Attachment No. 1 (Part No. 1) - Resolution to Certify EIR — Fontana City Council, July 25, 2023

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CERTIFYING THE DOWNTOWN CORE PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2022110624), ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE PROJECT.

WHEREAS, the Downtown Core Project is a proposal to increase housing and mixed uses with associated facilitative development standards in the Downtown and is evaluated in the Downtown Core Project Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”); and WHEREAS, the Project consists of an approximately 478 acres property and is is bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the north, Randall Avenue on the south, Juniper Avenue on the west, and Mango Avenue on the east; and WHEREAS, the Project requires approvals of a General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 22-010) to amend Chapter 9, 14 and 15 of the General Plan and modify the Land Use Map and Hierarchy of Streets Plan, and a Zone Change Application (ZCA No. 22-010) to make map/figure and text changes to the Zoning and Development Code (Form-Based Code section) to establish the Downtown Core with uses and development standards that will increase housing density and mixed and commercial uses to create a vibrant and walkable Downtown; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of Fontana is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on November 18, 2022, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) stating that an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number #2022110624 would be prepared; and WHEREAS, four (4) comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on December 14, 2022, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project and, additional comments were received; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Public Services, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Services Systems, and Wildlife; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emission and Noise; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Availability was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on May 10, 2023; and WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City provided the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public at the same time that the City sent Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research, on May 10, 2023; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City Hall and on the City’s website; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for at least a 45-day public review and comment period from May 10, 2023 to June 26, 2023; and WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, the City received three (3) written comment letters on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing to consider the Draft EIR and proposed General Plan Amendments and Zoning Code Amendment, for the Project. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR for the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR on July 25, 2023; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2023, the City noticed the Final EIR (“Final EIR”) which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, and errata to the Draft EIR and technical appendices; and WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Downtown Core Project sufficiently analyzes the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts and the EIR analyzes a range of feasible alternatives capable of reducing these effects to an even lesser level of significance; and WHEREAS, the City has made certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2.2 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures are described in Section 2.3 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City finds that even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are significant and unavoidable are described in Section 2.4 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts that would result from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 2.5 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the significant irreversible environmental changes which would be caused by the Project identified in the EIR are described in Section 2.6 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the growth-inducing impacts which would be caused by the Project identified in the EIR are described in Section 2.7 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the already less than significant environmental impacts are described in Section 2.8 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, a statement of overriding considerations is set forth in Section 3.0 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to a level of less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully considered; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA:

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

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.

SECTION 5. Based upon the entire record before it, including the EIR, Findings of Fact, and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council hereby approves the proposed Project.

SECTION 6. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City of Fontana Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. The custodian for these records is Alejandro Rico, Associate Planner. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

SECTION 7. City staff shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of July, 2023.

READ AND APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
_______________________
City Attorney
ATTEST:

I, Germaine 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 25th day of July, 2023, 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
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Approval of the:

Downtown Core Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2022110624
Lead Agency
City of Fontana
Community Development Department
18353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
CEQA Consultant:

De Novo Planning Group
180 East Main Street, Suite 108
Tustin, CA 92780
July 15, 2023
Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Project Summary 1

1.2 City of Fontana Actions Covered By the EIR 6

1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation 7

2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings 10

2.1 General Findings 9

2.2 Impacts Identified in the Initial Study (IS) or EIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Not Requiring Mitigation 10

2.3 Impacts Identified in the EIR as Potentially Significant that Have been Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant 60

2.4 Impacts Identified in the EIR as being Significant and Unavoidable 80

2.5 Cumulative Impacts 108

2.6 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Caused by the Proposed Project Should It Be Implemented 124

2.7 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project 126

2.8 Project Alternatives 130

3.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations 156

4.0 Additional Facts on Record 157

4.1 Adoption of a Monitoring Plan for Mitigation Measures 157 Custodian of Record 157

1.0 Introduction
The City Council of the City of Fontana ( the “City Council”) in approving the Downtown Core Project (the “Project”), makes the Findings presented herein. The Findings are based upon the entire record before the City Council, as described in Subsection 1.3 below, including the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Downtown Core Project on behalf of the City of Fontana (the “City”) acting as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Hereinafter, the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Studies, Final EIR (containing responses to public comments on the Draft EIR and textual revisions to the Draft EIR), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be referred to collectively herein as the “EIR” unless otherwise specified.

Project Summary
The project evaluated herein is the Downtown Core Project.

Project Location
The City of Fontana is located in southern San Bernardino County, approximately 50 miles east of the City of Los Angeles. Surrounding communities are the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario to the west, the city of Rialto and the unincorporated community of Bloomington to the east, the city of Jurupa Valley to the south, and the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino National Forest to the north. The Project Area encompasses approximately 478 acres bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the north, Randall Avenue on the south, Juniper Avenue on the west, and Mango Avenue on the east.

Project Background
The City of Fontana adopted the "Fontana Forward" 2015-2035 General Plan update in 2018. As part of that update, the City Council approved Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan. The goal of Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan is to create a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use area with high quality housing and retail options. The Form Based Code (FBC) (Municipal Code Chapter 30, Article III) was created and adopted in 2019 as part of the Zoning and Development Code to implement Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan. The City is seeking to improve the FBC in the Project Area with straightforward development guidelines, a stronger residential presence, more support for mixed-uses, a streamlined development process, and development incentives exclusive to the Project Area.

To realize their vision of making Downtown Fontana a lively mixed-used destination, the City has also identified the opportunity to reduce constraints associated with the development of housing in the Project Area as a primary opportunity to initiate redevelopment of Downtown Fontana. To help provide additional housing opportunities within the Project Area, the City applied for and was awarded a Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) Planning Grant in 2020. The scope of work for the SB 2 grant is focused on the Project Area with the primary goals to:

Identify opportunity areas for housing density increases.

Streamline review and approval for housing.

Identify and eliminate constraints to building housing.

Create clear and concise development and design standards.

The Downtown Fontana Development Guide (one of the deliverables associated with the SB 2 Planning Grant) is being developed to provide recommended changes to the FBC, objective development standards, expedited review guidelines, and development impact fee incentives. The recommended changes to the FBC and their implementation, described further below, is the subject of this EIR.

Project Description
The Downtown Core Project proposes amendments to the Fontana Forward General Plan (General Plan) Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation, Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan, and Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, including establishing a new land use category and text and figure modifications, a General Plan Land Use Map amendment to apply the new land use category, and amendments to the Zoning and Development Code and an amendment to the Zoning District Map to establish and implement new FBC districts within the Project Area, as described below.

General Plan Text and Map Amendments
Chapter 9: Community Mobility and Circulation. The Project proposes to modify the existing circulation within the Project Area specific to Nuevo Avenue, Wheeler Avenue, and Sierra Avenue; refer to the Project Area Circulation and Parking discussion below. General Plan Chapter 9, Exhibit 9.2 would be amended to modify the roadway functional class for Nuevo Avenue and Wheeler Avenue to downtown corridor, and to remove the roadway functional class for Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way; related text modifications would also occur for consistency.

Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan. Modifications to text and graphics would occur within Chapter 14 to be consistent with the proposed modifications to Chapter 9 and 15.

Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design. The Project proposes to amend General Plan Chapter 15, Exhibit 15.10 to include the addition of a new WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core (0.2-2.0 Commercial FAR, 2.1-70 du/ac) land use category. Text modifications would also occur within other areas of Chapter 15 as needed to incorporate the WMXU-3 land use category.

General Plan Land Use Map. The General Plan Land Use Map would be amended to apply the WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core (0.2-2.0 Commercial FAR, 2.1-70 du/ac) land use category within the Project Area.

Zoning and Development Code Amendments
Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30, Article III, Form-Based Code, would be amended to incorporate six new FBC districts, described below, including permitted land uses, increased densities and development standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types, general regulations, design and architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space standards specific to each new FBC District. Article IV, Zoning Districts, Section 30-405, Section 30-406, and Table No. 30-408 would also be amended to incorporate the Downtown Core and associated land use districts. The Fontana Zoning District Map would be amended to incorporate the Downtown Core.

The Project proposes the following six new FBC districts:

Civic Core. The Civic Core district would involve a mix of existing and new public uses, including the existing City Hall, Library, and Park spaces. Building heights would be a maximum of 70 feet.

Gateway Core. The Gateway Core district would develop strong gateways along Sierra Avenue and serve as a primary gateway to Downtown Fontana from the north and south. This area would contain a mix of existing and new buildings and would support Downtown commercial uses by encouraging the development of residential units near transit and along major corridors. Building heights would be a maximum of 70 feet with a 55-foot maximum adjacent to street corners, and a 35-foot maximum adjacent to Sierra Avenue. First floor commercial uses would be allowed anywhere in the district, and density bonuses would be provided as an incentive for including optional commercial uses.

Multi-Family Core. The Multi-Family Core district would strengthen the opportunity for higher density multi-family development within the Downtown Core. It would support Downtown commercial uses by encouraging the development of residential units within walking distance. Building heights would be a maximum of 55 feet. Density bonuses would be provided as an incentive for lot assemblages of at least one acre.

Mixed-Use Core. The Mixed-Use Core district would involve a mix of existing and new commercial and residential uses. Buildings built along major corridors would be built to the sidewalk to reinforce the street as a pedestrian-friendly area. Building heights would be a maximum of 55 feet. First floor commercial uses would be allowed anywhere in the district and required on Nuevo Avenue between Orange Avenue and Arrow Boulevard, on Wheeler Avenue between Orange Avenue and Arrow Boulevard, and Arrow Boulevard between Juniper Avenue and Wheeler Avenue. Density bonuses would be provided as an incentive for including optional commercial uses.

Neighborhood Core. The Neighborhood Core district would be largely composed of single-family homes and would allow the development of extra units. This area would provide a transition between the Downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods. Building heights would be a maximum of 40 feet. Density bonuses would be provided as an incentive for lot assemblages of at least one acre.

Sierra Core. The Sierra Core district would reinforce Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way as the core of Downtown Fontana. This area would be enhanced with a pedestrian promenade and public plazas, and provide a variety of entertainment, retail, service, and residential uses within existing and new buildings. Building heights would be a maximum of 70 feet, with a 55-foot maximum adjacent to street corners, and a 35-foot maximum adjacent to Sierra Avenue. First floor commercial uses would be required.

Project Area Circulation and Parking
The Project Area planned circulation would provide a more “walkable” environment, designed to incorporate traffic calming measures to reduce traffic speeds, enhance pedestrian safety, and promote walkability of the area, specifically along Sierra Avenue. Traffic-calming methods could include corner bump-outs, parallel parking areas, sidewalk expansion, bike lanes and enhanced intersection paving areas.

To enhance the pedestrian experience and promote walkability, the Project proposes to ultimately close a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic. This would occur in two phases. Phase I (interim condition) would reduce the number of travel lanes on Sierra Avenue from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction, convert Wheeler Avenue to a one-way northbound street, and convert Nuevo Avenue to a one-way southbound street. Phase II (the ultimate condition) would close Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way to vehicular traffic, diverting traffic to parallel streets.

The Project Area would include parking opportunities through incorporation of various design solutions, including on-street parking, public surface lots, on-site commercial and residential parking opportunities, parking structures, and tuck under parking.

Project Objectives
The City has identified that the primary purpose of the proposed Project is to increase the number of high-quality housing development approvals in the Project Area and allowing for commercial uses to create a dynamic Downtown. Additionally, the City has identified the following Project objectives:

Provide for new residential development opportunities in order to meet the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant.

Establish FBC districts that encourage housing and supporting commercial development.

Create and apply a new land use category for the Project Area to provide consistency and allow for development at the densities and intensities needed to implement the FBC districts.

Enhance the pedestrian experience and promote walkability, by ultimately closing a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic.

Provide objective development standards that would facilitate permitting of housing projects.

Create a Downtown Fontana Development Guide to serve as a "how-to" guide for the development community so that the City can realize its vision for the Downtown.

Implement the following goals, policies, and/or actions from the General Plan:

Support regulations that promote creation of compact and walkable urban village-style design in new developments (Chapter 4: Community and Neighborhoods).

Support revitalization of the central area of the city with an integrated approach, including mixed-use development, infill housing, infrastructure improvements, interconnections and placemaking programs that create great public amenities (Chapter 4: Community and Neighborhoods).

Continue to ensure excellent management of non-single-family housing (Chapter 4: Community and Neighborhoods).

Make land use decisions that support walking, bicycling, and public transit use, in alignment with the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (Chapter 9: Community, Mobility and Circulation).

Encourage a mix of uses in the downtown core, appealing to a wide range of customer types, with a focus on families (Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan).

Encourage mixed-use development within the Downtown and along major corridors (Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan).

Encourage new “in-town” housing types targeted to young people and young families to help attract and retain the next generation of Fontanans (Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan).

Ensure that future street improvements to Foothill and Arrow Boulevards and Sierra Avenue improve the appearance and pedestrian environment while accommodating traffic flows (Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan).

Locate multi-family development in mixed-use centers, preferably where there is nearby access to retail, services, and public transportation (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).

Promote interconnected neighborhoods with appropriate transitions between lower-intensity and higher-intensity land uses (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).

Promote revitalization and redevelopment of downtown and older neighborhoods in the central area of the city (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).

Transform downtown into a vibrant local and regional destination (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).

Promote a land use pattern that provides connections among land uses and a mixture of land uses (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).

Support high-quality development in design standards and in land use decisions (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).

City of Fontana Actions Covered By the EIR
The City of Fontana, as the Lead Agency for future development and improvements within the Project Area, has discretionary authority over the proposed Project that includes, but is not limited to, the following:

General Plan Amendment. Recommendation by the City Planning Commission and approval by the City Council to revise Exhibit 9.2, Hierarchy of Streets, to reflect new roadway classifications for Sierra, Nuevo, and Wheeler and add related text to Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation Element; create and incorporate the WMXU-3 land use category into Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element and associated text, table, and exhibit revisions and change the land use categories of specific parcels within the Project Area; and to make additional text and graphic amendments to Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan and throughout the General Plan for consistency.

Zoning Code Amendment. Recommendation by the City Planning Commission and approval by the City Council to amend Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30, Article III, Form-Based Code, to incorporate six new FBC districts and updated development standards; and amend Article IV, Zoning Districts, Table No. 30-408 to add the new Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use category.

The following approvals would be considered as subsequent actions associated with future development and improvements are proposed within the Project Area:

Design Review/Administrative Site Plan Review. Individual site plans within the Project Area would be subject to review of plans and approval by the City.

Conditional Use Permits/Minor Use Permit. Development of certain uses within the Project Area require approval of a conditional use permit by the City Planning Commission and Minor Use Permit approved by the Director of Planning.

Tentative Parcel or Tract Maps. Individual tentative parcel or tract maps and master plans may also be processed at a future time for smaller parcels with particular development characteristics or needs within the Project Area.

Grading Permits. Future grading for development within the Project Area would be subject to the review of grading plans and issuance of grading permits by the City.

Building Permits. Future construction of structures within the Project Area would be subject to the review of architectural plans and approval of building permits by the City.

Environmental Review and Public Participation
The City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Downtown Core Project to ensure that the City’s decision makers and the public are fully informed about potential significant environmental effects of the Project; to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in the Project through the use of mitigation measures and project design requirements which have been found to be feasible; and to disclose to the public the reasons why the City has initiated the Project in the manner chosen in light of the significant environmental effects which have been identified in the EIR. In order to do this, the City, acting as lead agency under CEQA, undertook the following:

Prepared a Notice of Preparation to provide responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other interested parties with information describing the proposed Project and its potential environmental effects. The Notice of Preparation identified the environmental issues to be analyzed in detail in the EIR as: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology & Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, Land Use & Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Parks & Recreation, Transportation & Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities & Service Systems, Wildfire, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. The Notice of Preparation was sent to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (the “State Clearinghouse”), Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on November 30, 2022, for a public review period ending January 3, 2023; Held a publicly noticed EIR Scoping Meeting on December 14, 2022 using an internet-based virtual platform (Zoom); Mailed a Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on May 9, 2023 to inform recipients that the Draft EIR was available for a 45-day review period beginning on May 10, 2023 and ending on June 26, 2023, and a Planning Commission Meeting was scheduled for June 6, 2023 at 6:00 p.m., to solicit comments on the Draft EIR.

Made the Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR available to the public on the City’s website; Submitted a Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse on May 10, 2023; Published the Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR in the Fontana Herald News, which is the newspaper of general circulation in the area of the Downtown Core Project on July 7, 2023.

Prepared responses to comments on the Draft EIR received during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR, which have been included in the Final EIR; Published a notice on July 7, 2023, in the Fontana Herald News, the newspaper of general circulation in the area of the Downtown Core Project, that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on July 18, 2023, to consider the Downtown Core Project and EIR for recommendation to the City Council; Sent written responses to comments to all public agencies, organizations, and individuals who submitted comments the Draft EIR on July 12, 2023 (three comment letters were received); Published a notice on July 7, 2023, in the Fontana Herald News, the newspaper of general circulation in the area in the area of the Downtown Core Project, that the City Council would hold a public hearing on July 25, 2023, to consider approval of the Downtown Core Project and certification of the EIR; Held a public hearing of the City Council on July 25, 2023, and, after full consideration of all comments, written and oral, certified that the Final EIR had been completed in compliance with CEQA and approved the Shea and Acacia Projects.

All of the documents identified above and all of the documents which are required to be part of the administrative record pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) are on file with the City of Fontana Community Development Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335.

Environmental Impacts and Findings
General Findings
Independent Judgment Finding
Finding: The EIR for the Project reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The EIR was prepared by De Novo Planning Group, an independent, professional consulting firm hired by the City and working under the supervision and direction of the City’s Planning Department staff. The City Council, as the City’s final decision-making body for the Downtown Core Project, received and reviewed the EIR and the comments, written and oral, provided by public agencies and members of the public prior to certifying that the EIR complied with CEQA. The professional qualifications and reputation of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR Consultant by City staff and its consultants, the thorough and independent review of the Draft EIR and Final EIR, including comments and responses, by City staff, and the review and careful consideration of the Final EIR by the City Council, including comments and responses, all conclusively show that the Final EIR is the product of and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as the Lead Agency, and of the City Council as the decision-making body for the Project.

Finding of the Absence of any Need to Recirculate the EIR Finding: The Final EIR does not add significant new information to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The City Council recognizes that the Final EIR incorporates information obtained and produced after the Draft EIR was completed and that the Final EIR contains additions, clarifications, and minor modifications to the Draft EIR. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of the information contained in it and has determined that the new information added to the Final EIR does not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, nor a feasible mitigation measure or an alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Downtown Core Project. No information provided to the City Council indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR.

General Finding on Mitigation Measures
It is the City’s intent to adopt and implement all mitigation measures identified in the EIR which are applicable to the Downtown Core Project, which the City finds to consist of all feasible measures that reduce the Downtown Core Project’s significant or potentially significant impacts. If a measure has, through error, been omitted from the Conditions of Approval 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 Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation measures recommended in the EIR are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact. In each instance, the Conditions of Approval contain the final wording for the mitigation measures.

Impacts Identified in the Initial Study (IS) or EIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Not Requiring Mitigation The City Council hereby finds that the Downtown Core Project would have either no impact or a less than significant impact under the following resource areas and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures:

Aesthetics
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.1-1, page 5.1-8) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area contains a mix of urban development primarily consisting of one- and two-story buildings. Scenic views within the Project Area include views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Jurupa Hills to the south, which are intermittently visible from the Project Area due to intervening development within the Project Area and surrounding area. Major north-south trending streets, including Sierra Avenue, Juniper Avenue, and Mango Avenue, generally function as view corridors to the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills. However, the Project Area does not extend into the San Gabriel Mountains or Jurupa Hills and would not result in direct changes to these scenic resources.

The Downtown Core Project would create and implement a new General Plan land use category and six new FBC districts specific to the Project Area. The FBC districts would provide for a mix of residential, commercial, and civic uses that support increased activity and interaction within the Project Area through interconnected neighborhoods, an enhanced pedestrian environment, and a variety of housing options with access to retail, services, and public transportation.

Implementation of the Downtown Core Project would result in new development and intensification of existing urban uses that may interfere with existing scenic views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills. Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30, Article III, Form-Based Code, would be amended to incorporate the six new FBC districts, including permitted land uses, increased densities and development standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types, general regulations, design and architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space standards specific to each new FBC District. Within the Project Area, maximum building heights would range from 40 feet in the Neighborhood Core, 55 feet in the Multi-Family Core and Mixed-Use Core, and 70 feet within the Civic Core, Gateway Core, and Sierra Core. However, a 35-foot maximum height would be maintained adjacent to Sierra Avenue and a 55-foot maximum height would be maintained adjacent to street corners within the Gateway Core and Sierra Core. The Gateway Core and Sierra Core comprise the areas wherein views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills are primarily provided. Height limitations along Sierra Avenue and at the street corners will assist in maintaining these long-range views from the Project Area. Thus, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Draft EIR, Threshold b, page 8-1) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: There are no scenic highways officially designated by Caltrans within or adjacent to the Project Area, and no roadways within the Project Area are currently eligible for scenic highway designation. No impact would occur in this regard.

In an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.1-2, page 5.1-8 through 5.1-14) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The City qualifies as being within an “Urbanized Area”. The Downtown Core Project would support and guide future infill development and redevelopment within the Project Area by encouraging a mix of new residential development at varying densities that provide for a mix of housing opportunities within the Project Area. The Project would also support and provide for new non-residential development to support existing and future residential uses.

The Project Area is currently designated P-PF (Public Facilities), P-R (Recreational Facilities), R-MFH (Multi-Family High 39.1-50 du/ac), WMXU-1 (Walkable Mixed Use Corridor & Downtown 0.2-2 FAR, 3-39 du/ac), and R-SF (Single Family Residential 2.1-5 du/ac). The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment to introduce the WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use category, which supports a density of 2.1-70 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and 0.2-2.0 commercial FAR, and to apply the new land use category to a majority of the Project Area. The proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies. Future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be guided by the FBC district development standards and the Downtown Fontana Development Guide, which define the desired character and image of development in the Project Area.

The Project proposes to amend Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30, Article III, Form-Based Code, to incorporate six new FBC districts, including permitted land uses, increased densities and development standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types, general regulations, design and architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space standards specific to each new FBC District. Article IV, Zoning Districts, Section 30-405, Section 30-406, and Table No. 30-408 would also be amended to incorporate the Downtown Core and associated land use districts. The Fontana Zoning District Map would be amended to incorporate the Downtown Core. The Downtown Core Project provides for buildout of the Project Area with up to 11,304 dwelling units and 4.3 million square feet of nonresidential development. Individual development projects would be required to comply with the new FBC district development standards as they define the minimum or baseline standards for urban design. The design guidelines further define the desired character and image of development in the Project Area. Development standards, and the design and architectural regulations, address a variety of development regulations including, but not limited to, building facades, roofs, signs, mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, plazas, pedestrian walkways and courtyards, and parking.

The Fontana Development Code provides for project-specific design review of future development proposals within the City, including the Project Area, which would ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and actions; the FBC district development standards; and the Downtown Fontana Development Guide regulations. Overall, the Downtown Core Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.1-3, page 5.1-10 through 5.1-11) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Future development accommodated through implementation of the Downtown Core Project could introduce new sources of light or glare with the potential to adversely affect day or nighttime views. Light and glare impacts could result from new light sources such as street lighting, interior and exterior building lighting (including for safety purposes), vehicle headlights, illuminated signage, traffic signals, and new glare sources such as reflective building materials, roofing materials, and windows. These new sources of light and glare would be most visible from development along adjacent roadways, and to receptors such as residents and traveling motorists. Light pollution can also interfere with nocturnal wildlife, particularly night-hunting or foraging animals, such as owls, rodents, and others, or lead to skyglow, which interferes with the operation of astronomical observatories.

All lighting installed in future development projects as a result of Project implementation would be subject to conformance with the Fontana General Plan and applicable Development Code requirements. Pursuant to Article II of the Development Code, all future land use and development review applications would undergo site plan and architectural review by the decision-making authority on a project-by-project basis prior to approval. Applicable projects would also undergo CEQA review. If necessary, mitigation would be recommended to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in adverse light and glare impacts. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Draft EIR, Threshold a, page 8-1) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area is located within an urbanized area and is currently developed with a mix of residential and non-residential uses. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program classifies the Project Area as Urban and Built-Up Land (California Department of Conservation, 2022). The Project Area does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (California Department of Conservation, 2022). Further, the Project Area and surrounding areas are located in an urbanized area that is already disturbed. Therefore, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. No impact would occur in this regard.

Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract (Draft EIR, Threshold b, page 8-1) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area is located within an urbanized area and is currently developed with a mix of residential and non-residential uses. The Project area is not being used for any agricultural purposes, nor is the site under a Williamson Act contract. Further, there are no properties within the surrounding area under agricultural production. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contact. No impact would occur in this regard.

Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? (Draft EIR, Threshold c, page 8-2) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area is located within the City’s FBC area, and specifically within the Retail, Civic, Station Area, Downtown Gateway, Transitional, Multi-Family, Neighborhood, and Sierra Gateway districts. The Project Area is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or for timberland production. According to the General Plan, no forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production occurs within the City. The Project Area is urbanized and no forest land, timberland, or timberland production areas are located within or adjacent to the Project Area. Thus, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact would occur in this regard.

Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (Draft EIR, Threshold d, page 8-2) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: No forest land is located within the Project Area or surrounding area. The Project Area is developed with residential and non-residential uses within an urbanized area. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land into non-forest use. No impact would occur in this regard.

Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (Draft EIR, Threshold e, page 8-2) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: No farmland or forest land is located within the Project Area or surrounding area. The Project Area is developed with residential and non-residential uses within an urbanized area. Thus, the proposed Project would not result conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur in this regard.

Air Quality
Would the Project result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.2-4, page 5.2-41) Findings: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the use of architectural coatings and solvents. SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) limits the amount of VOCs from architectural coatings and solvents. According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, construction equipment is not a typical source of odors. Odors from the combustion of diesel fuel would be minimized by complying with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) that limits diesel-fueled commercial vehicle idling to five minutes at any given location, which was adopted in 2004. Future development accommodated through implementation of the Downtown Core Project would also comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), which prohibits the emissions of nuisance air contaminants or odorous compounds. Through adherence with mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules and State measures, construction activities and materials would not create objectionable odors. Construction of future development would not be expected to generate nuisance odors at nearby air quality sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts with respect to odors would be less than significant.

According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Downtown Core Project create and implement the new WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use category and six new FBC districts within the Project Area, which would support higher-density residential and commercial development within the Project Area. Potential operational airborne odors could be created commercial uses developed within the Project Area. However, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and SCAQMD’s Rule 402 (Nuisance), which prohibits the emissions of nuisance air contaminants or odorous compounds would reduce potential impacts. The other potential source of odors would be new waste receptacles within the Project Area. The receptacles would be stored in areas and in containers, as required by the City and be emptied on a regular basis, before potentially substantial odors have developed. Consequently, implementation of the Downtown Core Project would not create operational-related objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Biological Resources
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Draft EIR, Threshold b, page 8-2) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area is located within an urbanized area and currently developed with residential and non-residential uses. The Project Area consists primarily of developed and/or disturbed land that has been developed, paved, or landscaped, and existing vegetation consists of primarily ornamental and/or nonnative plant species. There are a limited number of non-contiguous undeveloped parcels within the Project Area consisting of disturbed and/or graded areas, some of which may have revegetated with opportunistic weedy species including non-native annual grasses and weedy forbs. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are located on or adjacent to the Project Area. The City’s General Plan EIR further substantiates that there are no riparian or sensitive habitats known to occur in the Project Area. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.

Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Draft EIR, Threshold c, page 8-3) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, the Project Area does not contain any blue-line streams or wetland habitats. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands.

Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Draft EIR, Threshold d, page 8-3) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area is currently developed and located within an urbanized area. The General Plan EIR identifies wildlife movement as being limited to an east-west orientation along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains north of I-15, outside of the Project Area. There are no wetlands or waters within or surrounding the Project Area. Thus, the Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish. Further, due to the urbanized nature and the lack of quality biological habitat within and immediately surrounding the Project Area, the Project Area does not function as a migratory wildlife corridor and development of the proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of wildlife or impact wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites.

Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.3-2, page 5.3-13) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact.

Facts in Support of Finding: Future development accommodated under the Downtown Core Project would be subject to all applicable federal, State, regional, and local policies and regulations related to the protection of biological resources. Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 28, Article III includes regulations for the preservation and protection of heritage, significant, and/or specimen trees within the City, located on both private and public property. The Municipal Code outlines the definition of a “heritage tree,” “significant tree,” and “specimen tree.” A tree removal permit is required for the removal of any heritage, significant or specimen tree. In the event that a removal permit is issued, such trees removed must be replaced. In addition, the Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to protect and conserve biological resources.

The Downtown Core Project would not modify the City’s Municipal Code or General Plan goals, policies, and actions specific to the protection of biological resources. Site-specific development is not currently proposed; however, future development projects associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be assessed for consistency with local policies and ordinances, including the Municipal Code and General Plan goals, policies, and actions, as appropriate. Proposed removal of any trees within the Project Area would be reviewed in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 28, Article III and would be required to comply with the requirements for removal. Thus, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Draft EIR, Threshold f, page 8-3) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area is urbanized and is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Thus, the Project would not conflict with any of these plans and no impact would occur.

Cultural Resources
Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.4-3, page 5.4-15 to 5.4-16) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Although no conditions exist that suggest human remains are likely to be found in the Project Area, future construction activities could have the potential to disturb or destroy buried Native American human remains as well as other human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 to 7055 describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in PRC Section 5097.98 would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the NAHC and consultation with the individual identified by the NAHC to be the “most likely descendant (MLD).” The MLD would have 48 hours to make recommendations to landowners for the disposition of any Native American human remains and grave goods found. Recommendations would be made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Thus, compliance with Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 to 7055 and PRC Section 5097.98 would ensure that in the event human remains are discovered, the remains would be handled in accordance with applicable laws, and impacts would be less than significant.

Energy
Would the Project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.5-1, page 5.5-9 to 5.5-13) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.5-2, page 5.5-9 to 5.5-13) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, the proposed Project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate State and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.

