Fontana City Council
July 26, 2022

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2021100400) FOR THE VENTANA AT DUNCAN CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION WHEREAS, the City of Fontana certified the Final EIR for the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2005111048) on March 27, 2007, in connection with the adoption of the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, in connection with the proposed Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment SPA21-001 and General Plan Amendment GPA21-006 the City worked with professional environmental consultants to prepare the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) for the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment SPA21-001 and General Plan Amendment GPA21-006 (“Project’); and WHEREAS, the SEIR provides an assessment of the environmental impacts and alternatives associated with the Project, and has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (CEQA), and State regulations in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines); and WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIR was provided to responsible agencies, organizations, members of the public and interested parties on April 14, 2022 and an updated Notice of Availability was provided on April 25, 2022; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Draft SEIR was circulated for review and comment from the public and other public agencies during a 47-day public review period, which began on April 14, 2022 and ended on May 31, 2022; and WHEREAS, on July 5, 2022 the Planning Commission for the City of Fontana (“Planning Commission”) held a duly noticed public hearing on the SEIR and the corresponding Project, at which time oral and documentary evidence was introduced along with the written recommendation of the Planning Department of the City of Fontana, and the Planning Commission received public testimony; and ATTACHMENT NO. 10ATTACHMENT NO. 10WHEREAS, notice of public hearing before the Planning Commission concerning the adequacy and completeness of the SEIR was given in accordance with the laws, including CEQA, and policies of the City; and ATTACHMENT NO. 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
WHEREAS, the SEIR was independently reviewed by the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendations reflect the independent judgment of the Commission; and WHEREAS, after the duly noticed public hearing on July 5, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC NO. 2022-024 recommending the City Council certify the SEIR and approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Final SEIR provides an assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, an electronic copy of the Final SEIR is available on the City’s website, printed copies are available City of Fontana Planning Department and the Fontana Lewis Library & Technology Center, and a printed copy was provided to City Council as an attachment to the staff report for this item; and WHEREAS, the City worked with professional environmental consultants to generate responses to timely submitted comments received during the 47-day public review period and the May 3, 2022 public hearing before the Planning Commission, and those responses and the underlying comments are included in the “Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR” section of the Final SEIR in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the proposed “Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Project” with respect to environmental impacts, including environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR as potentially significant, are described in Exhibit “A” to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) sets forth the mitigation measures to which the City shall bind itself in connection with this Project and is included as Section 3 of the Final SEIR and attached as Exhibit “B” to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Final SEIR and the corresponding Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment SPA21-001 and General Plan Amendment GPA21-006, at which time oral and documentary evidence was introduced along with the written recommendations of the Planning Commission and Planning Department of the City of Fontana, and the City Council received public testimony; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing before the City Council concerning the adequacy and completeness of the Final SEIR was given in accordance with the laws, including CEQA, and policies of the City; and WHEREAS, the Final SEIR was independently reviewed by the City Council, and the City Council’s determinations reflect the independent judgment of the Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has also considered the staff report and all of the information, evidence, and testimony received at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City has not received any comments or additional information that produced substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21166 and/or 21092.1 or State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council RESOLVES as follows:

Section 1. The Recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. The City provided a 45-day public review period for the Draft SEIR, which satisfies the requirements under CEQA Guidelines section 15105; and Section 3. The City Council hereby confirms that the Final SEIR, as certified by this Resolution, is composed of the Draft SEIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Final SEIR, dated June 2022, which contains all information required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15132 and is organized into the following three sections: Introduction; Response to Comments on the Draft SEIR; and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Section 4. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the public hearing, including written staff reports and verbal testimony, the City Council hereby finds and determines:

The Final SEIR fully complies with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines relating thereto.

The Final SEIR addresses all environmental effects of the proposed project and the draft SEIR fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines relating thereto.

The Final SEIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the proposed Project, and there are no known potentially significant environmental impacts that are not addressed in the Final SEIR.

The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit “B” to this Resolution) is designed to ensure that, during the implementation of the Project, the City and any other responsible parties implement the components of the Project and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

All significant environmental effects of the Project that are not mitigated to a level of insignificance are adequately addressed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (included in Exhibit “A” to this Resolution).

Although the Final SEIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be avoided or mitigated will be avoided or mitigated by the imposition of conditions on the approved Project and the imposition of mitigation measures as set forth in the Final SEIR, the Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit “A” to this Resolution), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit “B” to this Resolution).

Potential mitigation measures and alternatives not incorporated into the Project were rejected as infeasible, based upon specific economic, social, and other considerations as set forth in the Final SEIR and Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit “A” to this Resolution).

The significant impacts of the Project that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance will have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of mitigation measures. The City Council finds that the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The Final SEIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly.

A good faith effort has been made to seek out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Final SEIR as indicated by the public record for the Project and the Final SEIR SECTION 5. The City Council hereby certifies that (1) the Final SEIR has been prepared, processed, and noticed in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; (2) the Final SEIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final SEIR prior to considering adoption of the Project, and (3) the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council and is deemed adequate for the purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project.

SECTION 6: Based on the entire record before the City Council, all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council hereby:

Approves and adopts the “Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations,” which were prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15093 and which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein; Approves and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference; and Certifies the Final SEIR on file with the Planning Department and in the form presented to the City Council at the time of the adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 7. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA. The custodian for these records is the Director of Planning. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to deliver and publish, in accordance with applicable law, notices of the City Council's determination to certify the Final SEIR as provided herein, including without limitation filing a Notice of Determination with the County of San Bernardino within five (5) working days of final Project approval.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of July 2022.

READ AND APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM;
_____________________
City Attorney
ATTEST:

I, Germaine McClellan Key, City Clerk of the City of Fontana and Ex-Officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the actual resolution duly and regularly adopted by the City of Fontana at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 26th day of July 2022, by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

City Clerk of the City of Fontana
Mayor of the City of Fontana
ATTEST:
______________________________________
City Clerk

“EXHIBIT A”
Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021100400)

INTRODUCTION
The City Council of the City of Fontana (the “Council”), in certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) for the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment SPA No. 21-001 and General Plan Amendment GPA No. 21-006 (“Project”), makes the Findings described below and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations presented at the end of the Findings. The SEIR was prepared by the City of Fontana (“City”) acting as lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Hereafter, unless specifically identified, the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”), Notice of Availability & Completion (“NOA/NOC”), Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“DSEIR”), Technical Studies, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report containing Responses to Comments (“FSEIR”), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) will be referred to collectively herein as the “SEIR.” These Findings are based on the entire record before this Council, including the SEIR. This Council adopts the facts and analyses in the SEIR, which are summarized below for convenience. The omission of some detail or aspect of the SEIR does not mean that it has been rejected by this Council.

Background
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, a Notice of Completion (“NOC”) of the Draft SEIR State Clearinghouse No. 2021100400 for the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Project was filed with the State Clearinghouse on April 14, 2022, and the Notice of Availability (“NOA”) of the Draft SEIR was filed with the San Bernardino County Clerk on April 14, 2022. A reposting of the NOA was circulated on April 25, 2022, and was also re-filed with the County Clerk, to announce a one-day extension to May 31, 2022, in accommodation of the Memorial Day Holiday. Accordingly, the Draft SEIR was circulated for public review for a period of 47 days, from April 14, 2022 to May 31, 2022. Copies of the Draft SEIR were distributed to all Responsible Agencies and to the State Clearinghouse in addition to various public agencies, citizen groups, and interested individuals. Copies of the Draft SEIR were also made available for public review at the City of Fontana Planning Department, the Fontana Lewis Library & Technology Center, and on the internet.

PROJECT SUMMARY

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The Project is comprised of approximately 102 acres located in the northern part of the City of Fontana. The Project is bound by Interstate 15 (I-15) to the north and west, Citrus Avenue to the east, and a Southern California Edison Transmission Line Corridor to the south.

The Project site is currently undeveloped and relatively flat. The City’s Zoning District map designates the project area as the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan (i.e., existing Specific Plan). The existing Specific Plan area has two designations of General Commercial (C-G) and Multi Family Residential (R-MF). The existing Specific Plan allows for the following uses: Medium Density Residential (MDR), Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR), Mixed Use (MU), and Commercial (C). The existing Specific Plan identified ten Planning Areas (“PA”) and included the development of up to 574,500 square feet of commercial uses and 842 dwelling units. The Final EIR for the existing Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2005111048) was certified and the project approved by the City of Fontana on March 27, 2007.

Project Description
The Project includes a comprehensive Specific Plan Amendment to modify and update the overall development plan to reflect current planning and market demands. The Project re-envisions the project site to include the development of up to 476,500 square feet of commercial uses, 1,671 dwelling units in three separate residential villages with accompanying amenities, a focal point piazza (public square), and the construction of the realigned Lytle Creek Road, on an approximately 102-acre site.

The proposed Project would have many of the same features as envisioned under the existing Specific Plan, including residential villages, commercial uses, a focal point piazza, a campanile tower feature, and the construction of Lytle Creek Road through the Project site.

The greatest difference between the existing Specific Plan and the proposed Project is the overall increase of 1,671 residential units compared to 842 residential units under the existing Specific Plan. This increase of 829 units represents an increase of 98 percent, or nearly double the residential units. The additional units are accommodated via an increase in density from 15.0 to 25.9 units per acre, as well as a small increase in residential acreage of 8.6 acres (15 percent). In addition, the total commercial area would be reduced by 98,000 s.f. (17 percent), from 574,500 s.f. under the existing Specific Plan, to 476,500 s.f. for the proposed Project.

Actions Covered by the SEIR
The SEIR will support the following discretionary and non-discretionary approvals:

Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; Approval of the Amendment to the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan (SPA No. 21-001); Approval of the Amendment to the City of Fontana General Plan (GPA No. 21-006); Approval of a tree removal permit for removal of on-site “heritage trees” per Section 28-64 of the Fontana Municipal Code; and Design review of the development plan for each planning area associated with the Specific Plan.

Approvals and permits required by other agencies include:

A Water Supply Assessment for the Project provided by the West Valley Water District (approved on December 17, 2020); and Approval of trash enclosure and bin placements provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Project Objectives include the following:

To support the area demand for housing and contribute residential units to meet the City’s housing goal of 17,519 units; To create a master‐planned, mixed‐use community that creates a unique sense of place; To provide quality housing with various size options to accommodate different housing needs; To actualize the City’s vision for the Regional Mixed-Use designation in north Fontana; To establish a unique window into North Fontana from I-15; To introduce a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented activity center in this area of the city; To integrate a mix of commercial, office and residential uses both vertically and horizontally; To create a protected urban village environment that is unique to Fontana and the Inland Empire; To enhance the northern Fontana visual environment;
To contribute to the jobs/housing balance;
To facilitate revenue generating uses; and
To facilitate a walkable village environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City has conducted an extensive review of this Project which included the DSEIR, the FSEIR, and supporting technical studies, along with a public review and comment period first during the circulation of the Notice of Preparation and then through the circulation of the DSEIR. The following is a summary of the environmental review of this Project:

On October 20, 2021, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) that identified the environmental issues that the City anticipated would be analyzed in the Project’s DSEIR to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties.

The City held a virtual scoping meeting on October 27, 2021. The meeting included a presentation providing information about the proposed project and the CEQA process to members of public agencies, interested stakeholders, and residents/community members. Approximately eight parties participated in the scoping meeting, including planning staff from the City of Rancho Cucamonga.

The NOP public review period ran for 30 days, from October 21, 2021 to November 19, 2021. The City received comments from three agencies and one tribal group in response to the NOP during the public review period. There were no verbal comments received during the SEIR Scoping Meeting. These issues were addressed in the DSEIR where appropriate (see Table 1-1).

As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, a Notice of Completion (“NOC”) of the Draft SEIR State Clearinghouse No. 2021100400 for the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Project was filed with the State Clearinghouse on April 14, 2022, and the Notice of Availability (“NOA”) of the Draft SEIR was filed with the San Bernardino County Clerk on April 14, 2022. A reposting of the NOA was circulated on April 25, 2022, and was also re-filed with the County Clerk, to announce a one-day extension to May 31, 2022, in accommodation of the Memorial Day Holiday on May 30, 2022, thereby resulting in a 47-day public review period.

The Draft SEIR was circulated for public review for a period of 47 days, from April 14, 2022 to May 31, 2022. Copies of the Draft SEIR were distributed to all Responsible Agencies and to the State Clearinghouse in addition to various public agencies, citizen groups, and interested individuals. Copies of the Draft SEIR were also made available for public review at the City of Fontana Planning Department, the Fontana Lewis Library & Technology Center, and on the internet. A total of nine (9) comment letters were received on the DSEIR. Two of the comment letters received were from State, regional, or local agencies. Two comment letters were received from organizations, and five letters were received from individuals. The City also received verbal comments from Planning Commissioners during the Planning Commission public hearing that occurred at the City Hall Council Chambers on May 3, 2022. The City prepared specific responses to all comments. The responses to comments are included in Section 2 of the FSEIR.

On June 24, 2022, Notice of the Planning Commission hearing to consider the Project was provided in the following newspaper(s) of general and/or regional circulation: Fontana Herald Newspaper.

On July 5, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project. The Commission, after considering written comments and oral testimony on the SEIR, determined that no new information was presented that would require recirculation of the SEIR. Following public testimony, submission of additional written comments, and staff recommendations, the Commission recommended that the City Council certify the SEIR, adopting these Facts, Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the further recommendations in the Staff Report, recommending that it approve the Project (collectively the “Approvals”).

On July 14, 2022, Notice of the City Council hearing to consider the Project was provided in the following newspaper(s) of general and/or regional circulation: Fontana Herald Newspaper.

On July 26, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Project and staff recommendations. The City, after considering written comments and oral testimony on the SEIR, determined that no new information was presented that would require recirculation of the SEIR. Following public testimony, submission of additional written comments, and staff recommendations, this Council certified the SEIR, adopted these Facts, Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the further recommendations in the Staff Report, and approved the Project (collectively the “Approvals”).

INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT FINDING
The Applicant retained the independent consulting firm of Rincon Consultants, Inc. (“Rincon”) to prepare the SEIR for the Project. Rincon has prepared the SEIR under the supervision, direction, and review of the City. The City of Fontana is the Lead Agency for the preparation of the SEIR, as defined by CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 20167, as amended. The City Council has received and independently reviewed the SEIR prior to certifying the SEIR and prior to making any decision to approve or disapprove the Project.

Finding: The SEIR for the Project reflects the City’s independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in directing the consultant in the preparation of the SEIR, as well as reviewing, analyzing, and revising material prepared by the consultant.

GENERAL FINDING ON MITIGATION MEASURES
In preparing the Approvals for this Project, City staff incorporated the mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR as applicable to the Project. In the event that the Approvals do not use the exact wording of the mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR, in each such instance, the adopted Approvals are intended to be identical or substantially similar to the recommended mitigation measure. Any minor revisions were made for the purpose of improving clarity or to better define the intended purpose.

Finding: Unless specifically stated to the contrary in these findings, it is this Council’s intent to adopt all mitigation measures recommended by the SEIR which are applicable to the Project. If a measure has, through error, been omitted from the Approvals or from these Findings, and that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, all Approvals repeating or rewording mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact. In each instance, the Approvals contain the final wording for the mitigation measures.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
The City staff reports, the SEIR, written and oral testimony at public meetings or hearings, these facts, findings, and statement of overriding considerations, and other information in the administrative record, serve as the basis for the City’s environmental determination.

