurupa Mountains are approximately 8.5 miles south of the site and 25 feet down
gradient. Additionally, the land between the approved project planning area, including the project
site, and the Jurupa Mountains is developed with residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
Therefore, similar to the approved project, the distance, slope, and intervening uses between the
project site and foothills of the Jurupa Mountains precludes the project site from significant risks
due to landslides caused by post-fire slope instability or post-fire drainage changes.
Overall, implementation of the proposed project would have a low probability of exposing 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. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
50 City of Fontana. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Figure 4-1: Flood Hazard Map and Figure 4-2: Dam
Inundation areas in Fontana.
51 Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette, Panel Number
06071C7915H. August 28, 2008.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
Significance Conclusion. Wildfire-related impacts specific to exposure of 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 were not evaluated in the Arboretum Specific Plan
EIR, as amended, since the 2019 CEQA Statute and Guidelines update occurred after the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended, was certified in 2012. However, given the above analysis, which
compares impacts associated with exposing 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 between the approved project and proposed project, the proposed project would
have no new or more severe impact when compared to the approved project.
4.4.2 Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
related to the proposed project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the
previously identified impacts of the approved project in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, with respect to wildfire. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental document
to address impacts related to wildfire is not warranted.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
5.0 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION
This Addendum to the Arboretum Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been
prepared in accordance with the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines to document the finding
that none of the conditions or circumstances that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR
(pursuant to Section 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines) exist in connection with the
proposed project. No major revisions would be required to the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as
amended, as a result of the proposed Resort Village Update Project. Additionally, the proposed
Resort Village Update Project would not result in any new significant environmental impacts that
were previously identified in the Arboretum Specific Plan EIR, as amended. Since the certification of
the Arboretum Specific Plan Final EIR, there has been no new information showing that mitigation
measures or alternatives once considered infeasible are now feasible, nor showing that there are
feasible new mitigation measures or alternatives substantially different from those analyzed in the
EIR that the City adopted. Therefore, the preparation of a subsequent EIR is not required and the
appropriate CEQA document for the proposed project is this Addendum to the Arboretum Specific
Plan EIR, as amended. No additional environmental analysis or review is required for the proposed
Resort Village Update Project. This document will be maintained in the administrative record files at
the City of Fontana.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal in Charge/Principal Environmental Planner
Kat Hughes, AICP, Project Manager/Senior Environmental Planner
Victoria Aispuro, Assistant Environmental Planner
Jessica Coria, Associate/Director of Air Quality Services
Bianca Martinez, Air Quality Specialist
JT Stephens, Executive Vice President/Principal Noise and Vibration
Jason Lui, Associate / Senior Noise Specialist
Matt Behrend, Cultural Resources Manager
Jaimi Starr, Cultural Resources Assistant
Meredith Canterbury, GIS
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
7-1
7.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation. 1975. Mineral Land Classification Map, San Bernardino P-C
Region. Devore Quadrangle, Special Report 143, Plate 7.2.
_____. 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, San Bernardino County Data.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp (accessed May 10, 2023).
_____. n.d. California Geological Survey Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/ (accessed October
15, 2025).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2025. City of Fontana – San Bernardino
County. Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Website:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-
hazard-severity-zones (accessed October 15, 2025).
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2025a. Solid Waste Information System
(SWIS). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055).
Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662.
(accessed October 23, 2025).
_____. 2025b. Fontana Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Rate Trends: 2023. Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports (accessed
October 23, 2025).
California Department of Transportation. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map.
Website: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/
index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa (accessed May 10, 2023).
City of Fontana. 2017. Fontana Active Transportation Plan. Website: https://www.fontanaca.gov/
DocumentCenter/View/27009/ATP-Final-Report (accessed October 2025).
_____. 2018a. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report.
SCH #201621099. Website :
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed October 2025).
_____. 2018b. General Plan Update 2015 – 2035. Website: www.fontanaca.gov/2632/General-Plan-
Update-2015---2035 (accessed July 2025).
_____. 2018c. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Page 176. August 14.
_____. 2020. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of
Service Assessment. Page 4. October 21.
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
7-2
Dechant, Jill A.; Sondreal, Marriah L.; Johnson, Douglas H.; Igl, Lawrence D.; Goldade, Christopher
M.; Rabie, Paul A.; and Euliss, Betty R. 1999. “Effects of Management Practices on Grassland
Birds: Burrowing Owl,” USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 123.
Department of Water Resource, Division of Safety of Dams. 2025. California Dam Breach Inundation
Map Web Publisher. Website: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2
(accessed October 15, 2025).
ELMT Consulting. 2026. Biological Resources Assessment for The Resort at the Arboretum Project
Located in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. February 6.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette, Panel
Number 06071C7915H. August 28.
Haug, Elizabeth A. and Andrew B. Didiuk. 1993. “Use of Recorded Calls to Detect Burrowing Owls,”
Journal of Field Ornithology, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Spring, 1993), pp. 188-194.
LSA. 2025a. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Arboretum
Specific Plan Amendment. October 15.
_____. 2025b. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis for the proposed Resort Village Amendment to
the Arboretum Specific Plan Project in Fontana, California. July 16.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates. 2008. Arboretum at North Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis. March.
Michael Brandman Associates. 2004. Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Summary Report.
Ontario International Airport – Inter Agency Collaborative. 2018a. LA/Ontario international Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan. Chapter 2: Procedural and Compatibility Policies. Map 2-1:
Airport Influence Area. Website: https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-
07/ONT-AIA%20policy%20map%202-1.pdf (accessed October 2025).
Parrilla, Leslie. 2014. “Final Closure of Rialto Municipal Airport is Now Almost Guaranteed,” San
Bernardino Sun. Website: https://www.sbsun.com/2014/09/14/final-closure-of-rialto-
municipal-airport-is-now-almost-guaranteed/ (accessed October 2025).
San Bernardino Associated Governments. 2016. San Bernardino County Congestion Management
Plan, 2016 Update. June. Website: https://www.gosbcta.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/10/2016-Congestion-Management-Plan-.pdf (accessed October
2025).
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). n.d. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA
Significance Thresholds. Website: www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-
analysis-handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds (accessed July 2025).
Translutions. 2025. The Resort Village Traffic Impact Analysis.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
7-3
United States Department of Agriculture. n.d. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil
Survey. Website: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed
October 15, 2025).
United States Geological Survey. 2001. Devore, California 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle
map.
Urban Crossroads. 2022. Ventana Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Study, City of Fontana. April.
Website: https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/273706-2/attachment/YlOMIuP_DYvD44UEhg6-
oWoxgfiQdM-mxFZdR8Squ6USGyRcJoCImUEzzklZSp4h6JzmPmZ6Q-2E5V6M0 (accessed
October 2025).
West Valley Water District. 2007. Water Supply Assessment for Arboretum Specific Plan. January.
_____. 2020. Water Facilities Master Plan. July. Website: 2020-Water-Facilities-Master-
Plan_Final_20200716.pdf (accessed October 2025).
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
7-4
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-1
8.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for use in implementing
mitigation for the:
Resort Village Update Project
The program has been prepared in compliance with State law and the Arboretum Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2006071109) prepared for the project
by the City of Fontana.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring
program for those measures placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the
environment (Public Resource Code Section 21081.6). The law states that the reporting or
monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.
The monitoring program contains the following elements:
1. The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure
compliance. In some instances, one action may be used to verify implementation of several
mitigation measures.
2. A procedure for compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This
procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom
and when compliance will be reported.
3. The program has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance
procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the
program. As changes are made, new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be
developed and incorporated into the program.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program includes mitigation identified in the Arboretum
Specific Plan EIR, as amended. Some measures have been revised or clarified to ensure they are fully
effective in reducing potential impacts as recommended in the EIR. New text is shown in bold and
removed text is shown in strikeout.
As the Lead Agency, the City of Fontana is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the
mitigation measures adopted for the proposed project. The City will monitor and report on all
mitigation activities. Mitigation measures will be implemented at different stages of development
throughout the project site. In this regard, the responsibilities for implementation have been
assigned to the City, applicant, contractor, or a combination thereof. If during the course of project
implementation, any of the mitigation measures identified herein cannot be successfully
implemented, the City shall be immediately informed, and the City would then inform any affected
responsible agencies. The City, in conjunction with any affected responsible agencies, would then
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-2
determine if modification to the project is required and/or whether alternative mitigation is
appropriate.
For reference, the MMP provided as Section 10.0 of the Certified 2009 EIR follows this updated
MMRP.
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-3
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
There are no Mitigation Measures applicable to the proposed project that address impacts related to aesthetics.
There are no Mitigation Measures applicable to the proposed project that address impacts related to Agriculture and
Forestry Resources.
Dust control during grading
activities on the site shall implement best available
control measures (BACMs) exceeding the minimum dust
control requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403.
Recommended construction activity mitigation includes:
Disturb, grade or clear no more than 75 acres per day.
Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas.
Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement
plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when
winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as small an
area as practical when winds exceed 25 mph.
Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent
construction is delayed.
Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times per
day.
Cover all stock piles with tarps.
Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly.
Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Planning Division
Implementation
Phase
Prior to grading and
during grading and
construction
operations
City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Planning Division
Monitoring Period
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Method of
Verification
Review of
construction
documents and on-
site inspection
Mitigation Measure 4.5.2:
ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of an
existing residence, school or park shall implement
enhanced dust control procedures such as continual soil
wetting, use of supplemental binders or chemical
stabilizers, early paving of roadways, driveways and
other paved surfaces, early landscaping of exposed
areas, and use of sand fences.
City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Planning Division
Implementation
Phase
Prior to grading and
during grading and
construction
operations
City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Planning Division
Monitoring Period
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Method of
Verification
Review of
construction
documents and on-
Mitigation Measure 4.5.3a:
be implemented to reduce exhaust emissions during
construction:
Construction and paving shall be segregated into at
least 5 non-overlapping phases.
Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off-road
equipment. Such controls are expected to reduce
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Planning Division
Implementation
Phase
City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Planning Division
Monitoring Period
Prior to issuance of
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-4
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
daily NOx emissions from all off- and on-road
equipment, but not to less-than-significant levels.
Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and
heavy equipment before shutting the equipment
down.
Require use of Tier 3-rated engines for all equipment
exceeding 100 horsepower, during site grading.
Use aqueous diesel fuel for construction equipment.
Utilize diesel particulate filter for construction
equipment
Give preference to contractors using equipment with
oxidation catalysts, soot traps or other modern
emissions control technology.
Use low emission mobile construction equipment. The
property owner/developer shall comply with CARB
requirements for heavy construction equipment.
Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping
them tuned.
Avoid unnecessary idling by shutting of engines that
are expected to idle for more than five minutes
Use low sulfur fuel for all diesel powered construction
equipment. This is required by SCAQMD Rules 431.1
and 431.2.
Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when
available.
Configure construction parking to minimize traffic
interference
Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes.
Construction shall be planned so that lane closures on
existing streets are kept to a minimum.
Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for
off-peak hours to the best extent, when possible.
Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow
interference from construction activities (the plan
may include advance public notice of routing, use of
public transportation and satellite parking areas with
during grading and
construction
operations
Method of
Verification
Review of
construction
documents and on-
site inspection
The following measures shall
be implemented to reduce ROG pollutant emissions
during construction:
Minimize the amount of paint used by using pre-
coated, pre-colored and naturally colored building
materials.
Use high transfer efficiency painting methods such as
High Volume Low Pressure (HVLP) sprayers and
brushes/rollers where possible.
Use SCAQMD-required low-VOC coatings where
practical.
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Planning Division
Implementation
Phase
Prior to grading and
during grading and
construction
operations
City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Planning Division
Monitoring Period
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Method of
Verification
Review of
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-5
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
documents and on-
site inspection
The following measures shall
be implemented to reduce off-site emissions during
construction:
Encourage car pooling for construction workers.
Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site.
Wash or sweep access points daily.
Encourage receipt of construction materials during
non-peak traffic hours.
Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
Erect dust control fencing around individual
construction area perimeters.
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Planning Division
Implementation
Phase
Prior to grading and
during grading and
construction
operations
City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Planning Division
Monitoring Period
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Method of
Verification
Review of
construction
documents and on-
Mitigation Measure 4.5.4:
implement transportation control measures (TCMs) to
reduce vehicle emissions generated by the project, which
may include the following:
Non-Motorized Strategies
1. Bicycle Lanes and Storage Facilities – Bicycle paths and
bike racks shall be provided at scattered locations on-
site, including bicycle lanes on project arterial roads
and bike racks at schools and commercial uses.
2. Pedestrian Improvements – Sidewalks and pedestrian
walkways shall be provided throughout the site for
land use interconnections.
Telecommunications
3. Adequate and modern system connections in all
homes – Telecommunication systems shall be
provided in residential villages.
4. Wi-Fi “hot spots” within the community - High-speed
wireless local area network shall be provided at select
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Prior to construction
(once)
City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Planning Division
Monitoring Period
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Method of
Verification
Review of final site
plan and building
plans and on-site
inspection
Prior to issuance of building
permits, the property owner/developer shall
demonstrate compliance with the following measures to
reduce criteria pollutant emissions from stationary
sources directly related to the project:
Install low-emisson water heaters.
Use built-in, energy-efficient appliances.
Incorporate bus turnouts into roadway design and
construction.
Ensure that sidewalks and pedestrian paths are
installed throughout the project area.
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/Project
Designer
Implementation
Phase
Prior to construction
(once)
City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Planning Division
Monitoring Period
Site Planning, Plan
Check
Method of
Verification
Plan Approval by
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-6
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
and Building
Department
The following measures shall
be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from project construction and operation:
Utilize high efficiency HVAC equipment.
Install Energy Star labeled roof materials.
Wire homes to facilitate installation of roof-top solar
panels.
Exceed 2005 Title 24 energy conservation design by
20%. (Energy conservation may be reduced from 20%
to a minimum of 10% over 2005 Title 24 requirements
if it can be demonstrated to the City’s Community
Development Director that 20% reductions are
infeasible.)
Incorporate solar orientation into site planning.
Hardwire buildings to incorporate current
telecommunication technologies.
Install 220-volt electric vehicle charging system in
garages.
Utilize light-colored hardscape in common areas.
Use highly reflective “cool roofs” in commercial uses.
Utilize recycled building materials, where feasible.
Install energy-reducing day lighting (skylights).
Use low-water use appliances.
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/Project
Designer
Implementation
Phase
Prior to grading and
during grading and
construction
operations
City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Planning Division
Monitoring Period
Site Planning, Plan
Check
Method of
Verification
Plan Check by
Building Department
Preconstruction surveys for
burrowing owl shall be conducted prior to vegetation
clearing or grading of the residential development site.
Two surveys are required and shall follow the methods
described in the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW’s) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation. The first survey shall be conducted between
30 and 14 days before initial ground disturbance
(grading, grubbing, and construction), and the second
survey shall be conducted no more than 24 hours prior to
initial ground disturbance. If burrowing owls and/or
suitable burrowing owl burrows are identified on the
residential development site during the survey, the
project applicant(s) shall consult with CDFW and follow
the methods listed in the CDFW’s Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation for avoidance and/or passive
relocation. Focused surveys for the burrowing owl shall
be conducted during the nesting season (March to
August) and no more than 30 days prior to the onset of
construction to ensure avoidance of this species. If no
occupied burrows are found, a report shall be submitted
to the City and construction may begin without further
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/ Project
Biologist
Implementation
Phase
Prior to Ground
Disturbance and
during Project
Construction
City of Fontana
Building Department
and Planning
Division
Monitoring Period
Prior to issuance of
Grading Permits
Method of
Verification
Site inspections
during surveys and
prior to issuance of
grading permit
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-7
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
the nesting season unless a qualified biologist approved
by CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that
either: (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and
incubation, or (2) that juveniles from the occupied
burrows are foraging independently and are capable of
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1b
include passive relocation conducted outside of the owl
breeding season (between September 1 and February
28). If an active owl burrow is identified, and
construction is to proceed, then a qualified biologist
(with two or more years of burrowing owl experience)
must establish an initial disturbance-limit buffer of 500
feet around the burrow using flagging or staking. The
buffer distance may be reduced in coordination with
CDFW depending on time of year (i.e., in or out of
breeding season), level of construction activity, and
observed behavior of the burrowing owls. Construction
activities shall not occur within any buffer zones until the
burrow is deemed inactive by the qualified biologist. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
City of Fontana Community Development Director or
designee. Mitigation for loss of burrowing owl habitat
shall include passive relocation of resident animals on
the project site to the approved replacement habitat
location. The Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and
Mitigation Guidelines shall be utilized for current
methods for passive relocation of any owls found during
the survey. A qualified biologist shall conduct the
relocation activities and provide construction monitoring
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/ Project
Biologist
Implementation
Phase
Prior to Ground
Disturbance and
during Project
Construction
City of Fontana
Building Department
and Planning
Division
Monitoring Period
Prior to issuance of
Grading Permits
Method of
Verification
Site inspections
during surveys and
prior to issuance of
grading permit
If burrowing owls or suitable
burrowing owl burrows with sign (e.g., whitewash,
pellets, feathers, prey remains) are identified on the
residential development site during the survey(s), these
features must be completely avoided. If impacts to those
features are unavoidable, then the project applicant(s)
must develop a burrowing owl mitigation plan in
consultation with CDFW. If burrowing owls are found on
site, off-site relocation shall be provided in conformance
with the 1995 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation, which requires the acquisition and
permanent protection of a minimum of 6.5 acres of off-
site foraging habitat (based on providing a 100-yard
foraging radius around the burrow) per pair or unpaired
resident bird. The protected lands should be within the
vicinity of the project site in suitable habitat and at a
location approved by the CDFG. Any occupied burrows
within the project site that will be destroyed by
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/ Project
Biologist
Implementation
Phase
Prior to Ground
Disturbance and
during Project
Construction
City of Fontana
Building Department
and Planning
Division
Monitoring Period
Prior to issuance of
Grading Permits
Method of
Verification
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-8
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
enhancement of existing unsuitable burrows or creation
of artificial burrows at a ratio of 2:1 on the protected
Mitigation Measure 4.9.2
February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction
clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted
within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation
removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no
nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The
biologist conducting the clearance survey should
document a negative survey with a brief letter report
indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will
occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-
construction clearance survey, construction activities
should stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer. The size
of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the
wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise
and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of
sight between the nest and the construction activity,
type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise,
species habituation, and topographical barriers. These
factors will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when
developing buffer distances.
Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be
established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other
appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be
instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological
monitor should be present to delineate the boundaries
of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to
ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by
the construction activity. Once the young have fledged
and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive
under natural conditions, construction activities within
the buffer area can occur. Removal of vegetation or
other potential nesting bird habitat shall be conducted
outside of the avian nesting season (February through
August). If removal of vegetation must occur during the
avian nesting season, a preconstruction nesting bird
survey shall be conducted within 7 days prior to any
ground disturbing activities. If at any time, birds are
found to be nesting inside or within 250 feet (500 feet
for raptors) of the proposed construction disturbance
area, construction activities within 250 feet (500 feet for
raptors) of the nest must cease and the area flagged and
protected from any ground disturbing activities until it is
determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/ Project
Biologist
Implementation
Phase
Prior to Ground
Disturbance and
during Project
Construction
City of Fontana
Building Department
and Planning
Division
Monitoring Period
Prior to issuance of
Grading Permits
Method of
Verification
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-9
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
Prior to removal of the
foundation remains at the SCE/SCG easements, a formal
evaluation of the area shall be completed, to determine
eligibility to the California Register of Historic Places.
Initial evaluation of significance for this site will focus on
archival research, including a title search to identify
former property owners, historical research at the
Fontana Historical Society and the San Bernardino
Historical Society to identify historical maps, aerial
photographs and photographs of the building. Oral
interviews with local residents and Historical Society
members shall also be conducted. This initial evaluation
will seek to determine when the building was
constructed, its function and history of use, and whether
it was associated at any time with important people or
events in the past. This initial evaluation will not include
subsurface testing. However, if the evaluation
determines that the site has archaeological or historical
research potential, subsurface testing may be
recommended to identify subsurface features and
deposits, and to evaluate such deposits under criterion D
of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.a3.
If the foundation is determined to be significant, then a
mitigation plan shall be developed, in accordance with
Section 21084.1 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the
CEQA Guidelines, to ensure mitigation below a level of
significance. Mitigation shall include photograph,
recordation, collection, and archival of collected
materials. In the event that significant cultural resources
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Archaeologist
Implementation
Phase
Prior to grading and
excavation activities
at SCE/SCG
easement
City of Fontana
Building Department
and Planning
Division
Monitoring Period
Plan Approval
Method of
Verification
Plan Approval
Mitigation Measure 4.10.2
conducted for excavation activities extending to
estimated depths of 10 feet or more below the existing
ground surface. If required, the paleontologic monitor
shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed
to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of
sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small
fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors are
empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to
allow removal of abundant or large specimens.
Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially
fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if
present, are determined upon exposure and examination
by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low
potential to contain fossil resources. Also, the following
measures shall be made during the monitoring of
excavation activities on undisturbed subsurface
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Archaeological
Monitor
Implementation
Phase
During grading and
excavation activities
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Building Department
Monitoring Period
During grading and
excavation activities
Method of
Verification
Site inspections
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-10
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
During monitoring, preparation of recovered
specimens to a point of identification and permanent
preservation, including washing of sediments to
recover small invertebrates and vertebrates shall
occur.
During monitoring, identification and curation of
specimens into a museum repository with permanent
retrievable storage shall occur. The paleontologist
must have a written repository agreement in hand
prior to the initiation of mitigation activities.
During monitoring, preparation of a report of findings
with an itemized inventory of specimens shall occur.
The report and inventory, when submitted to the City
of Fontana (as the Lead Agency), will signify
completion of the program to mitigate impacts to
Mitigation Measure 4.10.3:
from the Soboba Tribe shall be present on-site during
ground-disturbing activities. If archaeological or
paleontological resources are found on the site, all
ground disturbance activities shall be halted until an
archaeologist has evaluated the significance of the
artifacts. If the archaeological or paleontological
resources are considered significant, then a mitigation
plan shall be developed, in accordance with Section
21083.2 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines, to ensure mitigation below a level of
significance. Mitigation shall include photographing,
recordation, collection, and archival of collected
materials or capping of the site.
In the event that significant cultural resources are
encountered that cannot be removed, the resources
shall be capped in place and consultation with Native
American representatives and the NAHC shall be
made on additional measures that may be required,
including the establishment of a standard Treatment
and Dispensation Agreement with Native American
representatives as part of the mitigation plan for the
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Cultural
Resources Monitor
Implementation
Phase
During grading
and excavation
activities
City of Fontana
Building Department
Monitoring Period
During grading and
excavation activities
Method of
Verification
Site inspections
Excavations shall be
constructed in accordance with the recommendations of
the geotechnical investigation for the site, including the
following:
Temporary excavations may be constructed to a vertical
depth of five feet without rigorous lateral supports.
Excavated surfaces shall be wetted during construction in
order to minimize potential surface soil raveling.
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
During project
construction
City of Fontana
Building Department
Monitoring Period
During project
construction
Method of
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-11
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
No surcharge loading (from, vehicles, materials, or
workmen on the surface adjacent to the trench
excavation) shall be allowed within an imaginary 1:1 line
drawn upward from the toe of temporary excavations.