The City is proposing to create a new focused area in the Downtown Core (Project Area) by creating and implementing a new General Plan land use category and six new FBC districts specific to the Project Area. The Proposed Project would involve amending General Plan Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation, including Exhibit 9.2, Hierarchy of Streets in Fontana, Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan, and Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, including establishing a new General Plan land use category, amending the General Plan Land Use Map to apply the new land use category, and amending the Zoning and Development Code, including the Zoning District Map. The proposed Project, would in part, provide increased residential development opportunities, consistent with the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant received by the City.

Although development of the Project Area is not currently proposed, for purposes of the energy analysis, net new development (i.e., development over existing conditions) is considered as part of the proposed Project. The amount of energy used by future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would directly correlate to the size of the residential and non-residential structures proposed, the energy consumption of appliances, and outdoor lighting. Other major sources of Project energy consumption include fuel used by vehicle trips generated during Project construction and operation, and fuel used by off-road construction vehicles during construction.

Calculated levels of energy use expected for the potential development, based on commonly used modelling software (i.e., CalEEMod v.2020.4.0 and the California Air Resource Board’s EMFAC2021), include:

Electricity and natural gas used by the Project would be used primarily to power on-site buildings. The Project is estimated to consume 1,381,388 therms of natural gas and 68,753 MWh per year of electricity. Project operational natural gas usage would be a 0.42 percent increase above the County’s typical annual electricity consumption, and an approximate 0..25 percent increase above the county’s typical natural gas consumption. These increases are minimal in the context of the County as a whole.

The Project would generate an average of approximately 105,168 net new daily vehicles trips and 662,369 average daily vehicle miles traveled during its operational phase. The Project would generate vehicle trips estimated to use approximately 21,248 gallons of gasoline per day or 7,755,420 gallons of gasoline per year.

Project implementation would also generate on-road vehicle trips during future site-specific construction activities, totaling 1,122,362 gallons of gasoline fuel and 345,005 gallons of diesel fuel.

Off-road construction vehicles would use diesel fuel during the construction phase of site-specific development. Off-road construction vehicles expected to be used during the construction phase include, but are not limited to, cranes, forklifts, generator sets, tractors, excavators, and dozers. Based on the total amount of CO2 emissions expected to be generated, and a CO2 to diesel fuel conversion factor, Project implementation would use up to approximately 941,439 gallons of diesel fuel for off-road construction vehicles during the site preparation and grading phases associated with future development.

The Project contains various land uses, including residential and commercial uses. Under the latest version of the California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2022), effective on January 1, 2023, single-family residential and various commercial uses are required to include on-site solar photovoltaic systems. Therefore, it is anticipated that many of the uses proposed as part of the Project would include on-site solar, including rooftop solar, as required. Overall, it is anticipated that the Project would incorporate renewable energy features which would reduce the Project’s dependence on electricity from the utility grid.

In conclusion, Project implementation would use energy resources for the operation of new residential and non-residential buildings (e.g., electricity and natural gas), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel fuel) generated by the Project (both during project construction and operation), and from off-road construction activities associated with the Project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources. Future development projects associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and would be required to comply with Statewide and local measures regarding energy conservation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards.

The proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, Southern California Edison (SCE) is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the Statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to increase the proportion of renewable energy within its energy portfolio. Additionally, energy-saving regulations, including the latest State Title 24 building energy efficiency standards, would be applicable to future development within the Project Area. Other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard) are improving vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.

As a result, the proposed Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to Project energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiveness of materials by amount and fuel type for each stage of the Project including construction, operations, maintenance, and/or removal. Both SCE, the electricity provider to the site, and Southern California Gas, the natural gas provider to the site, maintain sufficient capacity to serve development associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Future development associated with the Project would be required to comply with all existing energy efficiency standards, and would not result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary of energy resources during Project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Geology and Soils
Would the Project directly or indirectly cause 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? (Draft EIR, Threshold a, page 8-3) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the Project Area. Because there are no known faults located on or trending towards the Project Area, the potential for surface rupture within the Project Area is considered very low. The Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to ground rupture. No impact relative to rupture of a known earthquake fault would occur.

The Project Area is relatively flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. Due to the predominant underlying geologic formations and generally flat topography within the City, the Project Area has a low susceptibility to landslides. There are no earthquake-induced landslide seismic hazard zones mapped within the Project Area. Therefore, the probability of seismically-induced landslides occurring within the Project Area is very low. No impact relative to landslides would occur.

Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.6-1, page 5.6-10) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area, like the rest of Southern California, is situated within a seismically active region. Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking or seismic-related ground failure (i.e., liquefaction).

The Project Area is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. While there are no major active faults within the Project Area, major active faults exist in the vicinity of the Project Area, including the San Andreas Fault Zone, San Jacinto Fault Zone, Sierra Madre Fault Zone, Elsinore Fault Zone, Cucamonga Fault, and Chino Fault. Therefore, the Project Area could experience considerable ground shaking generated by faults located near the City.

Strong ground shaking can result in liquefaction. The Project Area is not located in an area designated as potentially liquefiable by the California Geological Survey. The General Plan EIR and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) do not identify the Project Area as being located within an area that is susceptible to liquefaction.

The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions intended to protect against injury and loss of life, property damage, and other impacts caused by seismic shaking or seismic-related ground failure. Chapter 5 of the Fontana Municipal Code adopts various codes and safety precautions as part of the building code for the City of Fontana, including the Uniform Administrative Code and California Building Code. Future development projects within the Project Area would be required to comply with the provisions of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), which requires development projects to perform geotechnical investigations in accordance with State law, engineer improvements to address potential seismic and ground failure issues, and use earthquake-resistant construction techniques to address potential earthquake loads when constructing buildings and improvements. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, Municipal Code, and other regulations.

Development projects are reviewed to address seismic safety issues and would be required to provide adequate mitigation for existing and potential hazards identified. With the implementation of the policies and actions in the General Plan, as well as applicable State and City codes, potential impacts associated with a seismic event, including seismic ground shaking and liquefaction, would be less than significant.

C. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.6-1, page 5.6-10) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area, like the rest of Southern California, is situated within a seismically active region. Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking or seismic-related ground failure (i.e., liquefaction).

D. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides? (Draft EIR, Threshold a, page 8-4) Finding: No impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area is relatively flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. Due to the predominant underlying geologic formations and generally flat topography within the City, the Project Area has a low susceptibility to landslides. There are no earthquake-induced landslide seismic hazard zones mapped within the Project Area (California Geological Survey, 2022). Therefore, the probability of seismically induced landslides occurring within the Project Area is very low. No impact would occur.

E. Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.6-2, page 5.6-11) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Downtown Core Project would provide for development and improvement projects that would involve some land clearing, mass grading, and other ground-disturbing activities that could temporarily increase soil erosion rates during and shortly after project construction. As identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service web soil survey, the erosion factor K within the Project Area is 0.15, which is considered a low potential for erosion. Further, the Project Area is relatively flat and does not possess site conditions necessarily conducive to soil erosion. Depending upon the location of site-specific development, construction activities, and soil conditions, construction-related erosion could result in the loss of a substantial amount of nonrenewable topsoil and could adversely affect water quality in nearby surface waters. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, Municipal Code, and other regulations. Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX, requires all development activities subject to the City’s NPDES permit to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is required to identify proposed structural BMPs and source and treatment control BMPs to infiltrate and/or adequately treat the projected stormwater and urban runoff from the development site. Additionally, in compliance with NPDES Permit regulations, the State of California requires that any construction activity disturbing one acre or more of soil comply with the Construction General Permit. The permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control stormwater quality degradation due to potential construction-related pollutants. The SWPPP would include project specific BMPs that are designed to control drainage and erosion. With the implementation of the policies and actions in the General Plan, as well as applicable State and City requirements, potential impacts associated with erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

F. Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.6-4, page 5.6-11 to 5.6-12) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: According to the General Plan EIR, given the relatively stable geology and soils within the City, it is unlikely that there would be a potential risk that represents a significant change or increase from existing conditions.

Due to the predominant underlying geologic formations and generally flat topography within the City, including the Project Area, future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would not occur on geologic units or soils with the potential for on- or off-site landslides.

The potential for lateral spreading is present where open banks and unsupported cut slopes provide a free face (unsupported vertical slope face). Ground shaking, especially when inducing liquefaction, may cause lateral spreading toward unsupported slopes. Due to the predominant underlying geologic formations and generally flat topography within the City, the Project Area has a low susceptibility to lateral spreading.

Soils with high shrink-swell potential can be particularly susceptible to subsidence during a loss of soil moisture. The Project Area is underlain by Tujunga soils, which have low shrink-swell potential. The Project Area is underlain by the Chino Groundwater Basin, an adjudicated basin managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. Management of the Chino Groundwater Basin reduces the likelihood of largescale extraction of groundwater that could cause subsidence.

The Project Area is not located within a mapped liquefaction zone, as delineated by the California Geological Survey.

Collapsible soils occur predominantly at the base of mountain ranges, where Holocene-age alluvial fan and wash sediments have been deposited during rapid run-off events. Differential settlement of structures typically occurs when heavily irrigated landscape areas are near a building foundation. Examples of common problems associated with collapsible soils include tilting floors, cracking or separation in structures, sagging floors, and nonfunctional windows and doors. Existing alluvium within the Project Area may be susceptible to collapse and excessive settlements, which could create the risk of hydroconsolidation if these soils were exposed to excessive moisture.

In conclusion, the Project Area has a low potential for landslide, lateral spreading, and liquefaction. Additionally, subsidence is considered low due to the soils underlaying the Project Area and management of the groundwater basin. Collapsible soils and differential settlement within the Project Area would typically be associated with inadequate drainage resulting in damage to the building foundation. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered within the Project Area, each project would be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, the General Plan policies and actions, the Municipal Code, and other regulations. Future development and improvement projects would be required to prepare site-specific geotechnical studies to identify geologic and soil conditions specific to the site and provide design recommendations consistent with the requirements of State and City codes. Implementation of CBSC and the Municipal Code requirements related to seismic and geologic conditions and the General Plan policies and actions would ensure that future development projects are evaluated for potential geologic and seismic risks and that potential risks are adequately addressed. Compliance with applicable State and City regulations would reduce potential impacts associated with unstable geologic and soil conditions to less than significant.

G. Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.6-5, page 5.6-13) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Expansive soil properties can cause substantial damage to building foundations, piles, pavements, underground utilities, and/or other improvements. Structural damage, such as warping and cracking of improvements, and rupture of underground utility lines, may occur if the expansive potential of soils is not considered during the design and construction of all improvements. As the linear extensibility (i.e., shrink-swell potential or expansive potential) of the soils within the Project Area is 1.5 percent, which is considered low, the Project Area has low expansive soils.

As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, General Plan policies and actions, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations. As required by the CBSC, a site-specific geotechnical investigation would identify the potential for damage related to expansive soils and non-uniformly compacted fill and engineered fill. If a risk is identified, design criteria and specification options may include removal of the problematic soils, and replacement, as needed, with properly conditioned and compacted fill material that is designed to withstand the forces exerted during the expected shrink-swell cycles and settlements. Design criteria and specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical investigation would ensure impacts from problematic soils are minimized. No significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated to occur associated with expansive soils. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

H. Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Draft EIR, Threshold e, page 8-4) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Wastewater treatment services in the Project Area are provided by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Existing wastewater infrastructure exists throughout the Project Area, which is underlain by sanitary sewer pipes owned by the City. The Fontana Municipal Code would require future development projects within the Project Area to connect to the public sewer system. Future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would not utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. No impact would occur.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.8-4, page 5.8-16) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: There are no hazardous materials release sites located in the City of Fontana on the Cortese List. Future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be evaluated at the project-level to determine whether any development sites are listed on a hazardous materials site. Any development activities occurring on documented hazardous materials sites would be required to undergo remediation and cleanup under the supervision of the DTSC and/or the Santa Ana RWQCB prior to construction. The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce threats to public health and safety due to hazards and hazardous materials. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations would reduce potential impacts involving potential hazardous materials sites.

B. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (Draft EIR, Threshold e, page 8-4) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area in not located within an airport land use plan, nor is the Project Area located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest public airports are the Ontario International Airport, located approximately eight miles southwest of the Project Area, and the Flabob Airport, located approximately seven miles south of the Project Area. The Project Area is not located within an airport influence area within the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or any other airport land use plan. Thus, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project Area.

C. Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.8-5, page 5.8-16 to 5.8-17) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Downtown Core Project would provide for increased residential and non-residential uses within the Project Area. Additionally, the Project proposes roadway modifications that would ultimately close a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic. This would occur in two phases. Phase I (interim condition) would reduce the number of travel lanes on Sierra Avenue from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction, convert Wheeler Avenue to a one-way northbound street, and convert Nuevo Avenue to a one-way southbound street. Phase II (the ultimate condition) would close Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way to vehicular traffic, diverting traffic to parallel streets.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Future development within the Downtown Core 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 ultimate closure of a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic would not impair or interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Closure of a portion of Sierra Avenue would also involve the conversion of Wheeler Avenue to a one-way northbound street, and Nuevo Avenue to a one-way southbound street, providing continued emergency access within the area. Further, the proposed closure and ultimate design of Sierra Avenue would be reviewed by the FFPD to ensure that adequate emergency access would be maintained within the area.

The Project does not include any site-specific development. However, future development would be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with applicable standards, including vehicular access to ensure that adequate emergency access and evacuation would be maintained. The City has adopted the current edition of the California Fire Code and access for emergency vehicles would be required to be incorporated into project design. Construction activities that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures.

Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction of future developments within the Project Area. As part of the site review process, future development projects would be reviewed for adequate infrastructure and access as well as consistency with adopted emergency and evacuation plans in order to ensure adequate emergency response and emergency evacuation would not be impaired. Therefore, impacts associated with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than significant.

D. Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Draft EIR, Threshold g, page 8-4) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: According to the CALFIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, the Project Area is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The City’s General Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan do not identify the Project Area as being within an area with high fire hazard potential, and the Project Area is not located within the City’s Fire Hazard Overlay District. Due to the urbanized nature of the area and the provision of nearby firefighting protection services, implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur in this regard.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.9-1, page 5.9-11 to 5.9-12) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Downtown Core Project does not propose site-specific development projects; however, it does anticipate future development and redevelopment would occur within the Project Area. Future development may involve grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and activities associated with future construction activities that could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities also could result in soil compaction and wind erosion impacts that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas.

To comply with NPDES Permit regulations, the State of California requires that any construction activity disturbing one acre or more of soil comply with the Construction General Permit. The permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control stormwater quality degradation due to potential construction-related pollutants. The Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX requires construction dischargers to comply with the construction activity storm water permit, including development and implementation of a SWPPP; implementation of BMPs as necessary; and preparation or implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) or equivalent as required by the City. The RWQCB would require a project-specific SWPPP to be prepared for each future project that disturbs one acre or larger. The SWPPPs would include project-specific BMPs that are designed to control drainage and erosion. Additionally, Chapter 9, Article III adopts the County’s dust control measures to minimize water quality-related impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor would it otherwise substantially degrade surface water or groundwater quality.

The Project Area is primarily urbanized with limited pervious areas anticipated for development. The Downtown Core Project does not propose site-specific development. Future development activities have the potential to increase impervious areas especially associated with the development of currently undeveloped sites, resulting in increased runoff when compared to existing site conditions. Stormwater runoff may include pollutants such as sediments, nutrients, pesticides, trash, oil and grease, and metals. The San Bernardino County NPDES MS4 Permit and Fontana Municipal Code regulate stormwater discharges within the Project Area, and require the use of BMPs and other control measures to reduce the discharge of pollutants to receiving water bodies.

Municipal Code Chapter 28, Article IV, Section 28-111 relates to the integration of stormwater BMPs into landscape and grading design plans to minimize runoff and to increase on-site rainwater retention and infiltration. Existing regulatory requirements that manage water quality include requirements to obtain approval from the RWQCB for NPDES permits, other discharge permits, WQMPs, SWPPPs, and to implement BMPs. Federal, State and local regulations would require individual projects to provide the on-site storm drain infrastructure, including water quality measures, to ensure the stormwater runoff associated with the proposed development would be captured and treated on-site, protecting water quality both on- and off-site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.9-2, page 5.9-13) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area is underlain by the Upper Santa Ana Basin, Chino Subbasin. The Chino Subbasin is an adjudicated basin managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. Potable water in the Project Area is provided by the Fontana Water Company (FWC). According to the FWC 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), water supply sources include local groundwater and local and imported surface water. Local groundwater basins include: Chino Basin, an adjudicated basin and the primary groundwater source for FWC; Rialto-Colton Basin, an adjudicated basin; Lytle Basin, an adjudicated basin; and No Man’s Land Basin, which is managed through Rialto-Colton Basin.

The Downtown Core Project anticipates increased development of residential and non-residential uses within the Project Area when compared to existing conditions. Increased development would result in increased demand on water supplies. FWC has confirmed that it is able to provide water utility service to meet the water supply needs anticipated by the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies resulting from increased demand for water associated with future development anticipated by the Downtown Core Project.

The Project Area is primarily urbanized with limited pervious areas anticipated for development. Although future development activities have the potential to increase impervious areas, especially associated with the development of currently undeveloped sites, these areas are limited and do not provide for substantial groundwater recharge within the Project Area. The majority of development activities associated with implementation of the Project would consist of infill and redevelopment on currently urbanized sites. Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Further, the Basin is managed by an adjudication and subject to the Judgment managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. The Optimum Basin Management Program includes programs for the long-term management of the Basin. The primary means of ensuring long-term groundwater level maintenance includes careful monitoring to ensure groundwater levels are managed within a safe basin operating range and implementation of water conservation programs. Given that future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would not appreciably add to the volume of imperious surfaces in the Project Area, this potential impact would be less than significant.

Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (Draft EIR, Impact 5.9-3, page 5.9-14 to 5.9-15) i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? iii. Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Erosion or siltation is known to occur during construction and/or during the post-construction phase if erosion control measures are not used. Erosion or siltation can also occur in the post-construction phase if runoff is not captured and conveyed appropriately. Future development projects would be subject to NPDES permit requirements that address the control of erosion and siltation. This includes the Construction General Permit, which requires a SWPPP and the effective implementation of erosion control measures. The Santa Ana RWQCB conducts inspections and enforces the Construction General Permit at construction sites. The Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX requires construction dischargers to comply with the construction activity storm water permit, including development and implementation of a SWPPP; implement BMPs as necessary; and prepare or implement a WQMP or equivalent as required by the City. The SWPPPs would include project-specific BMPs that are designed to control drainage and erosion. Chapter 9, Article III adopts the County’s dust control measures to minimize water quality-related impacts.

Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would also be subject to the post-construction requirements of the MS4 permit. The MS4 Permit requires individual priority projects to prepare and implement a WQMP that may include source control BMPs, mitigation measures, and treatment control BMPs. Discharges that are not authorized by a NPDES permit must be permitted by other means by the Santa Ana RWQCB or SWRCB (e.g., filing a Report of Waste Discharge, Water Quality Certification). Through compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, erosion/siltation impacts resulting from Project implementation would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Surface Runoff and Water Quality: The San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) and the City operate and maintain a network of flood control facilities within the Project Area. Flooding can occur from an increase in impervious surfaces, which increases the volume and speed of runoff. When the volume and speed of runoff are increased, drainage facilities may be unable to handle the flows and capacity could be exceeded. The Project Area is primarily developed, with limited areas of pervious surfaces. Although future development activities have the potential to slightly increase impervious areas within the Project Area, the majority of development activities associated with implementation of the Project would consist of infill and redevelopment on currently urbanized sites. Federal, State and local regulations would require individual projects to provide the on-site storm drain infrastructure and any off-site infrastructure improvements to ensure stormwater runoff associated with the proposed development would be adequately captured and conveyed into the City’s storm drain system and SBCFCD facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff which would result in flooding on- or offsite or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 28, Article IV, Section 28-111 addresses the integration of stormwater BMPs into landscape and grading design plans to minimize runoff and to increase on-site rainwater retention and infiltration. Existing regulatory requirements that manage water quality include requirements to obtain approval from the RWQCB for NPDES permits, other discharge permits, WQMPs, SWPPPs, and to implement BMPs. Through implementation of the General Plan policies and actions, and existing federal, State, and local regulations discussed above, future development within the Project Area would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and impacts would be less than significant.

4. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area is not located within close proximity to any streams or rivers and would not result in the alteration of the course of a river or stream. The Project Area is located in an urban area and is developed with residential and non-residential uses. Additionally, according to the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Map, the Project Area is not located within a flood hazard zone. As such, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impacts associated with impeding or redirecting flood flows would occur.

In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Draft EIR, Threshold d, page 8-5) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project area is not located within a flood hazard zone. As such, flood-related hazards are not anticipated at the Project Area. Tsunamis are sea waves that are generated in response to large-magnitude earthquakes, which can result in coastal flooding. Seiches are the oscillation of large bodies of standing water, such as lakes, that can occur in response to ground shaking. The Project Area is approximately 43 miles inland of the Pacific Ocean. Regional dams do not have the potential to inundate the Project Area according to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Division of Safety of Dams Dam Breach Inundation Maps. As a result, tsunamis and seiches do not pose hazards due to the Project Area’s inland location and lack of nearby bodies of standing water. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no impacts associated with the release of pollutants due to project inundation.

Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.9-4, page 5.9-15 to 5.9-16) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The local water quality control plan (Basin Plan) in the Project Area is maintained by the Santa Ana RWQCB. The Basin Plan specifies the State’s water quality standards (i.e., beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and antidegradation policy) and serves as the basis for the RWQCB’s regulatory programs. When permittees and projects comply with the provisions of applicable NPDES permits and water quality permitting, they are consistent with the Basin Plan. Through compliance and implementation of existing regulations, implementation of the Downtown Core Project would not conflict with or obstruct a water quality control plan. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

The Project Area is located entirely within the Chino Subbasin. In compliance with the Chino Basin Judgment, the Chino Basin Watermaster submits an annual report to the RWQCB. The Basin was designated a very low priority basin in DWR’s 2019 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Basin Prioritization report. SGMA exempts adjudicated groundwater basins from the requirements of designating a Groundwater Sustainability Agency and developing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The Judgment and Optimum Basin Management Program together provide for the legal and practical means of ensuring that the waters of the Basin are put to maximum beneficial use. The Downtown Core Project does not propose site-specific development. New development and redevelopment projects associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be subject to the Judgment and Optimum Basin Management Program. Therefore, the Downtown Core Project would not conflict with implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Land Use and Planning
Would the Project physically divide an established community? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.10-1, page 5.10-8) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The goal of the Downtown Core Project is to create a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use area with high quality housing and retail options in the Downtown Core Project Area. The Project would accomplish this goal by creating and implementing a new Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core (WMXU-3) General Plan land use category and six new FBC districts specific to the Project Area. The new land use category and FBC districts would allow for cohesive infill development in the Downtown Core. The Project would amend the Development Code to incorporate the six new FBC districts, including permitted land uses, increased densities and development standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types, general regulations, design and architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space standards specific to each new FBC District. Further, the City is developing the Downtown Fontana Development Guide to provide recommended changes to the FBC, objective development standards, expedited review guidelines, and development impact fee incentives. These standards and guidelines would ensure new development and redevelopment projects would be designed to complement the character of the existing community and neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing development and new development.

The Project Area planned circulation would provide a more “walkable” environment, designed to incorporate traffic calming measures to reduce traffic speeds, enhance pedestrian safety, and promote walkability of the area, specifically along Sierra Avenue. To enhance the pedestrian experience and promote walkability, the Project proposes to ultimately close a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic. The Project does not include any new areas designated for new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities. Overall, the proposed Downtown Core Project would provide new residential development opportunities and supportive commercial development to support the vision for development consistent with the goals and vision of the Downtown Area Plan. Implementation of the Downtown Fontana Development Guide would further support integration of mixed-use development, infill housing, infrastructure improvements, interconnections and placemaking to further connect uses within the Project Area. Thus, the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community and impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.10-1, page 5.10-8) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) reviews environmental documents for regionally significant projects for their consistency with the adopted 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). SCAG refers to CEQA Guidelines Section 15206, Projects of Statewide, Regional or Areawide Significance, in determining whether a project meets the criteria to be deemed regionally significant.

SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS provides a framework for regional land use and transportation policy within the SCAG region through the horizon year of 2045. SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS goals and policies were adopted to help focus future investments on the best-performing projects and strategies to preserve, maintain and optimize the performance of the existing transportation system. The goals of Connect SoCal fall into four core categories: economy, mobility, environment and healthy/complete communities. Refer to Table 5.7-4 in the Draft EIR for an analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the relevant SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS goals adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Downtown Core Project would be consistent with SCAG’s regional planning efforts and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

The Project proposes to amend General Plan Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, Table 15.25 and Exhibit 15.10 to include the addition of a new WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core (0.2-2.0 Commercial FAR, 2.1-70 du/ac) land use category. Text modifications would also occur within Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, to incorporate the WMXU-3 land use category. The General Plan Land Use Map would be amended to apply the WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core (0.2-2.0 Commercial FAR, 2.1-70 du/ac) land use category within the Project Area. Implementation of the WMXU-2 land use category would allow for increased residential densities to encourage a variety of housing development at varying income levels within the Project Area. Project implementation would further the goals, policies, and actions of the Downtown Area Plan by providing a stronger residential presence, more support for mixed-uses, streamlined development process, and development incentives exclusive to the Project Area.

The Project also proposes to amend General Plan Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation, including Exhibit 9.2, Hierarchy of Streets in Fontana, to modify the roadway functional class for Nuevo Avenue and Wheeler Avenue and to remove the roadway functional class for Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way; related text modifications would also occur for consistency. Modifications to text and graphics would occur within General Plan Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan, to be consistent with the proposed modifications to Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation, and Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design.

Refer to Table 5.10-1 in the Draft EIR for an analysis of the Project’s consistency with the relevant Fontana Forward General Plan policies and actions adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Approval of the proposed amendments to the General Plan would provide consistency with the General Plan.

The Project proposes amendments to the Development Code, Article III, Form-Based Code, to incorporate six new FBC districts, including permitted land uses, increased densities and development standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types, general regulations, design and architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space standards specific to each new FBC District. Article IV, Zoning Districts, Section 30-405, Section 30-406, and Table No. 30-408 would also be amended to incorporate the Downtown Core and associated land use districts. The Fontana Zoning District Map would be amended to incorporate the Downtown Core.

If the Downtown Core Project is approved, subsequent development and infrastructure projects would be required to be consistent with the proposed FBC districts applicable to the specific development site, including permitted land uses, densities and development standards, building types, frontage types, general regulations, design and architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space standards specific to each new FBC District. Future development projects would be reviewed to determine consistency with the City’s Development Code. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in conflicts with the City of Fontana Municipal Code and impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Mineral Resources
Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? (Draft EIR, Threshold a, page 8-5) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? (Draft EIR, Threshold b, page 8-5) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The State Mining and Geology Board establishes Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs) to designate lands that contain mineral deposits. The Project Area is designated as MRZ-2 by the California Geological Survey, indicating that available geologic information indicates that significant mineral deposits area. However, there are no active mines located within the Project Area. The Fontana General Plan does not designate mineral resources zones within the City or Project Area. The Project Area is currently developed with residential and non-residential uses and does not contain mineral resource recovery operations. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource considered of value to the region. No impact would occur in this regard.

Noise
For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Draft EIR, Threshold c, page 8-6) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area in not located within an airport land use plan, nor is the Project Area located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest public airports are the Ontario International Airport, located approximately eight miles southwest of the Project Area, and the Flabob Airport, located approximately seven miles south of the Project Area. The Project Area is not located within an airport influence area within the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or any other airport land use plan. Thus, the Project would not result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project Area.

Population and Housing
Would the Project 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)? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.12-1, page 5.12-9 to 5.12-10) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The City currently has 57,483 dwelling units, 212,809 residents, and 55,448 jobs. The proposed Project accommodates future growth in the Project Area by creating and implementing a new land use category and six new FBC districts. Project implementation could yield a net change over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses. This new growth may increase the City’s population by approximately 33,731 residents (based on the 2022 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 3.79 persons per household). Implementation of the proposed Project would also provide additional employment opportunities for approximately 6,852 employees.

Given the historical and current population, housing, and employment trends, growth in the City, as well as the entire state, is inevitable. The primary factors that account for population growth are natural increase and net migration. Other factors that affect growth include the cost of housing, the location of jobs, the economy, the climate, and transportation. As discussed above, the Inland Empire region, including San Bernardino County, has been one of the fastest-growing regions in Southern California over the past two decades. This growth has been driven in part by the relative affordability and availability of land in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, making it an attractive place to build new housing. While these factors would likely result in growth in the City, including the Project Area, growth would continue to occur based primarily on the demand of the housing market and demand for new non-residential uses. The Project Area is an urbanized area and existing development is served by existing roads, infrastructure, and public services. Further, the area surrounding the Project Area is developed. There is the potential for infrastructure improvements within and surrounding the Project Area associated with site-specific development and overall development growth; however, the Project would not require the extension of roads or other infrastructure into an area that is not already served.

Potential impacts associated with substantial unplanned population growth in an area are also assessed based on a project’s consistency with adopted plans that have addressed growth management from a local and regional standpoint. The General Plan EIR anticipates the General Plan to accommodate 70,560 households, a population of 315,852, and total employment of 99,129 throughout the planning horizon. More specifically, the focus for growth in the General Plan is in the Downtown Core and “Livable Corridors” as described in General Plan Chapter 14 – Downtown Area Plan. Thus, population growth within the Downtown Core Project has been anticipated by the General Plan. The current General Plan would allow for a Project Area population of 36,077 persons based on the residential development potential of 9,519 units and 3.79 persons per household. In comparison, the proposed Project would allow for a Project Area population of 42,842 persons based on the residential development potential of 11,304 units. Although the proposed Project would provide for increased population growth within the Project Area when compared to the current General Plan, the proposed Project is intended to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan and accommodate the City’s fair share of statewide housing needs, which are allocated by SCAG, based on regional numbers provided by the HCD on a regular basis (every five to eight years). The City of Fontana 2021-2029 Housing Element was adopted February 8, 2022 and accommodates the City’s share of the regional housing need for the 2021-2029 RHNA period of 17,519 units. The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element identifies the existing Project Area, as accommodating a portion of City’s Low-, Very-Low-, and Above-Moderate-income RHNA allocation. The Project is anticipated to yield an additional 8,900 dwelling units, 33,731 residents, and 6,852 employees over existing conditions. The population and employment growth anticipated as a result of Project implementation is within the overall City’s growth projections of the Fontana Forward General Plan and SCAG’s RHNA allocation. Thus, the Project would be within the population projections anticipated and planned for by the City’s General Plan and would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area.

Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.12-2, page 5.12-10) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area contains a mix of existing on-site development, including approximately 1.3 million square feet of non-residential uses and 2,020 dwelling units. The Project does not propose the removal of any existing housing within the Project Area. The proposed Project would accommodate a mix of new residential and non-residential development in more dense and sustainable patterns. The Project would create and implement the new WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use category and six new FBC districts within the Project Area, which would support higher-density residential and mixed-use development within the Project Area. As most of the new development would occur through infill and new mixed-use development on underdeveloped parcels, it is not anticipated that substantial numbers of housing or people would be displaced. Although the Project Area contains existing residential uses, the development in these areas is anticipated to remain or redevelop gradually with residential and mixed-use residential uses at higher densities. Future development projects may propose the removal of some existing housing in order to accommodate new development. However, Project implementation is projected to increase the overall number of dwelling units in the Project Area by approximately 8,900 units over existing conditions, providing additional housing to serve the diverse needs of the community at various socioeconomic levels. Thus, the proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere and impacts would be less than significant.

Public Services and Recreation
Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.13-1, page 5.13-8 to 5.13-9) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Development accommodated through implementation of the proposed Project would result in additional residential and non-residential uses in the Project Area. Based on the anticipated growth, Project implementation could yield a net change over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses.

Future development may result in the need for additional FFPD resources (i.e., additional staffing, equipment, expanded/new facilities). At this time, it is unknown whether FFPD would need to expand or construct new facilities to meet the demand of future development in the Project Area. Future development is assumed to occur over time; thus, any increase in demand for fire protection services would occur gradually as additional development and associated population growth is added to the Project Area. FFPD would continue to regularly monitor fire department resources to ensure that adequate facilities, staffing, and equipment are available to serve existing and future development and population increases. Further, as development occurs, a proportional increase in property tax, charges for FFPD services, and other funding sources would increase and offset impacts of new development on FFPD’s existing resources in the City and Project Area. Fontana Municipal Code Section 11-2, requires any new development or improvement of real property within the City to pay certain fees for capital improvements necessary to provide fire protection services.

Additionally, new development that could occur under the proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable California Fire Code requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and hydrants. Individual project development plans would be reviewed by FFPD to determine specific fire requirements (e.g., fire flow capacities, emergency access, fuel modification plans) applicable to the specific development and to ensure compliance with these requirements. The Fontana General Plan also includes goals, policies, and actions to ensure that fire protection and emergency services are provided in a timely fashion, are adequately funded, and that new development funds its fair share of services.

As previously stated, new fire facilities would potentially be needed to serve growth accommodated through Project implementation. The environmental effect of providing fire protection services is associated with the physical impacts of providing new and expanded facilities. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded facilities cannot be determined at this time, as the Project does not propose or authorize development, nor does it designate specific sites for new or expanded public facilities. However, the facilities would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the Project. Any future development would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of fire protection services are less than significant.

Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Police Protection? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.13-2, page 5.13-9 to 5.13-10) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Development accommodated through implementation of the proposed Project would result in additional residential and non-residential uses in the Project Area, which would increase demand for police protection services provided by FPD. Based on the anticipated growth, Project implementation could yield a net change over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses.

Additional facilities, personnel, and equipment may be required to maintain adequate levels of police protection within the City and Project Area. Development accommodated through Project implementation is expected to occur gradually over time; thus, any increase in demand for police protection services would similarly occur gradually as additional development and associated population growth is added to the Project Area, which also depends on the economic market demands. As individual projects are proposed within the Project Area, FPD service levels and staffing requirements would be evaluated on an annual basis to determine if additional staffing and/or facilities would be required. Further, as development occurs, a proportional increase in property tax, charges for FPD services, and other funding sources would increase and offset impacts of new development on FPD’s existing resources in the City and Project Area. Fontana Municipal Code Section 5-8 provides for police capital facilities fees to be paid by the owners of all new or expanded development of real property in the City. The Fontana General Plan also includes goals, policies, and actions to ensure that police protection services are provided in a timely fashion, are adequately funded, and that new development funds its fair share of services.

The environmental effect of providing police protection services is associated with the physical impacts of providing new and expanded facilities. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded facilities cannot be determined at this time, as the Project does not propose or authorize development, nor does it designate specific sites for new or expanded public facilities. If new police facilities are needed to serve growth associated with future development, the facilities would most likely be provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the Project. Any future development would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of police protection services are less than significant.

Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: School Services? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.13-3, page 5.13-10 to 5.13-12) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Development accommodated under the Project would result in additional residential uses with the potential of school-aged children. Based on the anticipated growth, Project implementation could yield a net change over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units.

Implementation of the Project would lead to new population growth within the Project Area, which would increase the demand for schools and school facilities in the City. The Project Area is primarily served by the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD), which serves students grades K-12. The FUSD operates 46 schools, including 30 elementary schools; seven middle schools; five high schools and two continuation high schools; one adult school; and two online schools. Schools that serve the Project Area include: Randall Pepper Elementary School; Palmetto Elementary School; Date Elementary School; South Tamarind Elementary School; Oleander Elementary School; Juniper Elementary School; Fontana Middle School; Truman Middle School; Fontana High School; and Jurupa Hills High School.

School districts typically use student generation factors to determine the potential number of students that would be generated by the amount of residential development in order to accurately anticipate the needs for new/expanded facilities. Based on FUSD’s student generation rates, residential development accommodated under the proposed Project would generate approximately 3,482 students (1,695 elementary school students, 627 middle school students, and 1,160 high school students). FUSD does not currently have excess capacity at the elementary or middle school levels, or have excess capacity overall. The high schools have an excess capacity of 518 seats, but that capacity is not sufficient for future growth associated with buildout of the Project. However, the projected student generation assumes full buildout of the Project Area, which would occur over time based on market conditions. Based on the conservative assumption that buildout of the Project Area would occur as proposed, and all 8,900 residential units would attend schools within the FUSD, FUSD would not have capacity to adequately accommodate the increase in student population. Therefore, new facilities would need to be created, or existing facilities would need to be expanded, to accommodate for future population growth. As mentioned above, there is already a shortage of permanent capacity at existing FUSD facilities which necessitate the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities.

The exact location of future development and associated student generation is currently unknown. However, future development projected within the Project is anticipated to occur gradually and would be largely based on market demand. Thus, any increase in demand for school services would occur gradually as additional development occurs in the Project Area. School districts assess development impact fees against residential and non-residential development to mitigate impacts resulting from the increase in demand for school related services. Pursuant to SB 50, payment of fees to the applicable school district is considered full mitigation for project impacts, including impacts related to the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives for schools. Therefore, individual development projects accommodated under the proposed Project would be required to pay the statutory fees, so that school facilities can be constructed/expanded, if necessary, at the nearest sites to accommodate the impact of project-generated students, reducing impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article IX establishes a method pursuant to Government Code Section 65970 et seq., whereby a school district which operates an elementary or high school may finance interim school facilities if conditions of overcrowding exist, and Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code), Article V, Division 2, Development Policies, requires that all residential development projects must have proof that adequate school facilities are or will be available to accommodate the students generated by the project in accordance with State law. The Fontana General Plan also includes goals, policies, and actions to ensure that public facilities, including schools, are provided in a timely fashion, are adequately funded, and that new development funds its fair share of services.

The environmental effect of providing school services is associated with the physical impacts of providing new and expanded facilities. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded facilities cannot be determined at this time, as the Project does not propose or authorize development of new or expanded school facilities. If the school districts serving the Project Area determine that new school facilities are needed to serve growth associated with future development anticipated by the Project, the schools would most likely be provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the Project. Any future development under the Project would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code, and development of school facilities would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of schools are less than significant.

Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Libraries & Other Facilities? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.13-4, page 5.13-12 to 5.13-13) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Development accommodated under the proposed Project would result in additional residents and businesses in the City, which could increase the demand for public services, including library services. Library services in Fontana are provided by the San Bernardino County Library System, which operates the Fontana Lewis Library & Technology Center at 8437 Sierra Avenue and the Kaiser Branch Library at 11155 Almond Avenue.

Future development accommodated by the Project may result in the need for additional library resources (i.e., additional staffing, equipment, expanded/new facilities) in the City. At this time, it is unknown whether the San Bernardino County Library System would need to expand or construct new facilities to meet the demand of future development in the Project Area. Future development is assumed to occur over time; thus, any increase in demand for library services would occur gradually as additional development and associated population growth is added to the Project Area. Fontana Municipal Code Section 5-9 provides for library capital facilities fees to be paid by the owners of all new or expanded development of real property in the City.

The environmental effect of providing library services is associated with the physical impacts of providing new and expanded facilities. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded library facilities cannot be accurately determined at this time. However, the proposed Project does assume some development of public facilities uses could occur within the Civic Core district; the impacts of which have been addressed within this Draft EIR. Any future development of library facilities or other public facilities to serve demand associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of other facilities, including library services, are less than significant.

E. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Parks? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.13-4, page 5.13-13 to 5.13-15) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.13-4, page 5.13-13 to 5.13-15) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.13-4, page 5.13-13 to 5.13-15) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Development accommodated through implementation of the proposed Project would result in additional residential and non-residential uses in the Project Area, which would increase demand for parks and recreational facilities. Based on the anticipated growth, Project implementation could yield a net change over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses. An additional 33,731 people are expected to be added to the population as a result of Project implementation. These new residents are expected to use park and recreational facilities, and this additional use may result in greater demands on parks and recreational facilities in the City such that deterioration of these facilities could occur or be accelerated. The additional demand on existing parks and recreational facilities would increase the need for maintenance and improvements. These improvements could have environmental impacts, although the exact impacts cannot be determined at this time since the potential improvements are currently unknown.

According to Fontana General Plan, there are approximately 1,196.3 acres of land in the City for park and recreation use. As noted in the Fontana General Plan, the City also counts 25 percent of the school lands available through joint use agreements with Fontana Unified School District and the Colton Joint Unified School District as usable recreation areas, resulting in an additional 163 acres. Therefore, the City has approximately 1,359.3 acres of park and recreation land.

The provision of new parks and recreation facilities would reduce the potential for adverse impacts and physical deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities, by providing additional facilities to accommodate the demand for parks and recreation facilities. These new facilities would be provided at a pace and in locations appropriate to serve new development, as required to maintain the City adopted standard for park space acreage at five acres for every 1,000 residents. Based anticipated growth, if the Project is approved, the City would require approximately 1,232.7 acres of parkland dedication to meet the City’s standard of five acres per 1,000 people.

Development under the Project could indirectly lead to the construction of new parks and recreation facilities to serve new growth and to meet existing parks and recreation needs. The Project does not specifically propose any development projects, including parks. As a result, site-specific physical impacts of future park development and construction cannot be determined until future projects are brought forward for review. As future parks and recreation projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations. Parks and recreation projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

Although implementation of the proposed Project would cause an incremental increase in demand for parks in the future, this increase would be further reduced to a less than significant level by the provision of public parkland and private on-site recreational amenities and through the payment of park fees, as established in the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 21, Article IV, which specifies the requirements that must be met by new development in order to comply with the requirements of Government Code Sections 66477 et seq. and 66000 et seq. for the provision of necessary park and recreational facilities for the City. Compliance with the Municipal Code would ensure parks and recreational facilities would not be overused to the point of substantial deterioration.

It is anticipated that any new parks or recreational facilities that may be constructed in the future would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the parks and recreational facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the Project. Any future development under the Project would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational facilities associated with implementation of the Project would be less than significant.

Transportation
Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.15-1, page 5.15-13 to 5.15-14) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: A conflict could occur if the proposed Project would preclude the ability of Fontana to implement its goals or policies. For the purpose of this analysis, the Project could result in a significant impact if it results in a conflict with any adopted City of Fontana programs, plans, ordinances, and policies.

The Project proposes to modify the existing circulation within the Project Area specific to Nuevo Avenue, Wheeler Avenue, and Sierra Avenue. General Plan Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation, Exhibit 9.2, Hierarchy of Streets in Fontana, would be amended to modify the roadway functional class for Nuevo Avenue and Wheeler Avenue and to remove the roadway functional class for Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way. The proposed street closure and associated pedestrian improvements would help to implement several City policies, as noted below. A local transportation analysis is being prepared to evaluate the performance of the circulation system so that intersections and roadways are designed to accommodate future traffic volumes.

The City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP) describes the related policies necessary to ensure that pedestrian and bicycle facilities are safe and effective for Fontana residents, employees and visitors. Using the ATP as a guide, significant impacts to these facilities would occur when a plan or project:
creates a hazardous condition that currently does not exist for pedestrians and bicyclists, or otherwise interferes with pedestrian accessibility; or conflicts with an existing or planned pedestrian or bicycle facility; or conflicts with policies related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities as adopted by the City of Fontana for its respective facilities.

The Project would enhance the pedestrian experience by providing a more walkable and denser environment. It would also close a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic. Within the Project Area, the City of Fontana’s ATP includes new planned bike facilities on Foothill Boulevard, Arrow Boulevard, Valencia Avenue, Orange Way, Ceres Avenue, and Sierra Avenue. The Project would close a quarter-mile segment of Sierra Avenue to traffic while still allowing for a Class I bike path on that segment. The Project would also allow for Class 2 bike lanes on Valencia Avenue and Orange Way to provide for east-west bicycle traffic in the area. The Project is consistent with the goals and policies of Fontana’s ATP by focusing on land use development near high-quality transit service and implementing Complete Streets improvements that would enhance the safety and attractiveness of bicycle and pedestrian travel. The development would be fully consistent with local and regional policies for reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions as well as improving transportation safety.

Generally, a plan/project causes a significant impact to transit facilities and services if an element of it conflicts with existing or planned transit services. The evaluation of transit facilities shall consider if:
a plan or project creates demand for public transit services above the capacity that is provided or planned; a plan or project or related mitigation disrupts existing transit services or facilities; a plan or project or related mitigation conflicts with an existing or planned transit facility; or a plan or project or related mitigation conflicts with transit policies adopted by the City of Fontana for its respective facilities.

The Downtown Core Project would provide for increased activity adjacent to existing bus and rail transit services and be consistent with regional plans to provide service improvements and increase ridership on those services. The proposed plans would not conflict with transit policies adopted by the City of Fontana or San Bernardino County for their respective facilities.

In conclusion, the City has numerous policies supporting complete streets and to promote use of transit and active transportation. The proposed Project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding roadways, bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities or the performance or safety of those facilities. The Project would support the implementation of policies and programs to provide new and improved facilities to support multi-modal transportation and access within the Project Area. Impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.15-2, page 5.15-13 to 5.15-14) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Consistent with the City’s TIA Guidelines, a project may be screened out of a detailed VMT analysis if one of the four following conditions apply:

Development is located in a transit priority area
Development is located in a low VMT generating area
Development is considered to be a low VMT generating project type Development generates net daily trips less than 500 average daily trips (ADT) The Project as a whole does not meet any of screening criteria above. While most of the Project is located within a transit priority area, it is not entirely located within a transit priority area, and therefore cannot be screened out as a whole.

For projects that are not screened out, a detailed VMT analysis and forecast through the SBTAM model should be conducted to determine if the project will result in a significant VMT impact. A project would result in a significant project-generated VMT impact if:

Project Threshold: the project’s VMT per service population exceeds 15 percent below the existing countywide average VMT per service population.

Cumulative Threshold: the project causes total daily VMT within the City to be higher than the no project alternative under cumulative conditions.

Table 5.14-2 of the Draft EIR summarizes the VMT results under existing, 2040 without Project, and 2040 with Project conditions. As shown, future conditions with the proposed Project would result in decreased VMT per service population in comparison to both existing conditions and 2040 Without Project conditions. Specifically: the VMT per service population with the Project would be 36 percent lower than existing conditions; the VMT per service population with the Project would be four percent lower than 2040 Without Project conditions. The reductions from the existing (base) year to the future year indicate that future development anticipated by the proposed Project, in particular planned mixed-use development, would provide more opportunities for Fontana residents and employees to access jobs and services within shorter distances. The shorter trip distances reduce VMT by vehicles, and also increase the likelihood that trips would be made by non-auto modes such as bicycling and walking. Improved transit service and accessibility to transit also help to reduce VMT even as travel activity increases.

Implementation of the Project would result in reductions in VMT per service population compared to existing conditions and would not exceed the impact threshold. Therefore, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) and the impact of the Project would be less than significant.

Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.15-3, page 5.15-16) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Buildout of the Project would involve the alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses in the Project Area. Hazards are typically assessed at the individual project level when an actual design and construction of a circulation facility is proposed. Potential impacts associated with future development projects would be analyzed and evaluated in detail through the City review process for those individual projects. The City’s design and construction standards and specifications provide for coordinated and standardized development of City facilities, including roadways. The standards apply to, regulate, and guide the design and preparation of plans, and the construction of streets, highways, alleys, drainage, traffic signals, site access, and related public improvements. As individual projects would undergo review for approval and construction and would have to meet design guidelines, potential safety design hazards associated with future site-specific development projects would be addressed and result in less than significant impacts.

The proposed modifications to Sierra Avenue in the area between Orange, Arrow, Wheeler and Nuevo that would consist of roadway and intersection modifications that would affect all modes of travel. These improvements are currently under concept-level review. Prior to implementation, these improvements would be subject to a detailed review and future consideration by the City’s Public Works engineering staff. An evaluation of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features would be conducted at the project design level. Roadway improvements would have to be made in accordance with the City’s circulation plan and roadway design guidelines and meet design guidelines in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Caltrans Roadway Design Manual. In addition, the City of Fontana General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element includes goals, policies, and actions to improve the safety of all users of the transportation system in the City, including ensuring all streets, intersections, and parking areas are designed with safety and all users in mind; working with Metrolink to increase safety at train crossings, including improving gate technology, grade separation, and signal coordination; and implementing access-management techniques in commercial and mixed-use areas that allow for smooth traffic flow while creating a safe environment for non-motorized users. Overall, implementation of the Downtown Core Project would not result in hazardous conditions.

Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.15-4, page 5.15-17) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Downtown Core Project would provide for increased residential and non-residential uses within the Project Area. Additionally, the Project proposes roadway modifications that would ultimately close a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic. This would occur in two phases. Phase I (interim condition) would reduce the number of travel lanes on Sierra Avenue from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction, convert Wheeler Avenue to a one-way northbound street, and convert Nuevo Avenue to a one-way southbound street. Phase II (the ultimate condition) would close Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way to vehicular traffic, diverting traffic to parallel streets.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency access associated with future site-specific development would be analyzed and evaluated in detail through the City review process for those individual projects. The Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) provides fire and emergency response service to the City of Fontana, including the Project Area. Future development within the Downtown Core 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 City’s emergency access standards would apply to all development proposed under the proposed Project.

The ultimate closure of a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic would not result in inadequate emergency access. Closure of a portion of Sierra Avenue would also involve the conversion of Wheeler Avenue to a one-way northbound street, and Nuevo Avenue to a one-way southbound street, providing continued emergency access within the area. Further, the proposed closure and ultimate design of Sierra Avenue would be reviewed by the FFPD to ensure that adequate emergency access would be maintained within the area.

The City has adopted the current edition of the California Fire Code and access for emergency vehicles would be required to be incorporated into project design. Construction activities that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction of future developments within the Project Area. As part of the site review process, future development projects would be reviewed for adequate infrastructure and access as well as consistency with adopted emergency and evacuation plans in order to ensure adequate emergency access would be provided. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

Utilities and Services Systems
Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.16-1, page 5.16-12 to 5.16-13) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.16-1, page 5.16-12 to 5.16-13) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project accommodates future growth in the Project Area by creating and implementing a new land use category and six new FBC districts. Project implementation could yield a net change over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses. This new growth may increase the City’s population by approximately 33,731 residents (based on the 2022 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 3.79 persons per household).

Water Conveyance Facilities: The Project is expected to result in increased population and employment growth in the Project Area, which could require new or expanded water infrastructure. New or expanded water infrastructure required to serve future site-specific development would be located within areas that are already developed and serviced by the FWC. Additionally, the FWC confirmed that the Project is entirely within the FWC service area; that distribution system piping and storage capacity for domestic water purposes exists for current demands in the Project Area; and that FWC is able to provide all water utility service to meet the water supply needs of the Project.

Since no specific development projects are proposed as part of the Project, the environmental effects from constructing or expanding facilities are unknown at this time. All water infrastructure construction activities associated with future development would be subject to compliance with existing local, State, and federal laws, ordinances, and regulations, which would ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. The City and FWC would continue to ensure adequate water distribution facilities are available to serve future development. Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 31, Water Service, establishes water service and connection charges for areas where the City of Fontana supplies retail domestic water service. These charges would pay for the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. Implementation of existing regulations and compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code would reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities to a level that is less than significant.

Water Demand and Supply: The Project is expected to result in increased population and employment growth in the Project Area, and a corresponding increase in the demand for additional water supplies. As discussed above, water service in the Project Area is provided by the FWC. FWC’s 2020 UWMP indicates that FWC can meet projected water demands under normal, dry, and multiple dry water years through 2045 based on a service population of 281,020. Based on FWC’s water demand generation factor of 165 gallons per capita per day, the Project would increase water demand within the Project Area to approximately 6.83 million gallons per day (MGD) [7,649 acre-feet per year (AFY)], an increase of 5.57 MGD (6,234 AFY) over existing conditions. The General Plan EIR anticipates approximately 70,560 households and a population of 315,852 throughout the planning horizon. The City currently has approximately 57,483 dwelling units and 212,809 residents. Therefore, the projected 8,900 dwelling units and 33,731 new residents associated with Project implementation have been anticipated and planned for in the General Plan. As UWMPs are informed by the General Plans and General Plan land use designations, the projected population growth associated with Project implementation has been accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. Additionally, the FWC confirmed that the Project is entirely within the FWC service area; that distribution system piping and storage capacity for domestic water purposes exists for current demands in the Project Area; and that FWC is able to provide all water utility service to meet the water supply needs of the Project.

For future qualifying projects, a Water Supply Assessment would be required pursuant to SB 610. The Water Supply Assessment discerns whether the expected demand from the development being proposed has been accounted for in the forecasted demands in the most recent UWMP. A Written Verification of Supply per SB 221 is prepared as a condition of approval for a subdivision map of 500 units or more. Considered a fail-safe mechanism to provide sufficient evidence that adequate water supplies are available before construction begins, the Written Verification of Supply is also prepared/adopted by the water supplier and approved by the land use authority. Depending on the project, one or both of these analyses may be required. Development proposals that may not warrant a Water Supply Assessment and/or Written Verification of Supply, but meet the definition of a project under CEQA, would still require an analysis of sufficient water supplies in the CEQA process.

The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions directed toward water conservation. These actions would result in reduced water consumption on a per capita basis that would help offset the increased demand from additional residential and non-residential uses. The Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 31, Water Service, establishes water service and connection charges for areas where the City of Fontana supplies retail domestic water service. These charges would pay for the purchase of additional water supplies, as necessary. The Municipal Code also contains provisions to reduce water consumption. Chapter 5, Article XVIII, California Green Building Standards Code, adopts Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CALGreen), which provides building and landscaping standards related to water efficiency and conservation. Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code), Article X, General Landscape Requirements, establishes landscaping requirements and design guidelines, including landscape and irrigation plans that incorporate water-efficiency standard design. Through implementation of existing federal, State, and local regulations and compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code, the environmental impacts to water supplies would be less than significant.

Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.16-2, page 5.16-14 to 5.16-15) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Project implementation could yield a net change over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses. This new growth may increase the City’s population by approximately 33,731 residents.

Wastewater Conveyance Facilities: In regard to wastewater, future development associated with Project implementation is expected to result in increased population and employment growth within the Project Area, and thus, an overall increase in demand on the existing sewer system associated with increased sewage flows. Based on Section 23-316 of the City’s Municipal Code, which calculates sewer connection charges based upon 270 gallons per residential equivalent dwelling unit, growth associated with Project implementation would generate an additional 2,403,000 gallons per day of residential wastewater within the Project Area. Based on the General Plan EIR’s wastewater generation factors (Table 5.12-8) of 10.76 gallons per acre per day for commercial and industrial uses and 5.38 gallons per acre per day for public facilities uses, growth associated with Project implementation would generate an additional 332 gallons per day of non-residential wastewater. Therefore, growth associated with Project implementation would generate an additional 2.4 MGD of wastewater within the Project Area, an increase of 1.9 MGD over the Project Area’s existing conditions.

The Project Area is urbanized and contains existing sewer infrastructure. As indicated in the 2013 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, there are no deficient sewer facilities within the City in the Existing and Intermediate scenarios, but the Build-out scenario is estimated to have 2.07 miles of deficient sewers. No deficient sewers were identified within the Project Area. The City is currently in the process of updating the 2013 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. As part of the update, the adequacy of existing sewers based on the City’s existing Land Use Map will be studied and recommended improvements identified for deficient areas. The update is anticipated to be completed prior to consideration of the proposed Downtown Core Project. According to the City of Fontana Engineering Department, a separate study is anticipated for the Project Area that will serve as a management plan for new or expanded sewers within the Project Area.

The Project does not include specific development proposals; therefore, the environmental effects of future wastewater collection systems are unknown at this time. Future developments would be reviewed by the City, during site plan review in order to determine if sufficient local and trunk sewer capacity exists to serve the specific development, in accordance with Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23 Article IV, Permits. The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions related to water conservation measures, which would serve to reduce the per capita demand over historical levels due to diversion (graywater, recycled water), and reductions in water use from conservation efforts. Additionally, Fontana Municipal Code Article V, Fees, Charges and Billing, and Article VIII, Financing of Facilities, provides for sewer connection and facilities expansion fees. The implementation of existing regulations and compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code would reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities to a level that is less than significant.

Wastewater Treatment: Wastewater from the Project Area is diverted to the San Bernardino Avenue Lift Station and then to the IEUA Regional Water Reclamation Plant No. 4 (RP-4). RP-4 has a treatment capacity of up to 14 MGD and currently treats the liquid portion of an average influent wastewater flow of approximately 10 MGD. The facility currently has capacity to serve the Project Area. As indicated above, growth associated with Project implementation would generate an additional 2.4 MGD of wastewater within the Project Area, an increase of 1.9 MGD over the Project Area’s existing conditions. Therefore, there is sufficient capacity to treat additional wastewater generated by Project implementation.

As noted above, the Project enables additional development but does not include specific development proposals. At the time future projects are proposed, they would require a separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time to ensure adequate wastewater treatment capacity exists. The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions related to water conservation measures, which would serve to reduce the per capita demand over historical levels due to diversion (graywater, recycled water), and reductions in water use from conservation efforts. Fontana Municipal Code Article V, Fees, Charges and Billing, and Article VIII, Financing of Facilities, provides for sewer connection and facilities expansion fees. Additionally, IEUA charges monthly wastewater sewer fees, as well as sewer connection fees, in order to maintain and expand wastewater services, including wastewater treatment. The implementation of existing federal, State, and local regulations and compliance with the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code would ensure adequate wastewater treatment capacity and impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.16-3, page 5.16-15 to 5.16-16) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area contains a mix of existing on-site development, with a small amount (approximately 12.07 acres or 2.5 percent of the Project Area) consisting of vacant land. The Project Area is generally developed; areas of impervious surfaces currently exist throughout the Planning area. Further, the Project Area is served by existing stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities. The proposed Project accommodates future growth in the Project Area by creating and implementing a new land use category and six new FBC districts, and could result in increased areas of impervious surfaces throughout the Project Area, resulting in the need for additional or expanded stormwater drainage, conveyance and retention infrastructure.

The San Bernardino Flood Control District (SBCFCD) is responsible for operations and maintenance of the regional flood control facilities, while the City is responsible for the local drainage system, detention basins, and storm drain lines that connect to the regional facilities. The Project Area is primarily developed, with limited areas of pervious surfaces. Although future development activities have the potential to slightly increase impervious areas within the Project Area, the majority of development activities associated with implementation of the Project would consist of infill and redevelopment on currently urbanized sites. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. Federal, State and local regulations would require individual projects to provide necessary on-site storm drain infrastructure and any off-site infrastructure improvements. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded drainage facilities cannot be determined at this time, as the Project does not propose or approve any specific development project nor does it designate specific sites for new or expanded public facilities.

Stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities would be evaluated at the project-level in association with subsequent development projects. However, the facilities would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the proposed Project. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. As such, this is a less than significant impact and no additional mitigation is required.

The implementation of existing regulations and compliance with the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code would reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities to a level that is less than significant.

Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.16-4, page 5.16-16 to 5.16-17) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: In regard to electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication services, the Project Area is within the service areas of SCE, SoCalGas, and various telecommunication providers. The Project Area is generally developed and existing electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure exists within the Project Area. New growth accommodated under the proposed Project would require increased electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications services, potentially resulting in the new construction or relocation of facilities. The environmental effects of future expansions of electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities would be evaluated with each development proposal and would require a separate environmental review, as required, related to the construction and operation of new electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure. Future implementing projects under the Project would have to coordinate with each utility provider to establish service, provide any necessary extensions of facilities, and comply with regulations in existence at that time. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations. The implementation of existing regulations and compliance with the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code would reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities to a level that is less than significant.

Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.16-5, page 5.16-17 to 5.16-18) Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.16-5, page 5.16-17 to 5.16-18) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Future development as contemplated under the proposed Project could yield a net change over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses. This new growth may increase the City’s population by approximately 33,731 residents. The City of Fontana has achieved a disposal rate of 4.7 pounds per day (PPD) per resident in 2020. Assuming these disposal rates remain constant throughout the life of the Project, the new growth under Project buildout would result in a net increase of approximately 158,535.7 PPD of solid waste over existing conditions, which equals 79.3 net TPD or 28,932.8 net tons of solid waste per year.