The detailed analysis of potentially significant environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the Project is presented in Section 4 of the DSEIR and Section 3 of the FSEIR. Responses to comments on the DSEIR, along with copies of the comments, are provided in Section 2 of the FSEIR.

The SEIR evaluated sixteen major environmental categories for potential impacts including Aesthetics/Visual Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gases, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. Both Project-specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated. Of these sixteen major environmental categories, this Council concurs with the conclusions in the SEIR that the issues and sub issues discussed in Sections V(A) and V(B) below either are less-than-significant without mitigation or can be mitigated below a level of significance. For the remaining potential environmental impacts that cannot feasibly be mitigated below a level of significance discussed in Section V(C), overriding considerations exist which make these potential impacts acceptable to this Council.

LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION The Fontana City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less-than-significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures.

Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Scenic Vistas
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to scenic vistas are discussed in detail in Section 4.1 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that approval of the Project will not result in significant impacts related to scenic vistas; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: According to Section 4.1 of the DSEIR, scenic vistas in the area include those inclusive of views of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains, located north and northwest of the Project site. The Project site itself is not within a scenic vista. The City of Fontana has designated Sierra Avenue as a view corridor to allow for the preservation of mountain views in North Fontana. The Project would not affect the gateway to the City at Sierra Avenue and I-15, nor would it affect views of the mountains along the Sierra Avenue view corridor. Building setback requirements for individual structures would preserve distant mountain views and prevent total view obstruction on area roads. Additionally, the construction of the realigned Lytle Creek Road is expected to provide new views to the area. Impacts related to scenic vistas would be less than significant. No mitigation is required (DSEIR, pg. 4.1-7).

Existing Visual Character and Surroundings
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to the existing visual character and surroundings are discussed in detail in Section 4.1 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that approval of the Project will not result in significant impacts related to existing visual character of the site and surroundings; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The visual character of the project site is composed of previously disturbed land, non-native grass, Southern California Edison transmission lines, I-15, and eucalyptus windrows. The project site occurs in an area that consists of a mosaic of undeveloped/vacant land and new residential developments. The proposed Project would change the character of the Project site from primarily disturbed “natural” area to a more structured setting. However, with the site being devoid of native plant species, notable outcroppings, buildings, or other defining features, the development of the Project site will add defined edges between roads, parkways, improved landscaped areas, parking lots, buildings, pathways, and a cohesive aesthetic to the area. The design of the Project would create a visually distinct view that would be consistent with the City’s intent to define Duncan Canyon Road as an entryway to the City, and would support the transition of the surrounding area from agricultural use to an urban setting. Development will be designed and constructed per applicable development standards, sign regulations, and design guidelines in the proposed Specific Plan, prior to the approval of building permits. Therefore, because no demonstrable negative aesthetic effect to the existing visual character or quality of the Project site or its surroundings is anticipated to result from the proposed Project, no significant impact related to this issue would occur and no mitigation is required (DSEIR, pp. 4.1-8 to 4.1-10).

Light and Glare
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project will create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to light and glare are discussed in detail in Section 4.1 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts related to light and glare; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Section 4.1 of the DSEIR identifies no sources of light or glare on the Project site. New sources of light and glare from the Project would come from windows, outdoor landscaping and safety lighting, and light and glare from vehicles accessing the project site. However, the proposed project is largely consistent with the existing Specific Plan in terms of lighting, which includes outdoor lighting guidelines that provide a unified design within the developments. Furthermore, the Project would comply with the lighting requirements in the revised Specific Plan and the development standards in the City’s Zoning and Development Code. The City’s Development Code requires all light sources to be directed and/or shielded to prevent spillover and glare. Lighting plans would need to be reviewed by the City to ensure that there is no spillover into adjacent properties. Future development on the site would be required to submit lighting plans for design review and approval by the City. Compliance with the outdoor lighting guidelines in the Specific Plan and the City’s development regulations regarding lighting would prevent the creation of significant adverse light and glare impacts. Moreover, the Project’s Tuscan themed architectures emphasize the use of natural, textured, and colored materials and would serve to further reduce sources of glare associated with buildings and structures. Therefore, the Project would not create a new source of substantial glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area, and impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant and no mitigation is required (DSEIR, pp. 4.1-11 to 4.1-12).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would incrementally affect aesthetics.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to the cumulative effect on aesthetics and visual resources are discussed in detail in Section 4.1 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts related to aesthetics and visual resources; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project would continue the transition of the area and adjacent uses from rural agricultural to urban non-agricultural use. All new development would be consistent with applicable building regulations and guidelines from the Fontana General Plan and the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan. Adherence to these policies would reduce impacts associated with the visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings and maintain visual consistency and quality with surrounding development. Additionally, this would reduce cumulative impacts to light, and glare.

Development of the proposed Project and cumulative projects within north Fontana and adjacent areas along the I-15 corridor would create an overall increase in nighttime ambient lighting conditions, as well as glare associated with development compared to predevelopment conditions. However, new development would be subject to design review and City design requirements for lighting and architectural, as well as General Plan policy supporting high-quality development in design standards and in land use decisions. Compliance with such standards would result in less than significant cumulative impacts related to increases in nighttime ambient lighting and daytime glare. Cumulative impacts to aesthetics, light, and glare would be less than significant (DSEIR, pp. 4.1-12 to 4.1-13).

Air Quality
Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to air quality management plan consistency are discussed in detail in Section 4.2 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to consistency with air quality management plans; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate population, housing, or employment growth exceeding the forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. The proposed Project would allow for development of 476,500 square feet of commercial use and 1,671 dwelling units. The populations resulting from the Project are estimated to be 6,801 residents and 473 employees, for a total of 7,274 persons. The population increase from the Project was compared to the growth forecasts in the Southern California Association of Governments’ (“SCAG”) 2016 RTP/SCS socioeconomic forecast for the City of Fontana, which was incorporated into the AQMP. The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS anticipates a growth increase of 80,700 persons and 23,800 employees. Therefore, the Project would not generate air pollution emissions that would impede or conflict with the 2016 AQMP. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was already analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.2-12 to 4.2-13).

Localized Carbon Monoxide Hotspots and Toxic Air Contaminants Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to localized carbon monoxide hotspots and toxic air contaminants are discussed in detail in Section 4.2 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to localized carbon monoxide hotspots and toxic air contaminants; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Localized carbon monoxide (“CO”) hotspots can occur at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local CO concentration exceeds the federal one-hour standard of 35.0 ppm or the federal and state eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. A detailed CO analysis was conducted during the preparation of SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP, in which the highest CO concentration of 4.6 ppm was observed at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue in Los Angeles having an average daily trip (“ADT”) count of 100,000 vehicles per day. The total existing ADT for the nearest major intersection to the Project area, Duncan Canyon Road and I-15 northbound ramp, was estimated at 10,200 vehicles. In the year 2030, the traffic volume would increase to 17,550 average daily vehicles. In the opening year of Phase 1 (2023), the ADT at this intersection would increase to 22,150 vehicles with the Project generating approximately 4,600 trips (21 percent of the total new trips). Both the existing and opening year ADT are below the 100,000-vehicle count on the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection that was already well below the CO standards. Project-generated local mobile-source CO emissions would not result in, or substantially contribute to, concentrations that exceed the one-hour or eight-hour CO standard. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

On-site construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LST screening levels during any phase of construction. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant.

Toxic air contaminants (“TAC”) emissions generated from construction would not be anticipated to result in an increased risk to nearby sensitive receptors that would result in an exceedance of applicable significance thresholds because the Project would comply with applicable SCAQMD standards. As for TAC emissions generated from Project operation, because land uses proposed under the project are not associated with emissions of TACs and forecast growth would not result in the generation of mobile source TACs along area roadways in excess of applicable health risk screening criteria, operational impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.2-21 to 4.2-24).

Biological Resources
Riparian Habitat, Wetlands, or Other Sensitive Natural Communities Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would 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.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to riparian habitat, wetlands, and sensitive natural communities are discussed in detail in Section 4.3 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to riparian habitat, wetlands, and sensitive natural communities; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The 2007 EIR determined that there were no drainage channels, wetland areas, or hydric soils on or near the site. The Project site has been effectively cut off from the historic fluvial flow patterns and scouring regimes of Lytle Creek and flows exiting out of the San Gabriel Mountains due to the construction of I-15, and developments north of the project site, which have disrupted the natural flood regime within the area, resulting in poor quality habitats onsite. The Project site does not support any discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, wetland features, or hydric soils that would be considered jurisdictional by the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW. Furthermore, there are no native plant communities on or adjacent to the Project site, and vegetation is substantially limited to non-native grassland, and eucalyptus windrows. As a result, the Project site lacks riparian habitat and is not located within any sensitive natural community. Therefore, the Project would not 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 CDFW or USFWS and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, p. 4.3-20).

Wildlife Movement
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to wildlife movement are discussed in detail in Section 4.3 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to wildlife movement; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project site does not serve as a major wildlife corridor for the region and nearby open areas may be better utilized as wildlife corridors closer to the foothills, northeast of the Project site as I-15 forms a barrier to terrestrial wildlife movement. The Project site has not been identified as occurring within a Wildlife Corridor or Linkage pursuant to the San Bernardino County General Plan. The Project site is isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages by I-15 and there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the Project site to any identified wildlife corridors or linkages. Therefore, the conditions are similar to the previous 2007 EIR and the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, p. 4.3-21).

Adopted Policies, Ordinances, and Plans
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to adopted policies, ordinances, and plans are discussed in detail in Section 4.3 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to adopted policies, ordinances, and plans; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: A total of 154 trees were identified on the Project site during the tree inventory within the windrows on the northeastern boundary of the Project site, all composed of a single distinct species river gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). No trees onsite were native to California. However, 121 of the 154 trees (79 percent) onsite were arranged within existing windrows qualifying them as Heritage Trees under the City of Fontana Tree Ordinance. No other trees onsite have any other special designations. A tree removal permit would need to be acquired from the City to remove these trees from the Project site. The Project would comply with the standard conditions in the previous 2007 EIR, which require adherence to the City’s Preservation of Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees (Fontana Municipal Code Section 28-60) and the payment of applicable fees under the North Conservation Program. In addition, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.3-21 to 4.3-22).

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Historic Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to historic resources are discussed in detail in Section 4.4 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts to historic resources; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The 2007 EIR found the project site had existing buildings on site, and that the buildings and building foundations were significant historic resources. The project would involve development of the same project footprint as the existing Specific Plan. A records search identified four historic-period cultural resources previously recorded within the Project site. However, only the Lytle Creek Winery resources appears to have been eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, and was demolished between 2002 and 2009. Extant remains of the resource do not contain integrity. Mitigation measures contained in the 2007 EIR are no longer applicable because the resources addressed in this mitigation measures are no longer present on the Project site. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in substantial adverse changes in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.4-16 to 4.4-18).

Human Remains
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to human remains are discussed in detail in Section 4.4 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts to human remains; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project would include ground disturbing activities. No Native American sacred sites or cemeteries are known to be present in the area, however, past human occupation was present within the Grapeland community, which included the site and nearby areas. The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. The Project is required to adhere to State regulations regarding the unanticipated discovery of human remains. With adherence to existing regulations, Project impacts to human remains would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.4-20 to 4.4-21).

Energy
Inefficient or Wasteful Consumption
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources are discussed in detail in Section 4.5 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to wasteful or inefficient energy use; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. In addition, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and offroad diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. Therefore, the Project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during construction, and the construction-phase impact related to energy consumption would be less than significant.

Project operation would contribute to regional energy demand by consuming electricity, natural gas, and gasoline and diesel fuels. Vehicles driven by future residents of development facilitated by the Project would be subject to increasingly stringent State fuel efficiency standards, thereby minimizing the potential for the inefficient consumption of vehicle fuels. Development facilitated by the Project would comply with the 2019 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Parts 6 and 11) or later versions, which are anticipated to be more stringent than the 2019 codes. The 2019 standards require the provision of electric vehicle charging equipment, water-efficient plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycling services, solar on low-rise residential development, and other energy efficiency measures that would reduce the potential for the inefficient use of energy. Further, development facilitated by the Project would be located in the vicinity of transit, Downtown jobs, services, and open space, which would reduce energy use by lowering VMT. Development facilitated by the Project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.5-9 to 4.5-12).

Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency Plans
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to renewable energy or energy efficiency plans are discussed in detail in Section 4.5 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to renewable energy or energy efficiency plans; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The City of Fontana has not adopted any specific renewable energy or energy efficiency plan. The Project would be consistent with applicable General Plan policies intended to encourage energy efficiency. As such, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and there would be no impacts. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, p. 4.5-13).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would incrementally affect energy resources.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to cumulative energy resources are discussed in detail in Section 4.5 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts relating to energy resources; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Cumulative development would increase demand for energy resources, but those resources would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. Moreover, new iterations of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would require increasingly more efficient appliances and building materials that reduce energy consumption in new development. In addition, vehicle fuel efficiency is anticipated to continue improving through implementation of the existing Pavley Bill regulations under AB 1493. Furthermore, housing development under the proposed Project is presumed to lower VMT due to the proximity to office and commercial uses. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to a significant cumulative energy impact is not cumulatively considerable. The Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact (DSEIR, pp. 4.5-13 to 4.5-14).

Geology and Soils
Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault and Seismic Ground Shaking Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project directly or indirectly causes potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project directly or indirectly causes potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to rupture of a known earthquake fault or effects relating to seismic ground shaking are discussed in detail in Section 4.6 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts from rupture of a known earthquake fault or effects relating to strong seismic ground shaking; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project site is not directly located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and does not contain any known fault lines. However, there are a number of regional fault lines in close proximity to the Project area, which have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes. The nearest earthquake zone includes the Cucamonga Fault Zone in the Sierra Madre Fault System, located approximately 0.2-mile northwest of the project site, at Lytle Creek Canyon. In addition, the San Jacinto Fault is located approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the project site. The Project site could potentially be subject to ground shaking generated from fault activities from the Cucamonga Fault and the San Jacinto fault. Proposed structures would be constructed to comply with the seismic design criteria of the California Building Code (“CBC”). The CBC requires various measures of all construction in California to minimize risks associated with seismic shaking. With adherence to the requirements of the CBC, as required by the Fontana Code of Ordinances, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to seismically-induced ground shaking from nearby faults. Thus, compliance with City General Plan Goals and Policies and CBC would reduce the potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking to less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.6-8 to 4.6-9).

Greenhouse Gas
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to greenhouse gas emissions are discussed in detail in Section 4.7 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to greenhouse gas emissions; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Construction facilitated by the Project would generate temporary greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions primarily from the operation of construction equipment on-site as well as from vehicles transporting construction workers to and from the Project site and heavy trucks to transport building materials and soil export. According to Section 4.7 of the DSEIR, GHG emissions over the entire construction process are expected to be 7,191 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (“MTCO2e”); amortized over a 30-yer period in accordance with SCAQMD guidance, construction and operation associated with the full buildout of the project would generate 240 MTCO2e per year.