Should excavations exceed five feet, those shall be made
using cantilevered or braced shoring to support side
walls.
Temporary excavations in excess of five feet shall be
made at a slope of 2:1 (H:V) or flatter, and as per the
construction guidelines provided by the California
Construction and General Industry Safety Orders, the
Occupational Safety and Health Act and current
amendments, and the Construction Safety Act.
Site Inspections
Waste oil drums, television,
and other illegally dumped hazardous wastes on the site
shall be disposed at a facility licensed to accept such
hazardous wastes, prior to grading and excavation
activities at the site.
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Prior to grading
activities
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Building Department
Monitoring Period
Prior to grading
activities
Method of
Verification
Field Inspections
Prior to the development of
the eastern central section of the site (APN 0239-131-
045), shallow soil sampling shall be made at areas which
were formally utilized for agricultural purposes, to
determine if residues from pesticide applications remain
in the soil. If the results of the soil testing show chemical
levels are below regulatory levels, grading and
excavation may proceed accordingly. Remediation
and/or removal of contaminated soils shall be made prior
to development, if chemical levels are above regulatory
standards. Remediation shall be made in coordination
with the local health department, SCAQMD, the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other
regulatory agencies in compliance with established
maximum contaminant levels.
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Prior to grading
activities at eastern
central section
City of Fontana
Building Department
Monitoring Period
Prior to grading
activities
Method of
Verification
Plan Check and Field
Inspections
In order to protect the gas
pipelines and pumping facility, the developer shall
coordinate and obtain approval from the Southern
California Gas Company for grading and construction
activities and any improvements and structures on or
near the 100-foot wide gas line easement along the
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
City of Fontana
Building Department
Monitoring Period
Prior to grading
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-12
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
facility at the western section of the site. Specifically, the
following measures shall be followed:
No structures shall be built over the 100-foot wide gas
line easement although parking areas, driveways and
landscaped areas may be developed over the
easement.
Structures and uses that would preclude or obstruct
access to the aboveground or underground gas lines,
through an approximately 50-foot wide trench along
the gas lines, are not allowed.
Deep-rooting trees and shrubs that would need to be
pulled out to obtain access to the gas lines are not
allowed over the easement.
Mechanical equipment are not allowed within three
horizontal feet of the gas lines, in order to prevent
damage to the lines during construction and grading
activities. Any closer work would have to be done by
hand.
At least seven feet of fill is needed over the gas lines
where heavy construction equipment will be crossing
over the easement during construction activities.
Approval by the Southern California Gas Company
would be needed for any plans over the easement.
A representative of the Southern California Gas
Company must observe excavation work around and
of existing structures
Method of
Verification
Plan Check Qand
Field Inspections
Mitigation Measure 4.13.4:
security fence shall be provided around the gas pumping
facility, along with a secured gate to prevent
unauthorized entry and damage to the facility.
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
During demolition
City of Fontana
Building Department
Monitoring Period
During demolition
Method of
Verification
Field Inspections
The applicant shall provide
information on the presence of high-voltage power
transmission lines to all potential home buyers.
Developer/ Project
Engineer/ Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Plan check and
during construction
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Building Department
and Land
Development
Engineering
Monitoring Period
Plan check and
during construction
Method of
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-13
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
Field Inspections
There are no Mitigation Measures applicable to the proposed project that address impacts related to Hydrology and
Water Quality.
There are no Mitigation Measures applicable to the proposed project that address impacts related to Land Use and
Planning.
There are no Mitigation Measures applicable to the proposed project that address impacts related to Mineral Resources.
During construction, the following
measures shall be implemented to reduce noise on
sensitive receptors:
All off-road construction equipment shall have
properly operating and maintained mufflers.
Stockpiling and equipment/vehicle staging shall be
conducted as far as practicable from occupied
dwelling units or other nearby noise-sensitive land
uses.
Idling of construction equipment shall be limited to 5
minutes, as required by law. Equipment shall be
turned off when not in use.
Schedule noisy activities and impulsive noise
generation, such as pile driving or jackhammers,
during the late morning and early afternoon hours
near residences, or temporary barriers shall be
erected, if necessary.
Schedule noisy activities and impulsive noise
generation, such as pile driving or jackhammers, near
schools when schools are not in session or temporary
barriers shall be erected, if necessary.
Inform abutting residents and schools of the
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
During project
construction
City of Fontana
Building Department
Monitoring Period
During project
construction
Method of
Verification
Site Inspections
A noise impact mitigation
plan shall be submitted and implemented for major
construction within 500 feet of any occupied residence
or school that incorporates temporary barriers,
maximum set-backs and upgraded equipment as
necessary.
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Plan Check and
during project
construction
City of Fontana
Planning Division
and Building
Department
Monitoring Period
Plan Check and
during project
construction
Method of
Verification
Plan Check and Site
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-14
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
Perimeter walls shall be
provided along residential areas to meet the City’s
exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL, as follows:
Roadway Segment
Citrus Avenue 6
Sierra Avenue 6
Grapeland Street 5
Duncan Canyon Road 6
Casa Grande Avenue 5
Developer/ Project
Designer
Implementation
Phase
Site Planning and
Plan Check
City of Fontana
Planning Division
and Building
Department
Monitoring Period
Site Planning and
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Plan Approval
Increased setbacks from the
roadway centerline shall be provided if noise wall heights
are less than those listed above, which are capable of
achieving an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or less.
Setback requirements are as follows:
Roadway Segment Noise Contour
Citrus Avenue 260
Cypress Avenue 50
Sierra Avenue 275
Grapeland Street 115
Duncan Canyon Road 200
Casa Grande Avenue 110
Developer/ Project
Designer
Implementation
Phase
Plan Check
City of Fontana
Planning Division
and Building
Department
Monitoring Period
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Plan Check
A supplemental acoustical
analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical
consultant once grading plans and project plans are
completed to verify that adequate noise attenuation, as
preliminarily provided in Mitigation Measures 4.6.2a and
4.6.2b, will be provided to meet the 65 dBA CNEL
exterior noise standard for outdoor use areas of
proposed on-site residences along Grapeland Street,
Sierra Avenue, Duncan Canyon Road, and Cypress
Avenue.
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/ Project
Designer/ Qualified
Acoustical
Consultant
Implementation
Phase
After Grading and
Project Plans
Completed, Before
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Planning Division
and Building
Department
Monitoring Period
Plan Approval
Method of
Verification
Plan Approval
The proposed commercial
retail center shall be required to provide supplemental
noise analysis to show that indoor commercial areas
would meet the interior standard of 55 dBA CNEL and
outdoor use areas (such as patio dining areas) would
meet the exterior standard of 70 dBA CNEL.
Developer/ Project
Designer
Implementation
Phase
Site Planning and
Plan Check
City of Fontana
Planning Division
and Building
Department
Monitoring Period
Site Planning and
Plan Check
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-15
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
Verification
Plan Approval
A supplemental acoustical
analysis shall be submitted in conjunction with the
issuance of building permits to verify that adequate
structural noise protection will be provided in residences
adjoining arterial roadways to meet the 45 dBA CNEL
interior standard. This could includes the provision of
closed dual paned windows with supplemental
ventilation or other standard design measures that
achieve the standard. This measure applies to future
residences along Duncan Canyon Road, Cypress Avenue,
Casa Grande Avenue, Citrus Avenue, and Sierra Avenue.
Developer/ Project
Designer
Implementation
Phase
Site Planning and
Plan Check
City of Fontana
Planning Division
and Building
Department
Monitoring Period
Site Planning and
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Plan Approval
Design and planning of the
schools shall implement structural noise protection as
necessary to meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior standard.
Developer/ Project
Designer
Implementation
Phase
Site Planning and
Plan Check
City of Fontana
Planning Division
and Building
Department
Monitoring Period
Site Planning and
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Plan Approval
Conditional use permits for
proposed commercial uses shall contain measures that
control noise generation from goods deliveries, facility
maintenance, and mechanical equipment to meet the
City’s interior and exterior noise standards at adjacent
land uses. These may include:
Location of commercial HVAC equipment away from
residences or shielding of HVAC equipment
Location of loading docks and trash compactors away
from residences
Time restrictions on deliveries to commercial uses
Orientation of fast-food restaurant sound boards
away from nearby residences; sound walls around the
order boards; or time restrictions on sound board use
Time restrictions on refuse collection or parking lot
sweeping, or stacking or retrieval of temporary
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/ Project
Designer
Implementation
Phase
Site Planning and
Plan Check
City of Fontana
Planning Division
and Building
Department
Monitoring Period
Site Planning and
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Plan Approval
Design and planning of the
schools shall install or implement the following
provisions, as necessary, to keep noise levels within the
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/ Project
Designer
City of Fontana
Planning Division
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-16
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
land uses: sound walls, setbacks between abutting
residences and the schools’ outdoor fields; location of
HVAC equipment away from residences or provision of
shielding around HVAC equipment; location of loading
docks and trash compactors away from residences; and
time restrictions on truck deliveries, trash pick-ups, and
parking lot sweeping.
Phase
Site Planning and
Plan Check
and Building
Department
Monitoring Period
Site Planning and
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Plan Approval
There are no Mitigation Measures applicable to the proposed project that address impacts related to Population and
Housing.
There are no Mitigation Measures applicable to the proposed project that address impacts related to Public Services and
Facilities.
In order to maintain
acceptable LOS in 20102026 during the AM and PM peak
hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
pay its fair share contribution to the City of Fontana for
the implementation of the following improvements:
Citrus Ave and Summit Avenue: Add a northbound
left-turn lane.
Citrus Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the northbound right-turn lane.
Citrus Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap
phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
Cypress Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal.
Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Install a traffic
signal. Add overlap phasing to the westbound right-
turn lanes. The traffic signal is included in the CIP.
Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street-Segovia Avenue:
Add a southbound through lane.
Sierra Avenue and Terra Vista Drive: Add a
southbound through lane. The City is purchasing right
of way from Southern California Edison to obtain the
land needed to widen Sierra Avenue to the ultimate
width of six lanes from Summit Avenue to I-15.
Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add a
southbound through lane and a northbound through
lane. The City is purchasing right of way from
Southern California Edison to obtain the land needed
to widen Sierra Avenue to the ultimate width of six
lanes from Summit Avenue to I-15.
Sierra Avenue and Summit Avenue: Add overlap
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Plan Check
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Monitoring Period
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Payment of fees as
part of Plan Check by
Building Department
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-17
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
Sierra Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the eastbound right-turn lane and add
overlap phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
Sierra Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap
phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
Sierra Avenue and I-15 Southbound Ramp: Install a
traffic signal.
Sierra Avenue and I-15 Northbound Ramp: Install
traffic signal.
Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Add a
northbound through lane, a southbound through lane
and a southbound right turn lane. Convert the
southbound shared right-though lane into a through
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1b:
acceptable LOS in 20102026 during the AM and PM peak
hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
implement the following improvements:
Sierra Avenue and C-1 Retail Driveway 1: Install a
traffic signal.
Project Access 4 and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal.
Project Access 5 and Duncan Canyon Road: Add a
dedicated southbound left turn lane.
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Plan Check
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Monitoring Period
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Plan Check and Field
Inspections by
Building Department
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1c:
acceptable LOS in 2028 during the AM and PM peak
hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
pay its fair share contribution to the City of Fontana for
the implementation of the following improvements:
Citrus Ave and Summit Avenue: Add a northbound
left-turn lane.
Citrus Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the northbound right-turn lane.
Citrus Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap
phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
Arboretum Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal.
Cypress Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal.
Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Install a traffic
signal. Add overlap phasing to the westbound right-
turn lane. The traffic signal is included in the CIP.
Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street-Segovia Avenue:
Add a traffic signal.