The Project Area’s projected increase in solid waste generation is within the permitted capacity of Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. The majority (70 percent) of solid waste disposed from the City of Fontana in 2019 went to the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Another 11 percent went to the El Sobrante Landfill (19,222 tons) and nine percent went to the Badlands Sanitary Landfill (15,392 tons). Other landfills that received relatively small amounts of waste from the City in 2019 include:

Antelope Valley Public Landfill (5 tons);
Barstow Sanitary Landfill (2 tons);
Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill (18 tons);
Clean Harbors Buttonwillow LLC (19 tons);
Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF (30 tons);
Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill (299 tons);
Landers Sanitary Landfill (5 tons);
Olinda Alpha Landfill (54 tons);
San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill (108 tons);
Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center (35 tons); and
Victorville Sanitary Landfill (48 tons).

Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has a remaining capacity of 61,219,377 cubic yards as of 2019 and has enough projected capacity to serve residents and businesses until approximately 2045. The City’s increase in solid waste generation as a result of increased development in the Project Area is within the daily permitted capacity of the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Conservatively assuming the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill reaches full capacity, future solid waste would be distributed to the other landfills serving the City. Additionally, all development within the City would be required to comply with waste reduction and recycling requirements, including the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 24, that aim to reduce the amount of solid waste being diverted to the landfill.

The Fontana Municipal Code, Chapter 24 establishes mandatory solid waste and recycling collection to comply with the requirements of AB 939 and AB 341. As permitted by AB 939, the City authorizes a private solid waste franchisee (i.e., Burrtec Waste Industries) to handle the City’s solid waste and cooperate in the preparation of solid waste disposal characterization studies and the preparation of waste stream audits. Burrtec Waste Industries and the City work together to submit information to meet the reporting requirements of AB 939, or any other law or regulation, to reach the solid waste and recycling goals mandated by the AB 939.

Through the implementation of existing regulations and compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code, the Project would comply with regulations related to solid waste and would not exceed the permitted capacity of the landfill serving the City; therefore, this is a less than significant impact Wildfire
Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Draft EIR, Threshold a, page 8-6) Would the Project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (Draft EIR, Threshold b, page 8-6) Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (Draft EIR, Threshold c, page 8-6) Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (Draft EIR, Threshold d, page 8-6) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: According to the CALFIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, the Project Area is not located within a state responsibility area or classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The City’s General Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan do not identify the Project Area as being within an area with high fire hazard potential, and the Project Area is not located within the City’s Fire Hazard Overlay District. As the Project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, no impact would occur.

Impacts Identified in the EIR as Potentially Significant that Have been Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant The City Council hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1). The potentially significant impacts, and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:

Biological Resources
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.3-1, page 5.3-10 to 5.3-13) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area is located within an urbanized area and currently developed with residential and non-residential uses. The Project Area consists primarily of developed and/or disturbed land that has been developed, paved, or landscaped, and existing vegetation consists of primarily ornamental and/or nonnative plant species. The General Plan EIR does not identify any sensitive natural communities located on or adjacent to the Project Area. There have been documented occurrences of three special-status species within the general vicinity of the Project Area, including the western yellow bat, Southern California legless lizard, and Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. The Project Area does not contain any areas identified within the General Plan EIR as having critical habitat for federally listed species or having biological constraints to future development associated with suitable habitat for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly, Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Burrowing Owl; designated critical habitat; areas with known CNDDB and/or eBird records for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly, Coastal California Gnatcatcher, or Burrowing Owl; or areas mapped as Delhi fine sand and soils.

Although primarily developed, there are a limited number of non-contiguous undeveloped parcels within the Project Area consisting of disturbed and/or graded areas that have the opportunity to be revegetated with opportunistic weedy species including non-native annual grasses and weedy forbs. In more disturbed areas, grasslands may be almost entirely overgrown with Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) and/or mustard. This habitat is particularly valuable to raptors and other avian species, including northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), Burrowing Owl, horned larks (Eremophila alpestris), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis), and loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus).

Although the Project Area is not within an area identified as having critical habitat or areas known to contain Burrowing Owl, the General Plan EIR identifies Burrowing Owl as a species of concern that is known to occur within the City of Fontana boundaries and could theoretically inhabit undeveloped land within the City, including the Project Area. Burrowing Owl is known to nest in existing burrows, culverts, or other appropriately-sized holes on disturbed, vacant, or agricultural lands. Further there is the potential that ornamental vegetation within the Project Area could provide potential nesting sites for birds that are protected under Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code and under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Thus, there is potential for construction activities to negatively affect breeding or reproduction of protected nesting birds within the Project Area.

The Downton Core Project does not include any specific development proposals and would not result in significant direct impacts to existing biological resources. However, subsequent development and redevelopment activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project could occur on undeveloped sites that have been revegetated or result in the removal of ornamental vegetation, potentially resulting in direct impacts to Burrowing Owl or nesting birds. Future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 (incorporated as Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2). Specifically, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires that for sites containing suitable habitat, a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction survey prior to ground disturbing or vegetation disturbing activities to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owl within the proposed area of impact and appropriate actions if occupied burrows are discovered. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 provides that clearing of vegetation and removal of trees should occur during the non-nesting (or non-breeding) season for nesting birds to ensure their protection, if feasible. If not feasible, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 provides the alternative of carrying out such activities under the supervision of a qualified biologist. Compliance with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the California Fish and Game Code, would ensure that protected birds are not adversely affected during construction activities accommodated as part of the Downtown Core Project and impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

BIO-1:

1. Prior to initial grading or clearing of areas of suitable habitat within the Project Area (e.g., a vacant site with a landscape of grassland or low-growing, arid scrub vegetation or agricultural use or vegetation), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey, in accordance with the CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owl within the proposed area of impact.

2. Results of surveys, including mitigation recommendations (i.e., a Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Report) shall be incorporated into the project-level CEQA compliance documentation.

3. Construction grading/clearing of areas of suitable habitat should occur between September 1 and January 31 to avoid impacts to breeding owls. If occupied burrows are discovered, they shall not be removed during nesting season (February 1 through August 31), unless a qualified biologist can determine that either the owls have not laid eggs or are incubating eggs, or that any young from the burrows are able to forage independently. If initial grading is scheduled to occur during nesting season, the following measures shall be implemented.

4. If removal of occupied burrows is necessary, passive relocation outside of nesting season shall be implemented under the supervision of the qualified biologist. This shall include covering/excavation of burrows and installation of one-way doors as necessary. One-way doors will allow owls inside the burrow to exit but not allow them to re-enter. The biologist shall wait a minimum of one week before the burrow may be excavated to allow the owls time to leave the area. (General Plan EIR MM-BIO-1) BIO-2: To avoid impacts to nesting birds and to comply with the MBTA, clearing of vegetation and removal of trees should occur between non-nesting (or non-breeding) season for birds (generally, September 1 to January 31). If this avoidance schedule is not feasible, the alternative is to carry out such activities under the supervision of a qualified biologist. This shall entail the following:

1. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey no more than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. The survey will consist of full coverage of the proposed disturbance limits and up to a 500-foot buffer area, determined by the biologist and taking into account the species nesting in the area and the habitat present.

2. If no active nests are found, no additional measures are required.

3. If “occupied” nests are found, their locations shall be mapped, species documented, and, to the degree feasible, the status of the nest (e.g., incubation of eggs, feeding of young, near fledging) recorded. The biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around each active nest. The buffer area will be determined by the biologist based on the species present, surrounding habitat, and type of construction activities proposed in the area.

4. No construction or ground disturbance activities shall be conducted within the buffer until the biologist has determined the nest is no longer active and has informed the construction supervisor that activities may resume. (General Plan EIR MM-BIO-2) Cultural Resources
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.4-1, page 5.4-12 to 5.4-14) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area includes five California Points of Historic Interest as well as 14-locally designated historic resources. Additionally, undiscovered or potentially eligible sites may be located within the Project Area. Redevelopment and alteration of existing structures has the potential to impact known and potentially eligible historical resources. A substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource is defined in Section 15064.5 (b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines as the “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” According to the General Plan EIR, more sites are likely eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic properties or the National Register of Historic Places, notably in the northern portion of the Project Area, which hosts a higher concentration of historic-era buildings, including many that are considered significant by the local community. While the Downtown Core Project does not directly propose any changes to any historic resources, future development allowed under the Downtown Core Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of known historical resources or unknown historical resources which have not yet been identified. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

The Fontana General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions to identify and protect historic resources within the City. In addition, future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan mitigation measures identified in the General Plan DEIR. Specifically, General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 requires a qualified archaeologist to perform a number of tasks prior to construction activities, including: subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for historic resources, conduct a field survey for historical resources within portions of the project site not previously surveyed; subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for historic resources, contact the San Bernardino County Archives for information on historical property records; inventory all historical resources within the project site using appropriate State record forms and guidelines followed according to the California Office of Historic Preservation’s handbook; evaluate the significance and integrity of all historical resources within the project site using criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines for important archaeological resources and/or 36 CFR 60.4 for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; propose mitigation measures and/or implement conditions of approval (if a local government action) recommended to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique historical resources, following appropriate CEQA and/or National Historic Preservation Act's Section 106 guidelines; prepare a technical resources management report documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project site, following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a), December 1989; and permanently curate all resources and data collected within the project site at an appropriate repository within the County.

As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for conformance with the Fontana General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable State and local regulations relative to historic and potentially historic resources. Future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 (incorporated as Mitigation Measure CUL-1), which would ensure evaluation of a project site for historical resources and, if necessary, implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant. Per Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 5, Article XIII, Preservation of Historic Resources, potential historic resources and/or districts may be considered by the Planning Commission and/or City Council, and would require approval prior to alteration, restoration, rehabilitation, remodeling, construction, addition, change of use, demolition, relocation or removal of any designated or proposed historical resource or any improvement or object in a designated or proposed historical overlay district. Further, for structures that potentially have historical significance, the City would require preparation of a study by a qualified professional archaeologist or historian to determine the significance of the structure and potential impacts of the proposed development in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, with compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan and General Plan Mitigation Measures, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL-1: A qualified archaeologist shall perform the following tasks, prior to construction activities within project boundaries:

Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for historic resources, a field survey for historical resources within portions of the project site not previously surveyed for cultural resources shall be conducted.

Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for historic resources, the San Bernardino County Archives shall be contacted for information on historical property records.

Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for sacred land resources, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted for information regarding sacred lands.

All historical resources within the project site, including archaeological and historic resources older than 50 years, shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms and guidelines followed according to the California Office of Historic Preservation’s handbook “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.” The archaeologist shall then submit two (2) copies of the completed forms to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for the assignment of trinomials.

The significance and integrity of all historical resources within the project site shall be evaluated, using criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines for important archaeological resources and/or 36 CFR 60.4 for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Mitigation measures shall be proposed and conditions of approval (if a local government action) recommended to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique historical resources, following appropriate CEQA and/or National Historic Preservation Act's Section 106 guidelines.

If there is evidence that a historical resource exists or could exist, a technical resources management report shall be prepared, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project site, following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a), December 1989. One copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, shall be submitted to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving.

If human remains or funerary objects are encountered on the project site, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the San Bernardino County Coroner’s Office shall be contacted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 to 7055 and PRC Section 5097.98. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within 24 hours.

All resources and data collected within the project site shall be permanently curated at an appropriate repository within the County. (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-1, updated) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.4-2, page 5.4-14 to 5.4-15) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Facts in Support of Finding: Redevelopment and development of previously undeveloped areas have the potential to impact known and unknown archaeological resources. Surface-level and subsurface archaeological sites and deposits can be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with construction activities.

Prehistoric sensitivity in Fontana is mostly concentrated in the southern and northern portions of the City, outside of the Project Area. The lack of prehistoric sites within the City of Fontana urban center is likely due to obliteration by development. However, remnants of prehistoric sites may still be present below the surface, having been displaced underground during development. Effects on archaeological resources deemed to be significant could be considered adverse if they involve physical demolition, destruction, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a resource would be materially impaired. While the Downtown Core Project does not directly propose site-specific development with the potential to directly impact archaeological resources, future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of known or unknown archaeological resources. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

The Fontana General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions to identify and protect cultural resources within the City, including archeological resources. In addition, future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM-CUL-2 (incorporated as Mitigation Measure CUL-2), which would ensure that if any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study.

Archaeological resources are protected under federal, State, and local regulations as described above and compliance with Fontana General Plan policies, actions, and mitigation measures would reduce potential adverse impacts to archaeological resources associated with future development. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would be required to comply with existing federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan and implement Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL-2: If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. In the event Native American cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and City of Fontana Planning Department, shall implement Mitigation Measure TCR-1. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Fontana shall:

Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value.

Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities at a theme or focal point.

Pursue educating the public about the area's archaeological heritage.

Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval (if a local government action) to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines.

Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-2) Geology and Soils
Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.6-5, page 5.6-13 to 5.6-15) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Facts in Support of Finding: The City is situated on surface exposures of Quaternary younger alluvial fan deposits (Holocene to late Pleistocene period) that are scored by more recent wash deposits. The Project Area is not identified as being located within an area underlain by Pleistocene older deposits, which are considered to have high potential for paleontological resources. However, it is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during future ground-disturbing activities within the Project Area. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

Significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, or diagnostically important. Significant fossils can include remains of large to very small aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates or remains of plants and invertebrate animals previously not represented in certain portions of the stratigraphy. Assemblages of fossils that might aid stratigraphic correlation, particularly those offering data for the interpretation of tectonic events, geomorphologic evolution, and paleoclimatology are also critically important.

Damage to or destruction of a paleontological resource would be considered a potentially significant impact under local, State, or federal criteria. The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to protect paleontological resources. In addition, future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM-CUL-4 (incorporated as Mitigation Measure GEO-1), which would require a qualified paleontologist conduct a pre-construction field survey of any project site that is underlain by older alluvium. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings to the City that provides specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Should mitigation monitoring of paleontological resources be recommended for a specific project, the project would be required to implement General Plan mitigation measure MM-CUL-5 (incorporated as Mitigation Measure GEO-2), which would require the program to assign a paleontological monitor to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities; cease earth-disturbing activities should fossils be found; curate for documentation and transfer recovered fossils to an appropriate depository; and submit a report to the City and San Bernardino County Museum. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, potential impacts to paleontological resources associated with future development anticipated by the Downtown Core Project would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

GEO-1: If excavation activities would occur at a depth of greater than five feet on any site mapped as middle to late Pleistocene older alluvium at the surface, a qualified paleontologist shall conduct a pre-construction field survey. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that provides specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate to the City of Fontana Community Development Department. (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-4, updated) GEO-2: Should mitigation monitoring of paleontological resources be recommended for a specific project within the Project Area, the program shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures:

Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities.

Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, earth-disturbing activities shall be diverted elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor shalt immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find.

All recovered fossils shall be prepared, identified, and curated for documentation in the summary report and transferred to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum).

A summary report shall be submitted to City of Fontana. Collected specimens shall be transferred with copy of report to San Bernardino County Museum. (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-5) Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.8-1, page 5.8-11 to 5.8-12) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Facts in Support of Finding: Many types of businesses utilize various chemicals and hazardous materials, and their routine business operations involve chemicals that are transported, stored and used on-site. Implementation of the proposed Project would accommodate future development of both residential and non-residential (primarily commercial) uses. The types of uses supported within the Downtown Core could involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as cleansers, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides for cleaning and maintenance purposes and are not typically associated with uses that use, generate, store or transport large quantities of hazardous materials such as those utilized in manufacturing and industrial uses.

The use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials is regulated and monitored by local fire departments, Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) consistent with the requirements of federal, State, and local regulations and policies. Facilities that store hazardous materials on-site are required to maintain a Hazardous Materials Business Plan in accordance with State regulations. In the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials, the local CUPA and emergency management agencies (e.g., Police and Fire) would respond. The Downtown Core Project does not include any specific development proposals and future development is not anticipated to include the storage and/or use of significant amounts of hazardous materials. All future development that would include the storage and/or use of hazardous materials within the Project Area would be required to comply with the provisions of federal, State, and local requirements related to hazardous materials, including compliance with General Plan EIR mitigation measures MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-3 (included as Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2). Specifically, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require that new proposed facilities involved in the production, use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from land uses that may be adversely impacted by such activities, and that new sensitive facilities would not be located near existing sites that use, store, or generate hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity to submit an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD).

The Fontana General Plan and LHMP identify Hazardous Material Transportation Routes within the City. Within the Project Area, the Metrolink rail line is identified as a Hazardous Material Transportation Route. Additionally, transportation of hazardous materials could occur on designated truck routes or railways within the City. Within the Project Area, Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Boulevard are designated truck routes. Vehicles and/or trains transporting hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of federal, State, and local requirements related to the transportation of hazardous materials.

As described previously, hazardous materials regulations related to the use, handling, and transport of hazardous materials are codified in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the CCR, and their enabling legislation set forth in the California Health and Safety Code. These laws were established at the State level to ensure compliance with federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. These regulations must be implemented by employers/businesses, as appropriate, and are monitored by the State (e.g., Cal OSHA in the workplace or DTSC for hazardous waste) and/or the County. The haulers and users of hazardous materials are listed with and regulated and monitored by the County CUPA. Compliance with the requirements of federal, State, and local laws and regulations, including Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, regarding the use and storage of hazardous materials would ensure that risks resulting from the routine transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

HAZ-1: The City shall require that new proposed facilities involved in the production, use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from land uses that may be adversely impacted by such activities. Conversely, new sensitive facilities, such as child-care centers and senior centers, shall not to be located near existing sites that use, store, or generate hazardous materials. (General Plan EIR MM-HAZ-1, updated) HAZ-2: The City shall require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity to submit an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the San Bernardino County Fire Department - Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with the Fontana Fire Protection District. (General Plan EIR MM-HAZ-3) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.8-2, page 5.8-12 to 5.8-14) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Facts in Support of Finding:

Short-Term Construction-Related Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials: The proposed Project would enable development of new residential and non-residential uses. Construction activities associated with new development could result in upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Specific development projects have not been identified as part of the proposed Project. However, future development accommodated through Project implementation could involve the demolition of existing structures and buildings as areas within the Project Area are redeveloped. The Project Area includes existing development from and prior to the 1960s; therefore, the presence of lead-based paint, ACM, and/or other contaminants, which are typically present in buildings and structures constructed prior to 1978, are likely present in some structures. All demolition that could result in the release of ACMs or lead-based paint would be conducted according to federal and State regulations which govern the renovation and demolition of structures where ACMs and lead-based paint are present. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants mandates that building owners conduct an asbestos survey to determine the presence of ACMs prior to the commencement of any remedial work, including demolition. In accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403, if ACM material is found, abatement of asbestos would be required prior to any demolition activities. If paint is separated from building materials (chemically or physically) during demolition of the structures, the paint waste would be required to be evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 1532.1. If lead-based paint is found, abatement would be required to be completed by a qualified Lead Specialist prior to any demolition activities. Compliance with existing regulations related to ACM and lead-based paint would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

In addition to potential demolition, future development would involve grading and construction of new buildings. Potentially hazardous materials used during construction include substances such as paints, sealants, lubricants, solvents, adhesives, cleaners, and diesel fuel. There is potential for these materials to spill or to create hazardous conditions. The materials used, however, would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard. These activities would also be short-term and would cease upon completion of construction.

To prevent hazardous conditions, existing local, State, and federal laws are to be enforced at the construction sites. For example, compliance with existing regulations would ensure construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any risks related to hazardous materials during demolition and construction activities. Cal/OSHA has regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, exposure warnings, availability of safety equipment, and preparation of emergency action/prevention plans. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable State and local regulations for the cleanup and disposal of that contaminant. All contaminated waste encountered would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility.

Future development accommodated through implementation of the proposed Project could involve grading and excavation activities which could expose construction workers and the public to previously unknown hazardous substances present in the soil or groundwater. Grading and excavation activities could also reveal previously unidentified underground storage tanks. Although underground storage tank removal activities could pose risks to workers and the public, potential risks would be minimized by managing the tank according to existing the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Hazardous Materials Division standards. Potential impacts to groundwater would be dependent upon the type of contaminant, the amount released, and depth to groundwater at the time of the release.

The public could also be exposed to hazardous materials if new development or redevelopment were to be located on a current or historical hazardous material site. There are no active cleanup sites within the Project Area listed in the EnviroStor database. Further, there are no open LUST sites in the Project Area. Future development associated with implementation of the Project would be reviewed at the project-level to determine whether any development sites are listed on a hazardous materials site. Any development activities that may occur on documented hazardous materials sites would be required to undergo remediation and cleanup under the supervision of the regulatory agencies, such as DTSC and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce threats to public health and safety involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations would reduce potential impacts involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment as a result of on-site contamination to a less than significant level.

Long-Term Operations-Related Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials: Long-term operation activities associated with new development could result in upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project does not propose site-specific development; thus, specific hazardous materials that could be accidentally released cannot be predicted at this time. However, as stated, the types of uses supported within the Downtown Core would typically involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as cleansers, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides for cleaning and maintenance purposes and are not typically associated with uses that use, generate, store or transport large quantities of hazardous materials such as those utilized in manufacturing and industrial uses.

The transport, storage, and handling of hazardous materials by developers, contractors, business owners, and others are required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations during project construction and operation. Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which gives the EPA the authority to control the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Additionally, the hazardous materials regulations included in federal law govern the transportation of hazardous materials. Locally, the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Hazardous Materials Division is the CUPA for San Bernardino County and is responsible for consolidating, coordinating, and making consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of state standards regarding the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in the County, including the Project Area. As stated, all future development that would include the storage and/or use of hazardous materials within the Project Area would be required to comply with the provisions of federal, State, and local requirements related to hazardous materials, including compliance with Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require that new proposed facilities involved in the production, use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from land uses that may be adversely impacted by such activities, and that new sensitive facilities would not be located near existing sites that use, store, or generate hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity to submit an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with the FFPD.

Compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations related to the transport, storage, and handling of hazardous materials, and compliance Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents, and impacts involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2.

Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.8-3, page 5.8-15) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Facts in Support of Finding: The nearest schools to the Project Area are Fontana Middle School, located approximately 100 feet to the east of the Project Area (on the eastern side of Mango Avenue); Randall Pepper Elementary School, located approximately 0.08 miles from the southwestern corner of the Project Area (intersection of Juniper Avenue and Randall Avenue); and Palmetto Elementary School, located approximately 0.28 miles from the southeastern corner of the Project Area (intersection of Mango Avenue and Randall Avenue). Future development under the Project could utilize, transport, store, or dispose of hazardous materials during construction or operation. Excavation and grading activities associated with future development could expose the public to unknown hazardous materials present in soil or groundwater, which would require remediation activities. Remediation, if any, would include potential transport of hazardous materials to an approved landfill facility. As a result, future development within the Project Area could potentially emit or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15186, School Facilities, requires that school projects, as well as projects proposed to be located near schools, examine potential health impacts resulting from exposure to hazardous materials, wastes, and substances. Furthermore, permitting requirements for individual hazardous material handlers or emitters would require evaluation and notification where potential hazardous materials handling and emissions could occur in proximity to existing schools.

The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce threats to public health and safety due to hazards and hazardous materials. As discussed above, the types of uses supported within the Downtown Core would typically involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as cleansers, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides for cleaning and maintenance purposes and are not typically associated with uses that use, generate, store or transport large quantities of hazardous materials such as those utilized in manufacturing and industrial uses. Future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which would require that new proposed facilities involved in the production, use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from land uses that may be adversely impacted by such activities, and that new sensitive facilities not to be located near existing sites that use, store, or generate hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity to submit an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with the FFPD. Implementation of the safety procedures and regulations mandated by applicable federal, State, and local laws and Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would ensure that potential risks resulting from the routine transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes in proximity to a school associated with implementation of the Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2.

Noise
Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.11-2, page 5.11-27) Finding: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Facts in Support of Finding: The main sources of vibration in the Project Area are related to vehicles and construction and railway vibration. Typical roadway traffic, including heavy trucks, rarely generates vibration amplitudes high enough to cause structural or cosmetic damage. However, there have been cases in which heavy trucks traveling over potholes or other discontinuities in the pavement have caused vibration high enough to result in complaints from nearby residents. These types of issues typically can be resolved by smoothing the roadway surface Construction activities that produce vibration that can be felt by adjacent land uses include the use of vibratory equipment, large bulldozers, and pile drivers. The primary sources of vibration during construction are usually vibratory rollers and large bulldozers. A vibratory roller has a peak particle velocity (inches/second) of 0.21 and a large bulldozer has a peak particle velocity of 0.089 (inches per second) at 25 feet. The use of pile driving equipment can generate a peak particle velocity of 1.5 (inches per second) depending on the size and model.

The California Department of Transportation has published one of the seminal works for the analysis of ground-borne noise and vibration relating to transportation- and construction-induced vibrations and, although the Project is not subject to these regulations, it serves as a useful tool to evaluate vibration impacts. When evaluated in light of the estimated groundborne vibration levels, it can be determined that construction activities in the Project Area have the potential to result in significant impacts related to groundborne vibration associated with construction activities. However, projects must ensure that vibration levels comply with Section 30-470 and 30-543 of the Fontana Municipal Code, which require vibration levels to be imperceptible beyond adjacent residential property lines. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would help to achieve this requirement by providing procedures for construction activities to reduce impacts related to equipment moving and operation.

Construction vibration would be significant if vibration can be felt beyond the property line per Section 30-470 and 30-543 of the Fontana Municipal Code. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires noise studies be performed in the Project Area, and these studies would ensure that construction vibration levels are below perceptible levels. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 provides additional procedures for construction activities that would reduce impacts related to equipment moving and operation. Compliance with Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, and federal, State, and local regulations would reduce the generation of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

NOI-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a developer shall contract for a site-specific noise study for a parcel within 200 feet of a sensitive use as identified within Goal 8 of the 2015-2035 General Plan. The noise study shall be performed by an acoustic consultant experienced in such studies, and the consultant's qualifications and methodology to be used in the study must be presented to City staff for consideration. The site-specific acoustic study shall specifically identify potential noise impacts upon any proposed sensitive uses, as well as potential project impacts upon off-site sensitive uses due to construction, stationary and mobile noise sources. Mitigation shall be required if noise levels exceed 65 dBA, as identified in Goal 8 of the 2015-2035 General Plan (General Plan EIR MM-NOI-1, updated).

NOI-2: To reduce impacts related to heavy construction equipment moving and operating on site during project construction, grading, demolition, and paving prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall ensure that the following procedures are followed:

Construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be properly outfitted and maintained with feasible noise-reduction devices to minimize construction generated noise.

Laydown and construction vehicle staging areas shall be located away from noise sensitive land uses if feasible.

Stationary noise sources such as generators shall be located away from noise sensitive land uses, if feasible.

Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding property owners to contact the job superintendent 24 hours a day to report noise and other nuisance-related issues, if necessary. The point of contact shall be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and have authority to commit additional assets to control dust after hours, on weekends, and on holidays. In the event that the City of Fontana receives a pattern of noise complaints, appropriate corrective actions shall be implemented, such as on- site noise monitoring during construction activities, and a report of the action shall be provided to the reporting party (General Plan EIR MM-NOI-2).

Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is (Threshold “a”):
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Facts in Support of Finding: Over 80 previously recorded prehistoric and historic-era archaeological sites have been identified in the City. Prehistoric sensitivity in Fontana is mostly concentrated in the southern and northern portions of the City. All of the prehistoric sites previously identified are clustered along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and the Jurupa Hills, outside of the Project Area.

Prehistoric archaeological sites and isolates are tribal cultural resources; additionally, plants and other natural resources, as well as geographic locations can also be a tribal cultural resource. Grading of original in situ soils could expose buried tribal cultural resources and features including sacred sites. Prehistoric sensitivity in Fontana is mostly concentrated in the southern and northern portions of the City, outside of the Project Area. Although the Downtown Core area is primarily urbanized and has experienced extensive ground-disturbance, there is the potential that tribal cultural resources could occur below the surface. While the Downtown Core Project does not directly propose site-specific development with the potential to directly impact a tribal cultural resource, future development within the Project Area could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

According to the General Plan EIR, the City of Fontana is located within the Tongva and Serrano traditional use area. At the time of publication of the Draft EIR, one tribe, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN) contacted the City in response to the City’s correspondence notifying Native American individuals and/or Tribal Organizations of the proposed Project in compliance with AB 52 and SB 18. The YSMN noted that the Project Area exists within Serrano ancestral territory and is therefore of interest to the Tribe. The YSMN further stated that due to the nature and location of the proposed Project, and given their Cultural Resources Management Department’s present state of knowledge, YSMN does not have any concerns with the Project’s implementation, as planned at this time. YSMN requests mitigation measures be made part of the Project regarding the potential discovery of cultural resources during Project activities.

The Fontana General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions to identify and protect cultural resources within the City, including tribal cultural resources. In addition, future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 (incorporated as Mitigation Measure CUL-1), which requires a qualified archaeologist to perform a number of tasks prior to construction activities, including conducting a field survey for historical resources within portions of the project site not previously surveyed if evidence suggests the potential for resources to exist. In addition, future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation measures MM-CUL-2 and MM-CUL-3 (incorporated as Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and Mitigation Measure TCR-1). Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would ensure that if any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 has been updated to include implementation of TCR-1 in the event Native American cultural resources are discovered. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would require that in the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction for future development, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find; that the archaeologist, in coordination with the City/project applicant, contact YSMN, as well as other Native American tribal entities, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and prepare a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan if the find is determined to be significant. The Monitoring and Treatment Plan would provide for a Native American monitor for the remainder of project activities associated with ground disturbance and for archaeological/cultural documents be supplied to the applicant and City of Fontana Planning Department for dissemination to YSMN and other Tribe(s) determined to have cultural affiliation.

Subsequent development within the Project Area would be required to comply with existing federal, State, and local regulations, including the Fontana General Plan and Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and TCR-1, which would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: In addition to Mitigation Measure TCR-1, refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2.