The full buildout of the project would generate approximately 19,313 MTCO2e. The emissions would be 2.7 MTCO2e per year per service population. These emissions would be below the 4.7 MTCO2e per service population level necessary to demonstrate consistency with the statewide 2030 GHG reduction targets established by SB 32. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the statewide 2030 GHG reduction targets established by SB 32. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.7-14 to 4.7-16).

Greenhouse Gas Plan, Policy, and Regulation Consistency Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to greenhouse gas regulation consistency are discussed in detail in Section 4.7 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to greenhouse gas regulation consistency; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The proposed Project is consistent with statewide greenhouse gas reduction strategies, including the California Air Resources Board’s 2017 Scoping Plan and the Southern California Association of Governments’ 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The 2017 Scoping Plan’s strategies that are applicable to the Project include reducing fossil fuel use, energy demand, and vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”); maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills; and increasing water conservation. The Project would be consistent with these goals through project design, which includes complying with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards, providing EV parking spaces and charging equipment, and complying with the AB 341 waste diversion goal of 75 percent. Cumulative VMT would also decrease with development of the Project. In addition, the Project would receive electricity from SCE, which is required to reduce GHG emissions by increasing procurement from eligible renewable energy by set target years. The Project’s consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is discussed in Table 4.7-5 in DSEIR Section 4.7. As shown therein, the Project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. For these reasons, the proposed Project is consistent with local and state GHG regulations and thus impacts are less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp.4.7-16 to 4.7-19).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would incrementally affect greenhouse gas emissions.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are discussed in detail in Section 4.7 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts relating to greenhouse gas emissions; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: GHG emissions and climate change are, by definition, cumulative impacts. Thus, the issue of climate change involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. The Ventana at Duncan Canyon Project would be consistent with applicable plans and programs aimed at reducing emissions as discussed herein in Section V(A)(7)(a)–(b). Therefore, project impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant and would therefore not be cumulatively considerable (DSEIR, pp. 4.7-19).

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Conflict with Emergency Response Plans
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to adopted emergency response plans are discussed in detail in Section 4.8 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to emergency response plans; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Development under the existing Specific Plan would be required to comply with applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to emergency response and evacuation plans maintained by the City police and fire departments. The Project would not interfere with the implementation of the City’s emergency management plans from the City’s General Plan Safety and Noise Element. Ultimately, the development of the newly aligned Lytle Creek Road would improve connectivity and emergency access for the area. Both San Bernardino County Fire Department (“SBCFD”) and Fontana Police Department (“FPD”) would be able to service the Project at existing staffing levels. Further, temporary impacts to traffic and access during Project construction would be addressed through the implementation of the Project Construction Traffic Management Plan, which would include coordination with emergency service providers. Project construction and operational activities would not result in any street closures that could impede emergency access or evacuation. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would interfere with any identified emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the potential for the Project to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.8-19 to 4.8-20).

Wildland Fire Risks
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to wildfire risks are discussed in detail in Section 4.8 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to wildfire risks; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The proposed Project would be required to include the fire protection measures for consistency with the California Building Code and Fire Code. The safety measures under the California Fire Code include ignition-resistant construction with exterior walls of noncombustible or ignition resistant material from the surface of the ground to the roof system, and sealing any gaps around doors, windows, eaves and vents to prevent intrusion by flame or embers. Development would also be required to meet California Building Code requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure. CCR Title 14 sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing wildfire hazards risk. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements for implementation of fire protection measures (e.g., ignition-resistant construction materials and measures) would further reduce impacts associated with wildfire spread. Impacts associated with exposure of people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires is less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.8-20 to 4.8-21).

Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality Standards and Waste Discharge Requirements Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are discussed in detail in Section 4.9 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Construction and operation of the Project could increase erosion and stormwater runoff due to site disturbance and increased impervious surface area. Compliance with applicable regulations and policies, including preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) during construction and on-site capture and treatment of stormwater runoff through biofiltration systems and detention basins during operation, would reduce water quality impacts. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.9-16 to 4.9-18).

Groundwater
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to groundwater are discussed in detail in Section 4.9 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to groundwater; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The proposed Project would not involve on-site groundwater extraction because the Project would be served by West Valley Water District’s existing and planned supplies, reducing potential impacts to groundwater levels. Impervious surface cover would increase on the Project site under the proposed Project, reducing the potential for recharge of the underlying aquifer. However, on-site runoff would continue to discharge to Lytle Creek, and Etiwanda Creek, where additional potential for infiltration and recharge exists. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.9-18 to 4.9-19).

Drainage Pattern and Capacity-Related Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would 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.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to drainage pattern and capacity-related impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4.9 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to drainage pattern and capacity-related impacts; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Under the proposed Project, on-site stormwater runoff would be captured and treated via stormwater drainage system consisting of catchment basins, biofiltration systems, and detention basins. the proposed Project would not result in substantial on- or off-site hydromodification impacts and would not alter the course of a river or stream given that the Project would comply with applicable water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, BMPs, and would include project-specific design features. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.9-20 to 4.9-21).

Water Quality Control Plans
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to water quality control plans are discussed in detail in Section 4.9 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to water quality control plans; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The proposed Project would implement water quality BMPs in accordance with applicable local and regional requirements, reducing potential downstream water quality impacts. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the water quality control plan for the Santa Ana Region. The Project site overlies an adjudicated groundwater basin and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.9-21 to 4.9-22).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would have significant cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to cumulative hydrology and water quality are discussed in detail in Section 4.9 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts upon hydrology and water quality and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Cumulative development could increase the discharge of urban pollutants to surface waters and groundwater. However, all new development would be subject to the water quality requirements of the SARWQCB, the San Bernardino County MS4 permit, and other applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Adherence to such regulations would address any adverse cumulative impacts resulting from individual new developments and reduce cumulative impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality to a less than significant level. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant (DSEIR, p. 4.9-22).

Land Use and Planning
Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations are discussed in detail in Section 4.10 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts due to conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental because the project would comply with the development and design standards in the existing Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan. The Project would also be consistent with applicable 2020-2045 RTP/SCS goals. Table 4.10-2 in the DSEIR analyzes the Project’s consistency with numerous RTP/SCS strategies and concludes that the Project would either be consistent with such strategies, or found such strategies to not be applicable. Impacts would be therefore less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.10-4 to 4.10-8).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would have significant cumulative impacts on land use.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to cumulative land use are discussed in detail in Section 4.10 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts upon land use and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Cumulative development in the City and the surrounding area would modify existing land use patterns through the development of vacant lots or through redevelopment. However, land use regulations and policy consistency impacts associated with other cumulative projects would be addressed on a case-by-case basis in order to determine their consistency with applicable plans and policies. With approval of the proposed land use entitlements, the project would be consistent with the underlying land use regulations and policies. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact to cumulative land use (DSEIR, p. 4.10-8).

Noise
Temporary Increases to Ambient Noise Levels
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to temporary increases in ambient noise levels are discussed in detail in Section 4.11 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts due to temporary increases in ambient noise levels and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to temporary increases in ambient noise levels because temporary construction activities would be restricted to the hours specified by the City’s noise ordinance and would not exceed the FTA noise limits. The project would not be constructed all at once but built out in six phases. Actual buildout would be subject to market and economic conditions, jurisdictional processing of approvals, and infrastructure timing, and may vary from the construction phasing currently anticipated. Table 4.11-9 in the DSEIR shows the combined hourly and maximum construction noise levels attributable to construction of each Planning Area modeled, noise sensitive receivers analyzed, and resulting exterior and interior noise levels. Planning Area construction exterior hourly noise levels would range from 62 dBA Leq to 75 dBA Leq at the nearest noise sensitive receivers, with maximum noise levels ranging from 63 dBA Lmax to 76 dBA Lmax. Planning Area construction interior hourly noise levels would range from 37 dBA Leq to 50 dBA Leq at the nearest noise sensitive receivers, with maximum noise levels ranging from 38 dBA Lmax to 51 dBA Lmax. The FTA’s daytime construction noise limit is 80 dBA Leq for residential uses; therefore, Project construction noise levels would not exceed construction noise thresholds. Accordingly, temporary construction related noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.11-13 to 4.11-14).

Permanent Increases to Ambient Noise Levels from HVAC Equipment Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to permanent increases in ambient noise levels are discussed in detail in Section 4.11 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts due to permanent increases in ambient noise levels relating to operation of on-site operation of mechanical equipment (i.e., HVAC units) and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Operation of the Project would generate on-site noise from mechanical equipment (i.e., HVAC units) that may periodically be audible to existing noise-sensitive receivers in the vicinity and on the Project site. As shown in Table 4.11-9 of the DSEIR, operational HVAC noise on the project site would generate noise levels up to 47 dBA Leq at nearby residential-zoned properties. The operational noise from project HVAC mechanical equipment would not exceed the City’s operational noise standards of 65 dBA Leq and therefore such impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.11-14 to 4.11-15).

Ground-Borne Vibration or Ground-Borne Noise Levels
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels are discussed in detail in Section 4.11 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts due to ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. The greatest anticipated source of vibration during general project construction activities would be from a dozer, which may be used within 50 feet of the nearest on-site vibration sensitive use. A dozer creates approximately 0.089 in./sec. PPV at a distance of 25 feet. This would equal a vibration level of 0.0315 in./sec. PPV at 50 feet. This vibration level is lower than the human annoyance threshold of 0.24 in./sec. PPV and the structural damage threshold of 0.4 in./sec. PPV. Therefore, temporary impacts associated with construction would be less than significant. The Project does not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Therefore, operational vibration impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.11-23 to 4.11-24).

Population and Housing
Unplanned Population Growth
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to unplanned population growth are discussed in detail in Section 4.12 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts due to unplanned population growth and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The proposed Project would include employment generating uses (commercial, light industrial, etc.). The Project would result in a small decrease in employment generating square-footage, from 574,500 square feet under the existing Specific Plan to 476,500 square feet under the proposed Project, a decrease of 98,000 square feet. Employment associated with commercial development (mainly retail) would likely be filled by residents in the Specific Plan area or neighboring local jurisdictions and would not result in substantial population growth.

The Project would increase housing units beyond levels anticipated in the existing Specific Plan. The proposed Project would increase the number of dwelling units from 842 units under the existing Specific Plan to 1,671 units. This increases the number of housing units by 829, or nearly a doubling of dwelling units when compared to the existing Specific Plan. The 1,671 units would account for less than 10 percent of the latest Regional Housing Needs Assessment of 17,519 housing units and are, therefore, within anticipated growth planned under the General Plan Housing Element by 2030.

As shown in Table 4.12-3 of the DSEIR, the addition of 7,274 persons (conservatively assuming Project employees are also residents) would consist of approximately 29 percent of the City’s projected growth by 2030. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate population growth in exceedance of existing SCAG population forecasts. The Project would also be consistent with State and local requirements for housing and development. The Project would not create any new roads or infrastructure not already anticipated in the existing Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project population would not induce substantial unplanned growth, either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.12-5 to 4.12-6).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would have significant cumulative impacts on population and housing.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to cumulative population and housing impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4.12 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts upon population and housing and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: According to Section 4.12 of the DSEIR, based on regional growth forecasts for the year 2030, the proposed Project, when combined with the projects listed in Table 3-1 of the DSEIR, could increase the population in the city by approximately 25,000 persons. The proposed Project would account for an estimated 29 percent of the population increase due to its total service population of 7,274 persons. The needed infrastructure to support the Project’s growth is already planned in the existing Specific Plan (roads, utilities, etc.). In addition, each project’s incremental contribution to growth is accompanied by payment of proportionate property taxes and, development fees toward meeting the needs of additional growth, in accordance with City requirements. Therefore, potential environmental impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth, including the proposed Project, would be less than significant (DSEIR, p. 4.12-6).

Public Services and Recreation
Fire Protection Facilities
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to fire protection facilities are discussed in detail in Section 4.13 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to fire protection facilities and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project would be located within the existing service area San Bernardino County Fire Department (“SBCFD”). Today, fire protection services are provided by the SBCFD which operates seven fire stations within the City. The closest fire station to the Project site is Station 79 at 4075 Coyote Canyon Road, approximately 0.1 miles west of the Project site. Fire Station 79 was constructed in 2007 to accommodate the changing use of the area as it transitions from rural to residential and commercial use. Fire Station 79 is approximately 3 minutes travel time from the Project site. The average response time to fires within Fontana is four minutes, 51 seconds.

The Project would be required to pay public applicable safety improvement fees to the City’s public safety improvement fund prior to issuance of a building permit. Fees paid by the Project would be used solely for the construction or reimbursement for construction of public safety improvements identified in the City’s five-year capital improvement program. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to demand for new fire protection services would be offset by payment of required public safety improvement fees. At the current rate, project buildout of 1,671 dwelling units would contribute $584,850 to fire services. Payment of developer impact fees would assist in funding the needed public facility expansion and service improvements needed to serve the proposed developments on the site. The Project would have a less than significant impact on physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.13-8 to 4.13-9).

Police Protection Facilities
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to police protection facilities are discussed in detail in Section 4.13 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to police protection facilities and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Law enforcement services for the Project area is provided by the Fontana Police Department (“FPD”). The nearest station is located approximately 4.4 miles south from the Project site, at 17005 Upland Avenue, Fontana. The potential increase in population and commercial uses in the project area would result in an increase in the demand for police protection services, including officers, equipment, and facilities. Consequently, the Project would contribute incrementally to demand for new or expanded police protection facilities.

Commercial development would be required to implement building security specifications and multi-family developments would be designed consistent with the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, as required by the FPD. To ensure compliance, all developments would be subject to building and site plan review and approval by the FPD. Furthermore, the Project would be required to pay public safety improvement fees to the City’s public safety improvement fund prior to issuance of a building permits. Fees paid by the Project would be used solely for the construction or reimbursement for construction of public safety improvements. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to demand for new police protection services would be offset by payment of required public safety improvement fees. With Project buildout, 1,671 dwelling units would contribute $748,608 to police services. Payment of developer impact fees would assist in funding the needed public facility expansion and service improvements needed to serve the proposed developments on the site. With adherence to applicable policies, payment of development fees and design review by the FPD, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on police protection facilities. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.13-10 to 4.13-11).

School Facilities
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to school facilities are discussed in detail in Section 4.13 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to school facilities and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project site is in the Fontana Unified School District (“FUSD”) area and would be served by Hemlock Elementary School (K-Grade 5), Fontana Middle School (Grades 6-8), and Fontana High School (Grades 9-12). The Project would accommodate 6,801 residents, some of which may be school-age children. School-age children living in the Project’s residential units would incrementally increase student enrollment at FUSD schools, which could result in or contribute to the need for new or physically altered schools. The FUSD is currently over capacity, as identified in Table 4.13-5 of the DSEIR. Thus, the addition of the Project to the area may result in the need for new or modified school facilities to accommodate 1,086 additional new students resulting from the Project.

However, the FUSD assesses a school impact fee, based on the floor area of new dwelling units and non-residential developments that would be used to fund school services and facilities. School impacts fees paid by future development on the Project site would assist in the provision of school services to residents of the site. State law assumes the developer’s payment of school impact fees to the local school district, in an amount established by the school district, would address school capacity impacts. Therefore, although the Project would increase enrollment at FUSD schools, payment of the school impact developer fees would be considered full mitigation for the Project’s impacts under CEQA and impacts to schools would be less than significant.