Sierra Avenue and Terra Vista Drive: Add a
southbound through lane. The City is purchasing right
of way from Southern California Edison to obtain the
land needed to widen Sierra Avenue to the ultimate
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Plan Check
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Monitoring Period
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Payment of fees as
part of Plan Check by
Building Department
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-18
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add a
southbound through lane and a northbound through
lane. The City is purchasing right of way from
Southern California Edison to obtain the land needed
to widen Sierra Avenue to the ultimate width of six
lanes from Summit Avenue to I-15.
Sierra Avenue and Summit Avenue: Add overlap
phasing to the eastbound right-turn lane.
Sierra Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the eastbound right-turn lane and add
overlap phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
Sierra Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1d:
acceptable LOS in 2028 during the AM and PM peak
hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
implement the following improvements:
Sierra Avenue and C-1 Retail Driveway 1: Install a
traffic signal.
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Plan Check
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Monitoring Period
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Plan Check and Field
Inspections by
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1e:
acceptable LOS in 2030 during the AM and PM peak
hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
pay its fair share contribution to the City of Fontana for
the implementation of the following improvements:
Citrus Ave and Summit Avenue: Add a northbound
left-turn lane.
Citrus Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the northbound right-turn lane.
Citrus Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap
phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
Arboretum Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal.
Cassava Drive and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal.
Sierra Avenue and I-15 Southbound Ramps. Add a free
southbound right-turn lane. This improvement is
consistent with the future year geometrics included in
the Arboretum at North Fontana Traffic Impact
Analysis (March 2008).
Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Install a traffic
signal. Add a northbound through lane. Add overlap
phasing to the westbound right-turn lane. The traffic
signal is included in the CIP.
Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street-Segovia Avenue:
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Plan Check
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Monitoring Period
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Payment of fees as
part of Plan Check by
Building Department
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-19
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
Sierra Avenue and Terra Vista Drive: Add a
southbound through lane. The City is purchasing right
of way from Southern California Edison to obtain the
land needed to widen Sierra Avenue to the ultimate
width of six lanes from Summit Avenue to I-15.
Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add a
southbound through lane and a northbound through
lane. The City is purchasing right of way from
Southern California Edison to obtain the land needed
to widen Sierra Avenue to the ultimate width of six
lanes from Summit Avenue to I-15.
Sierra Avenue and Summit Avenue: Add overlap
phasing to the eastbound right-turn lane.
Sierra Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the eastbound right-turn lane and add
overlap phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
Sierra Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap
phasing to the westbound right-turn lane and add
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1f:
acceptable LOS in 2030 during the AM and PM peak
hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
implement the following improvements:
Sierra Avenue and C-1 Retail Driveway 1: Install a
traffic signal.
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Plan Check
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Monitoring Period
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Plan Check and Field
Inspections by
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1g:
acceptable LOS in 2032 during the AM and PM peak
hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
pay its fair share contribution to the City of Fontana for
the implementation of the following improvements:
Citrus Ave and Summit Avenue: Add a northbound
left-turn lane.
Citrus Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the northbound right-turn lane.
Citrus Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap
phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
Arboretum Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal.
Cassava Drive and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal.
Sierra Avenue and I-15 Southbound Ramps. Add a free
southbound right-turn lane. This improvement is
consistent with the future year geometrics included in
the Arboretum at North Fontana Traffic Impact
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Plan Check
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Monitoring Period
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Payment of fees as
part of Plan Check by
Building Department
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-20
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Install a traffic
signal. Add a northbound through lane. Add overlap
phasing to the westbound right-turn lane. The traffic
signal is included in the CIP.
Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street-Segovia Avenue:
Add a traffic signal.
Sierra Avenue and Terra Vista Drive: Add a
southbound through lane. The City is purchasing right
of way from Southern California Edison to obtain the
land needed to widen Sierra Avenue to the ultimate
width of six lanes from Summit Avenue to I-15.
Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add an
eastbound left-turn lane, a northbound left-turn lane,
a southbound through lane, and a northbound
through lane. The City is purchasing right of way from
Southern California Edison to obtain the land needed
to widen Sierra Avenue to the ultimate width of six
lanes from Summit Avenue to I-15.
Sierra Avenue and Summit Avenue: Add overlap
phasing to the eastbound right-turn lane.
Sierra Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the eastbound right-turn lane and add
overlap phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
Sierra Avenue and Highland Avenue: Add overlap
phasing to the westbound right-turn lane and add
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1h:
acceptable LOS in 2032 during the AM and PM peak
hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
implement the following improvements:
Sierra Avenue and C-1 Retail Driveway 1: Install a
traffic signal.
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Plan Check
City of Fontana
Monitoring Period
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Plan Check and Field
Inspections by
Mitigation Measure 4.4.2:
proposed project on freeway segments and interchanges
that would result in degraded LOS by 20102026 would be
mitigated by the following:
I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the southbound
segment from Glen Helen Parkway to Sierra Avenue
I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the southbound
segment from Baseline Road to Foothill Boulevard
I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the northbound
segment from Foothill Boulevard to Baseline Road
I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the northbound
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Plan Check
City of Fontana
Monitoring Period
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Payment of fees as
part of Plan Check by
Building Department
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-21
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
In order to maintain
acceptable LOS in 20302050 during the AM and PM peak
hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
pay its fair share contribution to the City of Fontana for
the implementation of the following improvements:
Coyote Canyon Road and Duncan Canyon Road: Install
a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the
City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Citrus Avenue and Casa Grande Drive: Add overlap
phasing to the northbound right-turn lane, add a
southbound left-turn lane, add a westbound right-
turn lane, and a westbound right-turn with overlap
phasing.
Citrus Ave and Summit Avenue: Add a northbound
left-turn lane, add a southbound left-turn lane, and
add overlap phasing to the southbound right-turn
lane.
Citrus Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Add overlap
phasing to the northbound right-turn lane.
Casa Grande Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue: Install a
traffic signal.
Arboretum Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal. Add an eastbound and westbound left-
turn lane.
Cypress Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal. Add an eastbound left-turn lane, a
westbound left-turn lane, and a southbound left-turn
lane.
Cypress Avenue and Casa Grande Drive: Install a
traffic signal.
Cassava Drive and Duncan Canyon Road: Install a
traffic signal. Add an eastbound left-turn lane, an
eastbound through lane, a westbound left-turn lane, a
westbound through lane, a southbound left-turn lane,
and overlap phasing to the northbound right-turn
lane.
Montelena Road and Casa Grande Road: Install a
traffic signal.
Sierra Avenue and I-15 Southbound Ramps. Add a free
southbound right-turn lane. Re-stripe the westbound
through-left-turn lane to left-turn lane, and re-stripe
the westbound right-turn lane to through-right turn
lane. These improvements are consistent with the
future year geometrics included in the Arboretum at
North Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis (March 2008).
Sierra Avenue and I-15 Northbound Ramps. Add a free
northbound right-turn lane. This improvement is
consistent with the future year geometrics included in
the Arboretum at North Fontana Traffic Impact
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Contractor
Implementation
Phase
Plan Check
City of Fontana
Monitoring Period
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Payment of fees as
part of Plan Check by
Building Department
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-22
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Install a traffic
signal. Add a northbound through lane, a northbound
right-turn lane, a southbound left-turn lane, a
southbound through lane, a westbound right-turn
lane, and overlap phasing to the westbound right-turn
lanes. The traffic signal is included in the CIP and the
City is purchasing right of way from Southern
California Edison to obtain the land needed to widen
Sierra Avenue to the ultimate width of six lanes from
Summit Avenue to I-15.
Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street-Segovia Avenue:
Add a traffic signal. Add a southbound through lane.
Sierra Avenue and Terra Vista Drive: Add a
northbound through lane, overlap phasing to the
northbound right-turn lane, a southbound left-turn
lane, two southbound through lanes, re-stripe
westbound left to through-left, and add a westbound
right-turn lane with overlap phasing. The City is
purchasing right of way from Southern California
Edison to obtain the land needed to widen Sierra
Avenue to the ultimate width of six lanes from
Summit Avenue to I-15.
Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add an
eastbound left-turn lane, add two southbound
through lanes, and two northbound through lanes.
The City is purchasing right of way from Southern
California Edison to obtain the land needed to widen
Sierra Avenue to the ultimate width of six lanes from
Summit Avenue to I-15.
Sierra Avenue and Casa Grande Drive: Add a
westbound left-turn lane, overlap phasing to the
westbound right-turn lane, and overlap phasing to the
northbound right-turn lane.
Sierra Avenue and Summit Avenue: Add overlap
phasing to the eastbound right-turn lane.
Citrus Avenue and Highland Avenue: Provide overlap
phasing for the westbound right turn.
Sierra Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway: Provide
overlap phasing for the eastbound right turn lane and
add overlap phasing to the westbound right-turn lane.
Sierra Avenue and Highland Avenue: Convert the
existing northbound right turn lane into a shared
through/right turn lane. Provide overlap phasing for
the eastbound right turn and the westbound right-
turn lane and add overlap phasing to the southbound
right-turn lane.
Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Add a second
northbound left-turn lane and two northbound
through lanes. Add a second southbound left turn
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-23
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
shared southbound through-right lane into a
dedicated right-turn lane. Add a westbound left turn
lane and convert the existing shared left-through into
a through lane.
Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street: Add a second
northbound left turn lane and a dedicated
northbound right turn lane. Add a second southbound
left turn lane and a dedicated southbound right turn
lane. Add a westbound left turn lane and an
eastbound left turn lane.
Lytle Creek Road (E) and Duncan Canyon Road:
Convert one northbound through lane to a dedicated
right turn lane. Provide overlap phasing for the
eastbound right turn and the northbound right turn.
Add an additional eastbound through lane.
Citrus Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add a
second left turn lane and a dedicated right turn lane
on each approach. Provide overlap phasing for the
eastbound and southbound right turn. Add a second
westbound left turn lane.
Citrus Avenue and Casa Grande Avenue: Add a second
eastbound and westbound left turn lane.
I-15 Southbound Ramps and Beech Avenue: Add a
second eastbound left turn lane.
I-15 Northbound Ramps and Beech Avenue: Add a
second southbound left turn lane and a dedicated
westbound right turn lane. Provide overlap phasing
for the westbound right turn.
Citrus Avenue and SR-210 Westbound Ramps: Add a
second westbound left turn lane and a southbound
shared through/right turn lane.
Citrus Avenue and SR-210 Eastbound Ramps:
Reconfigure the off-ramp to include one left turn lane,
one shared through/left turn lane, and a free right
turn lane.
Sierra Avenue and SR-210 Eastbound Ramps: Convert
the eastbound left turn lane into a shared left through
lane. Convert the eastbound shared left-right lane into
an exclusive right-turn lane.
Sierra Avenue and Casa Grande Avenue: Add a second
northbound left turn lane and a second southbound
left turn lane. Convert the shared through/right turn
lane at each approach to a through lane. Add a right
turn lane to each approach.
Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add dual left
turn lanes and a dedicated right turn lane at the
Mitigation Measure 4.4.3b:
acceptable LOS in 20302050 during the AM and PM peak
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
8-24
Table 23: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Resort Village Update
Project
hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
implement the following improvements:
Sierra Avenue and C-1 Retail Driveway 1: Install a
traffic signal. Add a southbound through lane.
Implementation
Phase
Plan Check
Plan Check
Method of
Verification
Plan Check and Field
Inspections by
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Mitigation Measure 4.12.2:
within the SCE easement shall be subject to review and
approval by SCE to ensure no adverse impacts to the
high-voltage transmission lines and for compliance with
SCE’s development guidelines.
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/ Project
Engineer
Implementation
Phase
Engineering Design
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Building Department
Monitoring Period
Engineering Design
Method of
Verification
Plan Check
Improvements proposed
within the SCG easement and near the gas pumping
facility shall be subject to review and approval by SCG to
ensure no adverse impacts to the natural gas lines and
facilities and for compliance with SCG’s development
guidelines.