TCR-1: Site-specific development projects shall implement the following:

In the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction for future development, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project site outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period; The archaeologist, in coordination with the applicant and City of Fontana Planning Department, shall contact the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel National Cultural Resources Department (YSMN), as well as any other Native American tribal entity (as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards) of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation. The Tribe(s) shall be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA, a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN and any other Tribe determined to have cultural affiliation to the area, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. A copy of the Plan shall be provided to the City of Fontana Planning Department. The Plan shall identify how Tribal Cultural Resources will be recovered and retained. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN and/or other Tribe(s) determined to have cultural affiliation for the remainder of project activities associated with ground disturbance, should YSMN or another Tribe(s) elect to place a monitor on-site; determined to have cultural affiliation to be present for the remainder of project activities associated with ground disturbance; Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and City of Fontana Planning Department for dissemination to YSMN and other Tribe(s) determined to have cultural affiliation. (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-3, updated) Impacts Identified in the EIR as being Significant and Unavoidable The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined herein and in the EIR, the following impacts from the proposed Downtown Core Project cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level by any feasible mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(2) and (a)(3), which are infeasible as a result of specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations, or are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein. For the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council finds and declares, in its independent judgment, that the benefits of the Downtown Core Project substantially outweigh and justify the following significant and unavoidable impacts:

Air Quality
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.2-1, page 5.2-24 to 5.2-27) Finding: Significant Unavoidable Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has adopted a series of air quality management plans (AQMPs) to lead the Air Basin into compliance with several criteria air pollutant standards and other federal requirements, while taking into account construction and operational emissions associated with population and economic growth projections provided by SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS. The SCAQMD recommends that, when determining whether a project is consistent with the relevant AQMPs, the lead agency should assess whether the project would directly obstruct implementation of the plans by impeding SCAQMD’s efforts to achieve attainment with respect to any criteria air pollutant for which it is currently not in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) (e.g., ozone, PM10, and PM2.5) and whether it is consistent with the demographic and economic assumptions (typically land use related, such as employment and population/residential units) upon which the plan is based. The SCAQMD guidance indicates that projects whose growth is included in the projections used in the formulation of the AQMP are considered to be consistent with the plan and would not interfere with its attainment.

The SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational emissions are designed for the analysis of individual projects and not for long-term planning documents, such as the Downtown Core Project, which would be implemented over time. Emissions are dependent on the exact size, nature, and location of an individual land use type, combined with reductions in localized impacts from the removal of existing land use types, as applicable (i.e., conversion of light industrial uses). Emissions associated with the operation of individual projects, could exceed project-specific thresholds established by SCAQMD.

CEQA requires that general plans be evaluated for consistency with the AQMP. Because the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans, only new or amended general plan elements, specific plans, or individual projects under the general plan need to undergo a consistency review. Projects considered consistent with the local general plan are consistent with the air quality-related regional plan. Indicators of consistency include:

Control Strategies: Whether implementation of a project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; would cause or contribute to new violations; or would delay the timely attainment of AAQS or interim emissions reductions within the AQMP.

Growth Projections: Whether implementation of the project would exceed growth assumptions within the AQMP, which in part, bases its strategy on growth forecasts from local general plans.

Construction – Control Strategies: The Air Basin is designated nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5 under the CAAQS and NAAQS, and nonattainment for PM10 under the CAAQS. The proposed Project would support higher-density residential and mixed-use development within the Project Area. The emissions of criteria pollutants associated with future development accommodated through implementation of the proposed Project could exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants. Future development of individual projects under the Downtown Core Project would be required to comply with CARB’s requirements to minimize short-term emissions from on-road and off-road diesel equipment, including the ATCM to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at any given time, and with SCAQMD’s regulations such as Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust and Rule 1113 for controlling VOC emissions from architectural coatings. Furthermore, as applicable to the type of growth, individual projects under the proposed Downtown Core Project would comply with fleet rules to reduce on-road truck emissions (i.e., 13 CCR, Section 2025 [CARB Truck and Bus regulation]). Compliance with these measures and requirements would be consistent with and meet or exceed the AQMP requirements for control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. Therefore, the construction anticipated by the Project would be consistent with the AQMP under the first indicator.

Construction – Growth Projections: Future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would result in an increase in short-term employment compared to existing conditions. Future development accommodated by the Downtown Core Project would involve construction, but Project implementation would not necessarily create new construction jobs, since construction-related jobs generated by future development would likely be filled by employees within the construction industry within the City and greater San Bernardino County region. Construction industry jobs generally have no regular place of business, as construction workers commute to job sites throughout a given region, which may change several times a year. Moreover, these jobs would be temporary in nature. Therefore, the construction jobs generated by future development accommodated by the Downtown Core Project would not conflict with the long-term employment or population projections upon which the AQMPs are based.

Operation – Control Strategies: Future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be required to comply with CARB motor vehicle standards, SCAQMD regulations for stationary sources and architectural coatings, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and, to the extent applicable, the 2020 RTP/SCS. The 2022 AQMP includes land use and transportation strategies from the 2020 RTP/SCS that are intended to reduce VMT and resulting regional mobile source emissions. The applicable land use strategies include: planning for growth around livable corridors; providing more options for short trips/neighborhood mobility areas; supporting zero emission vehicles and expanding vehicle charging stations; and supporting local sustainability planning. The applicable transportation strategies include: managing through the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program and the Transportation System Management (TSM) Plan including advanced ramp metering, and expansion and integration of the traffic synchronization network; promoting active transportation. The majority of the transportation strategies are to be implemented by cities, counties, and other regional agencies such as SCAG and SCAQMD, although some can be furthered by individual development projects.

The Downtown Core Project would implement land use and transportation strategies related to reducing vehicle trips for Fontana residents and employees by creating and implementing the new WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use category and six new FBC districts within the Project Area, which would support higher-density residential and mixed-use development within the Project Area. The City of Fontana is served primarily by Omnitrans and Metrolink. Omnitrans provides bus service in the San Bernardino Valley. It connects Fontana with several nearby cities (including Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, Chino, Redlands, and San Bernardino). Omnitrans also provides paratransit service. Metrolink provides rail passenger service between San Bernardino and the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Fontana Metrolink station is located within the Project Area and accessible through Sierra Avenue and Orange Way. The availability of public transportation and the focus on increasing density relative to the existing public transportation, enables Project implementation to potentially reduce vehicle trips, VMT, and associated transportation-related emissions per capita, compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the Downtown Core Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with air quality. The proposed Project would be consistent with the AQMP under the first indicator.

Operations – Growth Projections: The emissions inventory for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is formed, in part, by existing city and county general plans. The AQMP is based on population, employment and VMT forecasts by SCAG. A project might be in conflict with the AQMP if the development is greater than that anticipated in the local general plan and SCAG’s growth projections. Project implementation could yield a net change over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses. This new growth may increase the City’s population by approximately 33,731 residents (based on the 2022 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 3.79 persons per household). Implementation of the proposed Project would also provide additional employment opportunities for approximately 6,852 employees. The General Plan EIR anticipates the General Plan to accommodate 70,560 households, a population of 315,852, and total employment of 99,129 throughout the planning horizon. More specifically, the focus for growth in the General Plan is in the Downtown Core and “Livable Corridors” as described in General Plan Chapter 14 - Downtown Area Plan. Thus, growth within the Downtown Core Project has been anticipated by the General Plan. The City currently has 57,483 dwelling units, 212,809 residents, and 55,448 jobs. Therefore, the forecasted 8,900 new dwelling units, 33,731 new residents, and 6,852 new employees associated with Project implementation is within the buildout projections anticipated by the General Plan. The proposed Project is intended to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan and accommodate the City’s fair share of statewide housing needs, which are allocated by SCAG, based on regional numbers provided by the HCD on a regular basis (every five to eight years). The City of Fontana 2021-2029 Housing Element was adopted February 8, 2022 and accommodates the City’s share of the regional housing need for the 2021-2029 RHNA period of 17,519 units. The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element identifies the existing Project Area, as accommodating a portion of City’s Low-, Very-Low-, and Above-Moderate-income RHNA allocation. The population and employment growth anticipated as a result of Project implementation is within the City’s growth projections of the Fontana Forward General Plan and SCAG’s RHNA allocation.

Although future development in the Project Area that is consistent with the Downtown Core Project would increase total vehicle trips and VMT, which would result in emissions of ozone precursors and particulate matter, overall, the VMT per service population with the proposed Project would be four percent lower than 2040 Without Project Conditions. Further, individual projects within the Project Area would be reviewed pursuant to CEQA, and would be required to demonstrate compliance with the AQMP. Individual projects would also be required to demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations governing air quality.

The City of Fontana continues to coordinate with SCAQMD and SCAG to ensure Citywide growth projections, land use planning efforts, and local development patterns are accounted for in the regional planning and air quality planning processes. Additionally, the Downtown Core Project would implement land use and transportation strategies related to reducing vehicle trips for Fontana residents and employees, including creating six new FBC districts within the Project Area to support higher-density residential and mixed-use development within the Project Area, which would minimize potential impacts to air quality in support of the AQMP and 2020 Connect SoCal. Therefore, the Downtown Core Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion: While the proposed Project is anticipated to comply with the control strategies and be consistent with the growth projections contained within the 2022 AQMP, the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds for operation-phase emissions (as provided in greater detail under Impact AQ-2, below). Therefore, the proposed Project could result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-23, below. No additional mitigation measures are feasible.

Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.2-1, page 5.2-27 to 5.2-35) Finding: Significant Unavoidable Impact
Facts in Support of Finding:

Construction Emissions: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Pollutant emissions associated with construction would be generated from the following construction activities: (1) demolition, grading, and excavation; (2) construction workers traveling to and from the Project Area; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the Project Area; (4) fuel combustion by onsite construction equipment; (5) building construction; application of architectural coatings; and paving. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants.

Construction emissions are short-term and temporary. The maximum daily construction emissions for the proposed Project were estimated using CalEEMod; and the modeling includes compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Rule), which would reduce air contaminants during construction. Construction was assumed to occur starting in year 2023 and ending in year 2040. Since specific development projects are not currently proposed, default parameters were used for construction activities except for the building and architectural phases, which were adjusted for the buildout year of 2040. CalEEMod defaults were used for the type and duration of off-road construction equipment, which are determined by the model based on the overall size and land uses associated with the Project. Refer to Appendix C of the Draft EIR, for additional information regarding the construction assumptions used in the analysis. Table 5.2-6, in the Draft EIR provides the unmitigated maximum daily emissions of each of the criteria air pollutants from construction. As shown, emissions resulting from construction would exceed criteria pollutant thresholds for NOX. The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce air quality emissions. In addition, future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation measures MM-AQ-8 and MM-AQ-9, which have been updated to meet current SCAQMD standards, and MM-AQ-10, MM-AQ-13, and MM-AQ-14 (incorporated as Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5), which would require best practices for reducing air quality emissions during construction. The update to Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-9 (incorporated as Mitigation Measure AQ-2) requires all construction equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP) to be CARB certified tier 4 or higher. Additionally, Mitigation Measures AQ-6 through AQ-8 require additional measures to reduce potential construction air quality emissions, including compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 1113. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-8, emissions of NOX from construction activities would be reduced to below the SCAQMD significance thresholds in all three scenarios, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions: The Project’s operational emissions would be associated with motor vehicle use and area sources. Area sources include natural gas for space and water heating, gasoline-powered landscaping and maintenance equipment, consumer products (such as household-type cleaners). Mobile sources emissions are generated from vehicle operations associated with Project operations. Typically, area sources are small sources that contribute very minor emissions individually, but when combined may generate substantial amounts of pollutants. Area specific defaults in CalEEMod were used to calculate area source emissions.

CalEEMod was also used to calculate pollutants emissions from vehicular trips generated from future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project. CalEEMod estimated emissions from Project operations are summarized in Table 5.2-8 of the Draft EIR. As shown, emission calculations generated from CalEEMod demonstrate that Project operations would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for emissions of all ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

It is important to note that the majority of ROG emissions are derived from consumer products. For analytical purposes, consumer products include cleaning supplies, aerosols, and other consumer products. As such, future project applicants cannot meaningfully control the use of consumer products by future building users via mitigation. On this basis, it is concluded that Project operational-source ROG emissions cannot be definitively reduced below applicable SCAQMD thresholds.

Additionally, it should be noted that the majority of the Project’s NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions are derived from vehicle usage. Since neither project applicants nor the City have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, only limited, feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce these emissions. The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce air quality emissions. In addition, future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation measures MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-7, as well as MM-AQ-20 through MM-AQ-22 (incorporated herein as Mitigation Measures AQ-9 through AQ-17) in order to reduce potential air quality emissions from operations.

Although the Project would implement the mitigation measures listed below (Mitigation Measures AQ-9 through AQ-23), it should be noted that these reductions cannot be quantified in CalEEMod. Moreover, no additional feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would further reduce these emissions to levels that are less than significant. As noted, the majority of emissions would be generated from the mobile activities by vehicles that cannot be completely mitigated at the project level. The Lead Agency cannot substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions beyond the regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified herein.

With compliance with existing rules and implementation of the mitigation measures, emissions would continue to exceed regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Therefore, the proposed Project could result in ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions that would be significant and unavoidable.

Cumulative Short-Term Emissions: SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards. As discussed above, the Project’s mitigated construction-related emissions by themselves would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants.

Since these thresholds indicate whether individual Project emissions have the potential to affect cumulative regional air quality, it can be expected that the Project-related construction emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the SCAB, which would include related cumulative projects. As concluded above, the Project’s construction-related impacts would be less than significant. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further minimize the proposed Project’s construction-related emissions. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, in combination with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate the local air quality. The Project’s construction-related emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Cumulative Long-Term Impacts: The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions. The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

As shown in Table 5.2-8 of the Draft EIR, the Project’s operational emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. As a result, the Project’s operational emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. While adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations and compliance with identified Mitigation Measures would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis, since the Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds, this is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. Project operations could contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant.

Mitigation Measures:

AQ 1: In the event that any off-site utility and/or infrastructure improvements are required as a direct result of future projects, construction of such off-site utility and infrastructure improvements shall not occur concurrently with the demolition, site preparation, and grading phases of project construction. This requirement shall be clearly noted on all applicable grading and/or building plans. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-8) AQ-2: All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operation condition so as to reduce emissions. The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per the manufacturer’s specification. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City of Fontana verification. The following additional measures, as determined applicable by the City Engineer, shall be included as conditions of the Grading Permit issuance:

Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow.

Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off-site.

Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.

Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.

Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization and ensure that all vehicles and equipment will be properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturers’ specifications.

Require the use of 2014 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export). If the lead agency determines that 2014 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOX and PM emissions requirements.

During project construction, the construction plans and specifications shall state that off-road diesel construction equipment rated at 150 horsepower (hp) or greater, complies with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 off-road emissions standards or equivalent, or the most recent standards released by CARB as part of the rulemaking process, and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. The Lead Agency shall conduct an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-9, updated) AQ-3: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, all Applicants shall submit construction plans to the City of Fontana denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the projects. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the SCAQMD as well as City Planning Staff. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-10) AQ-4: All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-13) AQ-5: Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans for future development projects within the project area, future developments shall include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications. The dust control plan shall include measures to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such measures may include, but are not limited to:

Phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts.

Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts.

All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas.

Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas.

Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut.

Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions, and as often as needed on windy days or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and minimize the release of visible emissions from the construction site.

Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation.

Wash mud-covered tired and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites.

Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites.

Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight-fitting tarp.

Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.

Provide for permanent sealing of all graded areas, as applicable, at the earliest practicable time after soil disturbance.

Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment.

Use electric equipment whenever practicable.

Shut off engines when not in use. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-14) AQ-6: Future individual projects within the Project Area shall be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings. No person shall apply or solicit the application of any architectural coating within the SCAQMD with VOC content in excess of the values specified in a table incorporated in the Rule. A list of manufacturers of low/no-VOC paints is provided at the following SCAQMD website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/architectural-coatings/reporting-and-support-documents/rule-314-manufacturers.pdf?sfvrsn=4. All paints will be applied using either high volume low-pressure spray equipment or by hand application.

AQ-7: Plans, specifications and contract documents shall require that a sign must be posted on-site stating that construction workers shall not allow diesel engines to idle in excess of five minutes.

AQ-8: Future individual projects within the Project Area shall be required to use electric or alternative fueled construction equipment where technically feasible and/or commercially available. Technically feasible and/or commercially available means the equipment is readily available, there is no significant technical impediment to conducting construction activities with the clean construction equipment that is available at that time, and that the clean construction equipment can perform adequately when compared to gasoline or diesel fueled construction equipment.

AQ-9: To reduce energy demand associated with potable water conveyance, future projects shall implement the following, as applicable:

Landscaping palette emphasizing drought tolerant plants.

Use of water-efficient irrigation techniques.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Certified WaterSense equivalent faucets, high-efficiency toilets, and water conserving shower heads. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-2) AQ-10: Future projects shall comply with applicable provisions of state law, including the California Green Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-3) AQ-11: The applicant/developer shall encourage its tenants to use alternative-fueled vehicles such as compressed natural gas vehicles, electric vehicles, or other alternative fuels by providing publicly available information from the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on alternative fuel technologies. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-4) AQ-12: To promote alternative fuels and help support “clean” truck fleets, the developer/successor-in-interest shall provide building occupants and businesses with information related to the Southern California Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Carl Moyer Program, as well as other SCAQMD incentives and programs available, or other state programs that restrict operations to “clean” trucks, such as 2007 or newer model year or 2014 complaint heavy-duty vehicles, and information about the health effects of diesel particulates, the benefits of reduced idling time, California Air Resources Board regulations, and the importance of not parking in residential areas. If trucks older than 2007 model year would be used at the project site, the developer/successor-in-interest shall encourage tenants, through contract specifications, to apply in good-faith funding for diesel truck replacement/retrofit through grant programs such as, but not limited to, the Carl Moyer, Prop 18, VIP [On-Road Heavy Duty Voucher Incentive Program], HVIP [Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project], and SOON [Surplus Off-Road Opt-In for NOX] funding programs, as identified on SCAQMD’s website (http://www.aqmd.gov/home/programs). Tenants would be required to use those funds, if awarded. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-5) AQ-13: The applicant/developer shall encourage its tenants to use water-based or low volatile organic compound (VOC) cleaning products by providing publicly available information from the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on such cleaning products. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-6) AQ-14: All on-site forklifts shall be non-diesel and shall be powered by electricity, compressed natural gas, or propane if technically feasible. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-7) AQ-15: All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate high efficiency/low polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-20) AQ-16: All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-21) AQ-17: All residential and commercial and structures shall be required to incorporate light colored roofing materials. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-22, updated) AQ-18: The minimum number of automobile electric vehicle (EV) charging stations required by the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 shall be provided. As agreed by the Applicant and Lead Agency, final designs of Project Area buildings shall include electrical infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential installation of additional auto EV charging stations.

AQ-19: Future individual projects within the Project Area shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

AQ-20: Future individual projects within the Project Area shall be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1301 – General. This rule is intended to provide that pre-construction review requirements to ensure that new or relocated facilities do not interfere with progress in attainment of the NAAQS, while future economic growth within the South Coast Air Quality Management District is not unnecessarily restricted. The specific air quality goal is to achieve no net increases from new or modified permitted sources of nonattainment air contaminants or their precursors. Rule 1301 also limits emission increases of ammonia, and Ozone Depleting Compounds (ODCs) from new, modified or relocated facilities by requiring the use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

AQ-21: Building operators will require (by contract specifications) that equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes. Truck idling shall not exceed 5 minutes in time. All facilities will post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for more than 5 minutes pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485, which limits idle times to not more than five minutes. Nighttime (after 10:00 PM) truck idling would not be permitted.

AQ-22: Future individual projects within the Project Area shall be required to maximize the planting of drought resistant trees in landscaping and parking lots and when/if recycled water becomes available in the future, landscaping shall be supported by this alternative source of water supply.

AQ-23: Where individual projects within the Project Area require permits from SCAQMD to operate specific types of equipment and processes, the developers/operators shall be required to obtain such permits prior to operation of the specific equipment and processes requiring the permit.

Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.2-3, page 5.2-36 to 5.2-41) Findings: Significant Unavoidable Impact
Facts in Support of Finding:

Localized Construction Significance Analysis: The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Area are the residences and other sensitive receptors located within and adjacent to the Project Area. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions.

The daily construction emissions generated onsite by future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project are evaluated against SCAQMD’s LSTs or a 5-acre site as a conservative screening analysis to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts. The appropriate SRA for the LSTs is the Central San Bernardino Valley area (SRA 34), since SRA 34 includes the Project Area. LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5.0 acres.

The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, as recommended by the SCAQMD, LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters were utilized in this analysis for receptors closer than 25 meters. Table 5.2-9 in the Draft EIR presents the results of localized emissions during proposed Project construction. As shown, the emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction for each pollutant would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning LSTs during construction activities.

Localized Operational Significance Analysis: The on-site operational emissions are compared to the LST thresholds in Table 5.2-10 of the Draft EIR, and shows that the maximum daily emissions of these pollutants during operations of future developments associated with implementation of the proposed Project could exceed the localized significance thresholds for operation emissions for PM10 and PM2.5. The cause of these emissions are emissions from landscaping equipment. It should be noted that the CalEEMod model defaults were utilized for landscaping equipment and number of days of landscaping. However, the amount of landscaping within the Project Area is likely to be much lower than the default assumptions made by CalEEMod, since the assumptions are made based on the land use types selected for the model, and the Project Area is denser, and would therefore contain less area to be landscaped than typical land uses utilized within the modeling software (i.e. CalEEMod). Nevertheless, for the sake of a conservative analysis, the default landscaping equipment and timing assumptions were utilized in the CalEEMod modeling for this analysis.

The proposed Project would implement all feasible mitigation with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-9 through AQ-23. However, even with implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed Project could result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors, based on the CalEEMod modeling results. It should be noted that individual projects that would be developed in the Project Area would be reviewed pursuant to CEQA; individual projects could demonstrate localized operational emissions that are below the applicable thresholds. Nevertheless, implementation of the proposed Project as a whole is assumed to result in a significant and unavoidable impact concerning LSTs during operational activities.

The Project would not involve the use, storage, or processing of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic toxic air contaminants, and no significant toxic airborne emissions would result from operation of the proposed Project. Construction activities are subject to the regulations and laws relating to toxic air pollutants at the regional, State, and federal level that would protect sensitive receptors from substantial concentrations of these emissions. Therefore, impacts associated with the release of toxic air contaminants would be less than significant.

Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts: In December 2018, in the case of Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, California Supreme Court held that an EIR's air quality analysis must meaningfully connect the identified air quality impacts to the human health consequences of those impacts, or meaningfully explain why that analysis cannot be provided. As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD in the Friant Ranch case (April 6, 2015, Appendix 10.1), SCAQMD has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes.

The SCAQMD discusses that it may be infeasible to quantify health risks caused by projects similar to the proposed Project, due to many factors. It is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence). The Brief states that it may not be feasible to perform a health risk assessment for airborne toxics that will be emitted by a generic industrial building that was built on "speculation" (i.e., without knowing the future tenant(s). Even where a health risk assessment can be prepared, however, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk--it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer as a result of the Project. The Brief also cites the author of the CARB methodology, which reported that a PM2.5 methodology is not suited for small projects and may yield unreliable results. Similarly, SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects, due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. The Brief concludes, with respect to the Friant Ranch EIR, that although it may have been technically possible to plug the data into a methodology, the results would not have been reliable or meaningful.

It should also be noted that NOx and VOCs are “precursor” pollutants, which makes analysis of potential health impacts even more difficult. NOx and VOCs are precursors to ozone, which is formed in the atmosphere from the chemical reaction of NOx and VOCs in the presence of sunlight. As explained by the SCAQMD in its amicus curiae brief for the Friant Ranch case, it takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so ozone may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources.” Given this, “…it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over an entire region.” Therefore, SCAQMD opined that while it “may be feasible” for large, regional projects with very high emissions of NOX and VOCs to conduct an accurate health impact analysis, “SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify ozone-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC (similar to ROG] emissions from relatively small projects.” On the other hand, for extremely large regional projects (unlike the proposed Project), the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 lbs./day of NOX and 89,180 lbs./day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to the O3 generated by the mixing of NOx and VOCs.

The proposed Project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 lbs/day of NOX or 89,190 lbs/day of VOC emissions; maximum daily NOx emissions would be 191.8 lbs/day, and maximum daily VOC (similar to ROG) emissions would be 432.8 lbs/day. Therefore, the emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level. Notwithstanding, this evaluation does evaluate full buildout of the proposed Project throughout the entire Plan Area through buildout year 2040, including evaluation of localized impacts to air quality for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 by comparing the on-site emissions to the SCAQMD’s applicable LST thresholds. As described previously, the proposed Project could exceed SCAQMD’s LST thresholds for operation for PM10 and PM2.5. However, it should be noted that individual projects to be developed within the Project Area may be shown to have impacts that would be below the LST thresholds for operational impacts. Additionally, future development projects would be required to analyze toxic air contaminants (TAC) impacts on an individual project level, per SCAQMD requirements, and in accordance with California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance. It is not feasible to develop an air toxics Health Risk Assessment (HRA) at a programmatic-level for individual development projects whose specific project details (such as specific site end use, site plan, and trip generation) are not well known at this time. Rather, project-specific analysis is the appropriate level of analysis, at the time that each individual project-level details are available. Therefore, individual projects will be screened and the determination will be made as to whether preparation of an HRA is warranted, at the individual project level.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots: An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined.

Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard. The 2022 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with approximately 100,000 average daily traffic (ADT), was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. The proposed Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 ADT, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any Project area intersections, since no intersection in the vicinity of the Project would come close to 100,000 ADT, even with the addition of the net new ADT attributable to the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter: Project construction would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.

The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment would dissipate rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. The closest sensitive receptor to the Project Area is located within the Project Area.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has not identified short-term health effects from DPM. Construction is temporary and would be transient throughout the Project Area and individual development sites (i.e., move from location to location) and would not generate emissions in a fixed location for extended periods of time. Construction activities would be subject to and would comply with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes to further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions. Moreover, Mitigation Measures AQ-2, AQ-5, AQ-7 and AQ-8 would require that Project plans and specifications shall include signs at loading dock facilities that include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for trucks drivers to restrict idling to no more than 5 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park”, and the parking brake is engaged pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations. Signs shall be installed prior to receipt of an occupancy permit. Additionally, as discussed above, future development projects would be required to analyze toxic air contaminants (TAC) impacts on an individual project level, per SCAQMD requirements, and in accordance with California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance. Therefore, individual projects will be screened and the determination will be made as to whether preparation of an HRA is warranted, at the individual project level. For these reasons, DPM generated by Project construction activities, in and of itself, would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of air toxins and the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 through AQ-23. No additional mitigation measures are feasible.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.7-1, page 5.7-22 to 5.7-33) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.7-2, page 5.7-22 to 5.7-3 Finding: Significant Unavoidable Impact
Facts in Support of Finding:

Construction Emissions: Potential future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would generate GHGs during the construction and operational phases of the Project. The proposed Project’s primary source of construction-related GHGs would result from emissions of CO2 associated with individual development projects’ construction and worker vehicle trips; refer to Table 5.7-1 in the Draft EIR. Additionally, site-specific development would likely require limited demolition and grading, and would also include site preparation, paving building construction, and architectural coating phases. Construction was assumed to occur starting in year 2023 and ending in year 2040. Since specific development projects are not currently proposed, default parameters were used for construction activities except for the building and architectural phases, which were adjusted for the buildout year of 2040.

Project construction-related activities would generate a maximum of approximately 13,725 MTCO2e of GHG emissions in a single year. Total GHG emissions construction-related activities would be approximately 196,947, over the entire course of construction (assumed to start in year 2023 and end in year 2040). See Appendix C of the Draft EIR for more detail. Once construction is complete, the generation of construction-related GHG emissions would cease.

Operational Emissions: The operational phase of future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would generate GHGs primarily from the individual development’s operational vehicle trips and building energy (electricity and natural gas) usage; refer to Table 5.7-2 of the Draft EIR. Other sources of GHG emissions would be minimal. Refer to Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR for further detail regarding additional mitigation measures that could reduce GHG emissions.

Project operational GHG emissions would total approximately 54,184 MTCO2e annually, and combined with construction-related GHG emissions, would total approximately 54,629 MTCO2e annually. Therefore, the proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD’s proposed GHG threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for residential and commercial land uses. Thus, the Project has the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to GHG emissions.

The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM-GHG-1 (incorporated as Mitigation Measure GHG-1), in which future development projects must demonstrate the incorporation of design features that achieve a minimum 28.5 percent reduction in GHG emissions from non-mobile sources. The proposed Project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measure GHG-2 and Mitigation Measure GHG-3, as provided below. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would require developers of future individual projects in the Project Area to construct buildings to be solar-ready and to install solar energy or clean energy for each structure greater than 50,000 square feet within two years of commencing operations, when feasible. Mitigation Measure GHG-3 would require developers of future individual projects in the Project Area that have 10 employees or more to submit a GHG Reduction Plan to the City for review and approval. Although the numerical effectiveness of these mitigation measures cannot be quantified at this time without further information about the exact type and design of future individual projects in the Project Area, these measures would minimize operational-source related contributions to significant GHG emissions to the greatest extent feasible for a project of this type. However, ultimately the above measures, in conjunction with Air Quality Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-28, would not fully reduce significant construction or operational-source GHG emissions to a less than significant level.

No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less-than-significant. Project operational-source GHG emissions exceedances of applicable SCAQMD numeric threshold are therefore considered significant and unavoidable. Moreover, approximately 50 percent of all operational-source emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (traffic). Neither future project applicants nor the Lead Agency can substantively or materially affect reductions in project mobile-source emissions beyond the regulatory requirements and Mitigation Measures GHG-1, GHG-2, and GHG-3. As such, project operational-source GHG emissions exceedances of the numeric thresholds discussed above are considered to be significant and cumulatively considerable impacts in regards to GHG impacts. However, it should be noted that the proposed Downtown Core Project would provide for more residential and commercial development in proximity to each other, as well as in proximity to transit. Further, Project implementation would provide for a denser urban environment with improved amenities that support active (non-motorized) transportation opportunities within the Project Area. When compared to the existing General Plan land use plan for the Project Area, the proposed Downtown Core Project would result in a four percent reduction in VMT per service population. Accordingly, as discussed further below, the Project is consistent with plans and policies designed to achieve the State’s GHG reduction goals.

Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies or Regulations: The goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (Executive Order S-3-05) was codified by the California Legislature as AB 32. In 2008, CARB approved a Scoping Plan as required by AB 32. The Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030 target, as well as to achieve the State’s target of carbon neutrality by year 2045. These measures build upon those identified in the previous Scoping Plan updates. Although a number of these measures are currently established as policies and measures, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these measures or similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted subsequently as required to achieve Statewide GHG emissions targets.