Future commercial development on the site is not expected to lead directly to a demand for school services. While employees at the proposed commercial uses on the site may request intra-district, transfers based on employment location, this is only allowed based on the availability of space and is expected to be minimal. Therefore, school service demand from commercial uses would not adversely impact local schools and would not be significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.13-11 to 4.13-13).

Parks and Recreation Facilities
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project includes recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to parks and recreation facilities are discussed in detail in Section 4.13 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to parks and recreation facilities and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The proposed Project would result in 829 additional dwellings units atop the 842 units under the existing Specific Plan, resulting in 1,671 dwelling units under Project buildout. Similar to the existing Specific Plan, the proposed Project would increase the demand for recreation and park facilities. According to the Fontana General Plan EIR, the performance objective or standard for parks and recreation is five acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents (two acres of community parks for every 1,000 residents and three acres of neighborhood parks for every 1,000 residents). Fontana has approximately 1,359 acres of park and recreation land.

Assuming the proposed Project would accommodate a service population of 7,274 persons, the ratio of parks to 1,000 residents would be approximately 6.1 acres of park land which is consistent with the City’s performance objectives. Furthermore, the Project would include the construction of various recreational facilities, including three recreation centers and swimming pools, which would help meet recreation needs of on-site residents and employees. As required under the Fontana Municipal Code (Chapter 21, Article IV), development will be required to pay Quimby fees for the development of neighborhood and community parks in North Fontana. Therefore, with payment of Quimby fees for the development of parks and recreational facilities in North Fontana, the Project would not have a less than significant impact on parks in Fontana. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.13-13 to 4.13-14).

Other Public Facilities
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to other public facilities are discussed in detail in Section 4.13 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to other public facilities and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project would increase the number of dwelling units by 829, compared to 842 under the existing Specific Plan, resulting in up to 1,671 dwelling units at Project buildout. Therefore, the Project would incrementally increase the service population of the Fontana Public Library, above that anticipated in the Specific Plan. According to Fontana Municipal Code Section 5-9, the Project’s contribution to population increase would be offset by payment of proportionate development impact fees, which include a public library facilities fee. These fees are used to fund library services and facilities needed to serve the site and the City. Payment of these fees would mitigate impacts associated with the demand for library services that would be generated by future residents of the Project. Therefore, Project impacts to public library facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.13-14 to 4.13-15).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would have significant cumulative impacts on public services and recreation.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to public services and recreation impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4.13 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts upon public services and recreation and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The addition of new residents would generate a proportional increase in demand for additional fire protection and emergency medical services, police protection, school services, use of parks and recreation facilities, and use of libraries and other public services. But implementation of the Project would not create a cumulatively considerable need for new or expanded public services that could not be offset by the payment of development fees. New development in Fontana, including the projects listed in Table 3-1 in Section 3 of the DSEIR may also contribute to an increase in service population and use of public services, and cumulatively, there may be a need for new or improved facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other applicable goals. However, each project’s incremental contribution to demand for new services would be offset by payment of proportionate property taxes, development fees, and/or development impact fees in accordance with Fontana Municipal Code. Additionally, new development projects would be reviewed by the SBCFD staff prior to development permit approval to ensure adequate fire safety and security measures are provided for each site-specific development.

Therefore, potential environmental impacts related to the construction of new or expanded public facilities would be assessed on a project-specific level when such development of public services and facilities are considered. Therefore, cumulative impacts to public services and facilities would be less than significant (DSEIR, pp. 4.13-15).

Transportation
Circulation System Programs, Plans, Ordinances, or Policies Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to the circulation system are discussed in detail in Section 4.14 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to the circulation system and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project would generate short-term traffic during construction, and long-term traffic during the operational life of the Project. A traffic control plan will be prepared and submitted for City review and address temporary closures, detours, and notification of key agencies (emergency providers, etc.) if necessary. In addition, the proposed haul route for construction equipment and materials delivery is subject to review and approval by the City. With these requirements and City oversight, impacts related to construction would be less than significant.

The Project would include sidewalk and paseos that would serve as the two main categories of pedestrian access serving the Project area. The addition of sidewalk within and around the currently undeveloped Project area would promote future walkability and pedestrian activities in the neighborhood. Although the proposed residential and commercial land uses on the site could generate a demand for bus transit, the Project would be developed approximately 0.75 mile from the nearest bus stop on Citrus Avenue, which would allow for access to public transportation for project residents. Therefore, the Project would encourage the use of alternative means of transportation consistent with Goal 3 and Goal 5 of the Community Mobility and Circulation chapter of the City’s General Plan.

Although the Project would involve site and side adjacent roadway improvements as part of the Project, such modifications would remain subject to the review and approval by the City’s Planning Department per the Specific Plan Amendment. Therefore, with this requirement and City oversight, the Project would not involve off-site changes to the roadway system with the potential to impact existing or planned bicycle facilities.

In addition, on‐site traffic signing and roadway striping would be implemented consistent with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site. Given these considerations, the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts related to programs, plans, ordinances, or policies governing the City’s public transit, bikeways, and pedestrian facilities. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.14-10 to 4.14-11).

Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) are discussed in detail in Section 4.14 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Construction traffic would be temporary and would not permanently affect VMT characteristics in this part of Fontana or elsewhere. The project-level VMT analysis in the DSEIR utilizes the most current version of the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (“SBTAM”) baseline and cumulative models and the City’s adopted VMT calculation methodology of VMT per service population. As calculated in the Traffic Study and shown in Table 4.14-1 of the DSEIR, the Project’s baseline VMT per service population is 27.03 whereas the Project’s cumulative VMT per service population is 23.50. Table 4.14-2 of the DSEIR, in turn, compares the Project’s baseline VMT per service population and cumulative VMT per service population, as calculated in the Traffic Study, to the City’s adopted impact threshold. As shown therein, the Project would not exceed the City’s adopted threshold of 15 percent below County of San Bernardino baseline VMT per service population (i.e., 27.8) in both baseline and cumulative scenarios. Furthermore, consistent with City Guidelines, the Traffic Study includes an additional assessment to evaluate the project’s effect on VMT since the project proposed to amend the City’s General Plan land use. As calculated in the Traffic Study, there is a net decrease of 0.30 VMT per service population within the City for baseline conditions and a net decrease of 0.22 VMT per service population within the City for cumulative conditions, which would indicate that the proposed Project does not have a negative effect on VMT under baseline and cumulative conditions. The Project’s VMT impact is therefore considered less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.14-11 to 4.14-12).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would have significant cumulative impacts on transportation.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to cumulative transportation impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4.14 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts upon transportation and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The proposed Project would not conflict with any programs or polices governing the City’s circulation system and, therefore, would not cumulatively contribute to a significant impact. All other planned and pending projects in Fontana will be assessed under CEQA and with City oversight for consistency with existing plans and programs. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not result in a significant VMT impact under baseline and cumulative conditions. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant (DSEIR, pp. 4.14-13).

Utilities and Service Systems
New or Relocated Utilities and Service Systems
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to new or relocated utilities and service systems are discussed in detail in Section 4.15 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to new or relocated utilities and service systems and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project would involve the relocation of electrical and telecommunications facilities and construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, and stormwater drainage facilities on the Project site. However, the Project would be served by existing and planned WVWD supplies, which are not anticipated to require major WVWD treatment or distribution facility improvements. Therefore, impacts with respect to new or expanded water facilities would be less than significant.

The Project would be expected to generate approximately 451,287 gpd of wastewater, or approximately 0.5 MGD. As shown in Table 4.15-3 of the DSEIR, wastewater treatment facilities serving the Project have sufficient capacity to process additional wastewater generated by the project. The Project would be responsible for constructing on-site wastewater treatment conveyance systems and paying standard sewer connection fees. Consequently, impacts with respect to wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant.

As with water and wastewater facilities, proposed storm drain infrastructure would be constructed within the disturbance area of the Project and would not result in substantial additional environmental impacts. Given that the Project would capture and retain on-site runoff from the 100-year storm event, off-site improvements to the storm drain network would not be necessary. As such, impacts related to new or expanded stormwater facilities would be less than significant.

The Project would increase electricity and natural gas demand on the Project site. However, such increased demand would account for a minimal fraction of Southern California Edison’s and the Southern California Gas Company’s total demand in the region. The nominal increase in energy demand is not anticipated to require additional electricity substations or natural gas storage/transmission facilities beyond those currently serving the Fontana area. Impacts with respect to new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities would be less than significant.

AT&T telecommunications lines are collocated with Southern California Edison transmission lines and would be extended north and south along Lytle Creek Road from existing facilities on Duncan Canyon Road. Substantial additional ground disturbance, grading, or use of heavy equipment beyond that necessary for the proposed roadway improvements would not be anticipated. No additional telecommunications improvements are proposed as part of the Project. Consequently, impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.15-12 to 4.15-14).

Adequate Water Supply
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to adequate water supply are discussed in detail in Section 4.15 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to adequate water supply and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project would generate both construction-related and operational water demand. Construction water demand would be temporary and, therefore, would not result in a long-term strain on water supplies. Given the temporary and minimal nature of construction water demand as compared to operational water consumption, as well as the fact that WVWD would be able to restrict or require conservation measures for water intensive construction activities, impacts related to construction water consumption would be less than significant.

As for operational demand, the Project would introduce a new commercial and residential development containing up to 476,500 s.f. of commercial uses, 1,671 dwelling units in three separate residential villages, a focal point piazza (public square), and the construction of the realigned Lytle Creek Road, on an approximately 102-acre site. According to Table 4-3 of the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Project, the total estimated water demand for the project is 358 acre feet per year. The Project would comply with all requirements of the California Green Building Code, as adopted by Fontana in Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code, pertaining to maximum flow rates for plumbing fixtures, such as toilets, showerheads, and faucets in non-residential buildings. The plants and planting methods used to landscape the site would be selected based on compatibility with the soil and climate conditions to maximize efficient water use. The Project’s landscape plan features drought-tolerant plants in compliance with Fontana Municipal Code Section 28.98, including low water use trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Landscaping would be maintained via a low flow irrigation system and would accommodate hydrozones accordingly, separating high, medium, and low water-use plants.

WVWD estimates water supply availability for normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios from 2020 through 2040 based on the San Bernardino Valley 2015 Regional UWMP. For all years and all scenarios, anticipated supply exceeds anticipated demand. Table 4.15-4 of the DSEIR summarizes supply, demand, and the Project’s anticipated share of excess supply for the normal year scenario. Anticipated Project demand would not exceed WVWD’s supply during normal and single-dry year scenarios. Additionally, the 2015 Regional UWMP estimates future water supply availability for multiple-dry year scenarios. WVWD anticipates no distinction between normal and single-dry year scenarios, and anticipates demand reductions in the second through fourth multiple-dry years as increasingly stringent conservation measures are implemented. Anticipated project demand would account for less than five percent of excess supply during all single- and multiple-dry year scenarios. In sum, the Project would not exceed WVWD’s projected supply during all normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2040. Therefore, based on the water demand projections, projected local water supplies are sufficient to serve the Project during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.15-15 to 4.15-17).

Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to wastewater treatment capacity are discussed in detail in Section 4.15 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to wastewater treatment capacity and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Project-generated wastewater would be adequately served by available capacity at the IEUA RP-4 plant. Wastewater generated by the Project would account for less than 13 percent of the remaining available capacity at the plant, which was recently expanded to accommodate a maximum capacity of 14 MGD. As such, the Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.15-17).

Solid Waste Capacity and Reduction Regulations
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to solid waste capacity and reduction regulations are discussed in detail in Section 4.15 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to solid waste capacity and reduction regulations and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Daily export of soil during the grading period would not exceed the 7,500 tons per day permitted throughput of the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Due to the site’s historic agricultural use, soils exported from the project site may require disposal at other area landfills that accept contaminated soil. The anticipated daily export of soil during the grading phase would account for approximately 33.7 percent of the 4,800-ton daily permitted throughput at Badlands Sanitary Landfill and approximately 32.3 percent of the 5,000-ton daily permitted throughput at Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill. Furthermore, exported soil could be transported to other area landfills that accept soil and construction debris in San Bernardino County to further reduce impacts at any single solid waste disposal facility.

The handling of all debris and waste generated during construction of the Project would be subject to 2016 CALGreen requirements and the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requirements. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 24 of the Fontana Municipal Code, the Project would be required to keep the construction site and surrounding area clear of construction-related trash and debris and place all construction waste in appropriate containers or an authorized disposal area. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste generated during construction would be less than significant.

The Project’s anticipated solid waste generation would account for approximately 0.1 percent of Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill’s daily permitted throughput of 7,500 tons per day. Given this small proportion of permitted throughput and the existing surplus capacity at Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, the solid waste generated by operation of the project would be adequately accommodated by existing landfills. The Project would be required to comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, because the Project would be served by landfills with sufficient capacity and would comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste, impacts would be less than significant (DSEIR, pp. 4.15-18 to 4.15-19).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would have significant cumulative impacts on utilities and service systems.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to cumulative impacts on utilities and service systems are discussed in detail in Section 4.15 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts on utilities and service systems and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project would account for less than five percent of WVWD’s excess water supply during all normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2040. This excess supply represents the supply available to WVWD after fulfilling future demand associated with buildout of planned, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the WVWD service area, including the 26 cumulative projects detailed in Section 3 of the DSEIR. Furthermore, future projects would be required to obtain service commitments from WVWD prior to construction, and those meeting the definition of a project pursuant to SB 610 would be required to prepare project specific WSAs. As such, cumulative impacts related to water would be less than significant.

As for wastewater, the IEUA RP-4 plan currently treats approximately 10 MGD of wastewater and was recently expanded to treat up to 14 MGD, resulting in an excess capacity of approximately four MGD. Planned, pending, and reasonably foreseeable development would continue to increase demands on the existing wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities in the RP-4 plant service area. However, the proposed Project would account for less than 13 percent of the remaining capacity at the RP-4. This percentage excludes the 26 planned and pending projects listed in Table 3-1 of Section 3 of the DSEIR. Furthermore, future projects would be required to obtain commitments from WVWD to provide wastewater treatment services prior to construction, which would be dependent on remaining treatment capacity at the RP-4 plant. Given that the Project would use a relatively small portion of the remaining capacity at the RP-4 plant and the facility’s recent expansion to accommodate up to 14 MGD of wastewater, cumulative impacts associated with wastewater services would be less than significant.

Regarding stormwater, individual projects would be subject to the stormwater capture and treatment requirements of the applicable MS4 Permit, reducing potential impacts to stormwater drainage facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts to stormwater/drainage facilities would be less than significant.

Planned, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill wasteshed would result in increased solid waste generation. Once operational, the Project would account for less than 0.1 percent of the Landfill’s annual throughput. In addition, compliance with applicable solid waste regulations and, for projects in Fontana, General Plan policies that would maintain or improve upon solid waste diversion rates. Other cities in the region are also subject to solid waste diversion requirements and implementation of waste diversion programs and policies in order to meet State-mandated solid waste diversion rates. Given the nominal fraction of annual throughput accounted for by the Project and local, regional, and statewide efforts to improve solid waste diversion rates, cumulative impacts to solid waste facilities would be less than significant.