Responsible Party(s)
Developer/ Project
Engineer
Implementation
Phase
Engineering Design
Responsible Party(s)
City of Fontana
Building Department
Monitoring Period
Engineering Design
Method of
Verification
Plan Check
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-1
The analysis in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR indicates that potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts may occur with the proposed Arboretum Specific Plan.
Future development under the proposed Specific Plan would need to comply with a number of
standard conditions that are routinely imposed by the City and other regulatory agencies. In addition,
a number of mitigation measures are recommended in Section 4.0 for the identified significant
adverse impacts in terms of the different environmental issue areas under consideration. The
mitigation measures for the project would be adopted by the City of Fontana, in conjunction with the
certification of the Final EIR for the project.
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and
reporting program for assessing and ensuring the implementation of required mitigation measures applied
to proposed developments. Specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements that will be enforced during
project implementation shall be adopted coincidental to final approval of the project by the responsible
decision maker(s). In addition, pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, findings must
be adopted by the decision-maker regarding the adoption of the monitoring program, coincidental to
certification of the EIR.
In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6, this Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed for the proposed Arboretum Specific Plan. The
purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the future development allowed under the Specific Plan
complies with all applicable environmental mitigation and permit requirements. The MMRP for the
proposed Arboretum Specific Plan designates the developer as responsible for the implementation of
mitigation measures and the City of Fontana as responsible for verification for mitigation compliance,
review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition.
This mitigation monitoring program shall be considered by the City of Fontana, prior to completion of
the environmental review process, to enable the Fontana City Council to make an appropriate
decision to the proposed project. In addition, the following language shall be incorporated as part of
the Council's findings of fact, and in compliance with requirements of the Public Resources Code.
In accordance with the requirements of Section 21081(a) and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the
City of Fontana makes the following additional findings:
That a mitigation monitoring and reporting program shall be implemented for future
developments on the project site, as specified in the EIR for the Arboretum Specific Plan;
That through covenant and agreement, prior to the recordation of the final map, certificate
of occupancy, and/or building permit for future developments under the Arboretum
Specific Plan, the City of Fontana shall identify an appropriate licensed professional to
provide certification that compliance with the required mitigation measures has been
effected;
Site plans and/or building plans, submitted for approval by the responsible monitoring
agency, shall include required mitigation measures/conditions; and
That an accountable enforcement agency and monitoring agency shall be identified for
mitigation measures/conditions adopted as part of the decision-maker's final
determination.
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-2
The City of Fontana does not serve as the Lead Agency nor does it have permitting authority over
school construction and operation. Thus, while the impacts associated with on-site schools are
analyzed in this EIR, mitigation in this EIR is not necessarily applicable to future school sites and
school developments. Rather, future school construction and development would be subject to CEQA
and other applicable State regulations, including Division of the State Architect (DSA) standards, as
complied with and implemented by the Fontana Unified School District.
10.1 STANDARD CONDITIONS
Table 10-1, Standard Conditions, lists the standard conditions which will be implemented as part of
future developments that would be constructed on the project site, as allowed under the proposed
Arboretum Specific Plan. While the City of Fontana and other regulatory agencies have other
standard conditions, the ones identified in the table below are limited to those which were found to
help prevent or reduce potential adverse impacts associated with the project. This does not excuse
the project from other applicable standard conditions which may be required by the City or other
regulatory agency with jurisdiction over the project and the site.
TABLE 10-1
STANDARD CONDITIONS
Standard Conditions Responsib
le Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for Monitoring
Land Use and Planning
Standard Condition 4.2.1: Future developments on
the project site shall comply with the development
and design standards in the Arboretum Specific Plan
and the City’s Zoning and Development Code for
requirements not superseded by the Specific Plan.
Standard Condition 4.2.2: Future developments on
the project site shall comply with the City’s
performance standards and the development
policies for land use compatibility.
Developer/
Site
Planner
Developer/
Site
Planner
Site Planning
Site Planning
Site Plan Review by Planning
Division
Site Plan Review by Planning
Division
Traffic and Circulation
Standard Condition 4.4.1: The project shall pay
development impact fees as set by the City to fund
roadway maintenance and improvement projects in
the area.
Standard Condition 4.4.2: Future developments
would be subject to plan check review to ensure that
the necessary access, parking, and roadway
improvements are provided as part of individual
developments, in accordance with the City’s traffic
safety design criteria.
Standard Condition 4.4.3: The proposed roundabout
shall be constructed per FHWA standards and
subject to review and approval by the City during
plan check of the final roadway improvement plans.
Developer
Developer
Developer/
Contractor
Plan check
Plan check
Plan check/
Construction
phase
Payment of fees as part of
Plan Check by Building
Department
Plan Check by Building
Department
Plan Check and Site
Inspections by Building
Department
Air Quality
Standard Condition 4.5.1: Future development
under the proposed Arboretum Specific Plan shall
comply with pertinent SCAQMD regulations in order
to contribute to the incremental reduction in air
pollution levels in the region.
Developer
Plan check
Plan check by Building
Department
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-3
TABLE 10-1
STANDARD CONDITIONS
Standard Conditions Responsib
le Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for Monitoring
Noise
Standard Condition 4.6.1: Construction activities on
the project site shall comply with City regulations on
time limits for construction activity. Construction
activities would have to comply with the construction
time limits (7 AM to 6 PM on weekdays, unless
otherwise approved by the City and the Engineer or in
case of an emergency); loading/unloading of boxes;
transport of metal rails, pillars and columns; and the
use of pile drivers, steam shovels, pneumatic hammers
and other noisy construction equipment shall be
conducted within allowable times (7 AM to 10 PM) as
set by the Fontana Noise Ordinance.
Developer/
Contractor
Construction
phase
Site inspections by Building
Department
Geology and Soils
Standard Condition 4.7.1: The project shall comply
with seismic design criteria in the California Building
Code, the City’s building standards, and other
pertinent building regulations.
Standard Condition 4.7.2: Recommendations of the
geotechnical investigation for the project site, as they
pertain to structural design and construction
recommendations for earthwork, grading, slopes,
foundations, pavements, and other necessary
geologic and seismic considerations would need to
be implemented for building construction.
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Design
Plan Check by Building
Department
Plan Check by Building
Department
Hydrology and Water Quality
Standard Condition 4.8.1: The project shall comply
with the NPDES General Permit for Construction
Activity, which requires projects on one acre or more to
notify the RWQCB and implement a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction
activities. SWPPPs shall be prepared for each
construction phase or construction area.
Standard Condition 4.8.2: The project shall comply
with the NPDES regarding the implementation of
source and treatment control measures and other
best management practices for long-term stormwater
pollutant mitigation, as contained in the project’s
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and as
approved by the City. WQMPs shall be prepared for
each village or planning area, which provide specific
locations, sizes, and calculations for BMPs to be
implemented on-site.
Standard Condition 4.8.3: The project shall
construct the necessary on-site and off-site storm
drain infrastructure to connect to the City of
Fontana’s storm drainage system, in order to prevent
the creation of flood hazards on-site and in
downstream areas, as approved by the Fontana City
Engineer.
Developer/
Contractor
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Filing of NOI
prior to
Construction
and during
construction
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Design
Plan Check and Site
Inspections by Building
Department
Plan Check of WQMP by
Public Works/ Environmental
Division
Plan Check by Building
Department and Land
Development Engineering
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-4
TABLE 10-1
STANDARD CONDITIONS
Standard Conditions Responsib
le Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for Monitoring
Standard Condition 4.8.4: The project shall provide
temporary detention basins on site to maintain runoff
flows at 90 percent of existing volume and at existing
rates, if downstream storm drain lines, channels,
detention basins and other facilities are not in place
or fully improved at the time of development, subject
to approval of the City Engineer.
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Engineering
Design
Plan Check by Building
Department and Land
Development Engineering
Biological Resources
Standard Condition 4.9.1: In accordance with the
City’s Interim Program for the North Fontana
MSHCP, the developer shall pay a fee for the future
acquisition of preserved habitat for sensitive
species.
Standard Condition 4.9.2: The removal of trees on-
site shall be subject to the City’s Preservation of
Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees (Municipal
Code Section 28-60) for the replacement of any
Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees that may
be affected by the project.
Developer
Developer
Plan check
Plan check
Plan Check by Building
Department and Planning
Division
Plan Check by Building
Department
Cultural Resources
Standard Condition 4.10.1: If human remains are
encountered during excavation activities at the site,
all work shall halt and the County Coroner shall be
notified (Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources
Code). The Coroner will determine whether the
remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with
the aid of the County-approved archaeologist,
determines that the remains are prehistoric, he/she
will contact the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will be responsible
for designating the most likely descendant (MLD),
who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of
the remains, as required by Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code. The MLD will
make his/her recommendation within 24 hours of
their notification by the NAHC. The recommendation
of the MLD shall be followed and may include
scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of the
human remains and any items associated with
Native American burials (Section 70580.5 of the
Health and Safety Code).
Developer/
Contractor
During grading
and excavation
activities
Site Inspections by Building
Department
Public Services and Recreation
Standard Condition 4.11.1: Future developments shall
implement Building Security Specifications and shall be
consistent with the principles of Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design, as required by the
Fontana Police Department. To ensure compliance, all
developments shall be subject to building and site plan
review and approval by the Fontana Police
Department.
Standard Condition 4.11.2: Future developments
would be required to pay development impact fees
Developer/
Project
Architect
Developer
Building Design
Plan Check
Plan Check by Fontana
Police Department
Payment of fees as part of
Plan Check by Building
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-5
TABLE 10-1
STANDARD CONDITIONS
Standard Conditions Responsib
le Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for Monitoring
for police services. Payment of development impact
fees would assist in funding the needed public facility
expansion and service improvements needed to
serve the proposed developments on the site.
Standard Condition 4.11.3: Future developments shall
be subject to building and site plan review by the San
Bernardino County Fire District, for compliance with
pertinent fire safety and emergency access standards
and to identify additional development features which
could reduce demand for fire services, prevent the
creation of fire hazards, and facilitate emergency
response to the project site.
Standard Condition 4.11.4: Future developments
would be required to pay development impact fees
for fire services. Payment of development impact
fees would assist in funding the needed public facility
expansion and service improvements needed to
serve the proposed developments on the site.
Standard Condition 4.11.5: Future developments
would be required to pay school impact fees to the
Fontana Unified School District, which would help
fund the needed school facility expansion and
service improvements to serve the proposed project.
Standard Condition 4.11.6: As required under the
City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 21, Article IV), the
proposed development shall pay Quimby fees for the
development of parks and recreational facilities in North
Fontana. The collected fees will be used for the
development of neighborhood and community parks in
the area, to serve the proposed project.
Standard Condition 4.11.7: Recreational facilities
would be provided on-site as part of the proposed
residential developments, in compliance with the City’s
Optional Density Standard Policy.
Standard Condition 4.11.8: Future developments
would be required to pay development impact fees
for library services. Payment of development impact
fees would assist in funding the needed public facility
expansion and service improvements needed to
serve the project.
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Developer
Developer
Developer
Developer/
Project
Architect
Developer
Building Design
Plan Check
Plan Check
Plan Check
Building Design
Plan Check
Department
Plan Check by San
Bernardino County Fire
District
Payment of fees as part of
Plan Check by Building
Department
Proof of payment of fees
during Plan Check by
Building Department
Payment of fees as part of
Plan Check by Building
Department
Plan Check by Planning
Division
Payment of fees as part of
Plan Check by Building
Department
Utilities
Standard Condition 4.12.1: The developer shall
comply with the requirements of the West Valley
Water District on water line extensions to serve
individual developments on the site.
Standard Condition 4.12.2: The developer shall
comply with the requirements of the West Valley
Water District, Fontana Water Company, San
Gabriel Municipal Water District, and/or the
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Design
Plan Check by Building
Department
Plan Check by Building
Department
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-6
TABLE 10-1
STANDARD CONDITIONS
Standard Conditions Responsib
le Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for Monitoring
Cucamonga Water District on excavation and
construction near existing water lines on and near
the site.
Standard Condition 4.12.3: Future developments
shall implement water conservation measures into
the project design of the individual developments on
the site to reduce water demand, in accordance with
the Water Conservation Plan of the West Valley
Water District.
Standard Condition 4.12.4: The developer shall
comply with the requirements of the Inland Empire
Utilities Agency and the City of Fontana on sewer
line extensions and service connections to serve
individual parcels and building pads on the site.
Standard Condition 4.12.5: The developer shall
comply with the requirements of the City of Fontana
on the construction of needed storm drain lines and
facilities to prevent flood hazards in the area and to
provide adequate storm drainage for the future
developments under the proposed Arboretum
Specific Plan.
Standard Condition 4.12.6: The developer shall
comply with the requirements of Burrtec on the
provision of solid waste collection services to
individual developments on the project site.
Standard Condition 4.12.7: Burrtec and the City shall
promote the recycling of wastes through the
provision of informational brochures, recycling bins,
barrel service, and recycled waste collection services
to future residential and commercial developments
on the site. Information on hazardous waste
collection facilities would also be provided to allow
for convenient and proper disposal of hazardous
wastes.
Standard Condition 4.12.8: The developer shall
comply with the requirements of SCE on line
extensions to serve individual parcels and building
pads on the site.
Standard Condition 4.12.9: Future developments
shall incorporate energy conservation measures into
the project design of the individual developments, in
compliance with the California Energy Efficiency
Standards and as mandated under Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations (California Building
Standards Code).
Standard Condition 4.12.10: The developer shall
comply with the requirements of SCG on gas line
extensions to serve individual parcels and building
pads on the site, as well as for construction in or
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Developer
Burrtec and
City
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Design
Prior to
Occupancy
Public
Information
Program
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Design
Plan Check by Building
Department
Plan Check by Building
Department
Plan Check by Land
Development Engineering
Occupancy Permit Building
Department
City’s Recycling Program
Coordinator
Plan Check by Building
Department
Plan Check by Building
Department
Plan Check by Building
Department
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-7
TABLE 10-1
STANDARD CONDITIONS
Standard Conditions Responsib
le Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for Monitoring
near the SCG right-of-way.
Standard Condition 4.12.11: The developer shall
comply with the requirements of AT&T and Time
Warner on telephone and cable line extensions to
serve individual parcels and building pads on the
site.
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Engineering
Design
Plan Check by Building
Department
Hazards and Human Health
Standard Condition 4.13.1: Construction activities,
school maintenance, and commercial uses that
utilize hazardous materials shall comply with
applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials
use, handling, storage, transport, and disposal.
Standard Condition 4.13.2: As needed, future
commercial uses and schools shall obtain a hazardous
materials handler permit from the San Bernardino
County Fire Department, prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, which would include the
development of a business emergency/contingency
plan for hazardous materials and wastes that would be
stored, generated, or treated at these facilities.
Developer/
Contractor/
Operator
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Construction
Phase and
Building
Operation
Prior to
Occupancy
Site Inspections by Building
Department and San
Bernardino County Fire
Department
Plan Check by Building
Department and San
Bernardino County Fire
Department
Aesthetics
Standard Condition 4.14.1: Future development on
the project site shall be subject to site plan and
design review for compliance with the development
regulations and design guidelines in the adopted
Specific Plan and applicable regulations in the City’s
Zoning and Development Code.
Developer/
Project
Architect
Site Planning
and Building
Design
Site Plan Review by Planning
Division and Plan Check by
Building Department
10.2 MITIGATION MEASURES
The mitigation measures that have been recommended to reduce or avoid the potentially significant
adverse impacts of the project are listed in Table 10-2, Mitigation Monitoring Program. Responsible
parties, the time frame for implementation, and the monitoring parties are also identified for each
measure. The mitigation measures are primarily the responsibility of the developer. In order to
determine if the developer has implemented these measures, the method of verification is also
identified, along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the
developer has completed each mitigation measure.
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Traffic and Circulation
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1a: In order to maintain
acceptable LOS in 2010 during the AM and PM
peak hours at local roadway intersections, the
project shall pay its fair share contribution to the City
of Fontana for the implementation of the following
Developer/
Contractor
Plan check
Payment of fees as part of
Plan Check by Building
Department
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-8
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
improvements:
• Sierra Avenue and I-15 Southbound Ramp:
Install a traffic signal.
• Sierra Avenue and I-15 Northbound Ramp:
Install traffic signal.
• Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Add a
northbound through lane, a southbound through
lane and a southbound right turn lane. Convert
the southbound shared right-though lane into a
through lane
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1b: In order to maintain
acceptable LOS in 2010 during the AM and PM peak
hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
implement the following improvements:
• Project Access 4 and Duncan Canyon Road:
Install a traffic signal.
• Project Access 5 and Duncan Canyon Road:
Add a dedicated southbound left turn lane.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.2: The impacts of the
proposed project shall pay its fair share contribution
for the improvement onf freeway segments and
interchanges that would result inoperate at degraded
LOS byin 2010 would be mitigated by the following.
These improvements include:
• I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the southbound
segment from Glen Helen Parkway to Sierra
Avenue
• I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the southbound
segment from Baseline Road to Foothill
Boulevard
• I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the northbound
segment from Foothill Boulevard to Baseline
Road
• I-15 Freeway: Add a lane in for the northbound
segment from Sierra Avenue to Glen Helen
Parkway
Mitigation Measure 4.4.3a: In order to maintain
acceptable LOS in 2030 during the AM and PM peak
hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
pay its fair share contribution to the City of Fontana
for the implementation of the following
improvements:
• Sierra Avenue and Riverside Avenue: Add a
second northbound left-turn lane and two
northbound through lanes. Add a second
southbound left turn lane and a two southbound
through lanes. Convert the shared southbound
through-right lane into a dedicated right-turn
lane. Add a westbound left turn lane and convert
the existing shared left-through into a through
lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Grapeland Street: Add a
Developer/
Contractor
Developer/
Contractor
Developer/
Contractor
Plan check
Plan check
Plan check
Plan Check and Field
Inspections by Building
Department
Payment of fees as part of
Plan Check by Building
Department
Payment of fees as part of
Plan Check by Building
Department
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-9
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
second northbound left turn lane and a
dedicated northbound right turn lane. Add a
second southbound left turn lane and a
dedicated southbound right turn lane. Add a
westbound left turn lane and an eastbound left
turn lane.
• Lytle Creek Road (E) and Duncan Canyon Road:
Convert one northbound through lane to a
dedicated right turn lane. Provide overlap
phasing for the eastbound right turn and the
northbound right turn. Add an additional
eastbound through lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add a
second left turn lane and a dedicated right turn
lane on each approach. Provide overlap phasing
for the eastbound and southbound right turn.
Add a second westbound left turn lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Casa Grande Avenue: Add a
second eastbound and westbound left turn lane.
• I-15 Southbound Ramps and Beech Avenue:
Add a second eastbound left turn lane.
• I-15 Northbound Ramps and Beech Avenue:
Add a second southbound left turn lane and a
dedicated westbound right turn lane. Provide
overlap phasing for the westbound right turn.
• Citrus Avenue and SR-210 Westbound Ramps:
Add a second westbound left turn lane and a
southbound shared through/right turn lane.
• Citrus Avenue and SR-210 Eastbound Ramps:
Reconfigure the off-ramp to include one left turn
lane, one shared through/left turn lane, and a
free right turn lane.
• Citrus Avenue and Highland Avenue: Provide
overlap phasing for the westbound right turn.
• Sierra Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway:
Provide overlap phasing for the eastbound right
turn.
• Sierra Avenue and SR-210 Eastbound Ramps:
Convert the eastbound left turn lane into a
shared left through lane. Convert the eastbound
shared left-right lane into an exclusive right-turn
lane.
• Sierra Avenue and Highland Avenue: Convert
the existing northbound right turn lane into a
shared through/right turn lane. Provide overlap
phasing for the eastbound right turn and the
westbound right turn.
• Sierra Avenue and Casa Grande Avenue: Add a
second northbound left turn lane and a second
southbound left turn lane. Convert the shared
through/right turn lane at each approach to a
through lane. Add a right turn lane to each
approach.
• Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road: Add
dual left turn lanes and a dedicated right turn
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-10
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
lane at the northbound and southbound
approaches.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.3b: In order to maintain
acceptable LOS in 2030 during the AM and PM peak
hours at local roadway intersections, the project shall
implement the following improvements:
• Project Access 1 and Grapeland Street: Provide
exclusive left and right turning lanes at the
northbound approach and provide a westbound
left-turn lane.
• Project Access 4 and Duncan Canyon Road:
Install a traffic signal.
• Project Access 5 and Duncan Canyon Road:
Install a traffic signal and add a dedicated
southbound and northbound left turn lane.
• Project Access 6 and Cypress Avenue: Install a
traffic signal.
• Project Access 10 and Citrus Avenue: Install a
traffic signal.
• Cypress Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road:
Convert the eastbound shared through/right turn
lane into a through lane and add a right turn
lane.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.4: The proposed project
shall pay its fair share costs for the improvement of
freeway segments and interchanges that would
operate at degraded LOS in 2030. These
improvements include:
• I-15 Freeway: Construction of additional lane to
provide a total of seven travel lanes in each
direction.
• SR-210 Westbound from Citrus Avenue to I-15:
Construction of one additional travel lane.
• SR-210 Westbound from I-15 to Day Creek
Boulevard: Construction of one additional travel
lane.
• SR-210 Eastbound from Day Creek Boulevard to
I-15: Construction of one additional travel lane.
• SR-210 Eastbound from Riverside Avenue to
Pepper Avenue: Construction of one additional
travel lane.
Developer/
Contractor
Developer/
Contractor
Plan check
Plan check
Plan Check and Field
Inspections by Building
Department
Payment of fees as part of
Plan Check by Building
Department
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure 4.5.1: Dust control during
grading activities on the site shall implement best
available control measures (BACMs) exceeding the
minimum dust control requirements of SCAQMD
Rule 403. Recommended construction activity
mitigation includes:
♦ Disturb, grade or clear no more than 75 acres
per day.
♦ Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas.
♦ Prepare a high wind dust control plan and
implement plan elements and terminate soil
Developer/
Contractor
Construction
Phase
Site inspections by
Building Department
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-11
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
disturbance when winds exceed 25 miles per
hour.
♦ Limit the simultaneous disturbance area to as
small an area as practical when winds exceed
25 mph.
♦ Stabilize previously disturbed areas if
subsequent construction is delayed.
♦ Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times
per day.
♦ Cover all stock piles with tarps.
♦ Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly.
♦ Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than
15 miles per hour.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.2: Grading, excavation, and
ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of an
existing residence, school or park shall implement
enhanced dust control procedures such as continual
soil wetting, use of supplemental binders or chemical
stabilizers, early paving of roadways, driveways and
other paved surfaces, early landscaping of exposed
areas, and use of sand fences.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.3a: The following measures
shall be implemented to reduce exhaust emissions
during construction:
♦ Construction and paving shall be segregated into
at least 5 non-overlapping phases.
♦ Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off-road
equipment. Such controls are expected to reduce
daily NOx emissions from all off- and on-road
equipment, but not to less-than-significant levels.
♦ Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and
heavy equipment before shutting the equipment
down.
♦ Require use of Tier 3-rated engines for all
equipment exceeding 100 horsepower, during
site grading.
♦ Use aqueous diesel fuel for construction
equipment.
♦ Utilize diesel particulate filter for construction
equipment.
♦ Give preference to contractors using equipment
with oxidation catalysts, soot traps or other
modern emissions control technology.
♦ Use low emission mobile construction
equipment. The property owner/developer shall
comply with CARB requirements for heavy
construction equipment.
♦ Maintain construction equipment engines by
keeping them tuned.
♦ Avoid unnecessary idling by shutting of engines
that are expected to idle for more than five
minutes
♦ Use low sulfur fuel for all diesel powered
Developer/
Contractor
Developer/
Contractor
Construction
Phase
Construction
Phase
Site inspections by
Building Department
Site inspections by
Building Department
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-12
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
construction equipment. This is required by
SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2.
♦ Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles)
when available.
♦ Configure construction parking to minimize traffic
interference
♦ Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes.
Construction shall be planned so that lane
closures on existing streets are kept to a
minimum.
♦ Schedule construction operations affecting traffic
for off-peak hours to the best extent, when
possible.
♦ Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow
interference from construction activities (the plan
may include advance public notice of routing,
use of public transportation and satellite parking
areas with a shuttle service.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.3b: The following measures
shall be implemented to reduce ROG pollutant
emissions during construction:
♦ Minimize the amount of paint used by using pre-
coated, pre-colored and naturally colored building
materials.
♦ Use high transfer efficiency painting methods
such as High Volume Low Pressure (HVLP)
sprayers and brushes/rollers where possible.
♦ Use SCAQMD-required low-VOC coatings where
practical.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.3c: The following measures
shall be implemented to reduce off-site emissions
during construction:
♦ Encourage car pooling for construction workers.
♦ Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
♦ Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
♦ Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site.
♦ Wash or sweep access points daily.
♦ Encourage receipt of construction materials
during non-peak traffic hours.
♦ Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
♦ Erect dust control fencing around individual
construction area perimeters.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.4: The proposed project
shall implement transportation control measures
(TCMs) to reduce vehicle emissions generated by
the project, which may include the following:
Non-Motorized Strategies
1. Bicycle Lanes and Storage Facilities – Bicycle
paths and bike racks shall be provided at scattered
locations on-site, including bicycle lanes on project
arterial roads and bike racks at schools and
commercial uses.
Developer/
Project
Designer/
Contractor
Developer/
Contractor
Developer/
Project
Designer
Site Planning,
Plan Check and
Construction
Phase
Construction
Phase
Site Planning
and Plan Check
Plan approval by Planning
Division and Building
Department and
Site inspections by
Building Department
Site inspections by
Building Department
Plan approval by Planning
Division and Building
Department
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-13
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
2. Pedestrian Improvements – Sidewalks and
pedestrian walkways shall be provided throughout
the site for land use interconnections.
Telecommunications
1. Adequate and modern system connections in all
homes – Telecommunication systems shall be
provided in residential villages.
2. Wi-Fi “hot spots” within the community - High-
speed wireless local area network shall be provided
at select locations on-site.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.5: Prior to issuance of
building permits, the property owner/developer shall
demonstrate compliance with the following
measures to reduce criteria pollutant emissions
from stationary sources directly related to the
project:
♦ Install low-emission water heaters.
♦ Use built-in, energy-efficient appliances.
♦ Incorporate bus turnouts into roadway design
and construction.
♦ Ensure that sidewalks and pedestrian paths are
installed throughout the project area.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.6: The following measures
shall be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from project construction and operation:
♦ Utilize high efficiency HVAC equipment.
♦ Install Energy Star labeled roof materials.
♦ Wire homes to facilitate installation of roof-top
solar panels.
♦ Exceed 2005 Title 24 energy conservation design
by 20%. (Energy conservation may be reduced from
20% to a minimum of 10% over 2005 Title 24
requirements if it can be demonstrated to the City’s
Community Development Director that 20%
reductions are infeasible.)
♦ Incorporate solar orientation into site planning.
♦ Hardwire buildings to incorporate current
telecommunication technologies.
♦ Install 220-volt electric vehicle charging system in
garages.
♦ Utilize light-colored hardscape in common areas.
♦ Use highly reflective “cool roofs” in commercial
uses.
♦ Utilize recycled building materials, where
feasible.
♦ Install energy-reducing day lighting (skylights).
Use low-water use appliances.
Developer/
Project
Designer
Developer/
Project
Designer
Site Planning,
Plan Check
Site Planning,
Plan Check
Plan approval by Planning
Division and Building
Department
Plan check by Building
Department
Noise
Mitigation Measure 4.6.1a: During construction, the
following measures shall be implemented to reduce
noise on sensitive receptors:
♦ All off-road construction equipment shall have
properly operating and maintained mufflers.
Developer/
Contractor
During
construction
Site inspections by
Building Department
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-14
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
♦ Stockpiling and equipment/vehicle staging shall
be conducted as far as practicable from occupied
dwelling units or other nearby noise-sensitive land
uses.
♦ Idling of construction equipment shall be limited to 5
minutes, as required by law. Equipment shall be turned
off when not in use.
♦ Schedule noisy activities and impulsive noise
generation, such as pile driving or jack-hammers,
during the late morning and early afternoon hours
near residences, or temporary barriers shall be
erected, if necessary.
♦ Schedule noisy activities and impulsive noise
generation, such as pile driving or jack-hammers,
near schools when schools are not in session or
temporary barriers shall be erected, if necessary.
♦ Inform abutting residents and schools of the
construction schedule for areas under construction.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.1b: A noise impact mitigation
plan shall be submitted and implemented for major
construction within 500 feet of any occupied residence
that incorporates temporary barriers, maximum set-
backs and upgraded equipment as necessary.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.2a: Perimeter walls shall be
provided along residential areas to meet the City’s
exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL, as follows:
Citrus Avenue – 6 feet
Sierra Avenue – 6 feet
Grapeland Street – 5 feet
Duncan Canyon Road – 6 feet
Casa Grande Avenue – 5 feet
Mitigation Measure 4.6.2b: Increased setbacks from
the roadway centerline shall be provided if noise wall
heights are less than those listed above, which are
capable of achieving an exterior noise level of 65
dBA CNEL or less. Setback requirements are as
follows:
Citrus Avenue – 260 feet
Cypress Avenue – 50 feet
Sierra Avenue – 275 feet
Grapeland Street – 115 feet
Duncan Canyon Road – 200 feet
Casa Grande Avenue – 110 feet
Mitigation Measure 4.6.3: The proposed commercial
retail center shall be required to provide
supplemental noise analysis to show that indoor
commercial areas would meet the interior standard
of 55 dBA CNEL and outdoor use areas (such as
patio dining areas) would meet the exterior standard
of 70 dBA CNEL.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.4: A supplemental acoustical
analysis shall be submitted in conjunction with the
Developer/
Contractor
Developer/
Project
Designer
Developer/
Project
Designer
Developer/
Project
Designer
Developer/
Project
Plan check and
during
construction
Site Planning
and Plan Check
Plan Check
Site Planning
and Plan Check
Site Planning
and Plan Check
Plan check by Building
Department and Planning
Division and Site
inspections by Building
Department
Plan approval by Building
Department and Planning
Division
Plan check by Building
Department and Planning
Division
Plan approval by Planning
Division and Building
Department
Plan approval by Planning
Division and Building
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-15
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
issuance of building permits to verify that adequate
structural noise protection will be provided in
residences adjoining arterial roadways to meet the
45 dBA CNEL interior standard. This includes the
provision of closed dual-paned windows with
supplemental ventilation for residences along
Duncan Canyon Road, Cypress Avenue, and Casa
Grande Avenue. The use of upgraded dual-paned
windows, with supplemental ventilation, baffles in
vents, and absorbers in ducts shall be provided for
residences along Citrus Avenue. Dual layer drywall,
triple-paned windows, steel doors and other custom
upgrades shall be provided for residences along
Sierra Avenue.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.5: Design and planning of the
schools shall implement structural noise protection
as necessary to meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior
standard.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.6: Conditional use permits for
proposed commercial uses shall contain measures
that control noise generation from goods deliveries,
facility maintenance, and mechanical equipment to
meet the City’s interior and exterior noise standards
at adjacent land uses. These may include:
♦ Location of commercial HVAC equipment away
from residences or shielding of HVAC equipment
♦ Location of loading docks and trash compactors
away from residences
♦ Time restrictions on deliveries to commercial
uses
♦ Orientation of fast-food restaurant sound boards
away from nearby residences; sound walls around
the order boards; or time restrictions on sound board
use
♦ Time restrictions on refuse collection or parking
lot sweeping, or stacking or retrieval of temporary
outdoor storage
Mitigation Measure 4.6.7: Design and planning of the
schools shall install or implement the following
provisions, as necessary, to keep noise levels within
the City’s interior and exterior noise standards at
adjacent land uses: sound walls, setbacks between
abutting residences and the schools’ outdoor fields;
location of HVAC equipment away from residences
or provision of shielding around HVAC equipment;
location of loading docks and trash compactors away
from residences; and time restrictions on truck
deliveries, trash pick-ups, and parking lot sweeping.
Designer
Developer/
Project
Designer
Developer/
Project
Designer
Developer/
Project
Designer
Site Planning
and Plan Check
Site Planning
and Plan Check
Site Planning
and Plan Check
Department
Plan approval by Planning
Division and Building
Department
Plan approval by Planning
Division and Building
Department
Plan approval by Planning
Division and Building
Department
Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure 4.7.1: Excavations shall be
constructed in accordance with the
recommendations of the geotechnical investigation
Developer/
Contractor
Construction
Phase
Site inspections by
Building Department
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-16
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
for the site, including the following:
♦ Temporary excavations may be constructed to a
vertical depth of five feet without rigorous lateral
supports.
♦ Excavated surfaces shall be wetted during
construction in order to minimize potential surface
soil raveling.
♦ No surcharge loading (from, vehicles, materials,
or workmen on the surface adjacent to the trench
excavation) shall be allowed within an imaginary 1:1
line drawn upward from the toe of temporary
excavations.
♦ Should excavations exceed five feet, those shall
be made using cantilevered or braced shoring to
support side walls.
♦ Temporary excavations in excess of five feet shall
be made at a slope of 2 :1 (H:V) or flatter, and as per
the construction guidelines provided by the California
Construction and General Industry Safety Orders, the
Occupational Safety and Health Act and current
amendments, and the Construction Safety Act.
Water and Hydrology
Mitigation Measure 4.8.1: The existing septic tank
shall be abandoned and removed prior to
redevelopment of the parcel occupied by the former
residence, in accordance with San Bernardino
County Environmental Health Department permits
and procedures.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.2a: Future developments on
the southern section of the site would need to
prepare and implement a WQMP that provides
hydrologic and hydraulic calculations showing there
is capacity at Sierra Lakes to handle additional
stormwater pollutants from the site and other
tributary areas of the lake and that no adverse
impacts on downstream water bodies and other
hydrologic conditions of concern would occur,
subject to approval by the Sierra Lakes Golf Course
Management Company and the City of Fontana.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.2b: Improvements needed to
allow the existing risers, drainage pipes, and Sierra
Lake to serve the stormwater treatment needs of
future developments on the southern section of the
site would need to be provided prior to the
connection of on-site storm drain lines to the Sierra
Lake system and as part of the development, subject
to approval by the Sierra Lakes Golf Course
Management Company and the City of Fontana.
Developer/
Contractor
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Prior to grading
Site Planning
and Plan Check
Site Planning
and Plan Check
Site inspections by
Building Department
Plan approval by Planning
Division, Building
Department, and Public
Works/ Environmental
Division
Plan approval by Planning
Division, Building
Department, and Public
Works/ Environmental
Division
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1a: Focused surveys for the
burrowing owl shall be conducted during the nesting
Developer/
Project
Grading Permit
Site inspections during
surveys and prior to
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-17
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
season (March to August) and no more than 30 days
prior to the onset of construction to ensure
avoidance of this species. If no occupied burrows
are found, a report shall be submitted to the City and
construction may begin without further actions.
Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the
nesting season unless a qualified biologist approved
by CDFG verifies through non-invasive methods that
either: (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and
incubation, or (2) that juveniles from the occupied
burrows are foraging independently and are capable
of independent survival.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1b: Mitigation for loss of
burrowing owl habitat shall include passive relocation
of resident animals on the project site to the
approved replacement habitat location. The
Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation
Guidelines (CBOC, 1993) shall be utilized for current
methods for passive relocation of any owls found
during the survey. A qualified biologist shall conduct
the relocation activities and provide construction
monitoring during construction activities near the
burrows.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1c: If burrowing owls are
found on-site, off-site relocation shall be provided in
conformance with the 1995 (CDFG) Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation, which requires the
acquisition and permanent protection of a minimum
of 6.5 acres of off-site foraging habitat (based on
providing a 100-yard foraging radius around the
burrow) per pair or unpaired resident bird. The
protected lands should be within the vicinity of the
project site in suitable habitat and at a location
approved by the CDFG. Any occupied burrows within
the project site that will be destroyed by
implementation of the project shall be mitigated
through enhancement of existing unsuitable burrows
or creation of artificial burrows at a ratio of 2:1 on the
protected site.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.1d: The developer shall pay
the adopted mitigation fee for the loss of burrowing
owl habitat from the project area. Fees shall be as
set forth in the interim program for the North Fontana
MSHCP.
Mitigation Measure 4.9.2: Removal of vegetation or
other potential nesting bird habitat shall be
conducted outside of the avian nesting season
(February through August). If removal of vegetation
must occur during the avian nesting season, a pre-
construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted
within 7 days prior to any ground disturbing
activities. If at any time, birds are found to be
Biologist
Developer/
Project
Biologist
Developer/
Project
Biologist
Developer
Developer/
Project
Biologist
Grading Permit
Grading Permit
Grading Permit
Grading Permit
issuance of grading
permit by Building
Department and Planning
Division
Site inspections during
surveys and prior to
issuance of grading
permit by Building
Department and Planning
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading permit by Building
Department and Planning
Division
Prior to issuance of
grading permit by Building
Department and Planning
Division
Site inspections during
surveys and prior to
issuance of grading
permit by Building
Department and Planning
Division
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-18
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
nesting inside or within 250 feet (500 feet for
raptors) of the proposed construction disturbance
area, construction activities within 250 feet (500 feet
for raptors) of the nest must cease and the area
flagged and protected from any ground disturbing
activities until it is determined by a qualified biologist
that the nest is no longer active.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure 4.10.1: Prior to removal of the
foundation remains at the SCE/SCG easements, a
formal evaluation of the area shall be completed, to
determine eligibility to the California Register of
Historic Places. Initial evaluation of significance for
this site will focus on archival research, including a
title search to identify former property owners,
historical research at the Fontana Historical Society
and the San Bernardino Historical Society to identify
historical maps, aerial photographs and photographs
of the building. Oral interviews with local residents
and Historical Society members shall also be
conducted. This initial evaluation will seek to
determine when the building was constructed, its
function and history of use, and whether it was
associated at any time with important people or
events in the past. This initial evaluation will not
include subsurface testing. However, if the
evaluation determines that the site has
archaeological or historical research potential,
subsurface testing may be recommended to identify
subsurface features and deposits, and to evaluate
such deposits under criterion D of the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.a3. If the foundation is
determined to be significant, then a mitigation plan
shall be developed, in accordance with Section
21084.1 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines, to ensure mitigation below a level of
significance. Mitigation shall include photograph,
recordation, collection, and archival of collected
materials. In the event that significant cultural
resources cannot be mitigated, avoidance shall be
required.
Mitigation Measure 4.10.2: Monitoring shall be
conducted for excavation activities extending to
estimated depths of 10 feet or more below the existing
ground surface. If required, the paleontologic monitor
shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are
unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove
samples of sediments that are likely to contain the
remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.
Monitors are empowered to temporarily halt or divert
equipment to allow removal of abundant or large
specimens. Monitoring may be reduced if the
potentially-fossiliferous units are not present in the
subsurface, or if present, are determined upon
Developer/
Archaeologist
Developer/
Archaeological
Monitor
Prior to grading
and excavation
activities at
SCE/SCG
easement
During grading
and excavation
activities
Plan approval by Planning
Division and Building
Department
Site Inspections by
Building Department
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-19
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic
personnel to have low potential to contain fossil
resources. Also, the following measures shall be made
during the monitoring of excavation activities on
undisturbed subsurface Pleistocene sediments.
♦ During monitoring, preparation of recovered
specimens to a point of identification and permanent
preservation, including washing of sediments to
recover small invertebrates and vertebrates shall
occur.
♦ During monitoring, identification and curation of
specimens into a museum repository with permanent
retrievable storage shall occur. The paleontologist
must have a written repository agreement in hand
prior to the initiation of mitigation activities.
♦ During monitoring, preparation of a report of
findings with an itemized inventory of specimens
shall occur. The report and inventory, when
submitted to the City of Fontana (as the Lead
Agency), will signify completion of the program to
mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources.
Mitigation Measure 4.10.3: A Native American Monitor
from the Soboba Tribe shall be present on-site during
ground-disturbing activities. If archaeological or
paleontological resources are found on the site, all
ground disturbance activities shall be halted until an
archaeologist has evaluated the significance of the
artifacts. If the archaeological or paleontological
resources are considered significant, then a mitigation
plan shall be developed, in accordance with Section
21083.2 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines, to ensure mitigation below a level of
significance. Mitigation shall include photographing,
recordation, collection, and archival of collected
materials or capping of the site.
In the event that significant cultural resources are
encountered that cannot be removed, the resources
shall be capped in place and consultation with Native
American representatives and the NAHC shall be
made on additional measures that may be required,
including the establishment of a standard Treatment
and Dispensation Agreement with Native American
representatives as part of the mitigation plan for the
uncovered resources.
Developer/
Cultural
Resources
Monitor
During grading
and excavation
activities
Site Inspections by
Building Department
Utilities
Mitigation Measure 4.12.1a: The City of Fontana
shall submit a letter of intent to the MWD for their
approval to use the MWD right-of-way as a public
street right-of-way.
Mitigation Measure 4.12.1b: Any grading,
excavation, or construction work near the MWD
right-of-way or the MWD pipelines shall follow the
MWD’s guidelines, with plans submitted for review
and approval by the MWD prior to the start of work.
City
Engineering
Division
Project
Engineer/
Contractor
Roadway design
Engineering
Design and
during
construction
Plan approval by Planning
Division and Building
Department
Plan Check and Field
Inspections by Building
Department
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-20
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure 4.12.2: Improvements proposed
within the SCE easement shall be subject to review
and approval by SCE to ensure no adverse impacts
to the high-voltage transmission lines and for
compliance with SCE’s development guidelines.
Mitigation Measure 4.12.3: Improvements proposed
within the SCG easement and near the gas pumping
facility shall be subject to review and approval by SCG
to ensure no adverse impacts to the natural gas lines
and facilities and for compliance with SCG’s
development guidelines.
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Developer/
Project
Engineer
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Design
Plan check by Building
Department
Plan check by Building
Department
Hazards and Human Health
Mitigation Measure 4.13.1: Waste oil drums,
television, and other illegally dumped hazardous
wastes on the site shall be disposed at a facility
licensed to accept such hazardous wastes, prior to
grading and excavation activities at the site.
Mitigation Measure 4.13.2: Prior to the development of
the eastern central section of the site (APN 0239-131-
045), shallow soil sampling shall be made at areas
which were formerly utilized for agricultural purposes, to
determine if residues from pesticide applications
remain in the soil. If the results of the soil testing show
chemical levels are below regulatory levels, grading or
excavation may proceed accordingly. Remediation
and/or removal of contaminated soils shall be made
prior to development, if chemical levels are above
regulatory standards. Remediation shall be made in
coordination with the local health department,
SCAQMD, the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control, the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency or other regulatory agencies and in
compliance with established maximum contaminant
levels.
Mitigation Measure 4.13.3: Prior to the demolition of
the existing buildings, bulk material sampling for
asbestos and lead-based paint shall be performed.
Any identified asbestos-containing materials shall be
removed and disposed in accordance with applicable
regulations (including South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) regulations and Cal-
OSHA guidelines) by a state-licensed abatement
contractor, with abatement oversight performed by an
independent asbestos consultant.
Mitigation Measure 4.13.4: Demolition wastes
containing lead-based paint shall be removed and
disposed by a licensed contractor as hazardous waste,
in accordance with existing regulations.
Mitigation Measure 4.13.5: In order to protect the
gas pipelines and pumping facility, the developer
Developer/
Contractor
Developer/
Contractor
Developer/
Contractor
Developer/
Contractor
Developer/
Prior to grading
activities
Prior to grading
activities at
eastern central
section
Prior to
demolition of
existing
structures
During
demolition
Plan check and
Field Inspections by
Building Department
Plan Check and Field
Inspections by Building
Department
Plan Check and Field
Inspections by Building
Department
Field Inspections by
Building Department
Plan Check and Field
Section 10.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Arboretum Specific Plan SCH 2006071109
City of Fontana Page 10-21
TABLE 10-2
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Time Frame for
Implementation
Department or Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
shall coordinate and obtain approval from the
Southern California Gas Company for grading and
construction activities and any improvements and
structures on or near the 100-foot wide gas line
easement along the northwestern boundary of the
site and the pumping facility at the western section of
the site. Specifically, the following measures shall
be followed:
• No structures shall be built over the 100-foot
wide gas line easement although parking areas,
driveways and landscaped areas may be developed
over the easement.
• Structures and uses that would preclude or
obstruct access to the aboveground or underground
gas lines, through an approximately 50-foot wide
trench along the gas lines, are not allowed.
• Deep-rooting trees and shrubs that would need
to be pulled out to obtain access to the gas lines are
not allowed over the easement.
• Mechanical equipment are not allowed within
three horizontal feet of the gas lines, in order to
prevent damage to the lines during construction and
grading activities. Any closer work would have to be
done by hand.
• At least seven feet of fill is needed over the gas
lines where heavy construction equipment will be
crossing over the easement during construction
activities.
• Approval by the Southern California Gas
Company would be needed for any plans over the
easement.
• A representative of the Southern California Gas
Company must observe excavation work around and
near the facilities to insure protection of the gas lines.
Mitigation Measure 4.13.4: A perimeter wall and/or
security fence shall be provided around the gas
pumping facility, along with a secured gate to
prevent unauthorized entry and damage to the
facility.
Mitigation Measure 4.13.5: The applicant shall
provide information on the presence of high-voltage
power transmission lines to all potential home
buyers.
Project
Engineer/
Contractor
Developer/
SCG
Developer
during
construction
Plan check and
during
construction
During home
sales
Inspections by Building
Department and Land
Development Engineering
Plan Check and Field
Inspections by Building
Department
Field Inspections by
Building Department
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS
MEMORANDUM
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
APPENDIX B
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
APPENDIX C
NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
APPENDIX D1
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P L A N
N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
A R C H 2026
R E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P
F O N T A N A , C
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
APPENDIX D2
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MEMORANDUM
E S O R T V I L L A G E U P D A T E P R O J E C T
O N T A N A , C A L I F O R N I A
A D D E N D U M T O T H E A R B O R E T U M S P E C I F I C P
E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R
M A R C H 202
P:\2023\20231028-Arboretum\Product\Addendum\20231028 Addendum 3.2.26.docx (03/12/26)
This page intentionally left blank