Table 5.7-3 in the Draft EIR summarizes the Project’s consistency with applicable policies and measures of the 2022 Scoping Plan. As indicated in Table 5.7-3, the Project would not conflict with any of the provisions of the 2022 Scoping Plan and would support four of the action categories through energy efficiency, water conservation, recycling, and landscaping.

On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS]). The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-30-15.

The RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, ranging from highway improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. These future investments were included in county plans developed by the six county transportation commissions and seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s network, and expand mobility choices for everyone. The RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding.

The plan accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost effectiveness. The RTP/SCS is also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve State GHG emissions reduction goals and Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently. GHG emissions resulting from development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions, and therefore Project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the Project would inhibit the post-2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the State. The Project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 5.7-4 of the Draft EIR. Compliance with applicable State standards would ensure consistency with State and regional GHG reduction planning efforts. The goals stated in the RTP/SCS were used to determine consistency with the planning efforts previously stated. As shown in Table 5.7-4 of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would be consistent with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets.

Conclusion: Though the proposed Project would be required to comply with regulations imposed by the State of California and the SCAQMD aimed at the reduction of air pollutant emissions, as described above, the proposed Project would generate emissions beyond the identified threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year for residential and commercial land uses, and as such, would have a cumulatively significant and unavoidable adverse impact.

Mitigation Measures:

GHG-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, future development projects shall demonstrate compliance with the SCAQMD threshold for greenhouse gas emissions in place at the time of individual project development, or if exceeding the applicable threshold, demonstrate the incorporation of project design features that achieve compliance with the SCAQMD threshold for greenhouse emissions in place at the time of individual project development to the maximum extent feasible. With regard to expansions/modifications of existing facilities, this mitigation measure shall be applied to the resulting incremental net increase in enclosed floor area. Future projects that exceed the SCAQMD threshold for greenhouse gas emissions in place at the time of individual project development shall include measures to reduce emissions, that may include, but not be limited to, the following list of potential design features (which includes measures for reducing GHG emissions related to Transportation and Motor Vehicles).

Energy Efficiency
Design buildings to be energy efficient and exceed Title 24 requirements by at least 5 percent.

Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Site and design buildings to take advantage of daylight.

Use trees, landscaping and sun screens on west and south exterior building walls to reduce energy use.

Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements.

Provide information on energy management services for large energy users.

Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems (e.g., minimum of Energy Star rated equipment).

Implement design features to increase the efficiency of the building envelope (i.e., the barrier between conditioned and unconditioned spaces).

Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting.

Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting.

Renewable Energy
Install solar panels on carports and over parking areas.

Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications.

Water Conservation and Efficiency
Create water-efficient landscapes with a preference for a xeriscape landscape palette.

Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls.

Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances (e.g., EPA WaterSense labeled products).

Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff.

Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles.

Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment (retaining storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive imported water at the site).

Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project.

Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives.

Solid Waste Measures
Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and carboard).

Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas.

Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services.

Transportation and Motor Vehicles
Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles.

Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by designating certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides).

Creating local “light vehicle” networks, such as neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) systems.

Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero-emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations).

Promote “least polluting” ways to connect people and goods to their destinations.

Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments.

Incorporate bicycle-friendly intersections into street design.

For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide facilities that encourage bicycle commuting (e.g., locked bicycle storage or covered or indoor bicycle parking).

Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and other destination points. (General Plan EIR MM-GHG-1, updated) GHG-2: All future individual projects with the Project Area shall be required to construct future buildings to be solar or other clean energy technology compatible, and clean energy ready. Further, for individual structures proposed within the Project Area that are greater than 50,000 square feet, the developer shall ensure that the structure provides solar photovoltaic panel system(s) within 2 years of commencing operations where feasible.

GHG-3: Prior to issuance of building permits, future individual project developers with more than 10 employees or more than 10 company vehicles shall submit a GHG Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) at the discretion of the Planning Director, to the City of Fontana for review and approval. The objective of the plan shall be to reduce GHG emissions by a minimum of 10 percent. The GHG ERP shall consider and identify GHG emission reductions from the following emission source categories as part of the ERP:

Energy source reduction from measure GHG-1
Implementation of Ride Sharing Program (Mobile Source)
Provision of electric vehicle charging stations (Level 2 or Level 3, Mobile Source) Maintenance of an onsite bicycle sharing program (Mobile Source) Establishment and support of a mass transit use program (including adjusting hours of operations to complement local mass transit operations, Mobile Source) Provision of secure bicycle parking facilities (Mobile Source) Acquisition of a minimum of one company electric vehicle or low NOx emission CNG vehicle, including truck(s) (Mobile source) Install low demand water consumption systems, internally and outdoors (Water Usage source) Implement a solid waste management system that achieves greater than 50 percent recycling (Waste Management Source) Utilize construction equipment that can reduce GHG and NOx emissions a minimum of 5 percent (Construction Emissions Source).

Noise
Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Draft EIR, Impact 5.11-1, page 5.11-17 to 5.11-25) Finding: Significant Unavoidable Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The City is proposing to create a new focused area in the Downtown Core (Project Area) by creating and implementing a new General Plan land use category and six new FBC districts specific to the Project Area. The proposed General Plan, General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning District Map, and Zoning and Development Code amendments would apply the new General Plan WMXU-3 land use category and new Zoning and Development Code FBC districts to the Project Area. Although the proposed Project does not involve site-specific development, the intent is to promote additional residential development and supportive commercial uses and amenities based on the highest residential development and commercial potential that could be built. Further, the Project would allow for the complete closure of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way.

Based on the maximum development potential and existing (on-the-ground) development anticipated to remain, implementation of the Downtown Core Project would allow for new development of approximately 10,920 dwelling units (8,900 units over existing conditions) and new development of approximately 3,992,868 square feet of non-residential uses (2,685,404 square feet over existing conditions).

Transportation Noise Impacts: The primary noise source in the Project Area would continue to be vehicle traffic. Future traffic noise level contours with implementation of the Proposed Project, presented in Figure 5.11-3 of the Draft EIR, shows that future noise levels at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of studied roadways would range between 58.6 and 73.8 dBA CNEL by the year 2040 with the proposed Project. By the year 2040, existing land uses adjacent to the studied roadways would be exposed to noise levels that exceed the City's exterior standards with implementation of the proposed Project. Compared to existing traffic noise levels, 2040 with Project traffic volumes are expected to be up to 13.6 dBA CNEL louder than existing ambient noise levels at existing land uses and would result in audible increases in ambient noise along Nuevo Avenue, Orange Way, and Wheeler Avenue.

Traffic noise would be significant if levels are increased by more than 3 dBA to levels above 65 dBA CNEL in areas with sensitive uses. Under the Project condition, noise levels along Nuevo Avenue from Arrow Boulevard to Orange Way, Orange Way from Nuevo Avenue to Wheeler Avenue, and Wheeler Avenue from Arrow Boulevard to Valencia Avenue would increase more than 3 dB and would be above 65 dBA CNEL. Sensitive receptors along Nuevo Avenue include single-family residential uses and multifamily residential uses. There are no sensitive uses along Nuevo Avenue from Arrow Boulevard to Valencia Avenue. Sensitive receptors along Orange Way include a park and multifamily residential uses. Sensitive receptors along Wheeler Avenue include single-family residential uses. As noise levels would be increased by more than 3 dBA to levels above 65 dBA CNEL in areas with sensitive uses, implementation of the proposed Project would result in substantial permanent increases in existing noise levels at existing and future sensitive receptors along these segments.

Implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant impacts related to exceedances of the 65 dBA CNEL land use compatibility criteria, as outlined in the actions of General Plan Noise and Safety Element Goal 8, and substantial increases in ambient noise levels. Where existing land uses would be impacted, the impact would be significant and unavoidable as setback distances of existing sensitive receptors are already established.

The use of sound walls or quiet pavements could potentially be employed to reduce these impacts, but neither is a feasible method here. Sound walls already exist in most places within the Project area where they could be effective in reducing noise impacts. Many impacted residential uses along the roadway segments listed above are accessed directly via driveways off the main roadway, meaning any new sound wall along such roadways would require many driveway openings, substantially reducing the noise barrier performance. Additionally, raising the heights of sound walls or constructing new noise barriers would result in encroachment on private property. Raising sound wall heights would likely require enlarging footings, thereby requiring the demolition of existing sound walls. Therefore, the use of new sound walls or modifying sound walls is not practical and is not a feasible method of mitigating the Project’s noise impacts.

Quiet pavements have been used to mitigate traffic noise and are typically assumed to provide a 3 to 5 dBA reduction. Although quiet pavement would likely reduce some of the noise impacts outlined in the previous tables to a less than significant level, noise impacts would remain significant as the introduction of quiet payments would not reduce all of the impacted roadway segments to a level that would be less than significant due to the magnitude of the traffic noise increases that would occur with the proposed Project. Additionally, widespread repaving of Project Area streets with quiet pavements would be extremely expensive. Given the marginal benefit that the use of quiet pavement would provide, relative to its cost, it is not considered to be a feasible form of mitigation given the circumstances. As there are no feasible noise reduction measures for the potential of significant noise exposure to existing sensitive land uses that can be identified at this time, traffic noise impacts to existing sensitive land uses associated with Project implementation would be significant and unavoidable.

Stationary Noise Sources: Stationary noise would be significant if stationary noise levels exceed the levels outlined in the Fontana Municipal Code. Implementation of the Project could result in the future development of land uses that generate noise levels in excess of applicable City noise standards for non-transportation noise sources as outlined in the Fontana Municipal Code. While the Project does not explicitly propose any new noise-generating uses, the Land Use Map includes mixed-use land use designations, which may result in new noise sources. Specific development projects and the details of future noise-generating land uses that may be located in the City in the future are not known at this time. Additionally, noise from existing stationary sources would continue to impact noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the noise sources.

While no specific development projects are proposed under the Project, changes in land use may allow for more intensive noise-generating uses in closer proximity to noise-sensitive uses. Where this occurs, detailed noise studies would be required to ensure that noise control measures are implemented into the project design. Such measures could include the redesign of stationary noise sources away from sensitive uses, construction of sound walls or berms between noise generating uses and sensitive uses, using buildings to create additional buffer distance and screening, or other site design measures to ensure that non-transportation (stationary) noise sources do not cause exterior noise levels to exceed allowable standards at sensitive receptors. Future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM-NOI-1 (incorporated herein as NOI-1), which requires a noise study be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit and mitigation implemented if noise levels exceed 65 dBA. Compliance with Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce stationary noise impacts to a less than significant level.

Construction Noise and Vibration: The degree of construction noise may vary for different development projects associated with implementation of the proposed Project and also vary depending on the construction activities. Noise levels associated with construction activities vary depending on the different phases of construction. Construction must occur between the times of 7AM and 6PM on weekdays and 8AM to 5PM on Saturdays per Section 18-63(b)(7) of the Fontana Municipal Code. There are no specific limits for noise levels during those times.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise-generated characteristics of typical construction activities, as shown in Table 5.11-12 of the Draft EIR. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 86 dBA measured 50 feet from the noise source would reduce to 80 dBA at 100 feet. At 200 feet from the noise source, the noise level would reduce to 74 dBA. At 400 feet, the noise source would reduce by another 6 dBA to 68 dBA.

Construction noise would be significant if construction occurs outside of the hours specified in Section 18-63(7) of the Fontana Municipal Code. The potential impact is site-specific and depends on the construction equipment used and distance to adjacent sensitive receptors. Implementation of the proposed Project could result in short-term noise impacts associated with construction activities. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction activities, on-site and off-site.

Construction crew commute and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for the proposed Project would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Truck traffic associated with individual project construction would be limited to within the permitted construction hours as listed in the City's Municipal Code. Although there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential at a maximum of 87 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from passing trucks, causing possible short-term intermittent annoyances, the effect on ambient noise levels would be less than 1 dBA when averaged over one hour or 24 hours. In other words, the changes in noise levels over 1 hour or 24 hours attributable to passing trucks would not be perceptible to the normal human ear. Therefore, short-term construction-related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport on local streets leading to the specific project site would result in a less than significant impact on noise-sensitive receptors along the access routes.

The site preparation phase of on-site construction activities, which includes grading and paving, tends to generate the highest noise levels since the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes, bulldozers, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. Site-specific construction activities associated with future development is expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers, motor graders, and water and pickup trucks. The maximum noise level generated by each scraper is assumed to be approximately 87 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the scraper in operation. Each bulldozer would also generate approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by the sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Noise reduction potential would be project and site-specific. Future construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM-NOI-2 (incorporated herein as Mitigation Measure NOI-2). Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires future development projects within 200 feet of a sensitive use prepare a noise study that addresses the potential impacts upon off-site sensitive uses due to construction. Further, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 provides procedures for construction activities to reduce impacts related to equipment moving and operation. Compliance with Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 and Section 18-63(7) of the Fontana Municipal Code during construction associated with site-specific projects would reduce noise impacts from on-site construction activities to a less than significant level.

Conclusion: With the exception of traffic noise on existing noise-sensitive uses along identified roadway segments, which would result in a significant unavoidable impact, the Project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Area in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies with the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.

Mitigation Measures:

Construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be properly outfitted and maintained with feasible noise-reduction devices to minimize construction generated noise.

Laydown and construction vehicle staging areas shall be located away from noise sensitive land uses if feasible.

Stationary noise sources such as generators shall be located away from noise sensitive land uses, if feasible.

Cumulative Impacts

2.5.1 Aesthetics
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact. (Draft EIR, Section 5.1.6, page 5.1-11 to 5.1-12) Facts in Support of Finding: the Project Area contains a mix of existing on-site development. The Downtown Core Project would support additional infill development beyond existing conditions and could increase residential densities and non-residential land use intensities throughout the Project Area. This new development may result in changes to the skyline throughout the Project Area, which may obstruct or interfere with views of surrounding visual features, including the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Jurupa Hills to the south. Scenic views within the Project Area include views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Jurupa Hills to the south, which are intermittently visible from the Project Area due to intervening development within the Project Area and surrounding area. Major north-south trending streets, including Sierra Avenue, Juniper Avenue, and Mango Avenue, generally function as view corridors to the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills. As previously discussed, although a maximum building height of 70 feet would be allowed within the Civic Core, Gateway Core, and Sierra Core, a 35- foot maximum height would be maintained adjacent to Sierra Avenue and a 55-foot maximum height would be maintained adjacent to street corners within the Gateway Core and Sierra Core. The Gateway Core and Sierra Core comprise the areas wherein views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills are primarily provided. Height limitations along Sierra Avenue and at the street corners will assist in maintaining these long-range views from the Project Area. Regional growth has and will continue to result in a cumulative aesthetic effect by converting undeveloped land into developed and occupied areas, intensifying existing development, and increasing overall levels of nighttime lighting. In general, the Project would accommodate an increase in building density and intensity, and height which could increase the number and distribution of dwelling units and other buildings, as well as supporting infrastructure. This is considered a potentially significant cumulative impact. Subsequent projects implemented within the Project Area would be required to be consistent with the General Plan and adopted regulations pertaining to aesthetics and lighting in the City. With implementation of the adopted policies and regulations described above, the proposed Project would not considerably contribute to permanent changes in visual character, such as obstruction of scenic views, conversion of existing visual character, and increased lighting resulting in a substantial degradation. Compliance with the General Plan policies, goals, and actions, as well as the Fontana Development Code, would reduce the cumulative effect of the Project on visual character to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to aesthetic impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

2.5.2 Agriculture And Forestry Resources
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact.

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project Area does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Further, the Project Area and surrounding areas are not being used for any agricultural purposes, do not contain any land zoned for agricultural uses, nor are any sites under a Williamson Act contract. The Project Area is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or for timberland production. According to the General Plan, no forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production occurs within the City. The Project Area is urbanized and no forest land, timberland, or timberland production areas are located within or adjacent to the Project Area. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to agriculture and forestry resources would be less than cumulatively considerable.

2.5.3 Air Quality
Finding: Significant Unavoidable Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Construction of the growth associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project has the potential to temporarily emit criteria air pollutant emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, and through vehicle trips generated by workers and haul trucks. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from demolition and various soil-handling activities. Mobile source emissions, primarily NOx and PM emissions (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5), would result from the use of diesel-powered on- and off-road vehicles and equipment. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day-to-day, depending on the level of activity and the specific type of construction activity. As shown in Table 5.2-7 of the Draft EIR, mitigated construction-related daily emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds.

Operation of the future development accommodated by the proposed Project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from project-generated vehicle trips traveling within the City, energy sources such as natural gas combustion, and area sources such as landscaping equipment and consumer products usage.

Cumulative Short-Term Emissions: SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for Federal standards. As discussed above, the Project’s mitigated construction-related emissions by themselves would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants.

As shown in Table 5.2-8 of the Draft EIR, the Project’s operational emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. As a result, the Project’s operational emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. While adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis, since the Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds, this is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. Based on these impacts, the Downtown Core Project would contribute to a cumulative impact with regard to air quality in the region and within the air basin (i.e. the South Coast Air Basin) as a whole. Therefore, this impact is considered a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.

2.5.4 Biological Resources
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact. (Draft EIR, Section 5.3.6, page 5.3-13 to 5.3-14) Facts in Support of Finding: Biological resources are a limited resource and their cumulative loss is considered significant. The Project Area is located within an urbanized area and currently developed with residential and non-residential uses. No natural open space areas containing significant biological resources exist within the Project Area. The Project Area does not function as a migratory wildlife corridor; and is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The Downtown Core Project does not change land use designations from open space to development; rather Project implementation would allow for the intensification of land uses in areas already developed or considered for development. Subsequent projects associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be required to be consistent with federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan and General Plan EIR mitigation measures, designed to protect biological resources. In compliance with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, proposed development or redevelopment within the Project Area would be reviewed to determine the potential for site-specific development to impact biological resources and if present, would be required to implement measures to mitigate potential impacts. Thus, the Project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.

2.5.5 Cultural Resources
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact (Draft EIR, Section 5.4.6, page 5.4-16) Facts in Support of Finding: Cultural resource impacts are site specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts. Construction of individual development projects associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project may result in the discovery and removal of cultural resources, including historic and archaeological resources, as well as the inadvertent discovery of human remains. Federal, State, and local regulations, including the Fontana General Plan and mitigation measures, would reduce the risk to cultural resources in the region. As discussed above, site-specific development with the potential to impact known or unknown historic and/or archaeological resources would require a resource assessment to determine the significant of potential resources and if potential impacts are identified, to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the identified resources. In the event of inadvertent discovery of human remains, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), and PRC Section 5097.98 would dictate the proper identification and handling. Compliance with the Fontana General Plan policies and actions, and existing federal, State, and local regulations would avoid and/or minimize a cumulative loss of these important resources if they are identified during project specific surveys or construction activities. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative cultural resource impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

2.5.6 Energy
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact (Draft EIR, Section 5.5.6, page 5.5-13) Facts in Support of Finding: As future development projects within the Project Area are received and reviewed by the City in subsequent years, those projects would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s General Plan and Development Code and all relevant State-level programs and requirements. All future projects must implement the most current version of the Title 24 energy efficiency requirements, as required by State law. Consistency with the General Plan and other mandatory State-level programs would ensure that future project-level contributions to inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary energy use would be less than significant. Moreover, as identified above, Project implementation would not be expected to cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As a result, the proposed Downtown Core Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative energy impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

2.5.7 Geology And Soils
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact (Draft EIR, Section 5.6.6, page 5.6-15 to 5.6-16) Facts in Support of Finding: Future development within the region, including the Project Area, would contribute to the exposure of people and structures to geologic and seismic hazards. However, specific site and soils conditions would vary amongst the Project Area and cumulative project sites. Similar to the Project, geotechnical studies would be required to be prepared for cumulative projects and site-specific development would be required to comply with the established regulatory framework (i.e., CBSC and Municipal Code requirements). The site-specific geotechnical studies would require review and approval by the City, and recommendations included in the report would be required to be incorporated into the grading plans and specifications for individual projects. If a specific site were determined to create a significant impact that could not be feasibly mitigated, the site would not be appropriate for development. Overall, compliance with applicable laws, standards, and guidelines, (including the CBSC and Municipal Code requirements) would ensure that design and construction of the Project and cumulative projects would reduce potential impacts associated with site-specific geology and soils conditions.

The Project Area has the potential to contain paleontological resources. As discussed above, implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources associated with future Project Area construction activities to a less than significant level. There is the potential for cumulative project sites within the City to have soils that contain paleontological resources. Construction activities associated with the cumulative projects have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy paleontological resources specific to those development sites. However, as with the Project, cumulative development would undergo environmental and design review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential impacts to paleontological resources. All development would be subject to compliance with the established federal, State, and local regulatory framework concerning protection of paleontological resources on a project-by-project basis. Where significant or potentially significant impacts are identified, implementation of all feasible site-specific mitigation would be required to avoid or reduce impacts. Based on the above, the Project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

2.5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Finding: Significant Unavoidable Impact (Draft EIR, Section 5.7.6, page 5.7-33) Facts in Support of Finding: The topic of GHG emissions is inherently a cumulative impact. Though significance thresholds can be developed by air districts, as well as State and federal regulatory agencies, these thresholds and their related goals are ultimately designed to effect change at a global level. In 2018, California greenhouse gas emissions totaled 425 million metric tons CO2e. The Future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would generate approximately 54,629 metric tons CO2e per year, or about 0.012854 percent of the total amount of GHG emissions in California in 2018. The proposed Project may contribute to global climate change through an incremental contribution of greenhouse gases. Even with implementation of Air Quality Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-28 and GHG-1 through GHG-3, implementation of the proposed Project exceeds the SCAQMD recommended numeric threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. Project GHG impacts are mitigated to the greatest extent feasible, but the Project would still contribute to global climate change through a cumulatively considerable contribution of greenhouse gases. As such, the proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable and significant adverse GHG emissions impact.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GHG-1, Mitigation Measure GHG-2, and Mitigation Measure GHG-3. No additional mitigation measures are feasible.

2.5.9 Hazardous And Hazardous Materials
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact (Draft EIR, Section 5.8.6, page 5.8-17) Facts in Support of Finding: Construction of individual development projects associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project may involve the transportation, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials, or the transportation of excavated soil and/or groundwater containing contaminants associated with development and redevelopment activities. Furthermore, some future land uses could transport or use hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school, or other sensitive receptors such as residences. As with site-specific development projects resulting from implementation of the Project, cumulative development would be required to evaluate individual hazards and hazardous materials impacts at the project-level. While some cumulative impacts would potentially occur in the Project Area as individual projects are constructed, federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan policies, actions, and Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, would reduce the risk to people associated with hazards and hazardous materials in the region. Considering the protection granted by local, State, and federal agencies and their requirements for the use of hazardous materials and other potential hazards in the region, as described above, the overall cumulative impact for hazards impacts would not be significant. Future closure of a quarter-mile of Sierra Avenue and development within the Project Area would not impair or interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed closure and ultimate design of Sierra Avenue would be reviewed by the FFPD to ensure that adequate emergency access would be maintained within the area. All development projects within the City are reviewed for California Fire Code compliance, including adequate emergency access. As a result, the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

2.5.10 Hydrology And Water Quality
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact (Draft EIR, Section 5.9.6, page 5.9-16) Facts in Support of Finding: Cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project are analyzed based on development within the Project Area and Santa Ana River Watershed, and development served by facilities under the jurisdiction of SBCFCD. Higher flows resulting from future development in the watershed and within the area served by SBCFCD infrastructure could result in drainage and runoff impacts. Runoff from cumulative development and future development within the Project Area could combine into the same regional conveyance systems. However, development within the Project Area as well as cumulative development projects would be required to provide on-site storm drain infrastructure and any off-site infrastructure improvements to ensure stormwater runoff associated with the proposed development would be adequately conveyed by SBCFCD facilities. Additionally, development of each individual project would be required to comply with the stormwater quality requirements for construction and operation in compliance with federal, State and local regulations. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to runoff and water impacts would be less than significant. As stated, the proposed Project would not appreciably add to the volume of imperious surfaces in the Project Area interfering substantially with groundwater recharge, nor would the Project’s demand on water supplies result in a substantial decrease in groundwater supplies. Therefore, the proposed Project’s incremental contribution to groundwater supplies and recharge impacts would be less than significant. Further, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Overall, the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative hydrology impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

2.5.11 Land Use And Planning
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact (Draft EIR, Section 5.10.6, page 5.10-23) Facts in Support of Finding: Development of cumulative projects in the Project Area would be required to mitigate land use impacts on a project-by-project basis. Similar to future development associated with the proposed Project, cumulative development projects would be evaluated for consistency with the project site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning; General Plan goals, policies, and actions; and other applicable plans for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As analyzed above, the proposed Downtown Core Project would result in less than significant impacts related to land use and relevant planning. The proposed Project, when considered in combination with development within the City, would not result in cumulatively considerable land use impacts. The land uses that would be allowed under the proposed Project provide opportunities for cohesive new growth at infill locations within existing urbanized areas in the Project Area, but would not create physical division within existing communities. New development and redevelopment projects would be designed to complement the character of existing neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing development and new development within the cumulative analysis area. The proposed Project does not include any new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative land use and planning impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

2.5.12 Mineral Resources
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: There are no active mines located within the Project Area (Division of Mine Reclamation, 2022). The Fontana General Plan does not designate mineral resources zones within the City or Project Area. The Project Area is currently developed with residential and non-residential uses and does not contain mineral resource recovery operations. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource considered of value to the region. The Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative mineral resources impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

2.5.13 Noise
Finding: Significant Unavoidable Impact (Draft EIR, Section 5.11.6, pages 5.11-27 to 5.11-29.) Facts in Support of Finding: As shown in Table 5.11-15 of the Draft EIR, cumulative conditions under Project implementation would contribute to an exceedance of the City’s transportation noise standards and would result in significant increases in traffic noise levels at existing sensitive receptors. Similarly, growth and development anticipated without the proposed Project would result in increased traffic on roadways within the Project Area, which would cause an increase in traffic noise when compared to existing conditions. The associated increase in traffic noise would impact existing uses that occur within the Project Area under both With Project and Without Project conditions. Project traffic noise on existing noise-sensitive uses along identified roadway segments within the Project Area would result in a significant unavoidable cumulative impact.

Implementation of land use planning and policies and actions can minimize cumulative noise impacts related to stationary sources by avoiding the placement of noise generating equipment near noise-sensitive land uses and where unavoidable, include design measures to the degree practicable, such as building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise-generating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise-generating equipment, placement of noise-tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise-minimizing materials, to avoid violating the noise criteria. Compliance with Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce cumulative noise impacts from stationary noise sources to a less than significant level.

Short-term construction noise and vibration is a localized activity and would affect only land uses that are immediately adjacent to a specific project site. Each construction project would have to comply with the local noise ordinance and Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, which provides for a noise study to address potential impacts due to construction activities and procedures for construction activities to reduce impacts related to equipment moving and operation. Thus, a less than significant cumulative impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.

2.5.14 Population And Housing
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact (Draft EIR, Section 5.12.6, page 5.12-11) Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed General Plan, General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning District Map, and Zoning and Development Code amendments would apply the new General Plan WMXU-3 land use category and new Zoning and Development Code FBC districts to the Project Area, which would provide opportunities for new housing and associated population growth. Additionally, the Project would allow for increased non-residential development, resulting in employment growth within the area. The proposed Project combined with cumulative development would combine to directly increase the City and region’s population and housing. The Project is anticipated to yield an additional 8,900 dwelling units, 33,731 residents, and 6,852 employees over existing conditions. The population and employment growth anticipated as a result of Project implementation is within the City’s growth projections of the Fontana Forward General Plan and SCAG’s RHNA allocation. Thus, the Project would be within the population projections anticipated and planned for by the City’s General Plan and would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area. The proposed Project would support the General Plan goals and policies to guide growth and development to the Downtown. Further, the Project would provide the residential densities needed to provide opportunities for new housing projects at varying income levels to serve the needs of the community, consistent with the City’s Housing Element. Future development within the Project Area would further support the General Plan policies and actions intended to encourage mixed-use development within the Downtown and along major corridors; encourage new medium-density housing on vacant and underutilized parcels within the neighborhoods of the Downtown Area; locate multi-family development in mixed-use centers, preferably where there is nearby access to retail, services, and public transportation; transform downtown into a vibrant local and regional destination; and facilitate the development of quality housing that is affordable to all income levels and residents of Fontana through flexible development standards. Thus, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth. Lastly, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the proposed Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative population and housing impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

2.5.15 Public Services and Recreation
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact (Draft EIR, Section 5.13.6, page 5.13-15) Facts in Support of Finding: Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would result in additional residential and non-residential uses in the Project Area and associated increase in the demand for public services, as well as parks and recreation facilities. As the demand for public services and recreation increases, new or expanded service structures (e.g., offices, maintenance and administrative buildings, schools, parks, fire facilities, libraries, etc.) may be needed to provide for adequate staffing, equipment, and appropriate facilities to serve growth within the Project Area. As with specific projects resulting from implementation of the Project, cumulative development would be subject to all applicable State and local policies and regulations in place for public services and recreational facilities. Payment of applicable impact fees, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the future projects, would ensure that the City maintains acceptable service ratios and facilities within the Project Area and the City. Therefore, the proposed Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative public services and recreational facilities impacts would be less than significant.