Cumulative development projects would be subject to applicable local, regional, State, and federal policies regarding energy efficiency, in turn reducing the need for new or expanded electrical and natural gas facilities. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative development would increase demand for telecommunications infrastructure in Fontana. However, cumulative projects would each be required to provide adequate telecommunications infrastructure upgrades on a project-by-project basis and would be subject to the appropriate level of project-specific environmental review. As with the project, such upgrades would typically be expected to occur within the development footprints of other cumulative projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to telecommunications infrastructure would be less than significant (DSEIR, pp. 4.15-19 to 4.15-22).

Wildfire
Wildfire Risks from Slopes, Prevailing Winds, and Other Factors Potential Significant Impact: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, whether the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to wildfire risks from slopes, prevailing winds, or other factors are discussed in detail in Section 4.16 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to wildfire risks from slopes, prevailing winds, or other factors and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project is located near areas designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The Project area is subject to Santa Ana winds, which are strong dry offshore winds that affect southern California in autumn and winter. Despite the potential for Santa Ana winds, the project site is relatively flat and its lack of topographical features (i.e., slopes) would help reduce risks related to wildfire spread and subsequent exposure of individuals to pollutant concentrations. Furthermore, the Project site’s proximity to Fire Station 79 and other stations with availability to quickly respond to potential fires would help reduce impacts associated with wildfire spread and subsequent exposure of individuals to pollutant concentrations. The site is also adjacent to I-15 to the west, which acts as a large fire break from properties on the western portion of the site. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to include the fire protection measures required by the California Building Code and Fire Code. Those measures include ignition-resistant construction with exterior walls of noncombustible or ignition resistant material from the surface of the ground to the roof system sealing any gaps around doors, windows, eaves, and vents to prevent intrusion by flame or embers. Development would also be required to meet California Building Code requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements for implementation of fire protection measures (e.g., ignition-resistant construction materials and measures) would further reduce impacts associated with wildfire spread and subsequent exposure of individuals to pollutant concentrations. Final project design would be subject to plan check by the FFPD to verify compliance with applicable fire prevention and protection requirements. Thus, no significant fire hazards are expected to be created on the Project site. Impacts would be less that significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.16-10 to 4.16-12).

Wildfire Risks from Project Infrastructure
Potential Significant Impact: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, whether the Project would 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.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to wildfire risks from project infrastructure are discussed in detail in Section 4.16 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to wildfire risks from project infrastructure and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project is located near areas designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. However, as part of project implementation, project-related infrastructure would be required to meet minimum California Building Code and California Fire Code standards for fire safety. The Project would improve vehicle circulation via the proposed realignment of Lytle Creek Road, which would run diagonally through the project area and offer improved internal connection from the primary roads to each of the individual planning areas.

The Project would be served by existing water infrastructure along Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue south of Duncan Canyon Road. The project would include installation of utility infrastructure; however, the project would be required to provide fire safety measures to support fire suppression activities, including compliance with State and local fire codes, a fire hydrant system, paved access, and secondary access routes. These features would be subject to review by the FFPD to ensure that emergency vehicles may respond quickly to potential occurrences of wildfire. In addition, the Project would not trigger the need for new or unique infrastructure to respond to a potential wildfire hazard, so no new impacts to the environment would occur from fire-related infrastructure. Therefore, the infrastructure associated with the Project would not exacerbate fire risk and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, pp. 4.16-12 to 4.16-13).

Exposure to Risks from Post-Fire Slope Instability and Flooding Potential Significant Impact: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, whether the Project would expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to wildfire risks from post-fire slope instability and flooding are discussed in detail in Section 4.16 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts relating to wildfire risks from post-fire slope instability and flooding and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project is located near areas designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The Project site is relatively flat and, as discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix A-2) and Section 4.6 of the DSEIR, the Project site is not located in a landslide hazard area and there are no landslide hazards in the vicinity. The site’s lack of topographical features (i.e., slopes) in conjunction with a minimal flood potential of the project area would reduce impacts associated with exposure of people or structures to risks, including flooding or landslides, from post-fire runoff and slope instability. Impacts would be less than significant.

Drainage on site would change with implementation of the proposed Project; however, BMPs would slow the velocity of water and allow sediment and debris to settle out of the water column, thereby minimizing the potential for downstream flooding, erosion/siltation, or exceedances of stormwater drainage system capacity. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary (DSEIR, p. 4.16-13).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would have significant cumulative impacts relating to wildfire.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to cumulative impacts relating to wildfire are discussed in detail in Section 4.16 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts relating to wildfire and, therefore, no mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of the Findings: Development of cumulative projects occurring within fire hazard severity zones would be subject to compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. Development occurring within the City would be subject to review by the City and FFPD to ensure cumulative development is designed to provide a minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities. The Project would not result in significant wildfire hazard impacts following conformance with the California Building Code, California Fire Code, Fontana Municipal Code, and other City and FFPD requirements. The proposed realignment of Lytle Creek Road would improve area circulation and better allow FFPD emergency access to the project area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact (DSEIR, pp. 4.16-13 to 4.16-14).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

Specific economic legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR, and overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.

Certain of the following issues from the environmental categories analyzed in the SEIR, including biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise, were found to be potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the imposition of mitigation measures. This Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 that all potentially significant impacts listed below can and will be mitigated to below a level of significance by imposition of the mitigation measures in the SEIR; and that these mitigation measures are included as Conditions of Approval and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) adopted by this Council. Specific findings of this Council for each category of such impacts are set forth in detail below.

Biological Resources
Adverse Effects on Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species Potential Significant Impact: The SEIR evaluated and concluded that the Project has the potential to have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Findings: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the potential adverse impacts to less than significant for the burrowing owl and nesting birds and raptors through removal of ground cover and habitat, and from construction during the breeding season:

BIO-1A Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey:

A burrowing owl pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities to ensure that burrowing owls remain absent from the project site. In accordance with the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), two pre-construction clearance surveys shall be conducted 14- 30 days, and 24 hours prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities.

BIO-1B Burrowing Owl Avoidance Measures:

A burrowing owl survey shall be conducted 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. If owl burrows are found, a 300-foot buffer zone shall be established around each burrow with an active nest until the young have fledged and are able to exit the burrow. For occupied burrows without active nesting or active burrows after the young have fledged, passive relocation of the owls would be performed. This shall involve installation of a one-way door at the burrow entrance. The Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium 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.

BIO1-C Nesting Bird Avoidance:

All construction activities shall comply with the MBTA and CFGC Sections 3503, 3511 and 3513. The MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests and prohibits the take of any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following measures shall be implemented:

To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status bird species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Commission, construction activities related to the project, including but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31). If construction must begin during the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to initiation of construction activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot inside the project site disturbance areas. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For listed and raptor species, this buffer shall be expanded to 500 feet.

Inaccessible areas (e.g., private lands) shall be surveyed from afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the valley/foothill areas of San Bernardino County. If nests are found, an appropriate avoidance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist and demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. Effective buffer distances are highly variable and based on specific project stage, bird species, stage of nesting cycle, work type, and the tolerance of a particular bird pair. The buffer may be up to 500 feet in diameter, depending on the species of nesting bird found and the biologist’s observations.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The 2007 EIR determined that the Project site had a low potential to support burrowing owl. The most current field investigation found no burrowing owl or recent sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) on the Project site. Although potentially suitable burrows for the owl are found onsite, the presence of larger raptors explains the absence of burrowing owl and owl sign. No bird or raptor nests were specifically identified during field reconnaissance; however, it is likely birds use the project site for nesting (generally from early February through late August), which could be impacted by construction activities associated with the Project. Vegetation within and surrounding the Project site has the potential to provide refuge cover from predators, perching sites, and foraging opportunities that could also be impacted by project implementation, though a variety of anthropogenic disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred onsite which has reduced potential foraging, coverage, and nesting/denning opportunities for special-status wildlife species. Nonetheless, project implementation has potential to result in direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds, including year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds protected under the MBTA, if they nest on the project site and/or in the immediate vicinity during construction activities. Mitigation Measures BIO-1A through BIO-1C have been identified to reduce potential impacts to special-status species to less than significant levels by avoiding impacts to individual burrowing owl and nesting birds in accordance with the guidelines in the MBTA. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation (DSEIR, pp. 4.3-17 to 4.3-19).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would incrementally affect biological resources.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to cumulative biological resources are discussed in detail in Section 4.3 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts to biological resources.

Facts in Support of the Findings: In conjunction with other planned and pending projects in the Project site vicinity, the Project would cumulatively increase the potential to impact biological resources. Potential impacts of the Project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level due to implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1A, BIO-1B, and BIO-1C, which would address potential impacts to migratory and nesting birds, in addition to burrowing owls. Compliance with CEQA requirements by individual projects, including the implementation of recommendations provided in project-specific biological resources studies, on all new development would ensure that the project would not be cumulatively significant. Furthermore, all projects are required to comply with the North Fontana Conservation Program. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant (DSEIR, pp. 4.3-22 to 4.3-23).

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Archaeological Resources
Potential Significant Impact: The SEIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Findings: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the potential adverse impacts to less than significant for archaeological resources:

CUL-2A Archaeological Resources:

The City shall designate a qualified archaeologist to monitor all project-related ground disturbing activities. Archaeological monitoring shall be performed under the guidance and direction of a Project Archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service 1983). A Native American monitor from the consulting tribes (those tribes that have consulted on the project under AB 52) shall also be retained to monitor ground disturbing activities. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity (50 feet) of the find shall cease until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant from a consulting tribe. If the resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment (including evaluations for CRHR listing) and curation of these resources. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.

Monitors shall have the authority to halt and redirect work should any archaeological resources be identified during monitoring. If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and the find evaluated for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Construction monitoring may be reduced or halted at the discretion of the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency, as warranted by conditions that include, but are not limited to encountering bedrock, non-native sediments (infill), or negative findings. Should archaeological spot-checking be recommended by the Project Archaeologist, it will only occur in areas of new construction, where ground disturbance will extend to depths not previously reached (unless those depths are within bedrock). Upon completion of project related ground disturbance and monitoring efforts, a monitoring report should be submitted to the City for review and approval. The final report should be transmitted to the South-Central Coastal Information Center housed at California State University, Fullerton.

Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to remove the resource from its current location for reburial elsewhere on the project site. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be reburied on the project site.

CUL-2B Workers’ Environmental Awareness Program:

A qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service [NPS] 1983) shall conduct worker environmental awareness program (WEAP) training, prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities. The sensitivity training shall include a description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, the regulatory environment, and the proper protocol for treatment and disposition of cultural materials in the event of a find. The training shall be required for all earthmoving construction personnel and a sign-in-sheet shall also be required.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The 2007 EIR, indicated several archaeological resources were recorded in the Project vicinity, but none were found on the project site. Similarly, the recent records search and pedestrian survey did not identify any archaeological resources within the Project site. However, the surveyors noted poor surface visibility based on heavy disturbance throughout the project site in the form of three to four inches of plowing and disking, several large modern trash dumps, and dense vegetation. Due to the poor visibility on site, the potential for subsurface archaeological resources cannot be ruled out, and the Project site is considered to have a moderate sensitivity for archaeological cultural resources. Therefore, the Project has the potentially to adversely affect subsurface archeological resources, if present. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2A and CUL-2B would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resource to a less than significant (DSEIR, pp. 4.4-18 to 4.4-20).

Tribal Cultural Resources
Potential Significant Impact: The SEIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in PRC Section 21074, that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or that the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in PRC Section 21074, that is 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 PRC Section 5024.1.

Findings: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the potential adverse impacts to less than significant for tribal cultural resources: CUL-2A and CUL-2B, above.

Facts in Support of the Finding: No tribal cultural resources have been identified at the Project site. However, construction of the project would involve ground-disturbing activities, including grading and excavation, which have the potential to impact unknown subsurface tribal cultural resources. Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be potentially significant.

Per AB 52 consultation, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation have identified that the site is within ancestral territory with proximity to known tribal cultural resources. On March 15, 2022, the City of Fontana met with the Chairperson of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation to discuss the Project. In this meeting, the Kizh Nation provided proposed mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures CUL-2A and CUL-2B are modeled after the measures provided by the Kizh Nation. Given that multiple tribes requested consultation under AB 52, the mitigation developed allows for inclusion of all consulting tribes. In response to comments on the DSEIR by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the FSEIR concludes that Mitigation Measures CUL-2A and CUL-2B are more conservative/protective of tribal cultural resources than the language suggested by the commenting tribe. (FEIR, p. 13.) Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2A and CUL-2B would therefore reduce potential impacts to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources to less than significant (DSEIR, pp. 4.4-21 to 4.4-22).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would incrementally affect cultural resources.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to cumulative cultural resources are discussed in detail in Section 4.4 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project, in conjunction with other planned and pending projects in the project site vicinity, would cumulatively increase the potential to encounter sensitive cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources and human remains. In the event that cultural, archaeological, tribal cultural resources, and/or human remains are discovered, each individual project would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements and mitigate any potential impacts to resources on the individual project site. Potential impacts of the Project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level due to implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2A and 2B, which would protect cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources and human remains. Compliance with CEQA requirements, including the implementation of recommendations provided in project-specific cultural resource studies, on all new development would ensure that the project would not be cumulatively significant. In the event that tribal cultural resources are discovered, each individual project would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements and the consultation requirements of AB 52, and if applicable SB 18, to determine and mitigate any potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant (DSEIR, pp. 4.4-22 to 4.4-23).

Geology and Soils
Expansive Soils
Potential Significant Impact: The SEIR evaluated and concluded that the Project is underlain by soils possessing moderate collapse potential and low expansive potential.

Findings: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the potential adverse impacts to less than significant for expansive or collapsible soils:

GEO-2 Implement Engineering Recommendations:

Final design for each planning area shall incorporate engineering recommendations based on site specific soil investigations, and shall consider collapsible soils, protection from corrosive soils, and other applicable soil conditions. More specifically, final design shall incorporate recommendations from the Preliminary Geological Investigation Approximately 81.1-Acre Site Duncan Canyon, City of Fontana California, prepared by Converse Consultants in September 2005, or subsequent analysis.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Soil borings at the site determined that the on-site soils are not expansive but have moderate collapse potential. In addition, they have negligible sulfate exposure to concrete and are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals. Thus, the site has onsite soil characteristics which warrant consideration for collapse potential and corrosivity. Site characteristics including on-site soils, the expansion, compaction, moisture content, and other geologic properties of the site need to be considered in the design of structures and infrastructure, to ensure that the structural integrity of on-site buildings and infrastructures is not compromised. The geotechnical investigation included in the 2007 EIR provides structural design and construction recommendations for earthwork, foundation design, and other necessary geologic and seismic considerations that would need to be considered in design and implemented for building construction. In addition, the Project would comply with design requirements in the UBC, which would minimize risks to life and property related to soil characteristics. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 allows for the consideration of additional geotechnical and/or engineering analysis based on the specific design for each planning area. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (DSEIR, pp. 4.6-9 to 4.6-10).

Unique Paleontological Resources and Sites or Unique Geologic Features Potential Significant Impact: The SEIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could have a significant adverse effect on a paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Findings: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the potential adverse impacts to less than significant for unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features:

GEO-3 Paleontological Monitoring:

Monitoring shall be conducted for excavation activities extending to estimated depths of eight feet or more below the existing ground surface. If required, the palaeontologic 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 palaeontologic 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 should occur.

During monitoring, identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with permanent retrievable storage should 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 should 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.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The 2007 EIR determined that no paleontological resources have been identified in the city or the Project site based on the General Plan. However, ground-disturbing activities during project construction may impact previously unknown paleontological resources that may be present below the Project site surface. Therefore, disturbance of potential paleontological resources may occur during ground-disturbing activities at depths beyond eight feet below ground surface. A significant impact on paleontological resources could result if an inadvertent discovery is made during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the Project. Mitigation Measure GEO-3 is recommended to reduce potential impacts on paleontological resources to less than significant levels (DSEIR, pp. 4.6-10 to 4.6-11).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would incrementally affect geologic resources and soils.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to cumulative geology and soils are discussed in detail in Section 4.6 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts relating to geology and soils.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project, in conjunction with other planned and pending projects in the Project site vicinity, would cumulatively increase the potential to encounter geologic phenomena (faults, seismic ground shaking, landslides, etc.), similar soil conditions, and paleontological resources. Each individual project would be required to investigate and address the site specific geologic and soil conditions in conjunction with engineering recommendations incorporated into the final design, consistent with CBC requirements. Similarly, in the event that paleontological resources are discovered, each individual project would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements and mitigate any potential impacts to resources on the individual project site. Compliance with CEQA requirements, including the implementation of recommendations provided in project-specific resource studies, on all new development, would reduce impacts at a project level, and in-turn avoid significant impacts on a cumulative basis. Potential impacts of the Project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level due to implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-2 and GEO-3. The site-specific soil characteristics of the project site will be considered in the engineering requirements and the final design for each planning area. Therefore, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact (DSEIR, pp. 4.6-11 to 4.6-12).

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Release of Hazardous Materials
Potential Significant Impact: The SEIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could 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.

Findings: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the potential adverse impacts to less than significant for hazards resulting from the release of hazardous materials into the environment:

HAZ-1A Soil Sampling – Phase II ESA:

Prior to the start of construction (demolition or grading), the project applicant will retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional Engineer (PE), to prepare a Phase II ESA of the project site that will be developed, to determine whether the soil has been impacted at concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels for residential/commercial land uses. The Phase II ESA will be completed prior to construction and will be focused on the former agricultural use of the property (all Planning Areas), potential presence of aerially deposited lead (Planning Areas 3, 4, 5b, and 6), and the onsite presence of undocumented soil piles/trash (Planning Areas 4 and 6).

As part of the Phase II ESA, the qualified environmental consultant will screen the analytical results against the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board environmental screening levels (ESL). These ESLs are risk-based screening levels for direct exposure of a construction worker under various depth and land use scenarios. The lead agency will review and approve the Phase II ESA prior to demolition and grading (construction).

If the Phase II ESA for the development site indicates that contaminants are detected in the subsurface at the project site, the project applicant will take appropriate steps to protect site workers and the public. This may include the preparation of a Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils (see Mitigation Measure HAZ-1B) prior to project construction.

If the Phase II ESA for the contaminant site indicates that contaminants are present at concentrations exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil and/or groundwater (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24 Characteristics of Toxicity), the project applicant will take appropriate steps to protect site workers and the public. This may include the completion of remediation (see Mitigation Measure HAZ-1C) at the proposed project prior to onsite construction.

HAZ-1B Soil Management Plan for Impacting Soils:

If impacted soils or other impacted wastes are present at the project site, the project applicant will retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE), to prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) prior to construction. The SMP, or equivalent document, will be prepared to address onsite handling and management of impacted soils or other impacted wastes, and reduce hazards to construction workers and offsite receptors during construction. The plan must establish remedial measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants from the site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:

Stockpile management including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of BMPs Proper disposal procedures of contaminated materials
Monitoring and reporting
A health and safety plan for contractors working at the site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection The health and safety plan will also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.

The lead agency will review and approve the development site Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils prior to demolition and grading (construction).

HAZ-1C Remediation:

If soil present within the construction envelope at the development site contains chemicals at concentrations exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24), the project applicant will retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE), to conduct additional analytical testing and recommend soil disposal recommendations, or consider other remedial engineering controls, as necessary.

The qualified environmental consultant will utilize the development site analytical results for waste characterization purposes prior to offsite transportation or disposal of potentially impacted soils or other impacted wastes. The qualified environmental consultant will provide disposal recommendations and arrange for proper disposal of the waste soils or other impacted wastes (as necessary), and/or provide recommendations for remedial engineering controls, if appropriate.

The project applicant will review and approve the disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite, and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to construction.

Remediation of impacted soils and/or implementation of remedial engineering controls, may require additional delineation of impacts; additional analytical testing per landfill or recycling facility requirements; soil excavation; and offsite disposal or recycling.

The lead agency will review and approve the development site disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to construction.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The previous 2007 EIR determined that construction activities associated with the development of the Project site would involve the use of hazardous materials for construction. The transportation of hazardous materials on area roadways is regulated by the California Highway Patrol (CHP), U.S. Department of Transportation (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act) and Caltrans, and use of these materials is regulated by the DTSC (22 Cal. Code Regs. Section 66001, et seq.). All existing and future projects on the project site would be required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations regarding the handling, transportation, disposal, and cleanup of hazardous materials. Nonetheless, impacts associated with worker exposure and environmental release of pesticides, arsenic, hydrocarbons, ADLs or other hazardous chemicals would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1A through HAZ-1C would safeguard construction workers from residual pesticides, arsenic, ADLs, or other hazardous chemicals found on the project site. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1A requires a soil investigation for agricultural residue (pesticides, arsenic, etc.). Mitigation Measures HAZ-1B and HAZ-1C would reduce impacts associated with on-site hazards by implementing an SMP to reduce exposure to impacted soil, and would require proper assessment and disposal of trash and soil piles. Impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation (DSEIR, pp. 4.8-14 to 4.8-17).

Hazardous Emissions in Proximity to Schools
Potential Significant Impact: The SEIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.

Findings: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the potential adverse impacts to less than significant for hazards resulting from the emission or handling of hazardous materials with proximity to schools: HAZ-1A and HAZ-1B, above.

Facts in Support of the Finding: There is one school located in close proximity to the Project site, Falcon Ridge Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.25 mile to the south of the site. The 2007 EIR determined that construction activities associated with the development under the existing Specific Plan would involve the use of hazardous materials for construction. However, compliance with relevant federal, state, and local regulations, including standard conditions, on the Project site would preclude the creation of hazards to on-site users and adjacent areas and reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

As described under Impact HAZ-1 in the DSEIR, the Project site generally consists of undeveloped, vacant land. The site has been previously developed with agricultural and residential structures, but subsequently cleared and disturbed. Project construction would involve the removal and transport of potentially contaminated soils during grading and excavation activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1A and HAZ-1B would ensure that contaminated soils present on the project site are investigated, remediated, and handled according to applicable State and federal requirements. Therefore, Project construction would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation.

Project operation would include residential and commercial uses, which would not involve the use or storage of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Compliance with the procedures and guidelines described in Section 4.8.2 of the DSEIR regarding the handling of such materials throughout Project operation would ensure that operation of the Project would not create a significant hazard to Falcon Ridge Elementary School. Therefore, with compliance with existing regulations, Project operational impacts would be less than significant (DSEIR, pp. 4.8-18 to 4.8-19).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would cumulatively increase the risk of hazardous materials and exposure to hazardous materials.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to cumulative hazardous materials impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4.8 of the DEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant impacts related to cumulative hazardous materials.

Facts in Support of the Findings: The Project, in conjunction with other planned and pending projects in the project site vicinity, would cumulatively increase the potential for exposure of people to hazards and hazardous materials when considering the potential for these hazards to be present at other development sites. In the event that hazardous materials are utilized or encountered, each individual project would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements and mitigate any potential impacts to resources on the individual project site. Potential impacts of the Project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level due to implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1A, HAZ-1B, and HAZ-1C. Compliance with CEQA requirements, including the implementation of recommendations provided in project-specific hazardous materials technical studies, on all new development would ensure that the project would not be cumulatively significant. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials would be less than significant (DSEIR, pp. 4.8-21 to 4.8-22).

Noise
Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels from New Vehicle Trips Potential Significant Impact: The SEIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies relating to new vehicle trips.

Findings: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the potential adverse impacts to less than significant for hazards resulting from the permanent increase in ambient noise levels from new vehicle trips:

N-3 Exterior-to-Interior Noise Analysis:

For residential units where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, the project applicant shall coordinate with the project architects and other contractors to ensure compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard. This shall be achieved through additional exterior-to-interior noise analysis and incorporation of noise attenuation features once specific building plan information is available. The information in the analysis shall include wall heights and lengths, room volumes, window and door tables typical for a building plan, as well as information on other openings in the building shell. With this specific building plan information, the analysis shall determine the predicted interior noise levels at the planned on-site buildings. If predicted noise levels are found to be in excess of the applicable limit, the report shall identify architectural materials or techniques that could be included to reduce noise levels to the applicable limit. The project applicant shall comply with mitigation measures included in the interior noise report to reduce interior noise levels where applicable noise limits are exceeded.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Project would generate new vehicle trips that would increase noise levels on nearby roadways. However, impacts relating to off-site traffic noise would be less than significant because such project-generated traffic noise level increases would range from 1dBa CNEL to 4 dBa CNEL.

For on-site traffic noise, noise levels up to 65 dBa CNEL are considered compatible with exterior noise criteria for land use compatibility provided in the City’s General Plan Noise and Safety Chapter. Pool areas for the Project’s multi-family residential uses would be exposed to traffic noise levels below 65 dBa CNEL, and would thus not conflict with the City’s compatibility standards. Similarly, the commercial component of the Specific Plan would not be subject to noise levels in conflict with the City’s compatibility standards. However, the façades of certain residential Planning Area components would be subject to noise levels greater than 65 dBa CNEL. Due to estimated exterior noise levels at the Project’s building façades, interior noise levels may exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The FHWA’s guidelines indicate that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows. Based on a noise exposure level of up to 75 dBA CNEL and a noise attenuation of 20 dBA, the interior noise levels would be up to 55 dBA CNEL. Therefore, where building façade noise levels would exceed 65 dBA CNEL (i.e., residential units adjacent to I-15 and Duncan Canyon Road), interior noise levels for the Project would not comply with the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for residential uses. However, by incorporating Mitigation Measure N-3, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation (DSEIR, pp. 4.11-15 to 4.11-23).

Cumulative Impacts
Potential Significant Impact: Whether the Project in connection with past, current, and probable future projects would have significant cumulative impacts on noise.

Findings: Potential impacts of the Project related to cumulative noise impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4.11 of the DSEIR. Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that development of the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts upon noise.

Facts in Support of the Findings: All development in the city would be required to comply with the construction hours permitted by the Section 18-63(b)(7) of the Fontana Municipal Code. In addition, construction noise attenuates greatly with distance, and unless construction of cumulative projects occurs near each other and simultaneously, noise and vibration from individual construction projects have a low chance of combining to create significant cumulative impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute considerably to temporary cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts.

Cumulative operational noise impacts would consist of combined operational noise of the proposed Project in conjunction with planned projects in the vicinity. On-site operational noise generated by the project would not exceed the City’s noise standards and impacts would be less than significant. While on-site development (particularly residential units adjacent to I-15 and Duncan Canyon Road) may be subject to interior noise levels in excess of the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA for residential uses, such noise impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute considerably to cumulative noise increases in the project vicinity above ambient noise levels (DSEIR, p. 4.11-24).

Environmental Impacts Not Fully Mitigated to a Level of Less-Than-Significant The Fontana City Council finds the following environmental impacts identified in the SEIR remain significant even after application of all feasible mitigation measures: air quality (individually and cumulatively). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b)(2), the City Council of the City of Fontana cannot approve the Project unless it first finds (1) under Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provisions for new employment opportunities and services, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the SEIR; and (2) under CEQA Guidelines section 15092(b), that the remaining significant effects are acceptable due to overriding concerns described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and, therefore, a statement of overriding considerations is included herein.

Air Quality
Operational Emissions
Significant Unavoidable Impact: The EIR evaluated and concluded that the Project has the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of an criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Finding: Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that this impact is potentially significant but will be reduced to the extent feasible through mitigation measures. The Council finds that Mitigation Measure AQ-2 is incorporated into the MMRP for the Project, and will be implemented as specified therein. However, the Council finds that even with application of these mitigation measures, air quality impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.

AQ-2 Transportation Control Measures:

The proposed project shall implement transportation control measures (TCMs) to reduce vehicular emissions to and from the site, which may include the following:

Ridesharing Programs
Area-wide Carpooling and Vanpooling – The developer/building managers shall provide information brochures on carpooling and vanpooling.

Modified Work Schedules – The developer/building managers shall encourage commercial and office tenants to allow modified work schedules for employees.

Park and Ride Facilities – The developer/building managers shall accommodate the parking of vehicles to promote carpooling and vanpooling. Areas for future bus stops shall be reserved, where feasible.

Parking Management
Off-street Parking Controls – Measures to discourage single-occupant vehicles shall be implemented through parking controls.

Parking Management Programs – Measures to discourage single-occupant vehicles (SOV) shall be implemented.

Non-Motorized Strategies
Bicycle Lanes and Storage Facilities – Bicycle paths and bike racks shall be provided on-site.

Pedestrian Improvements – Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways shall be provided throughout the site.

Telecommunications
Adequate system connections in all homes – Telecommunication systems shall be provided in residential villages.

Wi-Fi “hot-spots” within the Community – High-speed wireless local area network shall be provided at select locations on-site.

The developer shall incorporate the TCMs above to facilitate the option to select a non- SOV transportation option.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Table 4.2-7 of the DSEIR summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of pollutants associated with construction of the proposed project and concludes that VOC, NOX, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds or LSTs. Because air pollutant emissions generated by Project construction would not exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds or LSTs, Project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment.

However, mobile emissions from operation of the Specific Plan Amendment at full buildout would potentially exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds even with mitigation, which was an impact already identified in the 2007 EIR from operation of the existing Specific Plan. Table 4.2-9 in the DSEIR shows that the VOC and NOx emissions from the full buildout of the Specific Plan Amendment would be 104 and 58 pounds per day, respectively. The VOC and NOx emissions would exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold of 55 pounds per day for VOC and NOx. The exceedance is primarily due to operational emissions from mobile sources, similar to the operational emissions disclosed in the 2007 EIR. Therefore, operational air quality impacts from the project would be potentially significant.

While incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce impacts associated with mobile operational air quality emissions, the exact amount of VOC and NOx emissions that would be reduced cannot be quantified at the plan level since the measures would be implemented by individual development. Therefore, similar to the impact identified in the 2007 EIR, buildout of the Specific Plan Amendment would potentially exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds even with mitigation. Furthermore, project design features and mitigation are not available that would feasibly reduce impacts from operational VOC and NOx emissions to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, impacts from operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable (DSEIR, pp. 4.2-14 to 4.2-21).

Cumulative Impacts
Significant Unavoidable Impact: The SEIR evaluated and concluded that the Project could potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Finding: Based on the entire record before us, this Council finds that this impact is potentially significant and, even with mitigation, would remain significant and unavoidable in the cumulative scenario.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The cumulative context for air quality is regional. The Project would contribute PM and the ozone precursors, VOC and NOx, to the area during construction and operation. Regional emissions during construction would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and would not be potentially significant. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not have a significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable contribution of VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 from construction emissions.

However, VOC and NOx emissions from operation of the full buildout of the Project would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds due to mobile emissions. Compliance with Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would help reduce the Project’s contribution to a potential cumulative impact by requiring implementation of transportation control measures; however, the exact reduction of emissions cannot be quantified at the plan level. Therefore, even with mitigation, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable in the cumulative scenario. The proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable contribution of VOC and NOx, from operational emissions.

The Project would not have a significant impact from CO hotspots or construction or operational emissions of TACs. In addition, the land uses proposed as part of the Project would not be associated with odor-generation. Therefore, while cumulative impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or odors may be potentially significant, the proposed Project’s contribution to such impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. In addition, the Project site is not located near existing or planned projects that would generate TAC or odor emissions affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, no cumulative TAC or odor emissions impacts would occur (DSEIR, pp. 4.2-24 to 4.2-25).

ADEQUACY OF THE RANGE OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The DSEIR analyzed two alternatives to the Project as proposed and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to meet the Project’s objectives as described in Section II(B) above. CEQA requires the evaluation of a “No Project Alternative” to assess a maximum net change in the environment as a result of implementation of the Project. The No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative makes a reasoned assessment as to the future development of the subject site should the Project under consideration not be developed. The reduced intensity alternative, on the other hand, involves changes to the Project that may reduce the project-related environmental impacts identified in the DSEIR. Alternatives have been developed to provide a reasonable range of options to consider that would help decision-makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed Project.

Alternative 1 – No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative Description: The No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative assumes that the proposed Project would not be implemented, and the Project site would be developed under the existing Specific Plan. Under the existing Specific Plan, on-site development would consist of 842 housing units and 574,500 square feet of total commercial area rather than 1,671 units and 476,500 square feet under the proposed Project. The existing Specific Plan would consist of retail commercial, office, hotel, restaurant, and research and development uses on the central section and northwestern boundary and residential uses on the southwestern and eastern sections of the site. Many of the same features from the proposed Project would remain under the existing Specific Plan, including residential villages, a focal point piazza, a campanile tower, and the construction of Lytle Creek Road through the Project site.

Impacts: Under the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative, some impacts would be equivalent to those of the proposed Project, including impacts relating to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and wildfire. However, because development under Alternative 1 would reduce overall density within the Project site by contributing 1,891 fewer persons to the service population and resulting in 829 fewer housing units, some impacts would be incrementally lessened commensurate with the reduction in density. These impacts include those relating to air quality emissions, energy use, GHG emissions, demand for water, land use and planning, noise, population, demand for public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems. The one significant impact identified for the Project that cannot be fully reduced to less than significant even with implementation of mitigation (i.e., operational mobile source emissions resulting in an increase of VOC and NOx emissions) would remain significant under Alternative 1.

Objectives: Alternative 1 would meet most Project Objectives, specifically Objectives 2 through 12. However, Alternative 1 would not fulfill Objective 1 to the same extent as the proposed Project, which would contribute 1,671 units to the City’s housing goal and RHNA of 17,519 units allocated to the City by SCAG.

Findings: Under the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative, development of 842 housing units and 574,500 square feet of total commercial area would be realized rather than 1,671 units and 476,500 square feet under the proposed Project. The City Council hereby finds that the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative would reduce impacts of the Project related to air quality emissions, energy use, GHG emissions, demand for water, land use and planning, noise, population, demand for public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems. However, this Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts relating to operational air quality emissions from mobile sources (i.e., Impact AQ-2). This Alternative would also meet some of the Project Objectives, but not to the same extent as the Project. The City Council hereby rejects the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative.

Alternative 2 – Reduced Density
Description: The Reduced Density Alternative would include the development of 476,500 square feet of commercial uses, dwelling units in three separate residential villages with accompanying amenities, a focal point piazza (public square), and the realignment of Lytle Creek Road, on an approximately 102-acre site. Alternative 2 would have the same footprint and location as the proposed Project. However, Alternative 2 would include 1,257 residential units (rather than 1,671 residential units under the proposed project). Alternative 2 would involve an approximately 25 percent reduction in units when compared to the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would be otherwise consistent with the proposed Project.

Impacts: Under the Reduced Density Alternative, some impacts would be equivalent to those of the proposed Project, including impacts relating to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, and wildfire. However, because development under Alternative 2 would reduce overall density within the Project site by developing approximately 25 percent fewer housing units, some impacts would be incrementally lessened commensurate with the reduction in density. These impacts include those relating to air quality emissions, energy use, GHG emissions, demand for water, noise, population, demand for public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems. The one significant impact identified for the Project that cannot be fully reduced to less than significant even with implementation of mitigation (i.e., operational mobile source emissions resulting in an increase of VOC and NOx emissions; Impact AQ-2) would remain significant under Alternative 2.

Objectives: Alternative 2 would meet most Project Objectives, particularly Objectives 2 through 12. However, Alternative 2 would not fulfill Objective 1 to the same extent as the proposed Project, which would contribute 1,671 units to the City’s housing goal and RHNA of 17,519 units allocated to the City by SCAG.

Findings: Under the Reduced Density Alternative, development would have the same footprint and location as the proposed Project, but would include only 1,257 residential units rather than 1,671 residential units under the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would thus involve an approximately 25 percent reduction in units when compared to the proposed Project. The City Council hereby finds that the Reduced Density Alternative would reduce impacts of the Project related to air quality emissions, energy use, GHG emissions, demand for water, noise, population, demand for public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems. However, this Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts relating to operational air quality emissions from mobile sources (i.e., Impact AQ-2). This Alternative would also meet some of the Project Objectives, but not to the same extent as the Project. The City Council hereby rejects the Reduced Density Alternative.

Alternatives Considered and Rejected
Additional alternatives were considered as part of the DSEIR’s Alternatives Analysis (DSEIR, pp. 6-13 to 6-14). The following provides discussion of the two development scenarios that were considered and rejected as potential alternatives to implementation of the Project based on Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines:

No Build Alternative: Due to the previous adoption of the existing Specific Plan, the site has already been identified as an area where commercial/residential development could be built. Because this area is meant to fulfill RHNA requirements, future development would still occur on the site. Therefore, this scenario was rejected from further consideration.

Alternative Project Site: CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) sets forth considerations to be used in evaluating an alternative location. The section states that the “key question” is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by relocating the project. The CEQA Guidelines establish that only locations that would accomplish this objective should be considered alternative locations for the proposed project. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the DSEIR, the proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact (even with implementation of mitigation) related to air quality emissions from mobile sources at operation. This impact is independent of project location, and thus development of the same land uses at an alternative site would result in a similar significant and unavoidable impact. Since the 2007 EIR had previously identified this significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality emissions at full buildout of the Project site, this scenario was rejected from further consideration.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
As explained in Section 6.4 of the DSEIR, the proposed Project would meet all objectives with similar impacts in terms of environmental significance when compared to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Alternative 1 would result in the least construction and operational impacts when compared to Alternative 2 and the proposed Project. However, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines requirement to identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative other than the No Project Alternative (in this case Alternative 1), a comparative evaluation of Alternative 2 was also conducted. Alternative 2 would reduce project impacts to a greater degree than the proposed Project due to the 25 percent reduction in housing units while modernizing development plans for the Specific Plan area. Therefore, Alternative 2 is selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, Alternative 2 would not fulfill Objective 1 of the Project Objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project, which would contribute 1,671 units to the City’s housing goal and RHNA of 17,519 units. For these reasons, the alternatives are rejected in favor of the proposed Project.

GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA requires a discussion of ways in which the Project could be growth inducing. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) states than an EIR must describe the ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.

Section 5.2 of the DSEIR identifies the extent to which the Project would directly generate population growth because it includes residential uses. The proposed 1,671 units would account for less than 10 percent of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) of 17,519 housing units and are, therefore, within anticipated growth planned under the General Plan Housing Element by 2030. As shown in Table 4.2-7 in Section 4.2 of the DSEIR, the proposed Project would accommodate a service population consisting of 6,801 residents and 473 employees. If all projected employees and their families were to relocate to Fontana, there would be a population growth of 7,274 persons. According to the 2020-2045 Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“RTP/SCS”) growth forecasts project an increase of approximately 72,800 persons in the City’s population over the next 23 years, for an estimated 2045 population of 286,700 residents. Based on this forecast population, the City’s population would be approximately 239,266 in 2030 (the buildout year of the proposed Project), which is an increase of 25,322 persons atop the current population of 213,944. As such, the addition of 7,274 persons (assuming project employees are also residents) would consist of approximately 29 percent of the City’s projected growth by 2030. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate population growth in exceedance of existing SCAG population forecasts. Population growth associated with the project would not result in significant long-term physical environmental effects as discussed in Section 5.2.1 of the DSEIR.

The Project also involves commercial uses including, but not limited to, restaurants, retail, office space, medical, research and development, and light industrial use. Table 5-2 in the DSEIR shows the potential increase in job opportunities generated by the proposed Project. The project would result in a small decrease in employment generating square-footage, from 574,500 square feet under the existing Specific Plan to 476,500 square feet under the proposed project, a decrease of 98,000 square feet. It is anticipated that most employment opportunities associated with on-site commercial development would be staffed by existing residents in the Specific Plan area or neighboring jurisdictions and would not result in substantial population growth. The proposed Project would not induce substantial economic expansion to the extent that direct physical environmental effects would result. Moreover, the environmental effects associated with any future development in or around Fontana would be addressed as part of the CEQA environmental review for such development projects.

The proposed Project would construct Duncan Canyon Road at its ultimate half‐width (north side) as a Major Highway (132‐foot right‐of‐way) and construct Citrus Avenue at its ultimate half‐width as a Primary Highway (104‐foot right‐of‐way). Additionally, the proposed project would include the realignment of Lytle Creek Road. These changes would not present a significant change to existing circulation and would be intended to accommodate expected traffic volumes and project site access needs. The project implementation would not remove an obstacle to growth.

SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(2)(B) and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(c), 15126.2(c), and 15127, require that for certain types or categories of projects, an EIR must address significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the Project be implemented. As presented at CEQA Guidelines Section 15127, the topic of Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes needs to be addressed in EIRs prepared in connection with any of the following activities:

The adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy, or ordinance of a public agency; The adoption by a local agency formation commission of a resolution making determinations; or A Project which will be subject to the requirements for preparing of an environmental impact statement pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. Sections 4321-4347.

The Project triggers the first condition cited in Guidelines §15127, since it requires a Specific Plan Amendment and a General Plan Amendment.

The proposed Project involves infill development on a currently undeveloped area in the City of Fontana. Construction and operation of the Project would involve an irreversible commitment of construction materials and non-renewable energy resources. The Project would involve the use of building materials and energy, some of which are non-renewable resources. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and are not unique to the proposed Project .

The proposed Project would also irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources such as petroleum products and natural gas. The Project would consume electricity, natural gas, and fuel during construction and operation. However, the Project would not place significant additional demand on the energy providers (Southern California Edison or Southern California Gas) and would comply with applicable conservation standards.

Additional vehicle trips associated with the proposed Project would incrementally increase local traffic and regional air pollutant and GHG emissions. However, development and operation of the Project would not generate GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact. Likewise, as discussed in Section 4.2 of the DEIR, the construction of the Project would not generate air quality emissions that would result in a significant impact. VOC and NOx emissions associated with the operation of the Project would, however, exceed SCAQMD thresholds, and be considered a significant impact. Long-term transportation impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant based on City and regional thresholds. The Project would also require a commitment of law enforcement, fire protection, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal services, but impacts to these service systems would be less than significant.

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The City of Fontana proposes to approve the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment Project although significant and unavoidable adverse air quality impacts have been identified in the EIR.

Specifically, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, project operational-source VOC and NOx emissions exceedances would persist and would constitute significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, and would result in a significant and unavoidable contribution of VOC and NOx within the nonattainment areas.

Even though these adverse impacts are not reduced to a level considered less than significant, the Fontana City Council finds, after balancing these impacts with the benefits of the project, that those impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the project. Further, the alternatives which were identified in the EIR would not meet either in part or in whole to the same extent as the proposed project, the project objectives, and or would not substantially lessen identified environmental impacts.

The City Council hereby declares that the SEIR has identified and discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the SEIR, these impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for the unavoidable and significant impacts discussed in Section V(C) herein.

The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts described above.

The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended to the City are not incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed Project, none of which both meets the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project and is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project.

California Public Resource Code 21002 provides: “In the event specific economic, social and other conditions make infeasible such Project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects can be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” Section 21002.1(c) provides: “In the event that economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects of a Project on the environment, the Project may nonetheless be approved or carried out at the discretion of a public agency…” Finally, Section 15093(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states: “If the benefits of a Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable.” The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered “acceptable” due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Each of the separate benefits of the proposed Project, as stated herein, is determined to be, unto itself and independent of the other Project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in these Findings. The City Council and City Planning Staff have independently verified the existence of all facts stated below to justify the State of Overriding Considerations. Project benefits include:

The Project will support the area demand for housing and contribute 1,671 residential units to help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 17,519 units.

The Project will create a master-planned, mixed-use community that creates a unique sense of place.

The Project will provide quality housing with various size options to accommodate different housing needs.

The Project will actualize the City’s vision for the Regional Mixed-Use designation in north Fontana.

The Project will establish a unique window into North Fontana from I-15.

The Project will integrate a mix of commercial, office and residential uses both vertically and horizontally.

The Project will create a protected urban village environment that is unique to Fontana and the Inland Empire.

The Project will enhance the northern Fontana visual environment.

The Project will contribute to the jobs/housing balance.

The Project will facilitate revenue generating uses and provide tax revenue to the City.

The Project will facilitate a walkable village environment.

Based on a Market Analysis prepared by the applicant, the Project, for the next subsequent five-year period (2026 to 2030), it is projected that it could capture up to 5.0% of the total projected demand for Research and Development/Flex/Office/General Commercial business space in this Fontana area.

Fueled by strong employment growth over the past five-plus years, the demand for apartment units in the Inland Empire and the City of Fontana has expanded significantly. As a result, pent-up demand for new apartment units has accumulated. Thus, in the near-term (i.e., 1 to 2 years), the demand for new apartments is projected to exceed the average annual projection of 190 units. Therefore, the Project, will be able to help with the demand of apartment units.

The Project can capture significant shares of the projected demand in each of the four land uses studied – Residential, Commercial Retail, Commercial Office, and Light Industrial.

Therefore, the Fontana City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the SEIR and the public record makes and adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations by which the Fontana City Council, after balancing the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the project, against the unavoidable adverse impacts of the project, states the specific reasons to support its approval of the project notwithstanding the existence of the significant and unavoidable impacts described above.

CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Fontana City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the FSEIR in evaluating the Project, that the FSEIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and that the FSEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.

The City Council declares that no new significant information as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been received by the City Council after the circulation of the DSEIR that would require recirculation. All of the information added to the FSEIR merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an already adequate DSEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).

The City Council hereby certifies the SEIR based on the following findings and conclusions:

FINDINGS
CEQA Compliance
As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings and supporting documentation. The City Council determines that the Findings contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project as well as complete and accurate reporting of the unavoidable impacts and benefits of the Project as detailed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the SEIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and that the City Council complied with CEQA’s procedural and substantive requirements.