2.5.17 Transportation
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact (Draft EIR, Section 5.14.6, pages 5.14-18 to 5.14-20) Facts in Support of Finding:

Circulation System: As discussed, the Project proposes to modify specific roadways within the Project Area. The proposed modifications are within the interior of the Project Area and would not combine with other potential roadway modifications that may be proposed by development outside of the Project Area. Any proposed roadway modifications within the City would be analyzed and designed to ensure operation of the City’s circulation system is consistent with the General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element. The Project would enhance the pedestrian experience by providing a more walkable and denser environment and would continue to allow for implementation of the City’s ATP specific to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Project is consistent with the goals and policies of Fontana’s ATP by focusing on land use development near high-quality transit service and implementing Complete Streets improvements which would enhance the safety and attractiveness of bicycle and pedestrian travel. Cumulative development within the City would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s ATP to ensure implementation of the ATP would not be impeded by development and that proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities comply with the ATP. The Downtown Core Project would provide for increased activity adjacent to existing bus and rail transit services and be consistent with regional plans to provide service improvements and increase ridership on those services. Cumulative development within the City would also be reviewed to ensure it would not conflict with existing transit services. Overall, the proposed Project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding roadways, bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities or the performance or safety of those facilities. The Project would support the implementation of policies and programs to provide new and improved facilities to support multi-modal transportation and access within the Project Area. Cumulative development within the City would also be reviewed to ensure that proposed development would not conflict with the City’s policies, plans, and programs related to the circulation system. The proposed Downtown Core Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative circulation impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

VMT: A significant cumulative VMT impact would occur if there were a net increase in total regional VMT under horizon year 2040 conditions. The total VMT within the City’s boundaries was calculated under the Cumulative (2040) condition without and with implementation of the Project; refer to Table 5.14-3, VMT Within Fontana City Boundary. The Cumulative VMT within the City under No Project conditions is 5,456,350. The Cumulative VMT with the proposed Project would be 5,484,250. Therefore, the Project (under maximum development potential) would result in a citywide VMT increase of 27,900. This corresponds to a 0.51 percent increase in the total VMT compared to the No Project scenario. To offset the 27,900 VMT increase with the Project, it would be necessary to reduce the cumulative VMT generated by the Project. Under horizon year 2040, the Project would generate 989,134 total VMT (including travel both within and outside the Fontana city boundary). As such, the VMT within the Project Area would need to be reduced by 2.8 percent to address the 27,900 increase in VMT with the Project. It should be noted that the SBTAM travel demand model used to estimate the Project’s VMT impacts does not fully account for effects of the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit environment enhancements proposed as part of the Project, which would promote pedestrian and bicycle travel and the use of transit. The majority of the Project Area is within a Transit Priority Area and the Project would provide for a mix of existing and new buildings, with the development of new residential units near transit and along major corridors. To assess the reduction in VMT with features of the Project, potential VMT reductions have been identified from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, published in December 2021 (CAPCOA’s Handbook). The Project would primarily consist of transit-oriented development (TOD), consistent with the definition in CAPCOA’s Handbook. CAPCOA’s Handbook defines TOD projects as “built in compact, walkable areas that have easy access to public transit, ideally in a location with a mix of uses, including housing, retail offices, and community facilities. Project site residents, employees, and visitors would have easy access to high-quality public transit, thereby encouraging transit ridership and reducing the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips. For example, CAPCOA Measure T-3, Provide Transit-Oriented Development has been shown to reduce car use and encourage use of transit, which can reduce VMT from between 6.9 to 31 percent. Assuming the lower range reduction, the Project would have a daily VMT reduction of 67,836 (6.9% of 983,134). A reduction of this magnitude due to the Project features would result in less VMT compared to 2040 No Project conditions. The proposed improvements to the transportation network and the new land uses associated with the Project would be consistent with Measure T-3, and therefore could expect to have a reduction of in excess of 27,900 VMT. Applying this reduction to the Cumulative Project-level VMT analysis indicates that the Project would not result in an increase in the regional VMT. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative VMT would not be cumulatively consideration and impacts would be less than significant.

Hazards and Emergency Access. Site-specific development associated with Project implementation and cumulative development projects would be evaluated through the City’s review process to ensure compatibility of uses, including consistency with General Plan goals, policies, and actions and compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. Individual development, including any proposed roadways or roadway modifications, would be required to adhere to the City’s design and construction standards and specifications related to public improvements to ensure hazard conditions would not occur. The proposed Project would not result in a cumulative contribution to an increase in hazards and impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency access associated with future site-specific development would be analyzed and evaluated in detail through the City review process for those individual projects. Similarly, cumulative development projects would be reviewed to ensure adequate emergency access is provided in compliance with applicable City codes and regulations. The Project’s proposed roadway modifications, resulting in the ultimate closure of a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic would not result in inadequate emergency access. Closure of a portion of Sierra Avenue would also involve the conversion of Wheeler Avenue to a one-way northbound street, and Nuevo Avenue to a one-way southbound street, providing continued emergency access within the area. Further, the proposed closure and ultimate design of Sierra Avenue would be reviewed by the FFPD to ensure that adequate emergency access would be maintained within the area. As stated, the proposed modifications are within the interior of the Project Area and would not combine with other potential roadway modifications that may be proposed by development outside of the Project Area. Any proposed roadway modifications within the City would be analyzed and designed to ensure operation of the City’s circulation system is consistent with the General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulative contribution to inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

2.5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact (Draft EIR, Section 5.15.6, page 5.15-11) Facts in Support of Finding: Tribal cultural resource impacts are site specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts. Construction of the individual development projects associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project may result in the discovery and removal of tribal cultural resources. The Fontana General Plan policies and actions, as well as federal, State, and local regulations, including required mitigation measures, would reduce the risk to tribal cultural resources in the region. As discussed above, site-specific development with the potential to impact tribal cultural resources would require a resource assessment and coordination with the tribes to determine the potential for tribal cultural resources and identification of mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the proposed development. Adherence to existing federal, State and local regulations would avoid and/or minimize a cumulative loss of tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative tribal cultural resource impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

2.5.19 Utilities And Service Systems
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact (Draft EIR, Section 5.16.6, pages 5.16-18 to 5.16-20) Facts in Support of Finding: Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project along with other cumulative projects would increase demand for water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications services within the Project Area.

Water: Cumulative water impacts are analyzed in terms of impacts to FWC’s supplies and facilities. Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project along with other cumulative projects would increase demand for water services within the FWC service area. It is required that every urban water supplier assess the reliability to provide water service to its customers under normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. As indicated above, FWC can meet projected water demands for the City and Project Area under normal, dry, and multiple dry water years through 2045. Further, this increased demand for water infrastructure would be located within areas that are already developed and serviced by the FWC. Additionally, the FWC confirmed that the Project is entirely within the FWC service area; that distribution system piping and storage capacity for domestic water purposes exists for current demands in the Project Area; and that FWC is able to provide all water utility service to meet the water supply needs of the Project (FWC, 2022). Future development projects associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project Update would be evaluated by the City on a project-by-project basis to determine potential impacts to water supplies and infrastructure. The continued assessment of individual projects for impacts to the water supply system would assure projects would only be approved if adequate water supplies exist at the time of their implementation. All future development would be subject to all applicable federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations in place for water supply and infrastructure. Further, new development would be required to pay all applicable connection fees and ongoing user fees related to the provision of water services. Therefore, implementation of the Downtown Core Project would not result in cumulatively considerable water supply and infrastructure impacts.

Wastewater: Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project along with other cumulative projects would increase demand for wastewater services within the sewer service area. As discussed above, wastewater from the Project Area is diverted to the San Bernardino Avenue Lift Station and then to the IEUA Regional Water Reclamation Plant No. 4 (RP-4) (CDM Smith, 2013). RP-4 has a treatment capacity of up to 14 MGD and currently treats the liquid portion of an average influent wastewater flow of approximately 10 MGD. Therefore, sufficient capacity exists to meet additional wastewater flows associated with Project implementation. The Project does not include specific development proposals; individual development projects would be required to verify that existing capacity exists to convey and treat the potential wastewater generated with the new development. At the time future wastewater facilities are proposed, they would require a separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new wastewater facilities. All future development would be subject to all applicable federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations in place for wastewater services. Further, new development would be required to pay all applicable sewer connection fees and ongoing user fees related to the provision of wastewater services. Therefore, cumulative impacts to wastewater services and facilities would be less than significant.

Stormwater: As discussed above, the Project Area is generally developed with impervious surfaces and served by existing stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities. Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project along with other cumulative projects has the potential to result in increased areas of impervious surfaces, resulting in increased demand for stormwater services within the Project Area. The Downtown Core Project does not include specific development proposals; therefore, the environmental effects of future storm water drainage facilities are unknown at this time. At the time future stormwater facilities are proposed, they would require a separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new stormwater facilities. Further, future development would be subject to all applicable federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations in place for stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts to stormwater services and facilities would be less than significant.

Solid Waste: Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project along with other cumulative projects would increase demand for solid waste collection and disposal services. The City of Fontana, along with cities and County lands in the surrounding area, would continue to use common landfill resources, thereby gradually reducing the capacity of local landfills. As noted above, the Project does not include specific development proposals; however, the increase in solid waste generation due to future individual and cumulative development projects together could significantly impact solid waste resources. Individual development projects and related cumulative projects would be required to meet current recycling goals, reducing the amount of solid waste requiring disposal at landfills. Future developments would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis and solid waste impacts would be evaluated based on existing and planned disposal facilities and capacities available at that time. In addition, all future development would be required to comply with the mandatory commercial and multifamily recycling requirements of AB 341, thus reducing the amount of landfill waste. Therefore, the contribution of the Downtown Core Project to cumulative impacts associated with increased solid waste would be less than significant.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications: Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project along with other cumulative projects would increase demand for electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications services within the Project Area. As noted above, the Project does not include specific development proposals; individual development projects would be required to verify that electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications usage generated with the new development would not create significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the contribution of the Project to cumulative impacts associated with increased electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications would be less than significant.

2.5.20 Wildfire
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: According to the CALFIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, the Project Area is not located within a state responsibility area or classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CALFIRE, 2022). The City’s General Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan do not identify the Project Area as being within an area with high fire hazard potential, and the Project Area is not located within the City’s Fire Hazard Overlay District. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts associated with wildfire would not be cumulatively considerable.

Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Caused by the Proposed Project Should It Be Implemented According to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(d), an EIR is required to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that could occur should the proposed Project be implemented. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d):
“Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter likely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Determining whether the proposed Project would result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed such that there would be little possibility of restoring them. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

Consumption of Non-Renewable Resources: The environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project are analyzed in Section 5.0 of the Draft EIR. Future development would consume limited, slowly renewable and non-renewable resources. This consumption would occur during each individual project’s construction phase and would continue throughout its operational lifetime.

Construction associated with future development would require a commitment of resources that would include: (1) building materials; (2) fuel and operational materials/resources; and (3) the transportation of goods and persons to and from individual development sites. Construction would also require the consumption of resources that are not renewable or which may renew so slowly as to be considered non-renewable. These resources would include the following construction supplies: lumber and other forest products; aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt; metals; and water. Fossil fuels such as gasoline and oil would also be consumed to power construction vehicles and equipment.

The operational activities of new development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would consume resources which would be similar to those currently consumed within the City (i.e., energy resources such as electricity and natural gas, petroleum-based fuels required for vehicle-trips, fossil fuels, and water). Fossil fuels would represent the primary energy source associated with both construction and ongoing operation, and the existing, finite supplies of these natural resources would be incrementally reduced. Future development operations would occur in accordance with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6, which sets forth conservation practices that would limit energy consumption. Nonetheless, the proposed Project’s energy requirements would represent a long-term commitment of essentially non-renewable resources.

Construction activities associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could release hazardous materials into the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. All potential demolition, grading, and excavation activities would be subject to the established regulatory framework to ensure that hazardous materials are not released into the environment. Compliance with the established regulatory framework and mitigation measures would protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change resulting from the accidental release of hazardous materials.

In addition, there is the potential that individual future development projects would use and store limited amounts of potentially hazardous materials typical. All future development activities requiring the routine use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials would be subject to all applicable federal, State, and local regulations and standards in place for hazardous materials. Compliance with these regulations and standards would protect against significant and irreversible environmental changes due to the accidental release of hazardous materials.

In conclusion, future construction and operations would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, which would limit the availability of these resource quantities for future generations or for other uses during the life of the individual developments. It is noted that the continued use of such resources would be on a relatively small scale in a regional context.

Irretrievable Commitments/Irreversible Physical Changes: Implementation of the Downtown Core Project would result in a commitment of land uses designated for the foreseeable future. Land use and development consistent with the Downtown Core Project would result in irretrievable commitments by designating land for development that is more intense, in some instances, than current designations allow. Development would physically change the environment in terms of aesthetics, air emission, noise, and traffic. These physical changes are irreversible after development occurs. Therefore, the Downtown Core Project would result in changes in land use within the Project Area that would commit future generations to these uses.

The Downtown Core Project would support the General Plan goals and policies to guide growth and development to the Downtown. Construction and operation of future development projects associated with Project implementation would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources that would limit the availability of these resource quantities for future generations or for other uses during the life of the Project. However, the Project Area is an urbanized area and already uses such resources. Additionally, the continued use of such resources would be on a relatively small scale and consistent with regional and local growth forecasts in the area. As such, although irreversible environmental changes would result from the Project, such changes would not be considered significant. (Draft EIR, Section 6.1, page 6.1 to 6.3.) Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project
Section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project. A growth-inducing impact is defined by the CEQA Guidelines as:
“The way in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.” The State CEQA Guidelines do not provide specific criteria for evaluating growth inducement. Growth-inducing impacts fall into two general categories: direct or indirect. Direct growth-inducing impacts are generally associated with new residences or businesses that could induce population growth directly. Indirect growth-inducing impacts provide urban services, such as the extension or roads or other infrastructure, to an undeveloped area that could induce population growth indirectly.

In general, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if it results in any of the following:

Removal of an impediment to growth (e.g., establishment of an essential public service and provision of new access to an area); Fostering of economic expansion or growth (e.g., changes in revenue base and employment expansion); Fostering of population growth (e.g., construction of additional housing), either directly or indirectly; Establishment of a precedent-setting action (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning and general plan amendment approval); or Development of or encroachment on an isolated or adjacent area of open space (being distinct from an infill project).

Should a project meet any one of the above-listed criteria, it may be considered growth inducing. Generally, growth-inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or underdeveloped areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure such as sewer and water facilities or roadways, or encourage premature or unplanned growth. Note that the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to “discuss the ways” a project could be growth inducing and to “discuss the characteristics of some projects that may encourage…activities that could significantly affect the environment.” However, the CEQA Guidelines do not require that an EIR predict (or speculate) specifically where such growth would occur, in what form it would occur, or when it would occur. The answers to such questions require speculation, which CEQA discourages (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145).

In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and based on the above-listed criteria, the project’s potential growth-inducing impacts are evaluated below.

Removal of an Impediment to Growth: The Project Area and surrounding area are fully developed and urbanized. Transportation and infrastructure exists to serve the range of residential and non-residential uses within the surrounding area. The Project does not introduce new roadways or new or significantly expanded infrastructure that would provide for additional development within the surrounding area. Potential infrastructure improvements associated with future site-specific development would not remove obstacles to growth since the Project Area and surrounding area are already served by existing utility providers and potential improvements would be to serve the specific development being proposed. As the Project would not establish an essential public service or provide new access to an area, the proposed Project would not be considered growth-inducing.

Economic Expansion or Growth: In addition to residential uses, the Project anticipates the development of commercial uses within the Project Area. The construction of future development projects would result in construction-related jobs. However, construction activities and durations would vary depending upon the specific development and would be temporary in respect to each individual development site and therefore, would not be considered growth-inducing.

Project operations would introduce new residents and jobs to the Project Area. Implementation of the Downtown Core Project would consist of infill development at greater residential densities and non-residential intensities with the intent to introduce a variety of housing options and supportive commercial uses that bring people to the Downtown Area. Potential residents and employees would be closer to existing transit, as well as civic and commercial uses. Residents and employees would seek shopping, entertainment, employment, and other economic opportunities in the City and surrounding area. This could create an increased demand for goods and services that would encourage the creation of new businesses or the expansion of existing businesses. Although economic growth is anticipated within the Project Area, significant economic growth resulting in the potential to significantly affect the environment is not anticipated as the surrounding area is urbanized.

Population Growth: A project could induce population growth in an area either directly or indirectly. More specifically, the development of new residences or businesses could induce population growth directly, whereas the extension of roads or other infrastructure could induce population growth indirectly. The Project Area is located within the Downtown area of the City, which is an urbanized area served by existing roads, transit, and infrastructure. The Project does not involve the extension of roads or infrastructure into undeveloped areas; refer to the “Removal of an Impediment to Growth” discussion above.

Project implementation could yield a net change over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses. This new growth may increase the City’s population by approximately 33,731 residents (based on the 2022 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 3.79 persons per household). Implementation of the proposed Project would also provide additional employment opportunities for approximately 6,852 employees (Kittelson and Associates, 2022).

The proposed Project would provide for increased population growth within the Project Area when compared to the current General Plan. However, the proposed Project is intended to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan and accommodate the City’s fair share of statewide housing needs, which are allocated by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), based on regional numbers provided by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on a regular basis (every five to eight years). The City of Fontana 2021-2029 Housing Element was adopted February 8, 2022 and accommodates the City’s share of the regional housing need for the 2021-2029 RHNA period of 17,519 units. The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element identifies the existing Project Area, as accommodating a portion of City’s Low-, Very-Low-, and Above-Moderate-income RHNA allocation. The Project is anticipated to yield an additional 8,900 dwelling units, 33,731 residents, and 6,852 employees over existing conditions. The population and employment growth anticipated as a result of Project implementation is within the overall City’s growth projections of the Fontana Forward General Plan and SCAG’s RHNA allocation.

Although the Project involves unplanned population growth anticipated by the General Plan for the Project Area, the environmental impacts of the potential unplanned population growth are evaluated, planned for, and mitigated as part of the Project throughout this EIR. The Project would not result in land use changes, nor implement any new policies that could induce substantial unplanned population or employment growth within other areas of the City or region. The Project is in an urban area with existing infrastructure that can support future infill development and the potential physical environmental impacts of such improvements are analyzed in Section 5.16 of the Draft EIR. No additional infrastructure improvements (e.g., roadways and utilities) would be implemented that could indirectly induce population growth elsewhere in the City.

Establishment of a Precedent-Setting Action: The proposed Project would accommodate future growth in the Downtown Core Project Area by creating and implementing a new General Plan land use category and six new FBC districts specific to the Project Area. The Project would involve amending the General Plan, amending the General Plan Land Use Map, and amending the Zoning and Development Code, including the Zoning District Map. The proposed approvals would only regulate future land development within the Project Area through the implementation of the requirements of the FBC districts and would not induce growth within the surrounding area. Further, implementation of the Project would not establish a procedure that would make future General Plan or zoning amendments more likely. Discretionary projects within the City would also be subject to environmental review on a project-by-project basis and Project implementation would not involve a precedent-setting action that could significantly impact the environment.

Development or Encroachment of Open Space: As stated, the Project Area is located within an urbanized area of the City. Park and open space resources include Miller Park, within the Civic Area, Santa Fe Park, adjacent to the Metrolink Station, and a portion of the Pacific Electric Trail PET, an east-west multi-use regional trail, located south of Seville Avenue. The Project does not propose modifications to these existing resources and would not result in encroachment into these areas. The Project would not be growth-inducing with respect to development or encroachment into an isolated or adjacent area of an existing open space. (Draft EIR, Section 6.2, page 6.3 to 6.6.) Project Alternatives
The EIR analyzed two alternatives to the proposed Project and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects while also meeting the majority of the Project’s objectives. The City finds that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR as described below.

This section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the Project objectives, as required by CEQA.

Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states:

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis:

Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.

In subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives:

The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The range of alternatives required is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project.

2.8.1 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Alternative 1: No Project/Existing General Plan (Draft EIR, Section 7.2, page 7-5 to 7-15.) Under Alternative 1, the City would not implement the Downtown Core Project. The Fontana General Plan and Zoning and Development Code would continue to be implemented. No changes to the General Plan or Zoning and Development Code, including General Plan text and Land Use Map amendments, or amendments to the Zoning and Development Code and Zoning District Map, would occur. This Alternative assumes that ultimate development of the Fontana General Plan would occur and increased residential development opportunities in the Downtown Core Project Area in order to meet the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant and accommodate a portion of the City’s Low-, Very-Low-, and Above-Moderate-income RHNA allocation as identified in the Fontana 2021-2029 Housing Element would not occur.

Alternative 1 would result in the continuation of existing conditions and new growth would be allowed as envisioned under the General Plan and Zoning and Development Code, with land uses required to be consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Map. Table 7-2 in the Draft EIR compares the assumed development potential associated with the existing General Plan and the proposed Project 2040 buildout. Alternative 1 would result in less development within the Project Area compared to the proposed Project. Under Alternative 1, the existing General Plan policy framework would continue to be in effect, which would constitute a status quo approach to land use regulation in the Project Area.

The goal of the Downtown Core Project is to create a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use area with high quality housing and retail options in the Downtown Core Project Area. The Project would accomplish this goal by creating and implementing a new Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core (WMXU-3) General Plan land use category and six new FBC districts specific to the Project Area. The new land use category and FBC districts would allow for cohesive infill development in the Downtown Core. The Project would amend the Development Code to incorporate the six new FBC districts, including permitted land uses, increased densities and development standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types, general regulations, design and architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space standards specific to each new FBC District. Further, the City is developing the Downtown Fontana Development Guide to provide recommended changes to the FBC, objective development standards, expedited review guidelines, and development impact fee incentives. These standards and guidelines would ensure new development and redevelopment projects would be designed to complement the character of the existing community and neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing development and new development. The Project Area planned circulation would provide a more “walkable” environment, designed to incorporate traffic calming measures to reduce traffic speeds, enhance pedestrian safety, and promote walkability of the area, specifically along Sierra Avenue. To enhance the pedestrian experience and promote walkability, the Project proposes to ultimately close a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic.

Alternative 1 would not implement the new WMXU-3 General Plan land use category and six new FBC districts within the Project Area. This Alternative would not develop the Downtown Fontana Development Guide, and standards and guidelines would not be implemented to ensure new development and redevelopment projects would be designed to complement the character of the existing community and neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing development and new development. This Alternative would continue with the existing circulation described in the General Plan and would not ultimately close a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic.

Aesthetics
Impacts related to Aesthetics were found be less than significant. Both the Downtown Core Project and No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would provide for increased development within the Project Area that would result in densification of the Project Area. However, Alternative 1 would result in decreased densities and intensities in the Project Area when compared to the Downtown Core Project. Future projects under both development scenarios would be subject to applicable Municipal Code requirements. Although buildout of Alternative 1 would result in 1,785 fewer dwelling units in the Project Area and 493 fewer jobs, overall the Project Area would experience significant development compared to existing conditions which would change the character and image of the area under both Alternative 1 and the proposed Project.

Future development associated with Alternative 1 and the proposed Project would result in new development and intensification of existing urban uses that may interfere with existing scenic views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills are primarily provided from along Sierra Avenue and within the northernmost and southernmost portions of the Project Area. Under both Alternative 1 and the proposed Project, buildings would be limited to heights of 35 feet adjacent to Sierra Avenue. Further, under the proposed Project a 55-foot maximum height would be maintained adjacent to street corners within the Gateway Core and Sierra Core, which primarily comprise the areas along Sierra Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Since these are the areas wherein views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills are primarily provided, the height limitations would assist in maintaining these long-range views from the Project Area. Alternative 1 would allow for heights of 40 to 70 feet depending upon the building type along Foothill Boulevard. Similar to the proposed Project the height limits imposed on Sierra Avenue would assist in maintaining long-range scenic views within the Project Area.

Development under either Alternative 1 or the proposed Project would be guided by the guiding principles established in General Plan Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan. The Project would amend the General Plan to introduce the WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use category, which supports a density of 2.1-70 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and 0.2-2.0 Commercial FAR, and to apply the new land use category to a majority of the Project Area. The new WMXU-3 land use designation would encourage residential development within the Project Area by providing opportunities for higher density residential development to meet the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant and to implement the General Plan goals, policies, and actions. Although Alternative 1 would allow for less residential densities and development, it would continue to implement the General Plan goals, policies, and actions related to infill development, providing mixed and supportive land uses, revitalizing the Downtown Area, supporting increased activity, increasing connectivity and providing improved amenities and design that encourages walking, bicycling, transit, and other opportunities that reduce motor vehicle trips.

Alternative 1 would also continue to be guided by Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30, Article III, Form-Based Code, which establishes development standards by the existing zoning districts. The proposed Project would amend Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30 to incorporate the six new FBC districts, including permitted land uses, increased densities and development standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types, general regulations, design and architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space standards specific to each new FBC District.

Under both Alternative 1 and the proposed Project, the Fontana Development Code provides for project specific design review of future development proposals within the City, including the Project Area, which would ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and actions and the specific FBC district development standards. Neither Alternative 1 nor the proposed Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As such, Alternative 1 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The Downtown Core Project would result in no impacts to agriculture and forestry resources. Like the Downtown Core Project, Alternative 1 would accommodate development generally in the same areas, and these areas are, for the most part, already urbanized. Given that no agriculture and forestry resources would be impacted by the proposed Project, impacts associated with Alternative 1 would be the same and no impacts would occur. As such, Alternative 1 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Air Quality
Construction and operation of future developments would occur within close proximity to sensitive receptors, and there is the potential for localized emissions to exceed regulatory levels. The following significant impacts related to air quality have been identified:

The Project could result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

The Project could result in ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 operational emissions that would be significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of the proposed Project as a whole would result in a significant and unavoidable impact concerning Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) during operational activities.

Project implementation would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts during operational activities.

When compared to Alternative 1, the Downtown Core Project provides more opportunities for trip internalization and increased opportunities for walking and bicycling due to the proposed mix of higher density residential and commercial development. Future development under both Alternative 1 and the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the same policy guidance and local, State, and regional air quality measures. Although Alternative 1 would allow for slightly less development (1,785 fewer housing units and 493 fewer jobs), resulting in a corresponding reduction in construction emissions, operational emissions, and potential reductions in overall traffic volumes, impacts to air quality would continue to be significant and unavoidable, similar with the proposed Project. Additionally, Alternative 1 would result in a slightly higher VMT per service population when compared to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 1 would be considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Biological Resources
The Project Area is generally urbanized and developed with residential and non-residential uses. The Downtown Core Project does not include any specific development proposals and would not result in significant direct impacts to existing biological resources. However, subsequent development and redevelopment activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project could occur on undeveloped sites that have been revegetated or result in the removal of ornamental vegetation, potentially resulting in direct impacts to Burrowing Owl or nesting birds. Future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 (General Plan EIR MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2). Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires that for sites containing suitable habitat, a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction survey prior to ground disturbing or vegetation disturbing activities to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owl within the proposed area of impact and appropriate actions if occupied burrows are discovered. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 provides an alternative if avoidance of clearing of vegetation and removal of trees is not feasible between non-nesting (or non-breeding) season for nesting birds to ensure their protection. Compliance with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the California Fish and Game Code, would ensure that protected birds are not adversely affected during construction activities accommodated as part of the Downtown Core Project and impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Alternative 1 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the Downtown Core Project. The existing General Plan Land Use Map does not designate any open space within the Project Area. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to Burrowing Owl or nesting birds to less than significant. The potential impacts to biological resources under the Downtown Core Project and Alternative 1 would remain the same. As such, Alternative 1 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Cultural Resources
While the Downtown Core Project does not directly propose site-specific development with the potential to directly impact cultural resources, future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of known or unknown historic or archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-1, updated) would ensure evaluation of a project site for historical resources and, if necessary, implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-2, updated) would ensure that if any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to less than significant.

Alternative 1 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the Downtown Core Project. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts to historical resources and archaeological resources to less than significant. The impact under Alternative 1 would remain the same compared to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 1 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Energy
Project implementation would use energy resources for the operation of buildings (electricity and natural gas), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), and from off-road construction activities (e.g. diesel fuel) associated with the Project. Future development projects associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. Energy use impacts associated with the implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be less than significant.

Alternative 1 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the Downtown Core Project. While land uses and development under Alternative 1 would be required to adhere to the same local, State, and regional measures regulating energy usage as the Downtown Core Project, the decrease in residential units and non-residential building square footage, and the corresponding reduction in electricity and gas for the operation of buildings, diesel fuel for off-road construction activities, and potential reductions in gasoline due to a decrease in the overall traffic volumes would result in reductions in energy usage under Alternative 1 when compared to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 1 would be considered environmentally superior to the Downtown Core Project.

Geology and Soils
It is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during future ground-disturbing activities within the Project Area. Future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-4, updated and MM-CUL-5, respectively). Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require a qualified paleontologist conduct a preconstruction field survey of any project site that is underlain by older alluvium. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that provides specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Should mitigation monitoring of paleontological resources be recommended for a specific project, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-2, which would require the program to assign a paleontological monitor to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities; cease earth-disturbing activities should fossils be found; curate for documentation and transfer recovered fossils to an appropriate depository; and submit a report to the City and San Bernardino County Museum. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, potential impacts to paleontological resources associated with future development anticipated by the Downtown Core Project would be reduced to less than significant.

Alternative 1 would result in similar development patterns as the Downtown Core Project. Since the Project Area is the same under both development scenarios, similar physical constraints related to geology and soils exist. The potential for new development to expose people or structures to adverse effects associated with seismic ground shaking and geologic instabilities would be similar under this Alternative and the Downtown Core Plan. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. Further, new development would be required to comply with the California Building Code and applicable Municipal Code requirements. As such, Alternative 1 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

When compared to Alternative 1, the Downtown Core Project provides for slightly more development and more opportunities for trip internalization and increased opportunities for walking and bicycling due to the proposed mix of higher density residential and commercial development. Future development under both Alternative 1 and the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the same policy guidance and local, State, and regional air quality measures as the Downtown Core Project. Although Alternative 1 would allow for slightly less development (1,785 fewer housing units and 493 fewer jobs), resulting in a corresponding reduction in construction and operational GHG emissions, the amount and mix of development would result in higher VMT per service population than the proposed Project. Impacts associated with GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable with implementation of both Alternative 1 and the proposed Project. Thus, Alternative 1 would be considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Downtown Core Project does not include any specific development proposals; however, future development has the potential to expose people or structures to adverse effects associated with hazardous materials. Future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 (General Plan EIR MM-HAZ-1, updated and MM-HAZ-3, respectively). Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require that new proposed facilities involved in the production, use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from land uses that may be adversely impacted by such activities, and that new sensitive facilities would not be located near existing sites that use, store, or generate hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity to submit an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with the Fontana Fire Protection District. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 and compliance with federal, State, and local regulations would ensure a less than significant impact with regards to hazards and hazardous materials.