Significant Unavoidable Impacts/Statement of Overriding Considerations The Project will have significant adverse impacts even following adoption of all feasible mitigation measures which are required by the City Council. The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the FSEIR and will require mitigation but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance as set forth in Section V(C) of these Findings:

Air Quality Impacts (Operational Air Pollutant Emissions and Cumulative Impacts) due to the type of project, the Project would exceed SCAQMD VOC and NOx thresholds and available mitigation would not reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

The City Council has eliminated or substantially reduced environmental impacts where feasible as described in the Findings, and the City Council determines that the remaining unavoidable significant adverse impacts are acceptable due to the reasons set forth in the preceding Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Conclusions
All potentially significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Project have been identified in the SEIR and, with the implementation of the mitigation measures defined herein and set forth in the MMRP, will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, except for the impacts identified in Section V(C) above.

No reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Project have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project.

Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible alternatives to the Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project.

ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts, as conditions of approval of the Project, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”) set forth in Section 3 of the Final SEIR. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control, except to the extent that a mitigation measure contained herein is inadvertently omitted from the MMRP, in which case such mitigation measure shall be deemed as if it were included in the MMRP. “EXHIBIT B”
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval
Action Required
Monitoring Timing
Monitoring Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial
Date
Comments
Air Quality
AQ-1: Transportation Control Measures
The proposed project shall implement transportation control measures (TCMs) to reduce vehicular emissions to and from the site, which may include the following:

Ridesharing Programs
Area-wide Carpooling and Vanpooling – The developer/building managers shall provide information brochures on carpooling and vanpooling.

Modified Work Schedules – The developer/building managers shall encourage commercial and office tenants to allow modified work schedules for employees.

Park and Ride Facilities – The developer/building managers shall accommodate the parking of vehicles to promote carpooling and vanpooling. Ares for future bus stops shall be reserved, where feasible.

Parking Management
Off-street Parking Controls – Measures to discourage single-occupant vehicles shall be implemented through parking controls.

Parking Management Programs – Measures to discourage single-occupant vehicles (SOV) shall be implemented.

Non-Motorized Strategies
Bicycle Lanes and Storage Facilities – Bicycle paths and bike racks shall be provided on-site.

Pedestrian Improvements – Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways shall be provided throughout the site.

Telecommunications
Adequate system connections in all homes – Telecommunication systems shall be provided in residential villages.

Wi-Fi “hot-spots” within the Community – High-speed wireless local area network shall be provided at select locations on-site.

The developer shall incorporate the TCMs above to facilitate the option to select a non- SOV transportation option.

Review and approval of identified and implemented TCMs.

Prior to the issuance of a construction permit and during construction prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit Continuous; throughout construction activities
City of Fontana Planning Department
Biological Resources
BIO-1A: Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey
A burrowing owl pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities to ensure that burrowing owls remain absent from the project site. In accordance with the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), two pre-construction clearance surveys shall be conducted 14 30 days, and 24 hours prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities.

Verification that the project Applicant has retained a qualified biologist to prepare two scheduled burrowing owl pre-construction clearance surveys.

Review and approval of both pre-construction clearance surveys.

Prior to the issuance of a grading or other construction permit Once
City of Fontana Planning Department
BIO-1B: Burrowing Owl Avoidance Measures
A burrowing owl survey shall be conducted 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. If owl burrows are found, a 300-foot buffer zone shall be established around each burrow with an active nest until the young have fledged and are able to exit the burrow. For occupied burrows without active nesting or active burrows after the young have fledged, passive relocation of the owls would be performed. This shall involve installation of a one-way door at the burrow entrance. The Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium 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.

If no occupied burrows are found from survey, review and approval of a final report prepared by a qualified biologist documenting their lack of presence.

Prior to issuance of a grading or other construction permit Once
City of Fontana Planning Department
If occupied burrows with active nesting are found from survey, field verification that proper avoidance buffer zones are demarcated and enforced around each active burrow until the young have fledged/exited and a qualified biologist is retained to monitor construction activities near burrows.

Upon discovery of occupied burrows
Continuous, throughout construction activities near active burrow(s) Same as above
If occupied burrows without active nesting (or after young have fledged/exited), field verification of passive relocation of owls conducted by a qualified biologist.

Upon discovery of occupied burrows
Continuous, throughout relocation activities
Same as above
BIO-1C: Nesting Bird Avoidance
All construction activities shall comply with the MBTA and CFGC Sections 3503, 3511 and 3513. The MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests and prohibits the take of any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following measures shall be implemented:

To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status bird species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Commission, construction activities related to the project, including but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31). If construction must begin during the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to initiation of construction activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot inside the project site disturbance areas. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For listed and raptor species, this buffer shall be expanded to 500 feet.

Inaccessible areas (e.g., private lands) shall be surveyed from afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the valley/foothill areas of San Bernardino County. If nests are found, an appropriate avoidance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist and demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. Effective buffer distances are highly variable and based on specific project stage, bird species, stage of nesting cycle, work type, and the tolerance of a particular bird pair. The buffer may be up to 500 feet in diameter, depending on the species of nesting bird found and the biologist’s observations.

If project construction activities/disturbances begin during bird nesting season (February 1 – August 31), verification that the project Applicant has retained a qualified biologist to prepare a pre-construction nesting bird survey.

Prior to issuance of a grading or other construction permit Once
City of Fontana Planning Department
Field verification that all inaccessible areas are surveyed by a qualified biologist from afar using binoculars.

Prior to issuance of a grading or other construction permit Once
Same as above
If active nests are found from survey, field verification that proper avoidance buffer zones are demarcated and enforced around each active nest.

Upon discovery of active nests
Continuous, throughout construction activities near active nest(s) Same as above
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
CUL-2A: Archaeological Resources
The City shall designate a qualified archaeologist to monitor all project-related ground disturbing activities. Archaeological monitoring shall be performed under the guidance and direction of a Project Archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service 1983). A Native American monitor from the consulting tribes (those tribes that have consulted on the project under AB 52) shall also be retained to monitor ground disturbing activities. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity (50 feet) of the find shall cease until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant from a consulting tribe. If the resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment (including evaluations for CRHR listing) and curation of these resources. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.

Monitors shall have the authority to halt and redirect work should any archaeological resources be identified during monitoring. If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and the find evaluated for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Construction monitoring may be reduced or halted at the discretion of the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency, as warranted by conditions that include, but are not limited to encountering bedrock, non-native sediments (infill), or negative findings. Should archaeological spot-checking be recommended by the Project Archaeologist, it will only occur in areas of new construction, where ground disturbance will extend to depths not previously reached (unless those depths are within bedrock). Upon completion of project related ground disturbance and monitoring efforts, a monitoring report should be submitted to the City for review and approval. The final report should be transmitted to the South-Central Coastal Information Center housed at California State University, Fullerton.

Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to remove the resource from its current location for reburial elsewhere on the project site. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be reburied on the project site.

Retention of a qualified archaeologist and locally affiliated Native American monitor to monitor ground-disturbing activities.

Prior to issuance of a grading or other construction permit Once
City of Fontana Planning Department
If archaeological resources are found, field verification that all construction activities within 50 feet have ceased.

Upon discovery of archaeological resources
Continuous, throughout construction near resource(s)
Same as above
If archaeological resources are found, consultation with retained qualified archaeologist to determine treatment of resource.

If archaeological resources of Native American origin are found, consultation with Native American representatives to determine treatment of resource.

Upon discovery of archaeological resources
Continuous, throughout construction near resource(s)
Same as above
If archaeological resources are found, review and approval of treatment plan.

Upon completion of coordination with monitors
Once
Same as above
Review and approval of final monitoring report.

Upon completion of ground-disturbing activities
Once
Same as above
CUL-2B: Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program
A qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service [NPS] 1983) shall conduct worker environmental awareness program (WEAP) training, prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities. The sensitivity training shall include a description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, the regulatory environment, and the proper protocol for treatment and disposition of cultural materials in the event of a find. The training shall be required for all earthmoving construction personnel and a sign-in-sheet shall also be required.

Verification that the project Applicant has retained a qualified archaeologist to conduct WEAP training.

Prior to the start of construction activities
Once
City of Fontana Planning Department
Review and retention of WEAP training sign-in sheet signed by all trainees.

Prior to the start of construction activities and during ground-disturbing activities, as needed Continuous; throughout ground-disturbing activities
Same as above
Geology and Soils
GEO-2: Implement Engineering Recommendations
Final design for each planning area shall incorporate engineering recommendations based on site specific soil investigations, and shall consider collapsible soils, protection from corrosive soils, and other applicable soil conditions. More specifically, final design shall incorporate recommendations from the Preliminary Geological Investigation Approximately 81.1-Acre Site Duncan Canyon, City of Fontana California, prepared by Converse Consultants in September 2005, or subsequent analysis.

Review and approval of implemented geotechnical engineering recommendations.

Prior to issuance of a grading or other construction permit Once
City of Fontana Planning Department
GEO-3 Paleontological Monitoring
Monitoring shall be conducted for excavation activities extending to estimated depths of eight 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 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 should occur.

During monitoring, identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with permanent retrievable storage should 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 should 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.

If excavation or other ground-disturbing activities extend to depths of eight feet or below, verification that the project Applicant has retained a qualified paleontologist to monitor such activities.

Prior to issuance of a grading or other construction permit Once
City of Fontana Planning Department
Review and approval of qualified paleontologist’s written repository agreement.

Prior to the start of construction activities
Once
Same as above
If fossils are discovered from disturbance of previously undisturbed subsurface Pliestocene sediments, verification that all finds are recovered, identified, preserved, and curated.

Upon discovery of fossils
Continuous; throughout ground-disturbing activities
Same as above
Review and approval of a final findings report with itemized inventory of finds.

Upon completion of ground-disturbing activities
Once
Same as above
If qualified paleontologist confirms full-time monitoring is not warranted, review and approval of recommendation that monitoring be limited.

During initial ground-disturbing activities
Once
Same as above
HAZ-1A: Soil Sampling – Phase II ESA
Prior to the start of construction (demolition or grading), the project applicant will retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional Engineer (PE), to prepare a Phase II ESA of the project site that will be developed, to determine whether the soil has been impacted at concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels for residential/commercial land uses. The Phase II ESA will be completed prior to construction and will be focused on the former agricultural use of the property (all Planning Areas), potential presence of aerially deposited lead (Planning Areas 3, 4, 5b, and 6), and the onsite presence of undocumented soil piles/trash (Planning Areas 4 and 6).

As part of the Phase II ESA, the qualified environmental consultant will screen the analytical results against the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board environmental screening levels (ESL). These ESLs are risk-based screening levels for direct exposure of a construction worker under various depth and land use scenarios. The lead agency will review and approve the Phase II ESA prior to demolition and grading (construction).

If the Phase II ESA for the development site indicates that contaminants are detected in the subsurface at the project site, the project applicant will take appropriate steps to protect site workers and the public. This may include the preparation of a Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils (see Mitigation Measure HAZ-1B) prior to project construction.

If the Phase II ESA for the contaminant site indicates that contaminants are present at concentrations exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil and/or groundwater (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24 Characteristics of Toxicity), the project applicant will take appropriate steps to protect site workers and the public. This may include the completion of remediation (see Mitigation Measure HAZ-1C) at the proposed project prior to onsite construction.

Verification that the project Applicant has retained a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) to prepare a Phase II ESA.

Review and approval of the Phase II ESA.

Prior to the start of construction activities
Once
City of Fontana Planning Department
If the Phase II ESA for the development site indicates that contaminants are present, verification that the project Applicant addresses contamination through appropriate action through compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1B or -IC (below).

Upon discovery of on-site contaminants and prior to the start of construction activities Continuous, throughout remediation activities
Same as above
HAZ-1B: Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils
If impacted soils or other impacted wastes are present at the project site, the project applicant will retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE), to prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) prior to construction. The SMP, or equivalent document, will be prepared to address onsite handling and management of impacted soils or other impacted wastes, and reduce hazards to construction workers and offsite receptors during construction. The plan must establish remedial measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants from the site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:

Stockpile management including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of BMPs Proper disposal procedures of contaminated materials
Monitoring and reporting
A health and safety plan for contractors working at the site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection The health and safety plan will also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.

The lead agency will review and approve the development site Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils prior to demolition and grading (construction).

If the Phase II ESA for the development site indicates the presence of impacted soils or other impacted wastes, verification that the project Applicant has retained a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) to prepare a SMP, or equivalent document.

Review and approval of the SMP, or equivalent document.

Upon discovery of on-site contaminants and prior to the start of construction activities Once
City of Fontana Planning Department
HAZ-1C: Remediation
If soil present within the construction envelope at the development site contains chemicals at concentrations exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24), the project applicant will retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE), to conduct additional analytical testing and recommend soil disposal recommendations, or consider other remedial engineering controls, as necessary.

The qualified environmental consultant will utilize the development site analytical results for waste characterization purposes prior to offsite transportation or disposal of potentially impacted soils or other impacted wastes. The qualified environmental consultant will provide disposal recommendations and arrange for proper disposal of the waste soils or other impacted wastes (as necessary), and/or provide recommendations for remedial engineering controls, if appropriate.

The project applicant will review and approve the disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite, and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to construction.

Remediation of impacted soils and/or implementation of remedial engineering controls, may require additional delineation of impacts; additional analytical testing per landfill or recycling facility requirements; soil excavation; and offsite disposal or recycling.

The lead agency will review and approve the development site disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to construction.

If the Phase II ESA for the development site indicates the presence of impacted soils with chemicals at concentrations exceeding applicable thresholds, verification that the project Applicant has retained a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) to conduct additional testing, prepare disposal recommendations, and identify remedial engineering controls.

Upon discovery of on-site contaminants and prior to the start of construction activities Once
City of Fontana Planning Department
Verification that the project Applicant has reviewed and approved the disposal recommendations and remedial engineering controls.

Prior to transportation of waste soils offsite and prior to the start of construction activities Once
Same as above
Review and approval of the disposal recommendations and remedial engineering controls.

Prior to transportation of waste soils offsite and prior to the start of construction activities Once
Same as above
Noise
N-3: Exterior-to-Interior Noise Analysis
For residential units where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, the project applicant shall coordinate with the project architects and other contractors to ensure compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard. This shall be achieved through additional exterior-to-interior noise analysis and incorporation of noise attenuation features once specific building plan information is available. The information in the analysis shall include wall heights and lengths, room volumes, window and door tables typical for a building plan, as well as information on other openings in the building shell. With this specific building plan information, the analysis shall determine the predicted interior noise levels at the planned on-site buildings. If predicted noise levels are found to be in excess of the applicable limit, the report shall identify architectural materials or techniques that could be included to reduce noise levels to the applicable limit. The project applicant shall comply with mitigation measures included in the interior noise report to reduce interior noise levels where applicable noise limits are exceeded.

Verification that the project Applicant has coordinated with architects/contractors to comply with 45 CNEL interior noise standard through additional interior-to-exterior noise analysis.

Review and approval of exterior-to-interior noise analysis and noise attenuation architectural materials, features.

Prior to approval of project plans once specific building plan information is available Once

City of Fontana Planning Department
2 Error! Use the Home tab to apply Cover Address 2 to the text that you want to appear here.

Resolution No. 2022-_____