Similar to the Downtown Core Project, Alternative 1 would result in additional urban uses including commercial, residential, and mixed-use and public facility development. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts from hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant. The potential for new development to expose people or structures to adverse effects associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be similar under this Alternative and the Downtown Core Plan. As such, Alternative 1 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the Downtown Core Project would result in less than significant impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality. While this Alternative would result in less dense and intense development compared to the Downtown Core Project, all new development would be subject to applicable stormwater and water quality requirements per the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This variation in intensity and land use designation changes would not substantially alter impacts from or to flooding, water quality, or on groundwater supplies because existing federal, State, and local regulations would apply to guard against flood hazards, water quality contamination, or impact on groundwater supplies. Potential hydrology and water quality impact for this Alternative, like the proposed Project, would be less than significant.

Alternative 1 would result in slightly reduced development of housing units and non-residential square feet when compared to the Downtown Core Project. Compared to the Downtown Core Project, the potential water quality impacts related to construction and operation would be similar. Implementation of the Downtown Core Project would not result in construction, or long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. Future development under all alternatives would also be required to submit a SWPPP with BMPs to the RWQCB and comply with all storm water sewer system (MS4) requirements. It would be expected that impacts related to water quality would be similar under Alternative 1 as compared to the Downtown Core Project. As such, Alternative 1 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Land Use and Planning
The proposed Downtown Core Project and Alternative 1 are long-range land use plans. All impacts related to land use and planning were found to be less than significant under the Downtown Core Update. As described previously, the Downtown Core Update would amend the Fontana General Plan and Zoning and Development Code, including General Plan text and Land Use Map amendments, and amendments to the Zoning and Development Code and Zoning District Map. Under Alternative 1, the existing Land Use Element and land use designations would continue to guide development of the Downtown Core Project Area. However, this Alternative would not achieve the core objectives of the Downtown Core Project to meet the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant and accommodating a portion of the City’s Low-, Very-Low-, and Above-Moderate-income RHNA allocation as identified in the Fontana 2021-2029 Housing Element. In addition, the Downtown Core Project would allow for greater consistency with applicable State and regional plans related to the provision of housing options at varying densities and income levels within an area served by transit, retail, and services to provide opportunities to reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions when compared to Alternative 1. As such, Alternative 1 would be considered environmentally inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Mineral Resources
The Downtown Core Project would result in no impacts relating to mineral resources. Like the Downtown Core Project, Alternative 1 would accommodate development generally in the same areas, and these areas are, for the most part, already urbanized. Given that no mineral resources would be impacted by the proposed Project, impacts associated with Alternative 1 would be the same and would remain less than significant. As such, Alternative 1 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Noise
While the Downtown Core Project does not directly propose site-specific development, future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could generate additional noise from construction and operational activities associated with future projects. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (General Plan EIR MM-NOI-1, updated) requires a noise study be performed prior issuance of a grading permit and mitigation implemented if noise levels exceed 65 dBA. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 (General Plan EIR MM-NOI-2) provides procedures for construction activities to reduce impacts related to equipment moving and operation. With the exception of traffic noise on existing noise-sensitive uses along identified roadway segments, which would result in a significant unavoidable impact, the Project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Area in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies with the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2. Alternative 1 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the Downtown Core Project. Although Alternative 1 would allow for slightly less development (1,785 fewer housing units and 493 fewer jobs), resulting in a corresponding reduction in construction and operational noise, similar to the proposed Project, it would result in substantial permanent increases in existing transportation noise levels at sensitive receptors on a project and cumulative level. As such, Alternative 1 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Alternative 1 would allow for 1,785 fewer residential units which would result in 6,765 fewer residents compared to the Downtown Core Project. As, Alternative 1 would provide for development consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan, it would be consistent with City and regional growth projections. As such, this Alternative would be considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Under Alternative 1, the development area and development types would remain similar, however, there would be fewer jobs, dwelling units, and population when compared to the Downtown Core Project. Thus, impacts to public services(the demand for police, fire and other public services) would be slightly reduced. Overall, Alternative 1 would have a slightly reduced impact to public services when compared to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 1 would be considered environmentally superior to the Downtown Core Project.

Transportation
Transportation impacts associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding roadways, bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities or the performance or safety of those facilities. The Project would support the implementation of policies and programs to provide new and improved facilities to support multi-modal transportation and access within the Project Area. Similarly, Alternative 1 would provide for increased density and development within the Project Area and would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding roadways, bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities or the performance or safety of those facilities.

The proposed Downtown Core Project would result in a VMT per service population below the County threshold. Alternative 1 would also result in a VMT per service population below the County threshold. However, when compared to the Project, Alternative 1 would result in a higher VMT per service population. Part of this reduction is attributed to the increasingly balanced mix of residential and employment opportunities within the Downtown Core Project. As such, Alternative 1 would be considered environmentally inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Tribal Cultural Resources
While the Downtown Core Project does not directly propose site-specific development with the potential to directly impact tribal cultural resources, future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of known or unknown tribal cultural resources. Future development within the Project Area would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-1, updated), which requires a qualified archaeologist to perform a number of tasks prior to construction activities, including conducting a field survey for historical resources within portions of the project site not previously surveyed if evidence suggests the potential for resources to exist. In addition, future development would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL-2 and TCR-1 (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-2 and MM-CUL-3, updated). Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would ensure that if any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 has been updated to include implementation of TCR-1 in the event Native American cultural resources are discovered. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 requires that in the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction for future development, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find; that the City/project applicant initiate consultation between the appropriate Native American tribal entity and transfer cultural resources investigations to the appropriate Native American entity as soon as possible; and that a Native American Monitor from the appropriate Native American entity is utilized where deemed appropriate or required by the City, during initial ground disturbing activities, cultural resource surveys and/or cultural resource excavations. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and TCR-1 would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant.

Alternative 1 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the Downtown Core Project. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and TCR-1 would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. The potential impact to tribal cultural resources under Alternative 1 would remain the same compared to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 1 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Utilities and Service Systems
The Downtown Core Project would result in less than significant impacts relating to utilities and service systems. New development under either Alternative 1 or the proposed Project would place increased demands on utilities. Under Alternative 1, the Project Area would be developed with similar development patterns and uses as the Downtown Core Project; however, the overall residential and non-residential development would be less. Therefore, overall demand on utilities and service systems would be slightly less when compared to the proposed Project. However, both Alternative 1 and the proposed Project would likely require the construction or expansion of new utilities to serve the site-specific development that is being proposed. The quantity of infrastructure installed would not be substantially reduced, as the Project Area is urbanized and contains existing utilities infrastructure. The potential environmental effects associated with infrastructure projects would be similar under Alternative 1 and the proposed Project. Similarly, storm drainage runoff under Alternative 1 would be approximately the same when compared to the proposed Project, due to the general development footprint remaining the same for this alternative when compared to the Downtown Core Project. Since demand for utilities would be slightly less under Alternative 1 due to the lower densities and associated development potential, Alternative 1 would be considered environmentally superior to the Downtown Core Project.

Wildfire
The Project area is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; the Downtown Core Project would result in no impacts related to wildfire. Like the Downtown Core Project, Alternative 1 would accommodate development generally in the same areas, and these areas are, for the most part, already urbanized. Given that the Project Area is not located in an area of high fire hazard potential, impacts associated with Alternative 1 would be the same and no impacts would occur. As such, Alternative 1 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Ability To Meet The Project Objectives: The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would not attain the Project’s fundamental objectives, which include providing for new residential development opportunities in order to meet the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant; establish FBC districts that encourage housing and supporting commercial development; create and apply a new land use category for the Project Area to provide consistency and allow for development at the densities and intensities needed to implement the FBC districts; enhance the pedestrian experience and promote walkability, by ultimately closing a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic; providing objective development standards that would facilitate permitting of housing projects; and creating a Downtown Fontana Development Guide to serve as a "how-to" guide for the development community so that the City can realize its vision for the Downtown.

Alternative 2: Reduced Growth (Draft EIR, Section 7.2, page 7-15 to 7-25.) Under Alternative 2, the City would implement the Downtown Core Project, but at residential densities and nonresidential intensities lower than those reflected in the proposed Downtown Core Project. For comparison, it is assumed that this Alternative would result in a 59 percent decrease in the number of multifamily units and a 56 percent decrease in the number of employees by 2040 when compared to the proposed Project. This would result in a 56 percent decrease in the Project Area’s population by 2040 when compared to the proposed Project. This Alternative was developed to reduce the severity of potential impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and noise, as overall development of residential and commercial uses within the Downtown Core would be less than what could under the proposed Project.

Alternative 2 would implement the Downtown Core Project, including amending the General Plan and Zoning and Development Code, in order to create and implement a new General Plan land use category and six new FBC districts specific to the Project Area; however, the amount of development would be reduced. Table 7-3 in the Draft EIR compares the assumed development potential associated with the Reduced Growth Alternative and the proposed Project 2040 buildout. As shown, Alternative 2 would result in approximately 6,291 fewer housing units and 23,843 fewer residents within the Project Area when compared to the proposed Project. Employment opportunities would be decreased under this alternative, with approximately 5,639 fewer jobs created within the Project Area when compared to the proposed Project.

Aesthetics
Impacts related to Aesthetics were found be less than significant. Both the Downtown Core Project and Reduced Growth Alternative would provide for increased development within the Project Area that would result in densification of the Project Area. However, Alternative 2 would result in decreased densities and intensities in the Project Area when compared to the Downtown Core Project. Future projects under both development scenarios would be subject to applicable Municipal Code requirements. Although buildout of Alternative 2 would result in 6,291 fewer dwelling units in the Project Area and 5,639 fewer jobs, overall the Project Area would experience significant development compared to existing conditions which would change the character and image of the area under both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project.

Future development associated with Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would result in new development and intensification of existing urban uses that may interfere with existing scenic views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills are primarily provided from along Sierra Avenue and within the northernmost and southernmost portions of the Project Area. Under both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project, buildings would be limited to heights of 35 feet adjacent to Sierra Avenue and a 55-foot maximum height would be maintained adjacent to street corners within the Gateway Core and Sierra Core. Since these are the areas wherein views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills are primarily provided, the height limitations would assist in maintaining these long-range views from the Project Area.

Development under either Alternative 2 or the proposed Project would be guided by the guiding principles established in General Plan Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan and the proposed Downtown Fontana Development Guide. The Project and Alternative 2 would amend the General Plan to introduce the WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use category, which supports a density of 2.1-70 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and 0.2-2.0 Commercial FAR, and to apply the new land use category to a majority of the Project Area. The new WMXU-3 land use designation would encourage residential development within the Project Area by providing opportunities for higher density residential development to meet the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant and to implement the General Plan goals, policies, and actions. Although Alternative 2 anticipates less development, it would continue to implement the General Plan goals, policies, and actions related to infill development, providing mixed and supportive land uses, revitalizing the Downtown Area, supporting increased activity, increasing connectivity and providing improved amenities and design that encourages walking, bicycling, transit, and other opportunities that reduce motor vehicle trips. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would amend Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30 to incorporate the six new FBC districts, including permitted land uses, increased densities and development standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types, general regulations, design and architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space standards specific to each new FBC District.

Under both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project, the Fontana Development Code provides for project-specific design review of future development proposals within the City, including the Project Area, which would ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and actions and the specific FBC district development standards. Neither Alternative 2 nor the proposed Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As such, Alternative 2 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The Downtown Core Project would result in no impacts to agriculture and forestry resources. Alternative 2 would result in similar development patterns in the Project Area, which is already urbanized. Given that no agriculture and forestry resources would be impacted by the proposed Project, impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be the same and no impacts would occur. As such, Alternative 2 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

The Project could result in ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 operational emissions that would be significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of the proposed Project as a whole would result in a significant and unavoidable impact concerning Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) during operational activities.

Project implementation would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts during operational activities.

Both Alternative 2 and the Downtown Core Project would provide opportunities for trip internalization and increased opportunities for walking and bicycling due to the proposed mix of higher density residential and commercial development. Future development under both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the same policy guidance and local, State, and regional air quality measures. Alternative 2 would result in less development when compared to the proposed Project, resulting in fewer construction-related emissions. Overall, construction-related emissions would be less than significant under Alternative 2, including for NOx, which would be significant under the proposed Project without mitigation. Similar to the proposed Project, implementation of Alternative 2 would be required to implement all Air Quality mitigation measures.

Under the proposed Project, operations would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for emissions of all ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. In comparison, Alternative 2 would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for emissions of all ROG during the summer, and ROG and NOx, during the winter. Both the Project and Alternative 2 would be required to implement all Air Quality mitigation measures (refer to Section 5.2). Compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in fewer operational emissions and with the exception of ROG and NOx, all emissions would be below significance thresholds.

Although construction emissions at nearby sensitive receptors would be less under Alternative 2, both the proposed Project and Alternative 2 would result in a less than significant impact concerning localized significance thresholds during construction activities. Under the proposed Project the maximum daily emissions of pollutants during operations of future developments could exceed the localized significance thresholds for operation emissions for PM10 and PM2.5. The maximum daily emissions of pollutants during operations of future developments associated with implementation of Alternative 2 would not exceed the localized significance thresholds.

Conclusion: Both Alternative 2 and the Downtown Core Project provide opportunities for trip internalization and increased opportunities for walking and bicycling due to the proposed mix of higher density residential and commercial development. While land uses and development under Alternative 2 would be required to adhere to the same policy guidance and local, State, and regional air quality measures as the Downtown Core Project, the decrease in residential units and non-residential building square footage, and the corresponding reduction in construction emissions, operational emissions, and potential reductions in overall traffic volumes would result in reductions in air emissions under Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 2 would be considered environmentally superior to the Downtown Core Project.

Biological Resources
The Project Area is generally urbanized and developed with residential and non-residential uses. As described in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, the Downtown Core Project does not include any specific development proposals and would not result in significant direct impacts to existing biological resources. However, subsequent development and redevelopment activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project could occur on undeveloped sites that have been revegetated or result in the removal of ornamental vegetation, potentially resulting in direct impacts to Burrowing Owl or nesting birds. Future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 (General Plan EIR MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2). Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires that for sites containing suitable habitat, a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction survey prior to ground disturbing or vegetation disturbing activities to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owl within the proposed area of impact and appropriate actions if occupied burrows are discovered. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 provides an alternative if avoidance of clearing of vegetation and removal of trees is not feasible between non-nesting (or non-breeding) season for nesting birds to ensure their protection. Compliance with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the California Fish and Game Code, would ensure that protected birds are not adversely affected during construction activities accommodated as part of the Downtown Core Project and impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Alternative 2 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the Downtown Core Project. The existing General Plan Land Use Map does not designate any open space within the Project Area. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to Burrowing Owl or nesting birds to less than significant. The impact to biological resources under the Downtown Core Project and Alternative 2 would remain the same. As such, Alternative 2 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Alternative 2 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the Downtown Core Project. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts to historical resources and archaeological resources to less than significant. The impact under Alternative 2 would remain the same compared to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 2 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Alternative 2 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the Downtown Core Project. While land uses and development under Alternative 2 would be required to adhere to the same local, State, and regional measures regulating energy usage as the Downtown Core Project, the decrease in residential units and non-residential building square footage, and the corresponding reduction in electricity and gas for the operation of buildings, diesel fuel for off-road construction activities, and potential reductions in gasoline due to a decrease in the overall traffic volumes would result in reductions in energy usage under Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 2 would be considered environmentally superior to the Downtown Core Project.

Alternative 2 would result in similar development patterns as the Downtown Core Project. Since the Project Area is the same under both development scenarios, similar physical constraints related to geology and soils exist. The potential for new development to expose people or structures to adverse effects associated with seismic ground shaking and geologic instabilities would be similar under this Alternative and the Downtown Core Plan. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. Further, new development would be required to comply with the California Building Code and applicable Municipal Code requirements. As such, Alternative 2 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Although the proposed Project would be required to comply with regulations imposed by the State of California and the SCAQMD aimed at the reduction of air pollutant emissions, the proposed Project as a whole would generate emissions beyond the identified threshold for residential and commercial land uses, and as such, would have a cumulatively significant and unavoidable adverse impact. The Project would be required to implement mitigation measures GHG-1 (General Plan EIR MM-GHG-1, updated), GHG-2, and GHG-3, as well as all Air Quality mitigation measures (refer to Section 5.2). It is noted that when compared to existing conditions, the proposed Downtown Core Project would provide for more residential and commercial development in proximity to each other, as well as in proximity to transit. Further, Project implementation would provide for a denser urban environment with improved amenities that support active (non-motorized) transportation opportunities within the Project Area. When compared to the existing General Plan land use plan for the Project Area, the proposed Downtown Core Project would result in a four percent reduction in VMT per service population. The Project would also be consistent with plans and policies designed to achieve the State’s GHG reduction goals and the RTP/SCS.

Potential future development associated with implementation of the Alternative 2 would generate GHGs during the construction and operational phases. Similar to the proposed Project, the primary source of construction-related GHGs with implementation of Alternative 2 would result from emissions of CO2 associated with individual development projects’ construction and worker vehicle trips. Additionally, site-specific development would likely require demolition and grading, and would also include site preparation, paving building construction, and architectural coating phases. The operational phase of future development associated with Alternative 2 would generate GHGs primarily from the individual development’s operational vehicle trips and building energy (electricity and natural gas) usage. Operational GHG emissions combined with construction-related GHG emissions associated with implementation of Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed Project; however, they would exceed the SCAQMD’s proposed GHG threshold. Thus, similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 has the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to GHG emissions. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would be required to implement mitigation measures GHG-1 (General Plan EIR MM-GHG-1, updated), GHG-2, and GHG-3, as well as all Air Quality mitigation measures (refer to Section 5.2).

Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would provide for more residential and commercial development in proximity to each other, as well as in proximity to transit when compared to existing conditions. Alternative 2 would provide for a denser urban environment with improved amenities that support active (non-motorized) transportation opportunities within the Project Area. However, when compared to the proposed Project, although Alternative 2 would not exceed the VMT per service population threshold, the VMT per service population would be greater under Alternative 2. Like the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Similarly, Alternative 2 would also be consistent with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS.

Conclusion: When compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would provide fewer opportunities for trip internalization and opportunities for walking and bicycling due to the reduced development potential. While land uses and development under Alternative 2 would be required to adhere to the same policy guidance and local, State, and regional air quality measures as the Downtown Core Project, the decrease in residential units and non-residential building square footage, and the corresponding reduction in construction emissions, operational emissions, and potential reductions in overall traffic volumes would result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions under Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 2 would be considered environmentally superior to the Downtown Core Project.

Similar to the Downtown Core Project, Alternative 2 would result in additional urban uses including commercial, residential, and mixed-use and public facility development. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts from hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant. The potential for new development to expose people or structures to adverse effects associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be similar under this Alternative and the Downtown Core Plan. As such, Alternative 2 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the Downtown Core Project would result in less than significant impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality. While this Alternative would result in less dense and intense development compared to the Downtown Core Project, all new development would be subject to applicable stormwater and water quality requirements per the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. This variation in development density and intensity would not substantially alter impacts from or to flooding, water quality, or on groundwater supplies because existing federal, State, and local regulations would apply to guard against flood hazards, water quality contamination, or impact on groundwater supplies. Potential hydrology and water quality impacts associated with Alternative 2, like the proposed Project, would be less than significant.

Alternative 2 would result in slightly reduced development of housing units and non-residential square feet when compared to the Downtown Core Project; however, potential water quality impacts related to construction and operation would be similar. Implementation of the Downtown Core Project would not result in construction, or long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. Future development under all alternatives would also be required to submit a SWPPP with BMPs to the RWQCB and comply with all storm water sewer system (MS4) requirements. It would be expected that impacts related to water quality would be similar under Alternative 2 as compared to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 2 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Land Use and Planning
The proposed Downtown Core Project is a long-range land use plan. All impacts related to land use and planning were found to be less than significant under the Downtown Core Update. The proposed Project and Alternative 2 would amend the Fontana General Plan and Zoning and Development Code, including General Plan text and Land Use Map amendments, and amendments to the Zoning and Development Code and Zoning District Map. Alternative 2 would allow for development at similar densities as the proposed Project, but development within each FBC District would not occur to the maximum development potential. Similar to the Project, Alternative 2 would provide for consistency with applicable State and regional plans. As such, Alternative 2 would be considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Mineral Resources
The Downtown Core Project would result in no impacts relating to mineral resources. Like the Downtown Core Project, Alternative 2 would accommodate development generally in the same areas, and these areas are, for the most part, already urbanized. Given that no mineral resources would be impacted by the proposed Project, impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be the same and would remain less than significant. As such, Alternative 2 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Noise
While the Downtown Core Project does not directly propose site specific development, future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could generate additional noise from construction and operational activities associated with future projects. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (General Plan EIR MM-NOI-1, updated) requires a noise study be performed prior issuance of a grading permit and mitigation implemented if noise levels exceed 65 dBA. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 (General Plan EIR MM-NOI-2) provides procedures for construction activities to reduce impacts related to equipment moving and operation. With the exception of traffic noise on existing noise-sensitive uses along identified roadway segments, which would result in a significant unavoidable impact, the Project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Area in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies with the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2. Alternative 2 would have less development when compared to the proposed Project, resulting in a corresponding reduction in construction and operational noise. However, similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in substantial permanent increases in existing transportation noise levels at sensitive receptors on a project and cumulative level. As such, Alternative 2 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Population and Housing
Population and employment growth anticipated as a result of Project implementation is within the City’s growth projections of the Fontana Forward General Plan and regional plans. The Downtown Core Project would result in less than significant impacts related to population and housing. As shown in Table 7-2, Alternative 2 anticipates 6,291 fewer residential units which would result in 23,843 fewer residents compared to the Downtown Core Project. Thus, Alternative 2 would be within City and regional growth projections. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts related to population and housing. As such, this Alternative would be considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Public Services and Recreation
The Downtown Core Project would result in less than significant impacts relating to public services and recreation. New development would place increased demands on public services such as police, fire, schools, parks, libraries, and other governmental services. Compliance with the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code would require payment of impact fees to the City and other public agencies to ensure that additional development allowed does not have adverse impacts on these services and agencies. Under Alternative 2, the development area and development types would remain similar, however, there would be fewer jobs, dwelling units, and population when compared to the Downtown Core Project. Thus, impacts to public services (the demand for police, fire and other public services) would be reduced. Overall, Alternative 2 would have reduced impacts to public services when compared to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 2 would be considered environmentally superior to the Downtown Core Project.

Transportation
Transportation impacts associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding roadways, bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities or the performance or safety of those facilities. The Project would support the implementation of policies and programs to provide new and improved facilities to support multi-modal transportation and access within the Project Area. Similarly, Alternative 2 would provide for increased density and development within the Project Area and would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding roadways, bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities or the performance or safety of those facilities.

The proposed Downtown Core Project would result in a VMT per service population below the County threshold. Alternative 2 would also result in a VMT per service population below the County threshold. However, when compared to the Project, Alternative 2 would result in a higher VMT per service population. Part of this reduction is attributed to the increasingly balanced mix of residential and employment opportunities within the Downtown Core Project. As such, Alternative 2 would be considered environmentally inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Alternative 2 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the Downtown Core Project. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and TCR-1 would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. The potential impact to tribal cultural resources under Alternative 2 would remain relatively similar compared to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 2 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Utilities and Service Systems
The Downtown Core Project would result in less than significant impacts relating to utilities and service systems. New development under either Alternative 2 or the proposed Project would place increased demands on utilities. Under Alternative 2, the Project Area would be developed with similar development patterns and uses as the Downtown Core Project; however, the overall residential and non-residential development would be less. Therefore, overall demand on utilities and service systems would be less when compared to the proposed Project. However, both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would likely require the construction or expansion of new utilities to serve the site-specific development that is being proposed. The quantity of infrastructure installed would not be substantially reduced, as the Project Area is urbanized and contains existing utilities infrastructure. The potential environmental effects associated with infrastructure projects would be similar under Alternative 2 and the proposed Project. Similarly, storm drainage runoff under Alternative 2 would be approximately the same when compared to the proposed Project, due to the general development footprint remaining the same for this alternative when compared to the Downtown Core Project. Since demand for utilities would be less under Alternative 2 due to the lower associated development, Alternative 2 would be considered environmentally superior to the Downtown Core Project.

Wildfire
The Project area is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; the Downtown Core Project would result in no impacts related to wildfire. Like the Downtown Core Project, Alternative 2 would accommodate development generally in the same areas, and these areas are, for the most part, already urbanized. Given that the Project Area is not located in an area of high fire hazard potential, impacts associated with Alternative 1 would be the same and no impacts would occur. As such, Alternative 2 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.

Ability To Meet The Project Objectives: The Reduced Growth Alternative would attain the Project’s fundamental objectives, allow potentially to a lesser extent, including providing for new residential development opportunities in order to meet the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant; establish FBC districts that encourage housing and supporting commercial development; create and apply a new land use category for the Project Area to provide consistency and allow for development at the densities and intensities needed to implement the FBC districts; enhance the pedestrian experience and promote walkability, by ultimately closing a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic; providing objective development standards that would facilitate permitting of housing projects; and creating a Downtown Fontana Development Guide to serve as a "how-to" guide for the development community so that the City can realize its vision for the Downtown.

2.8.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives that are analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is that alternative with the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed Project.

Alternative 2 (Reduced Growth Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative when looked at in terms of all potential environmental impacts. While it would not completely eliminate the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, Alternative 2 would lessen the majority of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. Both alternatives fail to reduce any significant and unavoidable impacts to a less than significant level.

Although the Reduced Growth Alternative would attain the Project’s fundamental objectives, it would do so to a lesser extent when compared to the Project. Specifically, Alternative 2 would not provide for new residential development opportunities in order to meet the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant to the extent of the proposed Project since it would allow for significantly fewer residential units than would be allowed by the Project. One of the primary objectives of the Project is to provide for new residential opportunities that encourage housing types targeted to young people and young families and to promote revitalization and redevelopment of the downtown, providing for the transformation of downtown into a vibrant local and regional destination. The Project would allow for realization of these objectives, which would further support implementation of the City’s Housing Element. The Project would provide the development potential and opportunities to support the long-term plan for revitalization of the Downtown Core. Therefore, since the Reduced Growth Alternative would not fully meet the Project objectives and would not eliminate the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, it has been considered and rejected.

Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City Council hereby declares that it has balanced the benefits of the Downtown Core Project against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Downtown Core Project. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, if the benefits of the Downtown Core Project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered “acceptable.” Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Downtown Core Project to the extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures contained in the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and herein, having considered the entire administrative record on the Downtown Core Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Downtown Core Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after implementation of all feasible mitigation, the City Council has determined that each of the following social, economic and environmental benefits of the Downtown Core Project separately and individually outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impact and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:

The Downtown Core Project provides for new residential development opportunities, including multi-family housing and higher residential densities in select areas, providing improved housing opportunities at varying income levels consistent with the City’s Housing Element and goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant.

The Downtown Core Project establishes FBC districts that encourage housing and support commercial development, providing socioeconomic co-benefits of mixed-use development.

The Downtown Core Project provides opportunities and guidance to enhance the pedestrian experience and promotes walkability, through the creation of compact and walkable urban village-style design in new developments and by ultimately closing a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic, consistent with local and regional objectives.

The Downtown Core Project provides objective development standards that would facilitate permitting of housing projects and reduce housing costs in compliance with the Housing Element.

The Downtown Core Project creates a Downtown Fontana Development Guide to encourage and incentivize continued economic investment in the Downtown through a clear process and set of standards that allows for development to respond to market conditions and reflect changing consumption patterns and preferences for retail, housing, and other life- style choices.

The Downtown Core Project provides market-driven opportunities for future investment and practical implementation strategies for the continued success and health of the Downtown Core.

The Downtown Core Project would provide new residential and non-residential development opportunities in an area with access to retail, services, and public transportation, thereby reducing vehicle trips and supporting reduced vehicle miles traveled consistent with regional goals.

Through the Downtown Fontana Development Guide, the Downtown Core Project provides a "how-to" guide for the development community so that the City can realize its vision for revitalization and redevelopment of the Downtown.

The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through the approval and implementation of the Downtown Core Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impact of the Downtown Core Project that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. The City Council finds that each of the Downtown Core Project’s benefits separately and individually outweigh all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.

Additional Facts on Record

4.1 Adoption of a Monitoring Plan for Mitigation Measures Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the City of Fontana hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”). The City finds that the MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with the changes (i.e., mitigation measures) imposed on the Downtown Core Project to mitigate or avoid effects on the environment during Project implementation. The MMRP is on file with the City of Fontana Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335.

4.2 Custodian of Record
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Fontana Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. The custodian for these records is Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. (Exhibit B) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist Mitigation Measures
Implementation Timing
Responsible Party
Monitoring Party
Verification
Initials
Date
Remarks

AIR QUALITY
AQ-1: In the event that any off-site utility and/or infrastructure improvements are required as a direct result of future projects, construction of such off-site utility and infrastructure improvements shall not occur concurrently with the demolition, site preparation, and grading phases of project construction. This requirement shall be clearly noted on all applicable grading and/or building plans. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-8) Prior to the issuance of grading permits
Project proponent
City of Fontana Planning
Department
AQ-2: All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operation condition so as to reduce emissions. The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per the manufacturer’s specification. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City of Fontana verification. The following additional measures, as determined applicable by the City Engineer, shall be included as conditions of the Grading Permit issuance:

Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow.

Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off-site.

Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.

Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.

Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization and ensure that all vehicles and equipment will be properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturers’ specifications.

During project construction, the construction plans and specifications shall state that off-road diesel construction equipment rated at 150 horsepower (hp) or greater, complies with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 off-road emissions standards or equivalent, or the most recent standards released by CARB as part of the rulemaking process, and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. The Lead Agency shall conduct an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-9, updated) Prior to the issuance of grading permits
Project proponent
City of Fontana Planning Department
AQ-3: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, all Applicants shall submit construction plans to the City of Fontana denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the projects. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the SCAQMD as well as City Planning Staff. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-10) Prior to the issuance of grading permits
Project proponent
City of Fontana Planning Department
AQ-4: All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-13) Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first Project proponent
City of Fontana Planning Department
AQ-5: Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans for future development projects within the project area, future developments shall include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications. The dust control plan shall include measures to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such measures may include, but are not limited to: