Fontana City Council
July 23, 2024

ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA

ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CERTIFYING THE

WALNUT VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2023050271), ADOPTING

THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
APPROVING THE PROJECT.

WHEREAS, the project includes rescinding the existing Walnut Village Specific Plan (SP-3) and adopting the new Walnut Village Specific Plan (“Project”) is evaluated in the Walnut Village Specific Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”); and WHEREAS, the Project consists of approximately 342 acres property, located within the City of Fontana, in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County, California, bounded to the north by the 210 freeway, to the south by Baseline Avenue, to the west by Sierra Avenue and to the east by Palmetto Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Project requires approvals of a General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 22-012), a Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA No. 24- 003), and a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA No. 24-001), (DRP No. 22-040); 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 September 30, 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 #2023050271 would be prepared; and
WHEREAS, two (2) 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 May 24, 2023 and June 1, 2023 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 foll owing resource areas:

Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gases, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Services Systems; 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 , Green House Gases and Cultural Resources; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on May 5, 2023; and
WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City provided 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 March 18, 2024 ; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City Hall, on the City’s website, and at the Lewis Library and Technology Center public libraries; 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 March 18, 2024 to May 1, 2024; 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 did not receive any written comment letters on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing to consider the Draft EIR and approvals of GPA, ZCA and SPA, for the Project and solicited comments on the document. 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, on June 21, 2024, the City released the Final EIR (“Final EIR”), which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepar ed 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 c onnection 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 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 5 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 potential significant irreversible environmental changes 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 existence of any growth- inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 2.6 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 2.7 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 for th 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 23, 2024, the City 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. T he 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. P
ursuant 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. B
ased 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. T he 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 Cecily Session -Goins, Associate Planner. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

SECTION 7. C ity 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 23rd day of July, 2024.

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 23 rd day of July 2024, 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:

Walnut Village Specific Plan Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2023050271

Lead Agency
City of Fontana
Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335

CEQA Consultant

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501

June 2024

Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 10

1.1 Project Summary ......................................................................................................... 10

1.1.1 Site Location ................................................................................................... 10

1.1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................ 10

1.1.3 Project Objectives .......................................................................................... 10

1.2 City of Fontana Actions Covered By the PEIR .......................................................... 10

1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation ........................................................ 11

2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings .................................................................................... 13

2.1 General Findings ......................................................................................................... 13

2.1.1 Independent Judgment Finding ...................................................................... 13

2.1.2 Finding of the Absence of any Need to Recirculate the PEIR ........................ 13

2.1.3 General Findings on Mitigation Measures .................................................... 13

2.2 Impacts Identified in the Initial Study (IS) or PEIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Not Requiring Mitigation ......................................................................... 14

2.2.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 14

2.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .............................................................. 16

2.2.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 17

2.2.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 17

2.2.5 Energy ............................................................................................................ 19

2.2.6 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................... 19

2.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................ 22

2.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................ 23

2.2.9 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................. 27

2.2.10 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................... 28

2.2.11 Noise ............................................................................................................... 28

2.2.12 Population and Housing ................................................................................. 29

2.2.13 Public Services ............................................................................................... 30

2.2.14 Recreation....................................................................................................... 33

2.2.15 Transportation ................................................................................................ 33

2.2.16 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................... 35

2.2.17 Wildfire ........................................................................................................... 38

2.3 Impacts Identified in the PEIR as Potentially Significant that Have been Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant .................................................................................... 40

2.3.1 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 40

2.3.2 Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 41

2.3.3 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 43

2.3.4 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................... 44

2.3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................ 45

2.3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................ 47

2.3.7 Noise ............................................................................................................... 49

2.3.8 Tribal Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 50

2.4 Impacts Identified in the EIR as being Significant and Unavoidable ......................... 51

2.4.1 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 52

2.4.2 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 57

2.4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................ 58

2.4.4 Noise ............................................................................................................... 61

2.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................... 63

2.4.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 63

2.4.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 64

2.4.3 Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 64

2.4.4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 64

2.4.5 Energy ............................................................................................................ 65

2.4.6 Geology And Soils .......................................................................................... 65

2.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................ 65

2.4.8 Hazardous And Hazardous Material .............................................................. 66

2.4.9 Hydrology And Water Quality ........................................................................ 66

2.4.10 Land Use And Planning.................................................................................. 66

2.4.11 Noise ............................................................................................................... 67

2.4.12 Population and Housing ................................................................................. 67

2.4.13 Public Services ............................................................................................... 67

2.4.14 Recreation....................................................................................................... 68

2.4.15 Transportation ................................................................................................ 68

2.4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 68

2.4.17 Utilities And Service Systems ......................................................................... 68

2.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Caused by the Proposed Project Should It Be Implemented .............................................................. 69

2.6 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project ..................................................... 70

2.7 Project Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 72

2.7.1 Alternatives Selected for Analysis in the EIR ................................................. 73

2.7.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................ 75

3.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations ............................................................................... 75

4.0 Additional Facts on Record ................................................................................................... 77

4.1 Adoption of a Monitoring Plan for Mitigation Measures ........................................... 77

4.2 Custodian of Record ................................................................................................... 77

1.0 Introduction
The Planning Commission of the City of Fontana (the “Planning Commission”) in approving the Walnut Village Specific Plan Project (“Project”), makes the Findings presented herein. The Findings are based upon the entire record before the Planning Commission, as described in Subsection 1.6 below, including the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Project on behalf of the City of Fontana (the “City”) acting as Lead Agency under the California Environme ntal Quality Act (“CEQA”).

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

1.1 Project Summary

2.2.1 Site Location
The Project is located in the City within the southwest portion of the County of San Bernardino. The Project site is bounded by State Route (SR) 210 to the north, Baseline Avenue to the south, Palmetto Avenue to the east, and Sierra Avenue to the west. The Project site is comprised of the entire WVSP.

The majority of the Specific Plan has been developed.

1.4.2 Project Description
The Project proposes to update the approved Specific Plan to include mixed-use strategies and upzoning in order to increase residential density within the WVSP and adoption of a new Specific Plan to clarify regulations for existing development as well as all for additional development on approximately 53 acres of the 342- acre of the WVSP, which have been identified as developable or capable of redevelopment.

1.4.3 Project Objectives
The fundamental purpose and goal of the Project is the following:

Objective 1: Establish a high quality of life and economic prosperity.

Objective 2: Encourage a compact, walkable, mixed-use area.

Objective 3: Establish development standards and design guidelines to promote high level of quality development.

Objective 4: Establish a mix of uses that complement the existing development pattern.

Objective 5: Promote more urban densities along key corridors in the Specific Plan.

Objective 6: Preserve and promote community culture and heritage.

Objective 7: Enhance connectivity open spaces and recreational facilities.

Objective 8: Establish a well -balanced community with opportunities for commercial, residential, and open space.

Objective 9: Maintain consistency with existing developments design, purpose, and standards.

1.5 City of Fontana Actions Covered By the PEIR
The City of Fontana has primary approval responsibility for the Project. As such, the City serves as the Lead Agency for the PEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050A public hearing was held before the City Council on July 23, 2024, regarding certification of the Final PEIR and approval of

MCN 22-008: General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 22-012, and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) No. 22-005 for the Project. The Planning Commission is the approval authority for adoption of the GPA and SPA for the Project. Other agencies also may use the PEIR as part of their decision-making processes concerning the proposed Project.

1.6 Environmental Review and Public Participation
The City conducted an extensive environmental review of the 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 PEIR. In order to do this, the City, acting as lead agency under CEQA, undertook the following:
o Prepared a Notice of Preparation, which was used as the basis for the determination that an PEIR should be prepared for the Project. The Notice of Preparation identified the environmental issues to be analyzed in detail in the Project’s EIR as: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology & Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, Land Use & Planning, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities & Service Systems, a nd Wildfire. Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, and Population and Housing, were addressed under Effects Found not to be Significant;
o 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 May 5, 2023, for a 30-day review period;
o Published a notice on May 5, 2023, and May 24, 2023, in the Fontana Herald News, the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, that the City would hold a PEIR scoping meeting on May 23, 2023 and June 1, 2023, for the Project; o Held a publicly noticed PEIR Scoping Meeting on May 24, 2023, and on June 1, 2023, using an internet-based virtual platform (Microsoft Teams);
o Submitted a Notice of Completion, Notice of Availability, and Draft PEIR to the State Clearinghouse on March 15, 2024;
o Mailed a Notice of Availability to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, County Clerk, other interested parties, and organizations and individuals who had previously requested the Notice on March 15, 2023, to inform recipients that the Draft PEIR was available for a 45-day review period beginning on March 18, 2023, and ending on June 4, 2024; o Mailed the Notice of Availability to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the Project Site on March 18, 2024;
o Provided copies of the Draft PEIR to public agencies, organizations, and individuals on March 15, 2024;

o Made the Notice of Availability and Draft PEIR available to the public on the City’s website; o Published the Notice of Availability in the Fontana Herald News, which is the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, on March 15, 2024; o Published a notice on June 21, 2024, in the Fontana Herald News, the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on July 2, 2024.
o Sent notice of the Planning Commission’s hearing to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested notification of anything having to do with the Project on June 21, 2024. o Held a public hearing of the City Council on July 23, 2024, and determined that the Final PEIR had been completed in compliance with CEQA and approved the Project.

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 Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335.

2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings

3.1 General Findings

3.2.1 Independent Judgment Finding
Finding: The PEIR for the Project reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

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

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

Facts in Support of the Finding: T he Planning Commission recognizes that the Final PEIR does not contains additions, clarifications, and minor modifications to the Draft PEIR. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Final PEIR and all of the information contained in it and has determined that the Final PEIR 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 the Project No information provided to the Planning Commission indicates that the Draft PEIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft PEIR.

2.4.3 General Findings on Mitigation Measures
It is the City’s intent to adopt and implement all mitigation measures identified in the PEIR which are applicable to the Project, which the City finds to consist of all feasible measures that reduce the Project’s 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 Draft EIR are intended to be substantially similar to the mitigation measures recommended in the PEIR 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.

2.5 Impacts Identified in the Initial Study (IS) or PEIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Not Requiring Mitigation
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 and Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines, the PEIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the 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:

3.2.1 Aesthetics
A. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Threshold “4.1-1”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not serve as a scenic vista or contribute to a scenic vista, nor does the City of Fontana General Plan identify any scenic vistas or scenic corridors on the Project site or in the vicinity of the Project site. Scenic resources visible (at least partially) from public viewpoints adjacent to the Project Site the San Gabriel Mountains located to the north/northwest, as well as the Jurupa Hills located to the south/southeast. The San Gabriel Mountains are the City’s most prominent visual feature. The Jurupa Hills are the highest point within the City. These resources provide an aesthetically pleasing natural backdrop for residents around the Project area. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.1-7)
Development of the Project’s four sub-districts would increase the potential development yield compared to the original Walnut Village Specific Plan (WVSP) as well as be developed with current height standards associated with the zones (35-foot maximum). However, future developments would be developed at a scale which would not substantially impede scenic vistas as the maximum height allowed within the WVSP would be 75 feet, and this standard is inclusive of City goals to preserve views of scenic vistas. As well, land use standards used within the City and proposed for the Project would allow for neighborhood scale development which would generate the least obstructive effects to scenic resources within the City.

For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the PEIR, the Project’s impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant, and no mitigation relating to this issue is required. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.1-7) B. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Threshold “4.1-2”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within or adjacent to an officially designated State scenic highway corridor and does not contain scenic resources, such as trees of scenic value, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The closest eligible state scenic highway is the segment of SR 183 that intersects with the west end of SR 2 to the intersection of SR 18 within the San Gabriel Mountains. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.1-8) The closest officially designated state scenic highway is SR 2 which extends from 2.7 miles north of SR 210 (La Cadena) to the San Bernardino County Line. The closest point of this segment is a pproximately 19 miles northwest of the Project site. Due to the distance and intervening development and topography, the Project would not be visible from the aforementioned

segment of SR-2 and SR-18 and, therefore, would not adversely affect views from this scenic corridor. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.1-8)
C. Would the Project In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Threshold “4.1-3”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is currently zoned as Walnut Village S.P. and is predominantly developed. The Project will allow for the future development of a maximum of 2,408 new residential units and up to 1,582,953 square feet of new non -residential (commercial, retail, office, public facilities, etc.) uses. Density standards for each sub -district would accommodate medium to high -density residential development. The Project proposes land use development, including residential and mixed use development that is consistent with the existing zoning and land use designation as outlined in the City of Fontana General Plan and existing WVSP.

Although the development intensity would change, the uses proposed for the Project would be consistent with those proposed in the original WVSP. Additionally, the Project would be an update to the existing WVSP and would maintain the specific plan zoning designation. For these reasons and for the reasons discussed in the Draft PEIR, the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, nor would it conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.1- 8 and 4.1-9)
D. Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Threshold “4.1-4”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Development on the Project Site is required to adhere to the lighting requirements as set forth in the City of Fontana Municipal Code (Sections 30 -265 and 30-266). The Municipal Code lighting standards govern the placement and design of outdoor lighting fixtures to ensure adequate lighting for public safety while also minimizing light pollution and glare and precluding public nuisances. The City also is obligated to confirm compliance with applicable lighting requirements during future review of building permit applications/plans. Mandatory compliance with Municipal Code Sections 30-265 and 30-266 would ensure that the Project would not introduce any permanent design features that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Construction of the Project would be limited to the daytime hours of construction permitted (between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. of Saturdays) according to the City Municipal Code Chapter 18: Nuisances Section 18-63.

Furthermore, construction would not occur on Sundays or Federal holidays, and nighttime lighting would only be required seasonally. Therefore, no short -term impacts associated with light and glare would occur. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.1-9)
Additionally, the Project would adhere to the City of Fontana MC Section 20-471 regarding light standards by ensuring that exterior light are shielded to prevent glare and undesirable light leakage to adjacent properties and streets. The future developments in the Project site would use a variety of

non-reflective building materials, and although some new reflective improvements (i.e., windows and building front treatments) would be introduced to the site, the proposed buildings would not be a source of substantial glare in the area, and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.1-9 and 4.1-10)

2.5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
A. Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Threshold “7.2-1”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Based on the review of the California DOC Important Farmland maps, the Project site nor any adjacent land is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project site and adjacent land uses are designated as Urban and Built - Up Land. As such, the Project would not convert any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur. (Draft PEIR, p. 7-1)

2. Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract (Threshold “7.2-2”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: No portion of the Project site or surrounding area is zoned for agricultural use or is a part of a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur. (Draft PEIR, pp. 7-1)
A. 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))? (Threshold “7.2-3”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: According to the City of Fontana Zoning Map, the Project site is zoned as Community Commercial (C-C), Residential Planned Community (R-PC), and Medium Density Residential (R -M). Therefore, no portion of the Project site is zoned forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for timberland production and the Project would have no impact. (Draft PEIR, p. 7- 2)
B. Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? (Threshold “7.2-4”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: According to the Land Cover layer in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s BIO Viewer, most of the Project site is classified as Developed. Additionally, review of current and historic aerial imagery demonstrates that no forest land exists within the Project site area. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use resulting in no impact. (Draft PEIR, p. 7-2)

C. Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (Threshold “7.2-5”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not contain areas designated for agriculture, forest land, or timberland. The City does not have land use designations specific to these resources. Therefore, no impacts related to the conversion of farmland or forest land would occur. (Draft PEIR, p. 7-3)

2.5.3 Air Quality
A. Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Threshold “4.2-4”) 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. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113 limits the allowable amount of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from architectural coatings and solvents. Since compliance with SCAQMD Rules governing these compounds is mandatory, no construction activities or materials are proposed that would create objectionable odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people. These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of construction projects and would disperse rapidly. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as long-term operational odor sources. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.2-33)

2.5.4 Biological Resources
A. 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? (Threshold “4.3 - 2”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site does not contain any riparian areas. Several paved concrete v -ditchers were observed within the undeveloped areas of the Project site. However, the concrete v-ditches were excavated in the uplands as a result of development and do not support riparian vegetation. Additionally, at the time of the field investigation no special status plant communities were observed within the Project site. Thus, no sensitive natural communities would be impacted from Project implementation, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.3-26) B. 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? (Threshold “4.3-3”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Several paved concrete v-ditches were observed within the undeveloped areas of the Project site. These concrete v-ditches were excavated wholly in the uplands as a result of development and do not support riparian vegetation. No drainage courses, inundated areas, or wetland features/obligate plant species that would be considered jurisdictional by the USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or CDFW were observed within the Project site. Project activities

are not expected to result in impacts to USACE, RWQCB or CDFW jurisdictional areas and regulatory approvals will not be required. As a result, implementation of the Project would not result in any impacts or have a substantial adverse effect on protected wetlands. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.3-26) C. 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? (Threshold “4.3-4”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: According to the San Bernardino County General Plan, the project site has not been identified as occurring within a wildlife corridor or linkage. As designated by the San Bernardino County General Plan Open Space Element, the nearest major corridor or linkage documented in the vicinity of the project site is the Cajon Wash, located approximately 2.13 miles to the northeast. Additionally, the Cucamonga Wilderness lies approximately 3.15 miles to the northwest.

The Project will be confined to existing areas that have been heavily disturbed and are isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages. In addition, there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the site to a recognized wildlife corridor or linkage. As such, implementation of the Project is not expected to impact wildlife movement opportunities. Therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors or linkages are not expected to occur.

The Project site is not located within a federally designated Critical Habitat. The nearest designated Critical Habitats are located approximately 1.01 miles to the north for San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat ( Dipodomys merriami parvus ), and 5.29 miles to the south for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Therefore, the loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat from Project site development will not occur and consultation with the USFWS for impacts to Critical Habitat will not be required for implementation of the Project. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.3-26 to 4.3- 27)
D. Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Threshold “4.3-5”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: No trees were identified on-site that constitute as heritage, significant, or specimen trees pursuant to City of Fontana Municipal Code, Article III of Chapter 28. Therefore, impacts to local policies or ordinances are not expected to occur from the Project and mitigation is not required. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.3-27)
E. 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? (Threshold “4.3-6”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, impacts to any local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans are not expected to occur from development of the Project, and mitigation is not required. (Draft PEIR, pp.

4.3-27 and 4.3-28)

2.5.5 Energy
A. Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation? (Threshold “4.5-1”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: There are no aspects of the Project that will foreseeably result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operational activities. Construction-related energy consumption associated with future development within the Project site would be subject to approval of permits prior to construction. Future construction activities associated with future development would also be required to monitor air quality emissions using applicable regulatory guidance such as the SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced as a result of monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, this results in reduced energy consumption. Additionally, all future projects would be subject to the City’s development rev iew process and would be required to demonstrate consistency with General Plan policies and Municipal Code requirements pertaining to energy consumption and preservation. Lastly, future housing development facilitated by the Walnut Village SP Project would be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the latest Title 24 standards. Considering these requirements, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.5-9 and

4.5-11)
B. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or Local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Threshold “4.5-2”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: All future projects will be subject to the City’s development review process, as detailed in Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan, and would be required to demonstrate compliance with the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11) and the California Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6), which includes provisions related to insulation and design aimed at minimizing energy consumption. All future projects will also be required to demonstrate consistency with General Plan policies and Muni cipal Code requirements, including those intended to reduce energy consumption.

Therefore, future development facilitated by the Project would be consistent with applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, and regulations related to renewable energy and energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.5-11)

2.5.6 Geology and Soils
A. Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Threshold “4.6-1”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact

Facts in Support of Finding: According to the San Bernardino County Countywide Plan, the Project site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, the Project site is located close to several active faults where seismic activities have been observed in the past and therefore, would be subject to regional seismicity. According future development within the Project site will be required to comply with seismic safety provisions pursuant to the latest California Building Code (CBC) approved at the time of individual development project applications are received by the City.

Therefore, the impacts associated with the surface rupture of a known fault would be l ess than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.6-11 to 4.6-12) B. Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Threshold “4.6-2”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: As stated above, the Project would be subject seismicity and therefore, all future development projects within the Project site would comply with seismic safety provisions of the latest CBC approved at the time of individual development project applications are received by the City. This would ensure that future structures are designed to meet or exceed the CBC standard for earthquake resistance which includes, but is not limited to provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock on-site, and the strength of ground motion with a specified probability at the site. Therefore, the Project would not cause or exacerbate adverse effects related to seismic shaking and future development of habitable structures within the Project site would be conducted in accordance with the CBC Seismic Design Parameters, which would reduce impacts from seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.6-12) C. Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Threshold “4.6-3”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located in a low generalized liquefaction susceptibility.

Therefore, future development within the Project site would comply with all applicable CBC design parameters and relevant building codes to reduce any potential impacts due to liquefaction. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the PEIR, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure and/or liquefaction hazards, and no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.6-13) D. Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
iv) Landslides? (Threshold “4.6-4”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: According to t he San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard map, the Project site and the immediate area are not within a zone of generalized landslide susceptibility.

Therefore, future development within the Project site would not be subject to impacts from landslides, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.6-13) E. Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Threshold “4.6- 5”)

Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Future development within the Project site would be required to implement erosion control measures via an erosion control management plan which includes but not limited to sand-bagging, placement of silt fencing, erosion control blankets, straw wattles, mulching, etc., to reduce runoff from the site and to hold topsoil in place during all grading activities. As mass grading proceeds, finish grading commences and building construction begins, the erosion control measures would be removed or relocated as necessary. Construction contractors would also be required to create a dust control plan in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to further reduce wind erosion. Additionally, the construction on the Project site would be required to comply with NPDES permitting process which requires implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPP”) and monitoring plan, which will include erosion-control and sediment - control Best Management Practices (“BMPs”). Furthermore, the operation of the Project would not involve activities that would result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.6-14) 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 pote ntially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Threshold “4.6-6”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: As previously discussed, the Project site is not included within an Earthquake Fault Zone as identified by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. However, the Project site is in a seismically active area and located near an active fault zone. Therefore, future development within the Project site will comply with seismic safety provisions. Additionally, as previously mentioned, the Project site is located in a low generalized liquefaction susceptibility area.

However, by following CBC design parameters and all relevant building codes would reduce any potential issues due to liquefaction. The Project site and the immediate area are not within a zone of generalized landslide susceptibility. In addition, future development of habitable structures within the Project site would comply with CBC requirements to mitigate the possibility of lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the PEIR, the Project would have a less than significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.6-14)
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? (Threshold “4.6-7”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The northern portion of the City contains coarse -grained (cobbly and boulder) sois. These materials are classified as low to non-expansive. Future development of habitable structures within the Project site would have to comply conduct additional Geotechnical Studies to ensure that expansive soils will not adversely impact the design, construction, or operation. Therefore, the Project would not be impacted by significant soil expansion and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.6-14 and 4.6-15)
H. Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Threshold “4.6-8”)
Finding: No Impact

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project site area proposes connecting to the public sewer mains and relying on the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) for wastewater services. Therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.6-15)

2.5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A. Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Threshold “4.8-1”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Demolition and construction activities associated with future housing development facilitated by the Project could require transport of hazardous materials (e.g., Asbestos - Containing Materials (ACM), lead-based paint, and/or contaminated soils). Future development would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Operations related to future development within the Project area could involve the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, however, the specific substances and quantities are presently unknown. Any commercial operational impacts from hazards and hazardous materials would be subject to compliance of existing regulations governed by several agencies including the U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of transportation, California Division of Occupational Safety an d Health, and the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District. Overall, compliance with the regulatory framework would ensure that the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction and operation phase of future development w ithin the Project site is less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.8-14 and 4.6-15) B. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Threshold “4.8-4”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not included on the hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List). Additionally, as stated in

4.8-2, Environmental Setting, the Project does not contain hazardous waste facilities or sites with known contamination according to the DTSC EnviroStor database of cleanup, permitting, enforcement and investigation efforts. Further. no hazardous cleanup, permitted, or LUST sites are identified within the entire WVSP area. The nearest hazardous site to the Project is a school cleanup site approximately 450 feet northeast of Gateway North Sub-District. Since the P roject is not listed on the Cortese List and does not contain known hazardous waste facilities or sites, no impact is anticipated. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.8-17 and 4.6-18)
C. 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? (Threshold “4.8-5”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The LA/Ontario International Airport is located approximately 10 miles southwest of the Project site and is not within the LA/Ontario Airport Influence Area (AIA).

Additionally, the Project is outside of the LA/Ontario International Airport Safety Zones, Noise Impact Zones, Airspace Protection Zones, and Overflight Notification Zones (Maps 2-2 through 2-5 of the

ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan). Thus, no impact is anticipated to occur. (Draft PEIR, pp.

4.8-18)
D. Would the Project impair implementation o f or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Threshold “4.8-6”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The City adopted its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) in August 2018. he LHMP identifies potential hazards that may occur within the City, such as risks associated with earthquakes, wildfires, terrorism, climate change, etc. Mitigation is also provided in the LHMP in order to minimize those identified risks. Project development would be congruent with the uses proposed for the Project. Furthermore, given the scope and location of the future housing and commercial development facilitated by the Project, the Project is not anticipated to impair implementation of, or physically conflict with, the City’s and/or County of San Bernardino’s Division of Environmental Health (designated as the County’s CUPA) specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and related potential actions within the City. As a result, future housing developm ent facilitated by the Project would not conflict with any state, county, or local plan aimed at preserving and maintaining adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. The Project would not conflict with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans and would therefore generate a less than significant impact. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.8-18 and 4.8-19) E. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Threshold “4.8-7”) Finding: No impact
Facts in Support of Finding: According to CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program Fire Hazard Safety Zone (FHSZ) Viewer, the Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA); the nearest SRA to the development site is located approximately 13 miles southeast. The Project site is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) for the County of San Bernardino.

However, the Project is located outside of any delineated FHSZ. In addition, the Project site does not contain lands classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). The closest VHFHSZs are located approximately one mile to the north of the Project site. Due to its proximity outside of known FHSZs, no impact would occur. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.8-19)

2.5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
A. Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Threshold “4.9-1”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Future construction on the Project site would implement construction controls to minimize potential water quality impacts through compliance with NPDES permit requirements and with County Code Title 3, Division 5, Chapter 1, Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulations. In accordance with the NPDES Permitting program requirements, the future site developer would prepare and implement a site -specific SWPP that meets the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit and specifies BMPs to be used during construction, as the future project disturbs more than one acre of soil. With implementation of BMPs, subject to review and approval by the Santa Ana RWQCB, future projects on the Project site would reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the construction site to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, the water quality of nearby surface waters and groundwater would be

maintained via compliance with NPDES permit requirements. Additionally, the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program Technical Guidance Document requires the preparation and implementation of a WQMP, subject to review and approval by the County, to manage stormwater runoff post construction activities and to implement site design and source control CMPs to help ensure stormwater runoff and impervious areas are minimized. With implementation of the WQMP, compliance with the NPDES permit requirements, and implementation of BMPs, future project construction on the Project site would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and City requirements would ensure that the future projects construction on the Project site would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.9-15 and 4.9-16) B. 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? (Threshold “4.9-2”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The WVSP buildout could impact groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The Santa Ana River Watershed, including the Santa Ana Groundwater Basin, are managed by an adjudication and subject to the terms of the 1969 Stipulated Agreement managed by the Santa Ana River Watermaster. The Santa Ana River Watershed includes programs for the long-term management of area groundwater basins. 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. The Specific Plan Update supports water conservation through use of natural and drought - tolerant vegetation and through water recycling. Additionally, water conservation programs of the City’s General Plan are designed to ensure groundwater resources are recharged both through natural and assisted means. Water conservation helps to maintain groundwater levels by reducing the need to extract from them. As a result, the potential for impacts to groundwater levels within the region is less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.9-16)
C. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Threshold “4.9-3”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Future construction on the Project site would alter the subject property’s interior drainage patterns. However, the changes would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Future projects would be required to follow the State Water Resources Control Board’s erosion control standards and each project would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one acre of total land area. Since the Project site is greater than one acre, this requirement would apply to development on the Project site. Additionally, all the Project areas are located within the Santa Ana RWQCB’s jurisdiction would be required to

conform with the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related activities. More specifically, BMPs would be required to be implemented in accordance with the SWPPP that would be required prior to initiation of any construction activities. These measures would help ensure that during construction waterborne pollution from erosion and siltation is reduced, prevented, or minimized.

Other measures may include ways to treat runoff prior to discharge. BMPs may include but not be limited to, sandbag barriers, silt fences, soil stabilizers, reseeding, straw mats, and other ground covers.

Additionally, future projects will be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code Secti on 30- 885 to ensure the adequacy of the downstream drainage systems to address increased run-off caused by the developments. Conformance with these requirements and measures would ensure that erosion during construction is reduced to less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.9-16 and 4.9-17) D. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Threshold “4.9-4”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Future development on the Project site would generally mimic the waterflow paths of the existing site condition. The rate and amount of surface runoff versus infiltration on a given site is determined by multiple factors, including the amount and intensity of precipitation; amount of other imported water that enters a watershed; surface and subsurface soil layers vegetative cover, existing soils moisture content, slope, and others. In addition, the rate of surface runoff is largely determined by topography and the intensity of rainfall over a given period of time.

Future development facilitated by the Project would be required to conduct drainage studies ensure that on -site flows generated by future construction would be conveyed to storm drain systems.

Additionally, future development on the Project site would incorporate design measures to capture and control stormwater. These measures may include, but would not necessarily be limited to, underground storm drainpipes, catch basins, LIDs, and other structural BMPs to capture on-site stormwater runoff, and temporarily capture and hold stormwater before conveying the runoff off-site. Additionally, future projects will be required to comply with Sec 30-885 of the City’s Municipal Code to ensure the adequacy of the downstream drainage systems to address increased run-off caused by the developments. Thus, with these measures in place, the Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off site. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.9-17 and 4.9-18) E. 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:
iii) Create or contribute run-off water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? (Threshold “4.9-5”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact

Facts in Support of Finding: As previously discussed, future development on the Project site must comply with the requirements of the NPDES Permit. Additionally, as mandated by the RWQCB and through implementation of the WQMP, future projects on the Project site would incorporate design features that would include stormwater drainage systems that would be engineered, designed, and installed to satisfy all water quality requirements. Additionally, future projects will be required to comply with Sec 30-885 of the City’s Municipal Code to ensure the adequacy of the downstream drainage systems to address increased run-off caused by the developments. To ensure that the new storm water drainage improvements are planned and designed to satisfy these requirements as well as all other applicable standards and requirements, would be verified by the City and incorporated as conditions of approval to all future projects prior to the issuance of any construction permit.

Compliance with these requirements would ensure impacts are less than significant and mitigation would not be required. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.9-18)
F. 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?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? (Threshold “4.9-6”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: ccording to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the Project site is located within FEMA Flood Zone X (unshaded), an area of minimal flood risk. Future development on the Project site that would add or replace 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surfaces and new developments that include more than 10,000 sf or more of new impervious surfaces would require a WQMP. The WQMP includes identification of drainage areas, impervious surfaces, anticipated flows, existing impaired waters, BMPs to reduce runoff and polluted runoff, low impact development (LID) strategies to retain water on-site before being discharged. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.9-18) G. Would the Project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Threshold “4.9-7”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Pacific Ocean is located approximately 50 miles from the Project site.

Considering this distance, there is no potential for the site to be impacted by a tsunami. As previously discussed, the Project site is located on land designated as Zone X (unshaded), the areas of minimal flood hazard, outside of the Special Flood Hazard Hazard Area (SFHA) and higher than the elevation of the 0.2 percent-annual-chance flood. Additionally, the Project site is not downstream of large bodies of water or tanks which potentially could cause flooding and inundate the Project site. The risk of seiche damage following a seismic event at the Project site is low. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.9-19) H. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Threshold “4.9-8”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is lo cated within the Santa Ana River Watershed basin.

Future development on the Project site would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and WQMP.

Future developers would be required to show conformance prior to any approval. Implementation of

the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan and impacts would be less than significant. The Project site is within the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is an adjudicated groundwater basin. Adjudicated basins, like the Chino Groundwater Basin, are exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because such basins already operate under a court -ordered management plan to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Subbasin. Therefore, the Project would not obstruct or prevent implementation of the management plan for the Chino Groundwater Basin. As such, the Project, would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.9-19)

2.5.9 Land Use and Planning
A. Would the Project physically divide an established community? (Threshold “4.10-1”) Finding: Less than Significant
Facts in Support of Finding: Projects that are typically considered to have the potential to divide an established community include the construction of new freeways, highways, roads, or other uses that physically separate an existing or established neighborhood. The Project will am end to the existing WVSP to allow for a maximum of 2,408 residential units and 1,582,953 square feet of new non- residential uses. The Project area consists of mostly residential development with some sparse commercial development as well as some undeveloped land. The existing zoning and land use designations within the WVSP area are designed to incorporate additional residential and commercial development such that it does not divide the established community. Neighboring land uses surrounding the Project area include both commercial and residential uses, however they are separated by 4 major roadways and SR 210
Development within the Project area would not include improvements that would substantially alter existing roadways and transportation corridors in a manner that would cause the removal or separated of existing adjacent communities from important resources and neighboring units. Therefore, the Project would not divide a community and a less than significant impact is anticipated. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.10-9)
B. Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Threshold “4.10-2”)
Finding: Less than Significant
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would be required to comply with any applicable state, regional, and local land use plans, policies, and regulations (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) that was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Additionally, the Specific Plan update would be consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan pursuant to Gov. Code, Section 65454. At a regional level, the Project would comply with the goals and policies presented in Southern California Association of Government (SCAG)’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

Lastly, future development projects would be required to comply the WVSP design guidelines and development regulations. The mere fact that a Project may be inconsistent in some manner with specific policies in a general plan or zoning ordinance does not, per se, amount the significant environmental effect. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.10-10). The Project’s consistency with the SCAG’s 2020-2045

RTP/SCS and City’s General Plan is described in detail in Draft PEIR Table 4.10-4: Consistency with the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.10-10 and 4.10-11) and Draft PEIR Table 4.10- 5: Consistency with the Fontana General Plan (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.10-11 through 4.10-14) The Project is generally consistent and in harmony with the City General Plan, Land Use Category, and is located in largely vacant portions of the WVSP that allow commercial and resid ential uses.

Additionally, consistent with the City’s General Plan, the Project’s EIR includes mitigation measures related to specific environmental resource areas to reduce or eliminate potential effects of the Project.

With approval and implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment, the Project would not result in a change in, or conflict with a land use or zoning district that would result in potentially significant impacts. Therefore, impacts associated with any existing plan, policy, or regulation would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.10-10 through 4.10-14)

2.5.10 Mineral Resources
A. Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? (Threshold “7.3-1”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located on lands designated as MRZ-2 by the County, which designates land that has areas containing known or inferred mineral deposits that may qualify as mineral resources. The Project site is not designated as land that contains known mineral resources of significance. No part of the Project site is within a boundary that is owned or controlled by an aggregate producer or has previously been used for mineral extraction. The Project site does not currently contain mineral extraction facilities, consist of previously disturbed land, and has not been designated as containing confirmed mineral resources of significance. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources which are of value to the region and the residents of the state. There would be no impacts due to Project implementation. (Draft PEIR, p. 7-3) B. Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? (Threshold “7.3-2”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: No part of the Project site is within a boundary that is owned or controlled by an aggregate producer or is no longer used for mineral extraction. According to the County, the Project site is not designated as land that contains known mineral resources of significance. The Project would abide by the County’s policy NR-6.1 for lands with mineral significance by ensuring that the Project designates MRZ-2 and MRZ-3 areas for land uses compatible with future mining, such as open space, to the greatest extent feasible. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of any locally important mineral resource recovery site and there would be no impacts due to Project implementation. (Draft PEIR, pp. 7-3 and 7-4)

2.5.11 Noise
C. For or 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? (Threshold “4.11-3”)

Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Walnut Village Specific Plan Project area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan. Therefore, there would be no impact. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.11-19)

2.5.12 Population and Housing
A. 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)? (Threshold “4.12-1”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project proposes an increased intensity for commercial development and an increase to residential densities from previously allocated densities and intensities as outlined in the original WVSP. Draft EIR Table 4.12 -11: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Development Plan shows that the Project would allow for the development of an additional 2,139 housing units within the City. Utilizing the City’s 3.74-person average household size for 2023, this would equate to approximately 8,000 additional residents. This would generate an approximately three percent growth of the City’s current population, lower than the SCAG -projected 9.1 percent growth through 2045. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.12-11). Anticipated population growth in the City has been accommodated as part of the City’s General Plan and Housing Element Update. This Project would be completed as a result of the City’s adopted Housing Element Update, which contained goals intended to grow housing stock within the City in order to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. Although future development facilitated by this Project may include infrastructure improvements which may induce population growth, future development facilitated by the Project would be subject to all applicable City and State policies and requirements and would need to conduct adequate environmental review as well as comply with adopted programs and policies.

Commercial development facilitated by the Project would allow for up to 498,309 sqft of community commercial uses. While the Project would allow for this scale of development, individual future developments would be required to undergo environmental review, including analyses regarding impacts to population. Future development of the commercial areas of the Project site would generate employment needs which could be facilitated by the residential uses proposed within the Project. The 8,000 residents generated by the Project would be able to fill employment positions generated by the community commercial uses facilitated by the Project. As the Project is a being developed due to the programs provided in the City’s Housing Element Update and would not generate a substantially increased population, impacts due to population grown would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.12-11 and 4.12-12) B. Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Threshold “4.12-2”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Existing development in WVSP contains a mix of both residential and commercial development. The Project does not propose additional land use designations, but instead proposes an increase in density and intensity standards associated with residential and commercial uses. The Project’s four sub-districts incorporate development of underutilized and vacant land. An

increase in density standards for residential development would not displace existing p eople or housing, but rather accommodate additional growth and no impact would occur. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.12- 12)

2.5.13 Public Services
A. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
ii) Fire Protection (Threshold “4.13-1”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in support of Finding: Fire protection services to the Project site would be provided by the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD). The Project site would be served by the County Fire Station 78 located at 7110 Citrus Ave, Fontana CA, 92336, (approximately 1.6 miles to the west) and County Fire Station 71 located at 16980 Arrow Blvd, Fontana, CA, 92335, (approximately 2.0 miles to the south). The SBCFD strives to have a response time of less than five minutes once a call for service is received. Based on the Project site’s proximity to two existing fire stations, the Project would be adequately served by fire protection services, and no new or expanded unplanned facilities would be required. Potential impacts related to fire protection services are reviewed by the SBCFD on a project-by-project basis. Development within the Walnut Village Specific Plan will be evaluated by the SBCDF as to land uses, fire -protection related needs, the Project -site recommended response distance, and project design features, when evaluating the individual development’s impact to fire protection services. SBCFD design review occurs when specific development building permits are requested. Future projects contemplated by the Project would be required to comply with the County Fire District Standards, CFC and CBC, including project features that aid in fire safety and support fire suppression activities, such as fire sprinklers, paced access, and required aisle widths.

In addition, prior to commencement of any construction activities on any specific projects within the WVSP area, and pursuant to the San Bernardino County Code of Ordinance Section 85.01, future project design plans related to the Project would be reviewed by all applicable local agencies, including the SBCFD, to ensure compliance with the County’s Development Codes and Ordinances, Policy Plan, and all applicable emergency response and fire safety requirements of the SBCFD and the California Fire Code (CFC).

Overall, given its location and the County Fire District Standards, CFC and CBC, the Project would receive adequate fire protection services and development contemplated by the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, and will not adversely affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Compliance with applicable local and state regulations will ensure that the Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to fire protection services.

Additionally, future developments contemplated by the Project must comply with the most current provisions of SBCFD Fee Schedule, which requires a fee payment that the SBCFD applies to the funding of fire protection facilities. Mandatory compliance with the SBCFD Fee Schedule and plan

review would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.13-11 and 4.13- 12)
B. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of whi ch could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
ii) Police Protection (Threshold “4.13-1”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in support of Finding: Future development within the Project site would not substantially increase the City or County population. The nearest police stations are a Fontana Police Department (FPD) located at 17005 Upland Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335, approximately 1.8 miles south of the Project site, and a San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department station located at 17780 Arrow Blvd., Fontana, CA 92335, approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the Project site. Based on the Project site’s proximity to these existing police stations, the Project would be adequately served by police protection services, and no new or expanded unplanned facilities would be required. Future buildout of the Project site could create incrementally increased demand for police protection services due to the increased number of residents within the Specific Plan area. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the future project plans on the Project site would be reviewed by applicable local agencies to ensure compliance wit h the County’s Development Code and Ordinances and Policy Plan, as well as applicable regulations to ensure adequate site signage, lighting, and other crime safety preventative measures to ensure safety standards. As previously discussed, future site developers would be required to pay all required impact fees and fair share costs. Compliance with applicable local regulations would ensure that future construction on the Project site would result in a less than significant impact to police protection services. Because no police protection facilities exist on the Project site, development would not conflict with existing police structures or require modification of police protection facilities.

Compliance with applicable local regulations will ensure that the Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to police protection services. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.13-12) C. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significa nt environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
iii) Schools (Threshold “4.13-1”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in support of Finding: The Project site is located in a developed area currently served by the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD). School funding comes predominantly from federal, state, and local resources such as businesses and personal income taxes, sales tax, and property taxes.

Government Code § 65995 requires the developer to pay a fee at the time of issuance of building permits to the local school district, FUSD. Future developments related to the Project would be required to developer fees based on the type of construction. Under SB 50, payment of required school impact

fees is deemed complete and full mitigation for impacts to school facilities. Payment of required fees would ensure impacts to schools are less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.13-12 and 4.13-13) D. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
iv) Parks (Threshold “4.13-1”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in support of Finding: Multiple parks are located near the Project site, the closest being Cambria Park. The Project is not anticipated to create an adverse physical impact to any parks in the area and it would not require the construction of any new park facility or alteration of any new park facility or alteration of any existing park facility. Lastly, all future development on the Project site would undergo individual CEQA evaluation, which is anticipated to account for any future impacts. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park, thus, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.13-13)
E. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
v) Other public facilities (Threshold “4.13-1”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in support of Finding: Other public facilities generally refer to the libraries and government buildings that serve the population within the jurisdiction. The Project would not result in a substantial increase in demand for library services such that a significant deterioration of the existing facilities would occur, or such that new facilities would be required. Even though the Project is not anticipated to increase the level of use to existing libraries or other public facilities, future projects on the Project site would be required to pay its fair share of development impact fees to help offset incremental impacts to libraries by helping fund capital improvement and expenditures. Since the Project would not substantially increase the population, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically alter other public facilities. Overall, Project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically alter other public facilities, need for new or physically altered other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. However, future development on the Project site would undergo individual CEQA evaluation, which is anticipated to account for any future impacts. Because no public facilities exist on the Project site, development would not conflict with existing public structures or require modification of public facilities. Therefore, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to other public facilities. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.13-13)

2.5.14 Recreation
A. Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Threshold 4.14-1”)
B. Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Threshold “4.14-2”)
Finding: Less than Significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project proposes the amendment the Walnut Village Specific Plan (SP) to allow for additional development on approximately 53 acres of total 342 acres of the SP which have been identified as developable or capable of redevelopment. Development accommodated through implementation of the Project would result in additional residential and non-residential uses in the Project Area, which would increase demand for parks and recreational facilities. These new used would generate residents that 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. The additional demand on existing parks and recreational facilities could 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.

As noted above, the City of Fontana has a total of 40 parks and 1,359.3 acres of park and recreation land. 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. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.14-4 and 4.14-5)

2.5.15 Transportation
A. Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? (Threshold “4.15-1”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would be consistent with Senate Bill 375 by complying with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA)’s Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The Project’s consistency analysis with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS goals is further discussed in Draft PEIR Table 4.10-4: Consistency with the SCAG 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.10-10 and 4.10- 11) The Project would also be consistent with the City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan goals through establishing new bicycle facilities. While the Project does not propose any additional public transit services, the Project will not hinder the opportunities for new OmniTrans bus lines and stops in the future. Additionally, the Project does not propose any pedestrian facilities improvements, however it should be noted that there are opportunities for pedestrian sidewalk improvements, and they would be implemented as new development occurs.

The Project would also comply with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 by being consistent with the Fontana General Plan. The Complete Streets Act of 2008 requires General Plans to ac commodate a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, highways in manners that are suitable to applicable rural, suburban, or urban contexts. More

specifically the Project’s circulation system would be designed and constructed in conformance with relevant goals and policies in the Fontana General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element that pertain to the Project’s circulation system. For example, the Project would be consistent with the Fontana General Plan Policy 5.1 which encourages mixed use and commercial developments that support walking, bicycling, and public transit use while balancing the needs of motorized traffic to serve such developments. The Project is consistent with this policy be cause it will encourage both residential and commercial development while also incorporating bicycle lanes in and around the site.

For further details, see Draft PEIR Table 4.10-5: Consistency with the Fontana General Plan in Section 4.10: Land Use (Draft PEIR pp. 4.10-10 through 4.10-14) Additionally, improvements and additions of bicycle facilities would be constructed in accordance with all applicable City development code circulation and transportation regulations and in support of the City transportat ion-related policies to minimize impacts to traffic and circulation. Therefore, construction-related impacts associated with improvements to bicycle facilities would not conflict with an applicable program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.

Although future development within the Project site could result in an increased demand of public transportation as employment opportunities and the number of residents increase, public transit agencies (OmniTrans) would be responsible for routinely reviewing and adjusting their ridership schedules and service destinations to accommodate public demand. Thus, implementation of the Project would not conflict with local public transit services.

As described above, all improvements to bicycle facilities would be consistent with applicable regional and local policies such that implementation of the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the existing circulation system. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. (Draft PEIR pp. 4.15-10 and 4.15-11) B. Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Threshold “4.15-2”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: A VMT ana lysis was conducted for this Project following the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS) Assessment. According to the City’s TIA Guidelines screening thresholds can be used to identify when a proposed project is anticipated to result in less -than-a-significant impact without conducting a more detailed level analysis. Screening thresholds follow the four-step process:

1. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening

2. Low VMT Area Screening

3. Low Project Type Screening

4. Project Net Daily Trips Less Than 500 ADT
Land development projects that meet one or more of screening thresholds may be presumed to create a less-than-significant impact on transportation and circulation.

The County Average OD VMT Per Service Population for Year 2023 is 33.4. Based on the above adjusted VMTs, each of the Focus Areas within the Project site would be located in a Low VMT Area, since each Focus Area is more than 15% below the County Average. Therefore, the overall Project is located in a Low VMT Area (15% below County Average, OD VMT Per Service Population), and the Low VMT Area screening criteria is met. Since the Project meets at least one of the screening thresholds, implementation of the Project would create le ss-than-a-significant impact and no further detailed analysis is required. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact to transportation and mitigation measures are not necessary. (Draft PEIR pp. 4.15-11 and 4.15-15)

C. Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Threshold “4.15-3”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project does not propose pedestrian or roadway improvements.

However, there are opportunities for some pedestrian facility improvements within the Project site as new development occurs. The Project does propose the improvements and additions of bicycle facilities within and around the perimeter of the Project site. Planned bicycle facilities shall be implemented consistent with the existing policies of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and the Fontana Active Transportation Plan, which encourages road diets (where feasible), and short-term and long- term bike racks/lockers/facilities at new residential, commercial, and industrial developments. Planned improvements are conceptual in nature and exact location of facili ties can change when considering future development, design, and placements of improvements within the Project site.

The bicycle improvements would be compatible with and enhance the circulation system with the surrounding existing and future land uses. A lthough the Project does not propose any development plans, any future development within the Project site would have to comply with City requirements and obtain necessary permits that would maintain traffic flow and access. The Project’s proposed circulation improvements would not include any sharp curves, create dangerous intersections, or design hazards. Furthermore, the Project does not propose incompatible land uses that would result in a potential significant traffic safety hazard. Therefore, potential impacts concerning design hazards would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR pp. 4.15-15 and 4.15-16) D. Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? (Threshold “4.15-4”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project does not propose any development or physical adaptations to any of the Focus Areas. Future land use development projects would have to adhere to safety guidelines that does not obstruct emergency access to the site during construction and operations. Prior to any development approval, all plans would be reviews by the City fire department and City engineer to ensure all site access standards and internal emergency access circulation requirements are included in future plans. The Project does propose bicycle improvements, which could result in temporary disruption or slowing of traffic flows. However, all roadways would always remain open to emergency vehicles. Access within the Project site would be provided by Mango Avenue, Walnut Village Parkway, and Highland Avenue and all existing site access from surrounding roadways would not be altered. As such, there would be no impact to existing emergency access to the site and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.15-16)

2.5.16 Utilities and Service Systems
A. Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Threshold “4.17-1”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact

Facts in Support of Finding: The facts presented below address the Project’s potential to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

Water Facilities
Water to the Project area would be provided by the Fontana Water Company (FWC). FWC provides water to its service area via groundwater, surface water, and imported water sources. Although FWC currently has a surplus water supply, it has projected additional water resource allocations through the year 2045. FWC’s available water supplies will be sufficient enough to meet all water demands of the entire Project through 2045, including during single and multiple dry years. Future developments within the Project site are expected to connect to the City’s domestic water supply system in adjacent areas and would provide infrastructure/pipeline s that are adequately sized to accommodate its demands. Applicants for future development projects would be required to submit proper building and safety documents, as required by the City. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.17-13) Wastewater
The City’s Public Works Depart ment – Utilities Division maintains the City’s sewer system and the IEUA provides wastewater treatment services through facilities managed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). These facilities can treat a total of 86 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater with a current remaining capacity of 38 MGD. The Project site contains an existing extensive network of sewer lines, which provides services to the existing developments. Future developments within the Project site would be expected to connect to the City’s domestic wastewater supply system in adjacent areas and would provide infrastructure/pipelines that are adequately sized to accommodate its demands. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.17-13)
Stormwater Infrastructure
All stormwater infrastructure, including on - and off-site improvements, would connect to the City’s existing stormwater infrastructure. Thus, future development within the Project area would possibly require construction of new stormwater treatment and conveyance facilities, including on-site s torm drains and water quality infiltration or biofiltration basins. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.17-13 and 4.17-14) Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
Southern California Edison (SCE) currently provides electric power in the City through electricity distribution lines both aboveground and buried. Future development projects would be required to connect to the existing SCE lines which would enable additional services to the site. Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) provides gas services throughout the County, including the Project area. There are existing natural gas lines in the Project area that contribute to surrounding uses. Similar to other dry utilities, telecommunication services would be extended to serve the Project site. This may involve the extension of services for existing providers and the petition for additional services from other providers not currently servicing the area within the Project site. However, the construction of substantial new telecommunication infrastructures would not be required.

The Project site is largely developed and contains adequate capacity to expand dry utility infrastructure to accommodate future potential developments in those undeveloped areas of the Project site. Thus, future developments would not be expected to require the construction or expansion of electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.17-14) Overall, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause signi ficant

environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.17-12 through 4.17- 14)
B. Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? (Threshold “4.17- 2”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: According to the data provided in the UWMP, FWC does not anticipate any shortage due to single or consecutive dry years. Even though localized drought conditions should not affect supply, FWC participates in several ongoing water conservation measures and regional recharge projects to optimize and enhance the use and reliability of regional water resources. If FWC experiences constraints on its surface water and groundwater supplies, these sources could be supplemented by alternative sources such as recycled water, or water conservation measures.

Project implementation would not facilitate development in a manner that would exceed the water supply capacity for FWC in single or multiple dry years. Further, future development facilitated by the Project would be required to adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements during construction and operation for ensuring that sufficient water supplies are available. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.17-14 and 4.17-15) C. Would the Project result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Threshold “4.17-3”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would include both residential and commercial development.

In 2019, the nonresidential (not including heavy industrial) average wastewater generation was calculated to be 1,500 gallons per acre per day (gpad) while residential wastewater generation was calculated to be 70 gpad. Based on 2019 data for daily wastewater generation, commercial develop would generate 79,500 gapd and residential development would generate 3,710 gpd or a combine d total of 83,210 gapd, or 0.083 MGD. As previously mentioned, the City provides wastewater treatment through IEUA’s four RPs. These RPs have the capacity to treat 86 MGD of wastewater. Currently, the system has a remaining capacity pf 38 MGD. The Project’s combined generation would account for

0.1 percent of the system’s treatment capacity, and 2.1 percent of the local RP-4’s remaining capacity of 4 MGD. However, as previously stated, in the event that a RP is at or near capacity, wastewater flows can be diverted to other RP’s in the service area.

Future development facilitated by the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and required to adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements related to wastewater treatment during construction and operations, including the City’s stormwater and urban runoff policies within the Development Code. Considering these requirements, and the available capacity discussed above, the Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.17-15)
D. Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Threshold “4.17-4”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact

Facts in Support of Finding: Solid waste disposal services for the City are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries. Mid-Valley Landfill is currently the primary solid waste depository for the area. As discussed above, the Mid-Valley Landfill has a remaining capacity of 61,219,377 cubic yards with a daily throughput of 7,500 tons per day. The Project encompasses about 53 acres of land, all of which are divided into 4 sub-districts. All but one of the districts has been zoned for commercial and residential uses. Sierra Avenue Corridor is the only district designated for residential uses only.

Although the exact commercial and residential developments are not identified, the total potential solid waste generation of the Project area would not exceed the remaining daily capacity of 7,500 tons per day. Additionally, the Project would comply with state and local solid waste standards and reduction goals as discussed in Draft EIR Section Utilities and Service Systems Impact 4.17-5. (Draft EIR pp.

4.17-16 and 4.17-17). Therefore, the Project would pose a less than significant increase to the landfill’s capacity and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.17-15 and 4.17-16) E. Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste (Threshold “4.17-5”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would comply with all local, State, and Federal regulations regarding solid waste, including those of the City. This includes compliance with AB 341 which requires all businesses in California that generate four cubic yards or more of waste per week to implement one of the following actions in order to reuse, recycle, compost, or otherwise divert commercial solid waste from disposal. Furthermore, the Project would implement the requirements of the City’s Integrated Waste Department's Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual on refuse and recycling storage and access for service, as well as addressing the City's recycling goals. The requirements of the MC Chapter 24, Solid Waste and Recycling, would also be implemented to ensure that the Project complies with all applicable state and federal laws, including, but not limited to, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. A construction waste management plan would be submitted and implemented in compliance with Section 5.408 of the 2022 CALGreen Code. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur as the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair th e attainment of solid waste reduction goals. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.17-16 and 4.17-17)

2.5.17 Wildfire
A. Would the Project Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Threshold “7.4-1”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped fire threat potential throughout California, the City fire hazards have been ranked within the range of little to no threat. Furthermore, the City Fire Department’s review of all future permits for Project site development would include a review of access for emergency vehicles during construction and operation, in accordance with the California Fire Code. The Project site is within an existing developed area of the City and is surrounded by existing developed roadways. Future construction and operation on the Project site is not expected to create risks of wildfire since the site is located in an urbanized area of the City and is not adjacent to wildland area. Due to multiple points of ingress/egress, and compliance with state, regional, and local codes; and designation of the Project site in a range of

little to no fire hazard threat; the Project would not interfere with emergency response and evacuation plans of the County. (Draft PEIR, p. 7-4)
B. Would the Project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbated wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (Threshold “7.4-2”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: As noted in threshold 7.4-1 above, the Project site is located in a region with little to no threat of fire hazards. The Project would also not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Future development on the Project site would require that landscape plans, design standards, and development guidelines would be reviewed by the Fire Department. Due to the presence of surrounding development, presence of area roadways, and lack of steep slopes, it is not likely that future development on the Project site would be affected by wildfire during construction or operations. In addition, all future Project development will be consistent with the California Building Code requiring new buildings to use ignition-resistant construction methods and materials as well as fire suppression systems. Accordingly, there will be no impact. (Draft PEIR, pp. 7-4 and 7-5) C. 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 envi ronment? (Threshold “7.4-3”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed above the Project site is located in a region with little to no threat of fire hazards. The Project site is not located near the wildland interface. The Project site is surrounded by suburban and urban development. Future development on the Project site would adhere to the California Fire Code, the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) and Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), and any applicable building codes. The Project does not include installation of utilities or roads within the Project area or require emergency water sources. Future development on the Project site would require additional analysis on a case -by-case basis to determine if there would be impacts related to installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. No elements of the Project would exacerbate the risk of wildfire or generate environmental impacts. (Draft PEIR, p. 7-5) D. 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? (Threshold “7.4-4”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: As discussed above the Project site is located in a region with little to no threat of fire hazards. Accordingly, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes due to wildfire. No impact would occur. (Draft PEIR, p. 7-5)

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

4.3.1 Air Quality
A. In the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Threshold “4.2-3”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: As shown in Draft PEIR Tables 4.2-15 and 4.2-16, pollutant emissions on the peak day of construction and operations would not result in the significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Accordingly, localized significance thresholds (LSTs) would not be exceeded during construction or operations. The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor (Draft DEIR, pp. 4.2-26 through 4.2-28)
Project construction would involve demolition of multiple structures within the Specific Plan area. If it is determined that if any of the existing structures contain asbestos -containing materials, the Project would must limit asbestos emissions by implementing the appropriate all applicable procedures and practices in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403.

Construction equipment and associated heavy -duty truck traffic generate diesel exhaust, which is a known toxic air contaminants (TAC). Construction would result in the generation of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary toxic air contaminant of concern. On-road diesel -powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors.

There are existing sensitive receptors throughout the perimeter boundaries of the Walnut Village Project. Therefore, Mitigation Measure ( MM) AQ -5, requiring the preparation of construction health risk assessment (HRA) for each development shall be necessary to limit impacts from TACs.

Following construction, operation of the Project would not be considered a source of TACs that would pose a possible risk to off-site uses. The Project involves the future development of 2,408 DUs of multi -family residential land uses. The Project would not include stationary sources that emit TACs and would not generate a significant amount of heavy-duty truck trips

(a source of diesel particulate matter [DPM]). Therefore, no impacts to surrounding receptors associated with TACs would occur.

CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective recommends against siting sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. The primary concern with respect to heavy- traffic roadway adjacency is the long-term effect of TACs, such as diesel exhaust particulates, on sensitive rec eptors.

The primary source of diesel exhaust particulates is heavy -duty trucks on freeways and high-volume arterial roadways. As part of the Walnut Village Project, residential units would be constructed a minimum of 1,000 feet from I-210. The Project would not result in direct construction of residential or non-residential uses but would facilitate and provide a policy framework for future development within the Project area. While the Project does not propose any development, it can be assumed that future development could potentially result in direct impacts through construction and operation of residential land uses within TAC emitters within the Project areas. MM AQ -5, requiring a construction health risk assessment shall be prepared for each future development project to determine the impact of construction on surrounding sensitive receptors. All future projects would be subject to the City’s development review process and would be required to demonstrate consistency with General Plan policies and Municipal Code requirements, which may require additional studies for future projects. (Draft DEIR, p. 4.2-32)
Overall the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration with implementation of MM AQ-5. Impacts would be reduced to less than significant level. (Draft DEIR, pp. 4.2-25 through 4.2-33)
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-5 Each future development project within the Walnut Village SP shall prepare a construction health risk assessment to determine health impacts to surrounding residents that would result from the operation of diesel construction equipment on site and from on-road diesel trucks used for hauling soil and equipment to and from the site. The HRA will include mitigation measures, such as requiring construction equipment to meet Tier 4 standards, to reduce impacts from the construction of future developments to less than significant. The construction of developments determined by a HRA to exceed the carcinogenic risk threshold and/or non -carcinogenic hazard index shall be prohibited.

Basis for Finding. MM AQ -5 requires that future development projects prepare a health risk assessment to determine health impacts to surrounding residents. The HRA would include mitigation measures to reduce impacts from construction activities and prohibit certain developments within the Project site. With implementation of MM AQ -5, exposure to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

4.3.2 Biological Resources
A. 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? (Threshold “4.3-1”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation

Facts in Support of Finding:

Direct Impacts to Special-Status Plants: No special-status plant species were observed on the Project site during the habitat assessment. Additionally, most of the Project site is developed and as well as the surrounding environment. This has eliminated the suitability of the habitat to support special-status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site. Based on habitat requirements for specific special -status plant species and the availability and quality of habitats needed by each species, it was determined that the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the special- status plant species known to occur in the area and are presumed to be absent from the Project site. No focused surveys are recommended, and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.3- 24)
Direct Impacts to Special-S
tatus Wildlife: No special-status wildlife species were observed during the field investigation. There is a low potential to support Cooper’s hawk and California horned lark, and the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the other special -status wildlife species known to occur in the area since the Project site has been mostly developed.

No special-status wildlife species are federally or state listed as endangered or threatened. Marginal nesting opportunities for Cooper’s hawk and California horned lark, including utility poles and tall trees, exist along site boundaries and the undeveloped areas present within the project site provide moderate foraging opportunities for both species. To ensure impacts to the aforementioned species do not occur from implementation of the Project, a pre -construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. With implementation of the MM BIO -1 (pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey), impacts to special status wildlife species will be less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.3-25)
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey should be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season.

If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre -construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer. The size of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case -by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fen cing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor should be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor

the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur.

Basis for Finding. M M BIO -1 will require that future development projects conduct a pre - construction clearance survey for nesting birds within three days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction activities. With implementation of MM BIO -1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant impacts.

2.6.4 Cultural Resources
A. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Threshold “4.4-2”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: Future development facilitated by the Project will potentially impact undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources directly or indirectly through ground-disturbing activities. Undeveloped sites within the Project site would have a higher potential for the presence of unknown archaeological resources as the likelihood of encountering archaeological resources is greatest on sites that have been minimally excavated in the past (e.g., undeveloped parcels, vacant lots, and lots containing undeveloped areas). Therefore, MM CUL-2 would be implemented which will require future development on vacant parcels to conduct intensive -level pedestrian cultural resources inventory prior to any future construction activities. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.4-11 and 4.4-12) Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-2 Vacant parcels on the Project site will require intensive -level pedestrian cultural resources inventory under the oversight of a cultural resources professional that meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology. This inventory would determine the presence and significance of prehistoric and historic period archeological resources.

Basis for Finding. MM CUL-2 would ensure that any impacts to potential archaeological resources are minimized by requiring future development within vacant parcels of the Project site to conduct intensive-level pedestrian cultural resources inventory prior to development. Impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

B. Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Threshold “4.4-3”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located in an area mainly developed with commercial and residential uses and is not located near a formal cemetery. Although most of the WVSP has been developed, human remains may still be discovered during future development. However, those remains would require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws, including California HSC Section 7050.5 and 7052, and PRC Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99. HSC Section 7050.5 and 7052 describe the general provisions for treatment of human remains. Specifically, HSC Section 7050.5 prescribes the requirements for the treatment of any human remains that are accidentally discovered during

excavation of a site. HSC Section 7050.5 also requires t hat all activities cease immediately, and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately. As required by state law, the procedures set forth in PRC Section 5087.98 would be implemented, including evaluation by the County Coroner and notification of the NAHC. The NAHC would then designate the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the unearthed human remains. Accordingly, the Project would implement MM CUL-5 if human remains are found during construction of future projects to minimiz e impacts to the unearthed resource. Implementation of MM CUL-5 would ensure that impacts to human remains are reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.4-12 through 4.4-13) Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-5 If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during the undertaking, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a MLD. With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.

Basis of Finding. With implementation of MM CUL-5, construction activity associated with future development projects would cease
(within a 100- foot buffer of the find) and the find would be analyzed, preserved, or relocated per applicable regulations which would reduce impacts to the human remain or funerary objects to less than significant levels.

2.6.5 Geology and Soils
A. Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Threshold “4.6-9”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: Geologic units underlying the Project area are mapped primarily as Holocene aged alluvial deposits of gravel and sand. Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of high preservation value, but material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits. However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the likelihood of reaching Pleistocene alluvial sediments would increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1 mile radius, although this may be due in part to project’s distance from the museum and should be taken as indicative of paleontological sensitivity
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during development should be observed. As such,
While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during development should be observed. As such, MM GEO -1 would be implemented and would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.6-
15 and 4.6-16)
Mitigation Measures

MM GEO-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer of individual projects will retain a qualified paleontologist to create and implement a Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program (PRIMP). The project paleontologist would review the grading plan and conduct any pre -construction work necessary to render appropriate monitoring and mitigation requirements, to be documented in the PRIMP. The PRIMP would be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. Information contained in the PRIMP shall minimally include:

1. Description of the project site and proposed grading operations.

2. Description of the level of monitoring required for earth-moving activities.

3. Identification and qualifications of the paleontological monitor to be employed during earth moving.

4. Identification of personnel with authority to temporarily halt or divert grading to allow recovery of large specimens.

5. Direction for fossil discoveries to be reported to the developer and the City.

6. Means and methods to be employed by the paleontological monitor to quickly salvage fossils to minimize construction delays.

7. Sampling methods for sediments that are likely to contain small fossil remains, if any.

8. Procedures and protocol for collecting and processing of samples and specimens, as necessary.

9. Fossil identification cataloged and curated into the permanent collections of a scientific institution.

10. Identification of the repository to receive fossil material.

11. All pertinent maps and exhibits.

12. Procedures for reporting of findings.

13. Acknowledgment of the developer for content of the PRIMP and acceptance of financial responsibility for monitoring, reporting, and curation.

Basis of Finding. MM GEO-1 will require that all future development project developers/applicants retain a qualified paleontologist to create and implement a PRIMP prior to issuance of grading permits.

The project paleontologist would review the grading plan and conduct any pre -construction work necessary to render appropriate monitoring and mitigation requirements, to be documented in the PRIMP. With implementation of MM GEO -1, impacts to potentially unearthed paleontological resource or unique geological feature would be reduced to a less than significant level.

2.6.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A. Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Threshold “4.7-2”) Finding: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: Future development in with Project site would be required to comply with the California Air Resource Basin (CARB)’s 2022 Scoping Plan (2022 Scoping) GHG reduction

mandates and would be consistent with applicable policies and plans related to GHG emissions reductions. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.7-22 and 4.4-23). Within the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at providing local jurisdictions without an approved Climate Action Plan the tools to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on evaluating plan- level and project -level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, CARB identifies several recomm endations and strategies that should be considered for new development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is focused on Residential and Mixed-Use Projects. CARB specifically states that Appendix D does not address other land uses (e.g., industrial). However, CARB plans to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future. (Draft PEIR pp. 4.6-16 and 4.6-17). CARB Scoping Plan Appendix D lists potential actions that support the State’s climate goals . However, the Scoping Plan notes that the applicability and performance of the actions may vary across the regions. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.7-22 and

4.4-23)
The Project includes numerous mitigation measures for construction and operation that would reduce GHG emissions. For example, MM AQ -2 requires the installation of all -electric appliances in residential uses and MM AQ -4 requires all landscaping equipment used on -site to be 100 percent electrically powered. In addition, MM GHG-1 requires buildings to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards or exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards by 15 percent; MM GHG-2 requires the Project to install energy efficient appliances; MM GHG-3 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offse t energy emissions; MM GHG-4 requires the Project to install low-flow water fixtures; and MM GHG -5 requires the Project to implement recycling program to divert waste from landfills. MM GHG -1 requires buildings to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards or exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards by 15 percent; MM GHG-2 requires the Project to install energy efficient appliances; MM GHG-3 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions; MM GHG -4 requires the Project to install low-flow water fixtures; and MM GHG -5 requires the Project to implement recycling program to divert waste from landfills. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan’s Appendix D. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.7-24)
Additionally, future development projects would also be required to demonstrate consistency with the SCAG’s RTP/SCS goals, and the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. The Project would be consistent with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Therefore , the 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 and would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.7-24 and 4.7-25)
Overall Impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures
MM GHG-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Fontana demonstrating that the Project shall be designed to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards or exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards by 15 percent in effect at the time of building permit application.

MM GHG-2 All major in -unit appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, water heaters, and for space heating) prov ided/installed by the developer shall be Energy Star certified or of equivalent energy efficiency where applicable. Prior to

the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City of Fontana shall verify implementation of this requirement. Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the Planning and Building Department during plan check.

MM GHG-3 The Project shall be required to install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or another source of renewable electricity generation on-site, based on the maximum roof area available for solar (i.e., solar- ready zone). The solar-ready zone shall comply with Section 110.10 of the 2022 California Energy Code and shall comply with access, pathway, ventilation, and spacing requirements, and exclude skylight area.

The final PV generation facility size requires approval by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE’s Rule 21 governs operating and metering requirements for any facility connected to SCE’s distribution system. Should SCE limit t he off-site export, the proposed Project may utilize a battery energy storage system (BESS) to lower off-site export while maintaining on-site renewable generation to off-set consumption.

The electrical system and infrastructure must be clearly labeled wi th noticeable and permanent signage. The schedule of photovoltaic system locations may be updated as needed.

MM GHG-4 The Project shall require all fixtures provided/installed by the developer to be low-flow or high-efficiency fixtures that exceed state standards. These fixtures include: toilets, showerheads, bathroom faucets, kitchen faucets, dishwashers, and clothes washers.

Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City of Fontana shall verify implementation of this requirement. Instal lation of water efficient fixtures shall be verified by the Planning and Building Department during plan check.

MM GHG-5 The Walnut Village SP Project shall implement a recycling program to divert a minimum of 75 percent of landfill waste. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, a recyclables collection and load area shall be constructed in compliance with the City standards for Recyclable Collection and Loading Areas.

Basis of Finding. Per MM GHG-1, future project applicants or successor in intere st will provide documentation to the City of Fontana demonstrating that the Project shall be designed to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards or exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards by 15 percent, prior to to the issuance of building permits. Per MM GHG -2, all major in -unit appliances provided/installed by the developer will be Energy Star certified or of equivalent energy efficiency where applicable. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City will verify implementation of this requirement. Per MM GHG-3, the Project will be required to install solar PV panels or another source of renewable electricity generation on-site, based on the maximum roof area available for solar. Additionally, all future lighting fixtures (provided/installed by developer) will be low-flow or high-efficiency fixtures that exceed state standards. Lastly, MM GHG-5 will require that the Project implement a recycling program to divert a minimum of 75 percent of landfill via a recyclables collection and load area. Therefore, implementation of MMs GHG-1 through GHG-5 will ensure that impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

2.6.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A. 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? (Threshold “4.8-2”)

Finding: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: The use of hazardous materials during construction and operation of future commercial and residential developments is anticipated to generate less than significant effects to the environment. However, the demolition of existing structures and grading/removal of concrete, paving, and landscaping could potentially release hazardous materials not previously identified on the Project site. Additionally, future commercial development within the Project area would include the storage of hazardous materials, such as gas stations or repair shops. Future development has the potential to increase generation of household hazardous waste. However, under applicable federal, state, county, and local laws and regulations relating to hazardous materials the Project would ensure that a ll potentially hazardous materials are used and handled appropriately. To further limit the potential for public exposure to hazardous materials, MMs HAZ-1, through HAZ-3 are proposed to ensure that construction activities adequately address any potential hazards associated with hazardous materials found at each site. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.8-15 and 4.8-17)
Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 If a proposed use at the Project has a threshold quantity of a regulated substance greater than as specified by the applicable health and safety code, the user shall prepare and implement a Hazardous Materials Risk Management Plan for facilities that store, handle, or use regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code § 25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health through the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) process prior to implementation as required by the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program.

MM HAZ-2 If potentially contaminated soil is identified during site disturbance activities for the Project, as evidenced by discoloration, odor, detection by instruments, or other signs, a qualified environmental professional shall inspect the site, determine the need for sampling to confirm the nature and extent of contamination, and provide a written report to the Master Developer, Site Developer, or Lead Agency, as applicable, stating the recommended course of action. Depending on the nature and extent of contamination, the qualified environmental professional shall have the authority to temporarily suspend construction activity at that location for the protection of workers or the public. If, in the opinion of the qualified environmental professional, substantial remediation may be required, the Master Developer, Site Developer, or Lead Agency, as applicable, shall contact representatives o f the San Bernardino County Fire Department and/or DTSC for guidance and oversight and shall comply with all performance standards and requirements of the respective agency for proper removal and disposal of contaminated materials.

MM HAZ-3 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any buildings or structures on-site, the Master Developer or Site Developer, as applicable, shall conduct a comprehensive Asbestos-Containing Material survey to identify the locations and quantities of ACM in above-ground structures. The Master Developer or Site Developer, as applicable, shall retain a licensed or certified asbestos consultant to inspect buildings and structures on-site. The consultant’s report shall include requirements for abatement, containment, and disposal of ACM, if encountered, in accordance with SCAQMD’s Rule 1403.

Basis of Finding. MM HAZ-1 will require that applicable project uses within the Project site to prepare and implement a Hazardous Materials Risk Management Plan. MM HAZ-2 will require that a qualified environmental professional to inspect the site if a contaminated soils are identif ied during site disturbance activities. The qualified environmental professional will provide a recommended course of action to address the identified soil. Lastly, MM HAZ -3 will require the site developer to obtain a licensed or certified asbestos consultant to conduct a comprehensive Asbestos -Containing Material survey to identify the locations and quantities of ACM in above -ground structures.

Implementation of MMs HAZ -1 through HAZ-3 will ensure that impacts concerning hazards and hazardous materials are reduced to a less than significant level.

B. 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? (Threshold “4.8-3”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: The nearest school to the Project site is Redwood Elementary School approximately 0.47 miles away. This would fall outside of the 0.25 miles requirement of this threshold.

However, although construction of the Project would involve the occasional transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials on-site and off-site such as fuels, paints, mechanical fluids, and solvents, these materials would not be present in such a quantity or used in such a manner that would pose a significant hazard to nearby schools. Furthermore, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances, such as the California Accidental Release Prevention Program, along with implementation of MM HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, would ensure Project buildout would not create a significant hazard to nearby schools due to the transport of any hazardous materials on local roadways. Therefore, impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials near schools are anticipated to be less than significant with mitigation applied. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.8-17)
Mitigation Measures
See Project Mitigation Measures MMs HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 above.

2.6.8 Noise
A. Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Threshold “4.11-2”)
Finding: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: Increases in ground-borne vibration levels attributable to the Project would be primarily associated with short‐term construction‐related activities. Construction on the Project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground-borne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved. As indicated in Table 4.11- 5 of the Draft PEIR , based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to 0.644 inch/second PPV at 25 feet from the activity. Thus, vibration velocities from typical pile driving at 25 feet from the activity source would exceed the 0.2 the inch/second PPV threshold. However, Table

4.11-5 shows that vibration levels from pile driving would be below the 0.2 inch/second PPV threshold at 55 feet. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.11-18)
To lessen potential vibration-related impacts to adjacent sensitive uses, MM NOI-5 limits heavy-duty construction equipment to within 25 feet of residential receptors and pile driving to within 65 feet of

residential receptors. MM NOI-6 requires contractors to notify affected residential property owners when large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and vibratory compactor/rollers will be operated within 50 feet of an occupied residence. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.11-18)
During operations, Project uses would not be anticipated to generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Future development facilitated by the Project would not involve industrial or substantial heavy truck operations, and therefore would not result in vibration impacts at surrounding uses. Since heavy trucks traveling on freeways do not generate vibration levels that exceed the 0.2 inch/second PPV threshold it can be inferred that Project related vehicles moving at relatively low speeds (not at freeway speeds) over smooth surfaces (not under poor roadway conditions) would not result in excessive groundborne vibrations. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.11-18) Overall impacts concerning groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.11-17 through 4.11-19) Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-5 Use of high impact, heavy-duty equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible within 25 feet of re sidential receptors and piledriving shall be prohibited within 65 feet of residential receptors. Where feasible, equipment or alternative techniques that would generate vibration velocities not exceeding 0.04 in/sec PPV at 25 feet shall be utilized.

These requirements shall be incorporated in contract specifications and included in construction documents, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM NOI-6 Prior to large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and vibratory compactor/rollers being operated in Sub-District areas within 50 feet of an occupied residence, the Project Contractor(s) shall notify the affected residential property owners in writing of upcoming construction including the anticipated start and end dates and hours of operation. This restriction does not apply to trucks on a public right-of-way. These requirements shall be incorporated in contract specifications and included in construction documents, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Ci ty Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.

Basis of Finding. MM NOI -5 will limit, to the extent feasible, use of high impact heavy-duty equipment within 25 feet of residential receptors. Pile driving shall be prohibited within 65 feet of residential receptors. Where feasible, equipment or alternative techniques that would g enerate vibration velocities not exceeding 0.04 in/sec PPV at 25 feet shall be utilized. MM NOI-6 would require the project-specific contractor to notify the affected residential property owners in writing of upcoming construction including the anticipated start and end dates and hours of operation. With implementation of MMs NOI-5 and NOI-6 impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

2.6.9 Tribal Cultural Resources
A. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is (Threshold “4.14-1”):
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
Facts in Support of Finding: Unknown tribal cultural resources have a higher potential of occurring in previously vacant, undeveloped sites. The majority of the Project site is developed while the Project sub-districts remain partially developed. However, the four sub-districts contain undeveloped parcels.

Future development facilitated by the Project may still affect previously unidentified Native American tribal cultural resources. Future development in these areas facilitated by the Project would, however, be subject to discretionary approvals and site-specific CEQA evaluation on a project-by-project basis. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.16-7) In addition, to limit impacts to unknown buried archaeological resources that qualify as TCRs to be encountered during Project-related ground-disturbing activities, future development facilitated by the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and compliance with all Federal, State, and local requirements for protecting tribal cultural resources, including the MMs CUL-3 through CUL-5 and TCR-1 and TCR-2 to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.16-7 through 4.16-9)
Mitigation Measures
Refer to MMs CUL-3 through CUL-5 above.

MM TCR-1 The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in MM CUL-3, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and 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 (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to the Monitoring and Treatment Plan. The Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

MM TCR-2 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the project.

Basis of Finding. MM TCR-1 would require the project applicant contact the YSMN in the event that pre-contact and/or historic -era cultural resources are discovered during project developm ent. The YSMN will provide input with regards to significance and treatment. MM TCR-2 will require that all archaeological/cultural documents created during each project be supplied to the applicant and lead agency. Therefore implementation of MMs CUL -3 through CUL-5 and TCR-1 and TCR-2 would ensure that impacts to tribal cultural resources are minimized.

2.7 Impacts Identified in the EIR as being Significant and Unavoidable The Planning Commission hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined herein and in the EIR, the following impacts from the Project and related approvals 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 Planning Commission finds and declares, in its independent judgment, that the Project’s benefits substantially outweigh and justify the following significant and unavoidable impacts:

2.7.1 Air Quality
A. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Threshold “4.2-1”)
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable
Facts in Support of Finding: Criteria to determine consistency with the applicable air quality plan are provided on Draft PEIR p. 4.2-15. Concerning the first criterion, construction activities associated with individual development projects facilitated by the Project could potentially exceed AQMD significance thresholds. As shown in Draft PEIR Tables 4.2-12: Mitigated Operational Emissions and 4.2-13: Mitigated Overlapping Phase Emissions , even with implementation of MMs AQ -1 through AQ-4 included, the Project would exceed operational emission standards. Therefore, the Project would potentially contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project is not consistent with the first criterion.

Concerning the second criterion, the population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on local City plans and policies; these are used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. Additionally, the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2022 AQMP. The Project would not result in substantial unplanned growth or unaccounted for growth in the General Plan or job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the AQMP, and therefore, would be consistent with Criterion 2 (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.2-15 through 4.2-16)
Project emissions levels would remain significant and would contribut e to the nonattainment designations in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Therefore, the Project would be inconsistent with the AQMP, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact despite the implementation of mitigation. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.2-14 through 4.2-16)
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 The Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings. Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC.

Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City Engineer shall confirm that plans include the following specifications:
 All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.  Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints.
 Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.

 For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the storm drain. Set aside the can of cleanup water and take it to the hazardous waste center (www.cleanup.org).
 Use compliant low -VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment.
 Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions.
 Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and use pre- painted construction materials to the extent practicable.
 Use high- pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.

MM AQ-2 The installation of wood-burning and natural gas devices shall be prohibited. The purpose of this measure is to limit emissions of ROG, NOX, particulate matter, and visible emissions from wood-burning and natural gas devices used for primary heat, supplemental heat, cooking, or ambiance. All residential appliances shall be electric. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed and/or lease agreements for future property owners/tenants to obey.

MM AQ-3 Prior to the issuance of occupan cy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s CC&Rs and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all cleaning products used in public spaces will be U.S. EPA Safer Choice certified. 1 This requirement shall be included in the third-party vendor agreements for the building owner and tenants, as applicable.

MM AQ-4 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Codes Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and/or tenant l ease agreements include contractual language that all landscaping equipment used onsite shall be 100 percent electrically powered. This requirement shall be included in the third-party vendor agreements for landscape services for the building owner and tenants, as applicable.

Basis of Finding. MM AQ -1 will require future development projects facilitated by the Project to utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings. Super-compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC.

Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City Engineer will confirm that each project -specific plans include the design specifications listed in MM AQ -1. MM AQ-2 prohibits the installation of wood- burning and natural gas devices, and requires that all residential appliances be electric. MM AQ-3 will ensure that all cleaning products used in public spaces will be U.S.s EPA Safer Choice certified. Lastly,

1 U.S. EPA manages the Safer Choice Program which certifies products that contain safer ingredients for human health and the environment. https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/products

MM AQ-4 will ensure that Project’s Codes Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all landscaping equipment used onsite shall be 100 percent electrically powered. This requirement shall be included in the third-party vendor agreements for landscape services for the building owner and tenants, as applicable. MMs AQ-1 through AQ-4 would reduce air operational emissions, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

B. 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? (Threshold “4.2-2”)
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable
Facts in Support of Finding: Project construction activities would generate short -term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area are O3- precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-related emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. As shown in Draft PEIR Table 4.2-10: Mitigated Construction Emissions, implementation of MM AQ-1 would reduce impacts from Phase 3: Gateway South construction to less than significant impacts. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.2-18 through 4.2-19) The Project’s operational emissions however, would would continue to exceed the SCAQMD’s operational standards for ROG. As shown in Draft PEIR Tables 4.2-12: Mitigated Operational Emissions and 4.2-13: Mitigated Overlapping Phase Emission s, after implementing MMs AQ-2 through AQ-4, operational emissions from Phase 3 and overlapping emissions would continue to exceed the daily threshold for ROG. The majority of operational ROG emissions come from area sources and mobile sources. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.2-19 through 4.2-22). Although MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-4 have reduced area source ROG the Project has no influence on the emissions generated by mobile sources. In the future, as vehicles become more efficient and mobile emissions will continue to decrease. However, the worst-case scenario results shown in Table 4.2-12 shows that the combination of area source emissions and mobile source emissions still exceed the daily threshold for ROG during Phase 3 and Project Buildout. Therefore, even after incorporating mitigation measures, operational impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.2-16 through 4.2-25) Plans, Programs, and Policies:

The following includes existing requirements that are based on local, State, or federal regulations or laws that are frequently required independent of CEQA review. Typical standard conditions and requirements include compliance with the provisions of the Building Code, SCAQMD Rules, etc. The City may impose additional conditions during the approval process, as appropriate. Because these requirements are neither project specific nor a result of project development, they are not Mitigation Measures.

PPP 4.2 -1 Dust Control. During construction of future development within the Specific Plan area, each project applicant shall require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rules 402 and 403 in order to minimize short-term emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off-site. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of such

dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction projects. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Clearing and grubbing: Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent generation of dust plumes.
 Cut and fill: Pre-water soils prior to cut and fill activities and stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities.
 Earth-moving activities: Pre-apply water to depth of proposed cuts; re- apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and stabilize soils once earth-moving activities are complete.  Importing/exporting of bulk materials: Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions.
 Stockpiles/bulk material handling: Stabilize stockpiled materials; stockpiles within 100 yards of off -site occupied buildings must not be greater than 8 feet in height, must have a road bladed to the top 2 to allow
water truck access, or must have an operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage.
 Traffic areas for construction activities: Stabilize all off-road traffic and parking areas; stabilize all haul routes; and direct construction traffic over established haul routes.

Rule 403 defines large operations as projects with 50 or more acres of grading or with a daily earth-moving volume of 5,000 cubic yards at least 3 times in 1 year.

Future development within the Specific Plan would potentially be considered a large operation. Large operations are required to implement additional dust-control measures (as specified in Tables 2 and 3 of Rule 403); provide additional notifications, signage, and reporting; and appoint a Dust Control Supervisor.

The Dust Control Supervisor is required to:
 Be employed by or contracted with the Property Owner or Developer;  Be on the site or available on-site within 30 minutes during working hours;  Have the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all Rule 403 requirements; and  Have completed the AQMD Fugitive Dust Control Class and have been issued a valid Certificate of Completion for the class.

2 Refers to a road to the top of the pile.

PPP 4.2-2 Rule 445, Wood Burning – Rule 445 prohibits permanently installed wood- burning devices into any new development. A wood-burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet -fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space-heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour.

PPP 4.2-3 Architectural Coatings. Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the VOC content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications.

Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 The Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings.

Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City Engineer shall confirm that plans include the following specifications:
 All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.  Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints.  Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.
 For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the storm drain. Set aside the can of cleanup water and take it to the hazardous waste center (www.cleanup.org).
 Use compliant low -VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment.
 Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions.
 Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and use pre-painted construction materials to the extent practicable.  Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.

MM AQ-2 The installation of wood-burning and natural gas devices shall be prohibited. The purpose of this measure is to limit emissions of ROG, NO X, particulate matter, and
visible emissions from wood-burning and natural gas devices used for primary heat, supplemental heat, cooking, or ambiance. All resi dential appliances shall be electric.

This prohibition shall be noted on the deed and/or lease agreements for future property owners/tenants to obey.

MM AQ-3 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s CC&Rs and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that

all cleaning products used in public spaces will be U.S. EPA Safer Choice certified.3 This requirement shall be included in the third-party vendor agreements for the building owner and tenants, as applicable.

MM AQ-4 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Codes Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all landscapin g equipment used onsite shall be 100 percent electrically powered. This requirement shall be included in the third-party vendor agreements for landscape services for the building owner and tenants, as applicable.

Basis of Finding. The Project would 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, despite implementation of MMs AQ -1 through AQ-4 and compliance with PPP s 4.2-1 through 4.2-3. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

2.7.2 Cultural Resources
A. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?? (Threshold “4.4-1”) Finding: Significant and Unavoidable
Facts in Support of Finding: Future development facilitated by the Project would be required to maintain and enhance the integrity of the historical structures on the Project site as stated in the Fontana GP Community and Neighborhoods Element Goals. Future development on the Project site would also be required under CEQA Guidelines to be evaluated at the time a specific development project is proposed. Any future development on the Project site with potential historic resources would require future site-specific evaluation prior to any alteration, demolition, relocation, or new development to determine any potential impacts, prior to approval of required permits. This site -specific analysis would be used to determine, prior to approval of future development permits, if the proposed development has to the potential to impact a significant historical resource, or whether the existing development or property is eligible for listing on the CRHR or local listing.

Generally, structures 50 years of age or older have the potential to be historic resources, based on NRHP guidelines. Structures must have retained their original integrity and context to be considered a historic resource. To ensure the Project would not result in the alteration or destruction of a historic structure, object, or site, MMs CUL -1 and CUL-4 are required, which specify the mitigation framework for historic buildings on the Project site. However, given that future development is unknown at this time, even with implementation of mitigation, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.4-10 through 4.4-11).

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Before project activities can be permitted within areas of the Project site that contain historic-period resources, they require formal recordation on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluation for the CRHR eligibility to determine if any are significant under CEQA. Evaluations must be completed under the oversight

3 U.S. EPA manages the Safer Choice Program which certifies products that contain safer ingredients for human health and the environment. https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/products

of a cultural resources professional that meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History.

MM CUL-2 Vacant parcels on the Project site require intensive-level pedestrian cultural resources field surveys under the oversight of a cultural resources professional that meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology.

This inventory would determine the presence and significance of prehistoric and historic period archeological resources.

MM CUL-3 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, 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 outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within MM TCR-1, regarding any pre -contact and/or historic -era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

MM CUL-4 If significant pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within MM TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Monitoring and Treatment Plan accordingly.

Basis of Finding. MM CUL-1 will require formal recordation on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluation for the CRHR eligibility to determine if any are significant unde r CEQA before project activities are permitted within areas that could contain historic-period resources.

MM CUL-2 would require that future development projects on vacant parcels perform intensive-level pedestrian cultural resources field surveys under th e oversight of a cultural resources professional to determine the presence and and significance of prehistoric and historic period archeological resources.

MM CUL -3 would require that in the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, 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 outside of the bu ffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, YSMN will be contacted as detailed within MM TCR -1. Lastly, MM CUL -4 will require the obtained archaeologist to develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan and monitor/implement the monitoring and treatment plan accordingly. Despite implementation of mitigation, impacts to potential historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable.

2.7.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A. Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indi rectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Threshold “4.7-1”) Finding: Significant and Unavoidable
Facts in Support of Finding: As shown in Draft PEIR Table 4.7-2: Construction -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Phase 1 of the Project would result in the generation of approximately 600.95 MTCO 2e over the course of construction; Phase 2 would generate approximately 456.27 MTCO2e over the course of construction; Phase 3 would generate approximately 6,502.20 MTCO 2e

over the course of construction; and Phase 4 would generate approximately 566.51 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over a 30- year period and then added to the operational emissions. The amortized Project Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4 construction emissions would be 20.03 MTCO2e, 15.21 MTCO2e, 216.74 MTCO2e, and

18.88 MTCO2e per year respectively. Total construction emissions and total amortized emissions for Project Buildout would be 8,125.93 MTCO 2e and 270.86 MTCO 2e per year respectively. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.7- 16 and 4.7-17)
Operational GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.7-17)
As shown in Draft PEIR Table 4.7-3: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emission s, the Project’s total unmitigated emissions per year would be approximately 2,027.49 MTCO 2e for Phase 1, 545.82 MTCO2e for Phase 2, 13,552.45 MTCO2e for Phase 3, 1,711.79 MTCO2e for Phase 4, and 16,764.07 MTCO2e for Project Buildout. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.7-18 and 4.7-19) MMs AQ-2 and AQ-4 have been identified in the Project’s Air Quality Assessment to reduce operational emissions and would also reduce GHG emissions. MM AQ-2 requires the installation of all-electric appliances in residential uses and MM AQ -4 requires all landscaping equipment used on-site shall be 100 percent electrically powered.

Additionally, the Project would further reduce GHG emissions through implementation of MM GHG- 1 through MM GHG-5. MM GHG-1 requires buildings to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards or exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards by 15 percent; MM GHG -2 requires the Project to install energy efficient appliances; MM GHG-3 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions; MM GHG-4 requires the Project to install low- flow water fixtures; and MM GHG-5 requires the Project to implement recycling program to divert waste from landfills.

Draft PEIR Table 4.7-3 shows that implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce GHG emissions to 1,743.11 MTCO 2e for Phase 1; to 470.79 MTCO 2e for Phase 2; to 11,333.35 MTCO 2e for Phase 3; to 1,465.51 MTCO 2e for Phase 4; and to 14,148.40 MTCO 2e for Project Buildout. The majority of the Project’s GHG emissions are generated by mobile emissions. Additional mitigation to reduce the Project’s mobile emissions is not feasible due to the limited ability of the City of Fontana to address emissions resulting from mobile sourc es and/or emissions generated by cars and trucks outside of the City’s limits. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.7-18 through 4.7-19) Although the Project has no control over mobile emissions, State regulations will continue to push vehicles to be cleaner and more fuel ef ficient (CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars II Rule will require all new cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in 2035 and beyond to be zero emissions) which will significantly reduce GHG emissions for the Project. However, the worst -case scenario analyzed in the Draft PEIR shows that the Project would exceed the 3,000 MTCO
2e threshold even with all feasible mitigation and
could result in a significant impact to the environment. Therefore, Project impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.7-16 through 4.7-21)

Mitigation Measures
MM GHG-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Fontana demonstrating that the Project shall be designed to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards or exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards by 15 percent in effect at the time of building permit application.

MM GHG-2 All major in -unit appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, water heaters, and for space heating) provided/installed by the developer shall be Energy Star certified or of equivalent energy efficiency where applicable. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City of Fontana shall verify implementation of this requirement. Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the Planning and Building Department during plan check.

MM GHG-3 The Project shall be required to install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or another source of renewable electricity generation on-site, based on the maximum roof area available for solar (i.e., solar- ready zone). The solar-ready zone shall comply with Secti on 110.10 of the 2022 California Energy Code and shall comply with access, pathway, ventilation, and spacing requirements, and exclude skylight area.

The final PV generation facility size requires approval by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE’s Rule 2 1 governs operating and metering requirements for any facility connected to SCE’s distribution system. Should SCE limit the off-site export, the proposed Project may utilize a battery energy storage system (BESS) to lower off-site export while maintaining on-site renewable generation to off-set consumption.

The electrical system and infrastructure must be clearly labeled with noticeable and permanent signage. The schedule of photovoltaic system locations may be updated as needed.

MM GHG-4 The Project shall require all fixtures provided/installed by the developer to be low-flow or high-efficiency fixtures that exceed state standards. These fixtures include: toilets, showerheads, bathroom faucets, kitchen faucets, dishwashers, and clothes was hers.

Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City of Fontana shall verify implementation of this requirement. Installation of water efficient fixtures shall be verified by the Planning and Building Department during plan check.

MM GHG-5 The Walnut Village SP Project shall implement a recycling program to divert a minimum of 75 percent of landfill waste. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, a recyclables collection and load area shall be constructed in compliance with the City standards for Recyclable Collection and Loading Areas.

Basis of Finding. MM GHG -1 requires buildings to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards or exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards by 15 percent; MM GHG-2 requires the Project to install energy efficient appliances; MM GHG-3 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions; MM GHG-4 requires the Project to install low -flow water fixtures; and MM GHG-5 requires the Project to implement recycling program to divert waste from

landfills. In conclusion, the Projects mitigation measures and consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan will ensure that GHG emissions do not have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with the applicable plans that are discussed above. Despite implementation of MMs GHG-1 through MM GHG-5, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

2.7.4 Noise
A. 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? (Threshold “4.11- 1”)
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable
Facts in Support of Finding: As shown in Draft PEIR Table 4.11-2: Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels, typical construction equipment generates maximum noise levels at 50 feet from the noise source range between 80 dBA for backhoes and loading trucks, to 85- 90 dBA for graders and excavators. Based on the close proximity of some residential uses to the Sub- District area boundaries (a minimum of 10 feet), construction noise levels would exceed the Project’s significance threshold of 80 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptor location, without mitigation. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment used may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). In general, construction noise can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity and the specific type of equipment in operation. Additionally, construction activities associated with future development facilitated by the Project is anticipated to occur in incremental phases over time based on market demand, economic, and planning considerations. As a result, construction-related noise would not be concentrated in any one particular area over the entire buildout of the Focus Area.

Draft PEIR Table 4.11 -3: Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels shows estimated exterior construction noise at the sensitive receptor nearest to each Project area. Construction noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the noise source and receptor.

Construction equipment would operate throughout the project site and the associated noise levels would not occur at a fixed location for extended periods of time. As indicated in Draft PEIR Table

4.11-3, the Project’s estimated construction noise levels would exceed the FTA’s significance threshold of 80 dBA at all noise -sensitive receptor locations. To reduce the Project’s construction - related noise levels, implementation of MMs NOI-1 through NOI-3. Draft EIR Table 4.11- 4:

Mitigated Construction Noise Levels provides the estimated construction noise levels at the nearest off-site noise -sensitive receptors with MMs NOI -1 through NOI-3 incorporated. (Draft PEIR, pp.

4.11-11 through 4.11-14)
Despite implementation of MMs NOI-1 and NOI-2 construction noise levels would continue to exceed the FTA’s 80 dB threshold for all Sub-Districts except the Gateway South Sub-District. Future development projects would be required to demonstrate consistency with General Plan policies and Municipal Code requirements. According to Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7), erection (including excavating), demolition, alteration or repair of any building or structure other than between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays are prohibited. Given that construction-related noise levels would exceed the FTA’s specified

thresholds, it is conservatively concluded that the Project’s construction-related noise levels would result in a significant unavoidable impact.

Concerning operational noise, future development facilitated by the Project would result in noise from stationary operation-related sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, water heaters, generators, lawn maintenance equipment, and swimming pool pumps. Future development will be required to implement MM NOI -4 which requires that all stationary equipment that exceeds the noise source standard for residential uses to be placed within an acoustical enclosure to reduce noise levels to the appropriate level. Additionally, all future projects would be subject to the City’s development review process and would be required to demonstrate consistency with General Plan policies and Municipal Code requirements. This may include project -specific CEQA evaluation and preparation of technical analyses, including noise and traffic studies. Therefore, it is not anticipated that there would be a discernable noise difference that would be noticed by current or future residents, and operational noise impacts would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.11-14 through 4.11- 15)
However, construction noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors would remain above the FTA’s construction noise threshold of 80 dBA for residential use, as a result, a significant and unavoidable impact would occur. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.11-10 through 4.11-16) Mitigation Measures

MM NOI-1 Demolition, grading, and building plan shall include measures to reduce construction-related noise impacts. The construction contractor shall implement the following noise reduction measures:
 Construction shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays unless it is approved by the building inspector for cases that are considered urgently necessary as defined in Section 18-63(7) of the Municipal Code.  Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.  Impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for construction shall be hydraulically or electronically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler shall be used (this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to approximately 10 dBA). External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible (this can achieve an approximately 5.0-dBA reduction. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.  Stationary construction-related noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible.

MM NOI-2 A temporary and impermeable sound barrier shall be constructed along all Project boundaries facing residential properties prior to construction and shall

remain during construction. The temporary sound barrier shall be a minimum of 8.0-feet high and shall have a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of STC-25, such as, acoustical barrier blanket (with STC -25 rating) or 3/4" thick exterior grade plywood. The sound barrier must be designed to meet a minimum 10 dBA attenuation.

MM NOI-3 Prior to demolition, grading, or building permit approval, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a list of measures to respond to and track complaints pertaining to construction noise, ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction. At minimum, these measures shall include the following:
 A requirement for a sign to be posted by the Applicant on-site specifying the permitted construction days and hours, and notification procedure, and who to notify in the event of a noise-related concern. The sign shall also include the construction contractor’s telephone numbers (during regular construction hours and off-hours); and
 A requirement for a preconstruction meeting to be held with the Applicant and general contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise measures and practices (including construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are completed.

MM NOI-4 As part of the Site Development Review Permit process for future development projects, the Applicant shall demonstrate that s tationary noise sources do not exceed the City’s stationary noise source standard of 55 dBA L eq during
daytime hours and 45 dBA L eq for nighttime hours for residential uses.

Stationary noise sources that exceed the City’s standards shall be placed in an acoustical enclosure to reduce noise level to the required level.

Basis of Finding. MM NOI-1 requires power construction equipment to be properly maintained and equipped with noise shielding and muffling devices. MM NOI-2 requires that an impermeable sound barrier be constructed prior to any demolition/construction activities and remain for the duration of construction. MM NOI -3 requires compliance with a list of measures to respond to and track complaints related to construction noise. Despite implementation of MMs NOI -1 through NOI-3, construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

2.4 Cumulative Impacts
Regarding the Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows:

2.4.1 Aesthetics
The cumulative study area for aesthetic impacts is the visual landscape of the Project site and adjacent areas. The viewsheds visible from the Project site will serve as the geographic context for cumulative aesthetic impacts. Surrounding developments that would alter scenic views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains as well as the Jurupa Hills would be considered to have cumulative aesthetic impacts. Development within the Project area would ensure minimization of potential aesthetic impacts such that they do are not incompatible with existing development patterns. Future development with the Project area would have the potential to increase the amount of light and glare present. However, any additional development in the cumulative area would be required to adhere to the poli cies and

regulations outlined in the City of Fontana Municipal Code and existing WVSP. For these reasons, the cumulative development would not result in significant cumulative aesthetic impacts that oppose aesthetic standards for preserving scenic landscap es, public views, scenic vistas, or the requirements for minimizing and controlling potential light and glare. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetics and no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR, p, 4.1-10)

2.4.2 Air Quality
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 nonatt ainment 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 the 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 Draft PEIR Table 4.2-12, the Project operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As a result, operational emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contri bution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project -by-project basis. Project operations would not contribute a cumula tively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.2-35)

2.4.3 Biological Resources
All Project impacts to biological resources would be less than significant or less than significant with the incorporation of MM BIO -1 in consideration of compliance with existing laws, ordinances, regulations and standards. As with the Project, all cumulative development in the area would undergo environmental and design review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA, in order to evaluate potential impacts to biological resources and avoid or reduce any impacts. There are special -status animal species with moderate or high potential to occur on the Project site. However, implementation of mitigation would avoid potential impacts to s pecies that have any potential to occur on the Project site. As a result, the Project taken in sum with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.3-28)

2.4.4 Cultural Resources
As stated above, future development facilitiated by the Project would result in impacts to cultural resources. Potential cultural impacts are site -specific and would require site -specific evaluation on a case-by-case basis prior to approval of permits at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the Project. Each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential cultural resource impac ts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Consequently, the Project would not result in significant unavoidable environmental impacts to cultural resources. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures and compliance wi th applicable regulations, the Project’s contribution to a cumulatively considerable impact on cultural resources would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.4-13)

2.4.5 Energy
Construction and operations associated with implementation of the Project would result in the use of energy, but not in a wasteful manner. The use of energy would not be substantial in comparison to statewide electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel demand. New capacity or supplies of energy resources would not be required. Add itionally, the Project would be subject to compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency.

The Project and new development projects located within the cumulative study area would also be required to comply with all the sa me applicable federal, state, and local measures aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption and the conservation of energy. The anticipated Project impacts, in conjunction with cumulative development in the vicinity, would increase urbanization and result i n increased energy use.

Potential land use impacts are site-specific and require evaluation on a case-by-case basis. As noted above, the Project would not result in significant impacts to state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The refore, the Project and identified cumulative projects are not anticipated to result in a significant cumulative impact. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5.11 and 4.5-12)

2.4.6 Geology And Soils
The southern California region is prone to seismic activity with a range of geologic and soil conditions which vary widely due to differences in landforms and proximity to fault zones. Therefore, while geotechnical and soil impacts may be associated with cumulative development, the very nature of the impacts is generally site-specific and typically little, if any, cumulative relationship exists between the development of a project and development within a larger cumulative area. Future development projects within the Project site and surrounding region would be required to comply with applicable state and regional building regulations, including the most recent CBC. Site-specific geologic hazards would be addressed in each project -specific geotechnical investigation. In addition, the County may also require even more rigorous standards depending on an individual project site’s condition. Further, future developments would be required to comply with environmental analysis and review. Therefore, no significant cumulative impact would occur. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.6-16 and 4.6-17)

2.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. The additive effect of Project -related GHGs would not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. In addition, the Project as well as other cumulative related projects would also be subject to all applicable regulatory re quirements, which would further reduce GHG emissions. Although individual development projects have the potential to exceed individual project level thresholds, all future projects would be subject to the City’s development review process and would be required to demonstrate consistency with General Plan policies and Municipal Code requirements, including those related to GHG emission reduction. As the extent of GHG emissions from individual development projects facilitated by the Project cannot be quantifi ed at this time, GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable at the programmatic level.

However, although individual development projects under the Specific Plan may exceed applicable GHG thresholds, as discussed above, the overall planned development within the Specific Plan would not conflict with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan, SCAG’s Connect SoCal RTP/SCS Plan, or the City’s General Plan. Future development would re capture and re -use underutilized land area in the City.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with GHG reduction plans and cumulative impacts in this regard would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft PEIR p. 4.7-25 and 4.7-26)

2.4.8 Hazardous And Hazardous Material
As stated above, future development facilitated by the Project could increase the amount of hazards and hazardous materials associated with housing and commercial development within the existing urbanized area. As such, compliance with the City’s goals, policies, and regulations regarding hazards and hazardous materials in addition to the implementation of MMs HAZ -1 through HAZ-3, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Potential hazardous impacts impacts are site-specific and would require further site-specific evaluation on a case-by-case basis prior to approval of permits at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the Project. Any future development facilitated by the Project would require separate discretionary approvals and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potentia l site-specific hazardous impacts and provide necessary mitigation where appropriate. Therefore, due to the nature of the Project and its lack of proposed development, impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft PEIR, p. 4.8-19).

2.4.9 Hydrology And Water Quality
Cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality could occur as new development, redevelopment, and existing uses are ongoing within the watershed. This includes the Project site and other past, present, and future projects. New development on the Project site, would result in some increases in impervious surfaces, and thus could generate increased runoff from the affected project sites.

Depending on the site of projects, they would be required to prepa re and implement SWPPP with BMPs to control erosions and stormwater runoff in accordance with all required water quality permits and the Water Quality Control Plan. This would include conformance with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin WWMP. As needed projects would implement BMPs, including LID BMPs to minimize runoff, erosion, and storm water pollution. As part of these requirements, projects would be required to implement and maintain source controls, and treatment measures to minimize polluted discharge and prevent increases in runoff flows that could substantially decrease water quality.

Conformance to these measures would minimize runoff from those sites and reduce contamination of runoff with pollutants. Therefore, related projects are not expected to cause substantial increases in storm water pollution. With compliance with State and local mandates, cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.9- 19 and 4.9-20)

2.4.10 Land Use And Planning
Cumulative impacts with respect to land use and planning analysis are considered for cumulative development in the surrounding area. In event that Project development would exacerbate or otherwise significantly influence nearby projects, mitigation would be required. The geographic context for the land use and planning cumulative impact analysis includes the jurisdiction of local and regional agencies including the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County and SCAG.

Land use impacts would not be cumulatively considerable if the Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would be designed or otherwise conditioned to maintain consistency with adopted land use plans and ordinances or be am ended with the appropriate mitigation and conditions of approval. Implementation of the Project would neither physically divide an established community nor inhibit future development within the City in accordance with the City General Plan goals and policies. Given the Project’s consistency, as well as the requirement for other

future projects to be generally consistent with the land use policy framework, overall cumulative land use consistency impacts would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.10-14 and 4.10-15)

2.4.11 Noise
As stated above, the Project’s construction-related noise levels would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Noise from construction of cumulative projects is typically localized and has the potential to affect noise-sensitive uses within 500 feet from the construction sites, as construction noise would be attenuated by distance and intervening buildings, typical in an urban setting. No future construction projects have been identified within 500 feet of the Project, as a res ult, no cumulative construction-related noise impacts would occur.

Concerning operational noise, Future development facilitated by the Project and generated by cumulative projects would result in increased traffic volumes on local roadways, thereby increas ing cumulative noise levels. Given the City’s and surrounding communities’ largely developed nature, implementation of a new development would not be expected to significantly increase traffic volume on local roadways. Future development projects would adhere to existing noise regulations, additionally would and comply with the development review process, which may require additional project-specific evaluation and preparation of technical studies including noise and traffic studies.

Therefore, Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Lastly concerning vibration, construction vibration impacts associated with Project implementation would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementa tion of MMs NOI-5 and NOI-6. In addition, long-term operational groundborne vibration impacts would be less than significant, as the land uses identified in the Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration. Therefore, vibration impacts of the Project would not be cumulatively considerable, and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.11-19 and 4.11-20)

2.4.12 Population and Housing
Projects considered for cumulative impacts on population and housing would be those in a geographic proximity to the proposed Project. Although increased densities for planned residential development within the Project area would induce local population growth, additional growth has been provided for as part of the City’s General Plan and Housing Element Update and has been analyzed in this PEIR to have a less than significant impact. Additionally, the PEIR concluded that no impacts would occur regarding population displacement. The Project is aligned with population and housing objectives outlined in SCAG’s RTP/SCS and the City’ General Plan Housing Element as it would increase job opportunities and provide diverse housing types within vacant and underutilized land. Therefore, Project implementation would not contribute to an existing cumulative impact, resulting in a less than significant impact. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.12-12 and 4.12-13)

2.4.13 Public Services
All Project impacts to public services would be less than significant, as the Project is not expected to significantly increase the number of residents in t he community or increase demands on public services. Future development on the Project site would also be required to comply with existing laws, ordinances, codes, regulations, and standards, as well as payment of all applicable development impact fees to public services.

Separate, individual projects are subject to environmental and design review by applicable agencies to ensure that the projects would be compliant with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and standards and ensure that the addition of these individual projects would not create undue stress on the public

service provided. Additionally, through the payment of development impact fees by individual projects, these public services would have capital and funding available to expand services a s needed to meet rising demand with the addition of cumulative projects. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative impact to Public Services would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.13-14)

2.4.14 Recreation
The Project is not anticipated to substantially increase the need for or use of reactional facilities in the County, and it does not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that could cause adverse physical effects on the environment. Because the Project would not adversely impact recreational facilities, it would not contribute to an existing cumulative impact, even when combined with past, present, and future projects; thus, the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.14-5)

2.4.15 Transportation
Future cumulative development sites would be subject to discretionary permits and require CEQA evaluation for proposed projects. As such, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential transportation impacts and identify any necessary mitigation measures, respectively. The Project does not propose any development plans, with the exception of bicycle improvements, which could result in temporary traffic impacts to the local roadway system . However, the Project is not anticipated to conflict with transportation plans or policies and is consistent with the City’s goals and policies. Consequently, future development on the cumulative development sites would not result in significant environmental transportation-related impacts, nor would future development on the cumulative sites conflict or obstruct a state or local plan or regulation related to transportation. Additionally, all cumulative development projects would be required to reduce VMT -related impacts and implement appropriate mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA guidelines. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable transportation impact, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.15-16)

2.4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources
As stated above, future development projects could encounter tribal cultural resources. Thus, the potential exists for future development facilitated by the Project to result in the adverse modification or destruction of tribal cultural resources. Potential tribal cultural resource impacts associated with such developments would be site -specific. As with the Project, all future development facilitated by the Project would be subject to the City’s existing conditions of approval which address potential tribal cultural resources isues and, additionally, would undergo environmental and design review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA, in order to evaluate potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Accordingly, future development facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with the existing applicable regulatory framework and, additionally, to implement mitigation measures (as applicable) to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, due to the nature of the Project and its lack of proposed development, impacts to tribal cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.16-9 through 4.16-10).

2.4.17 Utilities And Service Systems
For the purpose of utilities and service systems, cumulative impacts are considered for projects within the County. As previously stated, Project implementation would produce less than a significant impact on existing utilities and service systems with ens ure compliance with existing laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards posed by local, state, and federal agencies. Cumulative project impacts are

generally localized for each project and occur at different times. Consequently, cumulative impacts from overlapping developments to utilities and service systems would be avoided. Any future projects would also be required to abide by existing laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards, or implement mitigation to avoid significant cumulative impacts. Theref ore, there are no significant cumulative impacts anticipated relative to public utility and service systems, and the Project’s contribution toward potential future utility and service system impacts in the County is not cumulatively considerable. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.17-17)

2.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Caused by the Proposed Project Should It Be Implemented
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by a proposed project. Generally, the section states that a project will result in significant irreversible environmental changes if the following occurs:
o The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources in a way that would make their nonuse or removal unlikely.
o The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses. o The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project.
o The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy). (Draft PEIR, p. 5-1)
Nonrenewable Resources
The resources that would be committed during future housing development operations are anticipated to be consumed within the City. These energy resources such as electricity, natural gas, petroleum - based fuels, and water. Fossil fuels and petroleum -based fuels would represent the primary energy source associated with both the short -term construction and long- term operations of each individual future development. Thus, existing supplies of these natural resources would be incrementally reduced.

In addition, usage of these resources during future housing development operations would occur in accordance with the latest California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6 (approved at the time of construction), which sets forth conservation practices that would limit energy consumption.

Nonetheless, energy requirements would represent a long-term commitment of essentially non- renewable resources.

Future development facilitated by the Project could include the temporary and/or long-term use or storage of limited amounts of potentially hazardous materials consistent with construction activity and residential uses. These materials during construction would be temporary and would be used, handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and appliable Federal, State, and local regulatory framework. Similarly, these materials used during operations of future development would be used in small quantities and would be used, handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and all applicable regulatory framework. Compliance with all applicable regulations and standards would ensure the protection of significant and irreversible environmental changes from the release of hazardous materials.

Overall, future development facilitated by the Project would result in the irretrievable commitment of non-renewable resources, which would limit the availability of these resources in the foreseeable future for future generations and other uses during the lifespan of individual developments within the City.

However, development of future residential and commercial uses facilitated by the Project would not occur

concurrently (based on market conditions) and non-renewable resources would be used on a relatively small scale in a regional context. Although future development facilitate d by the Project would result in irreversible environmental changes to the commitment of non-renewable resources, the anticipated changes would not be considered significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 5-2 and 5-3) Commit Future Generation to Similar Uses
The Project includes an update to the existing Walnut Village Specific Plan to allow for greater development potential. The Project would guide approval decisions related to future development consistent with the updated Specific Plan. The Project does not directly commit future generations to similar uses since the purpose of the Project is to provide an update to the Walnut Village Specific Plan. Since development needs can change over the course of the planning period, future generations would be able to reassess development needs in the City and make changes accordingly in years to come. Thus, the primary and secondary impacts of this Project would not commit future generations to similar uses. (Draft PEIR, p. 5-3)
Irreversible Damage
Accidental exposure of hazardous materials to the public or environment can occur through transportation accidents; unregulated or unsound disposal methods; improper handling of hazardous material or wastes; emergencies such as explosions; and natural caused occurrences such as floodi ng or wildfires. The severity of these impacts varies by concentration, types of hazards and hazardous materials, proximity to other sensitive receptors, and activity type. Therefore, all future development facilitated by the Project is required to comply with Federal, State and local health and safety requirements designed to minimize potentially significant impacts from the accidental release of hazardous materials or waste. These regulations would apply for development construction and operations phases. Furthermore, the potential hazardous materials associated with residential and commercial uses (e.g., cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers, and herbicides) would not be stored or used in a way that would create a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident. (Draft PEIR, p. 5-3) Wasteful Use of Energy
In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) §21100(b)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines §15126.4, EIRs are required to analyze, where relevant, the consumption of resources and whether the Project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Thus, Section 4.5:

Energy, of this Draft PEIR evaluated the future potential energy use associated with the development of future residential and commercial uses. The analysis conclude s that future development facilitated by the Project would not result in a wasteful or inefficient use of energy resources during construction due to construction practice requirements, which would increase fuel -energy conservation above typical standards. (Draft PEIR, p. 5-3)

2.6 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) requires that EIRs include a discussion of ways in which a project could induce growth. The State CEQA Guidelines identify a project as “growth-inducing” if it fosters economic or population growth or if it encourages the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. New employees from commercial or industrial development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area. The Project would therefore have a growth - inducing impact if it would: (Draft PEIR, p. 5-3)
o Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing;

o Remove obstacles to population growth;
o Require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
o Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

Foster Economic or Population Growth, or Additional Housing As shown in Draft PEIR Table 4.12-7, the Project would allow for the development of an additional 2,139 housing units within the City. Utilizing the City’s 3.74-person average household size for 2023, this would equate to approximately 8,000 additional residents. This would generate an approximately three percent growth of the City’s current population, lower than the SCAG -projected 9.1 percent growth through 2045. (Draft PEIR, p. 5-4)
Anticipated population growth in the City has been accommodated as part of the City’s General Pl an and Housing Element Update. This Project would be completed as a result of the City’s adopted Housing Element Update, which contained goals intended to grow housing stock within the City in order to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. Although future development facilitated by the Project may include infrastructure improvements which may induce population growth, future development facilitated by the Project would be subject to all applicable City and State policies and requirements and would need to conduct adequate environmental review as well as comply with adopted programs and policies.

Commercial development facilitated by the Project would allow for up to 498,309 sqft of community commercial uses. While the Project would allow for this scale of development, individual future developments would be required to undergo environmental review, including analyses regarding impacts to population. Future development of the commercial areas of the Project site would generate employment needs which could be facilitated by the residential uses proposed within the Project. The 8,000 residents generated by the Project would be able to fill employment positions generated by the community commercial uses facilitated by the Project. As the Project is a being developed due to the programs provided in the City’s Housing Element Update and would not generate a substantially increased population, impacts due to population grown would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. (Draft PEIR, pp. 5-4 and 5-5)
Housing
The Project would not directly result in the development of required housing in the City but would provide the opportunity for expansion of the City’s housing stock by 2,139 residential units. As the Project is a being developed due to the programs provided in the City’s Housing Element Update, the Project would offer future additional opportunities for housing in the City of Fontana. (Draft PEIR, p. 5-5)
Remove Obstacles to Population Growth
Anticipated population growth in the City has been accommodated as part of the City’s General Plan and Housing Element Update. This Project would be completed as a result of the City’s adopted Housing Element Update, which contained goals intended to grow housing stock within the City in order to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. Although future development facilitated by the Project may include infrastructure improvements which may induce population growth, future development facilitated by the Project would be subject to all applicable City and State policies and requirements and would need to conduct adequate environmental review as well as comply with adopted programs and policies. (Draft PEIR, p. 5-5)

Require New or Expanded Facilities
None of the future housing development facilitated by the Project would require additional or expanded public services or utilities/service systems that would have significant environmental effects (refer to Draft PEIR Section 4.13: Public Services , and Draft PEIR Section 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems). The City is currently served by essential public services, i.e., fire and police protection, parks and recreational facilities, schools, and solid waste disposal), an extensive network of utility/service systems (i.e., water, wastewater, electricity, and natural gas), and other infrastructure necessary to accommodate/allow the existing conditions and planned growth. According to Draft PEIR Section 4.13: Public Services , implementation of the Project would increase the demand for public service facilities, but the increase would be planned and not considered significant. According to Draft PEIR Section 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems , future development would utilize the existing utility service systems/infrastructure present throughout the City and would not require expansion or additional construction of water or wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater infrastructure, or dry utilities. Although the future development facilitated by the Project would increase demand for public services and utility service systems, the increased demand is planned and would not significantly impair any existing or future levels of services. Therefore, Project implementation would not require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects.

Encourage Other Activities to Significantly Affect the Environment Refer to Section 4.1: Aesthetics through Section 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft PEIR. No cumulative impacts were discovered during the analysis of the Project that would encourage other activities to significantly affect the environment. (Draft PEIR, p. 5-6) Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not result in substantial, adverse growth-inducing impacts.

2.7 Project Alternatives
The EIR analyzed two alternatives to the Project as proposed 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 and 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:
(a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the l ocation 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:
(b) 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 al ternatives 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:
(c) The range of potential alte rnatives 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 perm it 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.

3.7.1 Alternatives Selected for Analysis in the EIR
The alternatives selected for further detailed review within the EIR focus on alternatives that could the Project’s significant environmental impacts, while still meeting most of the basic Project objectives.

Those alternatives include:

A. No Project Alternative (Alternative 1)
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e), the No Project Alternative assumes that the existing land uses and condition of the Project site at the time the NOP was published (May 05, 2023) would continue to exist without the Project and no development would occur. The setting of the Project site at the time the NOP was published is described as part of the existing conditions throughout Section 4 of this PEIR with respect to individual environmental issues and forms the baseline of t he impact assessment of the Project. The No Project Alternative assumes that the Project would not be developed, which means WVSP would not be updated to allow for additional development on the four focus areas of the Project site and the existing development standards of the Project site would be maintained.

Alternative 1 would avoid potential significant impacts that could occur from Project construction and operation as, by definition, it assumes that no development would occur and therefore no grading,

construction or operational traffic and related impacts such as GHG emissions would occur. There would be impacts associated with the continued use as an outdoor storage yard and a staging yard for heavy building materials and construction equipment and t herefore Alternative 1 would not omit all impacts associated with development of the Project site. (Draft PEIR, p. 6-5) Without mitigation, the Project has the potential to generate significant impacts related to the disturbance of nesting birds as a result of construction-related activities. These effects were reduced to less than significant with the application of mitigation measures. Alternative 1 would not remove the application of construction efforts on the Project site which may disturb birds’ nests , however Alternative 1 would not include mitigation proposed to reduce impacts to nesting birds. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would not be reduced to the degree of proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is inferior to the proposed Project. (Draft PEIR 6-5) The potential presence of unknown culturally significant resources was concluded to exist under the Project. However, as the No Project Alternative still allows for development on vacant parcels, these resources may still be encountered during construction activities. However, under this alternative, new mitigation geared towards best practices upon identification of resources would not be implemented.

Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be increased compared to the Project. This alternative is inferior to the Project. (Draft PEIR 6-5)
Alternative 1 would not meet any of the Project objectives. The No Project Alternative Fails to meet the Project objectives such as creating a mixed use, walkable community; create a mixture o f uses; promote more urban densities; and establish a balanced community inclusive of commercial development.

The Planning Commission rejects Alternative 1: No Project Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to any of the Project objectives; and (2) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to biological and cultural resources.

B. Complete Residential Alternative (Alternative 2)
Alternative 2 would involve all components of the Project with the omission of commercial and mixed- use allowances. Therefore, proposed development standards for the four Sub-Districts would be revised to the following:
o Sub-District 1: Up to 39 du/ac
o Sub-District 2: Up to 12 du/ac
o Sub-District 3: 39.1 to 50 du/ac
o Sub-District4: Up to 39 du/ac
Under this alternative an allowable FAR for nonresidential uses will not be implemented in any of the four Sub-Districts. (Draft PEIR 6-9)
The No Complete Residential Alternative would not satisfy all of the City’s housing goals or Project objectives. Unde r the Complete Residential Alternative, impacts which were reduced due to the implementation of current mitigation measures would remain, however, the lack of commercial and mixed-use development allowances would lead to insubstantial improvements in environmental impacts associated with future development.

Additionally,
Alternative 2 would not meet all of the Project objectives identified above. Similar to the No Project Alternative, the Complete Residential Alternative Fails to meet the Project objectives such as

creating a mixed use, walkable community; create a mixture of uses; promote more urban densities; and establish a balanced community inclusive of commercial development.

The Planning Commission rejects Alternative 2: Complete Residential Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative:
(1) the alternative fails to fully meet the Project objectives; and (2) the lack of commercial and mixed- use development allowance s would lead to insubstantial improvements in environmental impacts associated with future development.

2.7.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that if the No Project Alternative is found to be environmentally superior, “the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” Aside from the No Project Alternative, Alternative 2: Complete Residential Alternative would have the least environmental impacts because it wou ld develop less of the Project area, resulting in a general reduction in construction and operation- related impacts associated with future development and would incrementally reduce impacts to resource areas, such as energy, greenhouse gas, hazards and haz ardous materials, land use, noise, population and housing, transportation, and utilities and service systems. (Draft PEIR, p. 6-13) The context of an environmentally superior alternative is based on the consideration of several factors including the reduction of environmental impacts to a less -than-significant level, and an alternative’s ability to fulfill the Project objectives with minimal impacts to the existing site and surrounding environment. According to Draft PEIR Table 6-1, the Complete Residential Alternative would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it would incrementally improve potential impacts of the Project. However, where environmental impacts were identified, it was determined that the Project would have less than significant impacts to afflicted resources with the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures. Additionally, there were no significant and unavoidable impacts identified as a result of the Project that would not also occur if the Complete Residential Alt ernative was adopted (Draft PEIR, p. 6-13).

While the Complete Residential Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, it is not capable of meeting the majority of Project objectives; specifically, objectives 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8. As such, the Complete Residential Alternative would not establish a high quality of life and economic prosperity, encourage a compact walkable mixed-use area, promote more urban densities along key corridors in the Specific Plan, nor would it establish a well-balanced community with opportunities for commercial, residential, and open space.

3.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Planning Commission hereby declares that it has balanced the benefits of the Project against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, if the benefits of the Project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered “acceptable.” Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the 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 Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after implementation of all feasible mitigation, the Planning Commission has determined that each of the following social, economic and envi ronmental benefits of the Project separately and individually

outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impact and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:

A. The Project establishes a mix of uses that complement the existing development pattern.

B. The Project promotes more urban densities along key corridors in the Project area.

C. The Project preserves and promotes community culture and heritage.

D. The Project will enhance connectivity open spaces and recreational facilities.

E. The Project will establish a well -balanced community with opportunities for commercial, residential, and open space.

F. The Project will maintain compatibility with existing development.

G. The Project’s proposed commercial developments will support influx of new potential residents.

H. Through Project design features, mandatory compliance with the CALGreen, and the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Final PEIR, future development facilitated by the Project will implement energy conservation measures and include contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs.

I. All feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen Project impacts to less than significant levels where possible; and furthermore, alternatives to the Project are infeasible because while they have similar or less environmental impacts, they do not provide the economic benefits of the Project or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible when compared to the Project, as described in the Statement of Facts and Findings
.

The Planning Commission hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through the approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impact of the Project that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. The Planning Commission finds the 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.

4.0 Additional Facts on Record

5.1 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 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.

4.4 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 Cecily Session-Goins. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

EXHIBIT B

MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.5 SECTION 1: AUTHORITY
This environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Program) has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.

Section 15000 et seq.) Sections 15091(d) and 15097, to ensure implementation of and provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required of the Walnut Village Specific Plan Project (Project), as set forth in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Project. This report will be kept on file in the offices of the CEQA Lead Agency, the City of Fontana (City).

The EIR addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and, where appropriate, recommends mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental impacts. The Program detailed in the matrix table below is designed to monitor and ensure implementation of all mitigation measures that are adopted for the Project.

The City is the lead agency for the Project and assumes ultimate enforcement responsibilities for implementation of all mitigation measures listed in this Program. The City may assign responsibility for implementation or monitoring to appropriate designees such as a construction manager or third-party monitor. However, as the lead agency, the City remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with this Program. In some cases, the City is required to secure permits or approvals from third-party agencies in order to implement a mitigation measure. In these cases, the City is responsible for verifying that such permits or approvals have been obtained in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the mitigation measure. The City’s existing planning, engineering, operations, and procurement review and inspection processes will be used as the basic foundation for the Program procedures and will also serve to provide the documentation for the reporting program.

4.6 SECTION 2: MONITORING SCHEDULE
Prior to construction, while detailed design plans are being prepared by City staff or its agents, City staff will be responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation monitoring applicable to the Project construction, development, and design phases. Once construction has begun and is underway, monitoring of the mitigation measures associated with construction will be included in the responsibilities of City staff, who shall prepare or cause to be prepared periodic monitoring reports as appropri ate. Regulatory agencies will have to harmonize CEQA mitigation with regulatory permit conditions and monitoring/reporting as part of the regulatory permitting process and will l ikely require submittal of formal monitoring reports. Once construction has been completed, the City will monitor the project as specified in the mitigation measures or as otherwise deemed necessary. At minimum, the City will prepare a mitigation monitoring status report prior to commencing

construction, prior to commencing operations, within 90 days of commencing operations, and following completion of the first full year of operations.

4.7 SECTION 3: SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation measures shall be maintained in the Project file with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and shall be made available to the public upon request.

4.8 SECTION 4: FORMAT OF MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
The mitigation monitoring matrix on the following pages identifies the environmental issue areas for which monitoring is required, the required mitigation measures, the time frame for monitoring, and the responsible implementing and monitoring agencies.

4.9 SECTION 5: DEFINITIONS
The following list provides definitions for acronyms used in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Acronyms/Abbreviation Description
ACM ......................................Asbestos-Containing Material AQ ..........................................Air Quality BESS ......................................battery energy storage system BIO .........................................Biological Resources CalARP ..................................California Accidental Release Prevention CC&Rs ...................................Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions CEQA .....................................California Environmental Quality Act CRHR .....................................California Register of Historical Resources City .........................................City of Fontana County ....................................County of San Bernardino County Coroner ......................San Bernardino County Coroner CUL........................................Cultural Resources CUPA .....................................Certified Unified Program Agencies DTSC ....................................Department of Toxic Substances Control EPA ........................................Environmental Protection Agency

GEO .......................................Geology and Soils GHG…………………………Greenhouse Gases
HAZ .......................................Hazards and Hazardous Materials MBTA ....................................Migratory Bird Treaty Act MLD .......................................Most Likely Descendent MM ........................................Mitigation Measure NAHC ...................................Native American Heritage Commission NOI………………………….Noise
NOx ........................................Nitrogen Oxide PRIMP....................................Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program PV ..........................................photovoltaic ROG .......................................Reactive Organic Gases SP ..........................................Specific Plan SCE ........................................Southern California Edison SCAQMD ..............................South Coast Air Quality Management District STC ........................................Sound Transmission Class State........................................State of California TCR ........................................Tribal Cultural Resources VOC .......................................Volatile Organic Compound YSMN ....................................Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department

Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)

AIR QUALITY
MM AQ-1: The Project shall utilize “Super -Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings. Super- Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC.

Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City Engineer shall confirm that plans include the following specifications:
 All architectural coatings will be super -compliant low VOC paints.
 Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints.
 Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.
 For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the storm drain. Set aside the can of cleanup water and take it to the hazardous waste center (www.cleanup.org).
 Use compliant low -VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment.
 Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions.
 Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and use pre -painted construction materials to the extent practicable.
 Use high -pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other Applicant;
Construction Contractor
Prior to issuance of
building permit
City of Fontana –
Department of
Engineering

Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.

MM AQ-2: The installation of wood-burning and natural gas devices shall be prohibited. The purpose of this measure is to limit emissions of ROG, NO X, particulate matter, and visible emissions from wood - burning and natural gas devices used for primary heat, supplemental heat, cooking, or ambiance. All residential appliances shall be electric. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed and/or lease agreements for future property owners/tenants to obey.

Applicant Prior to issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
City of Fontana –
Planning
Department

MM AQ-3: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s CC&Rs and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all cleaning products used in public spaces will be U.S. EPA Safer Choice certified. 4 This requirement shall be included in the third- party vendor agreements for the building owner and tenants, as applicable.

Applicant Prior to issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
City of Fontana –
Planning
Department

MM AQ-4: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all landscaping equipment used onsite shall be 100 percent electrically powered. This requirement shall be included in the third-party vendor agreements for landscape services for the building owner and tenants, as applicable.

Applicant

Prior to iss uance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
City of Fontana –
Planning
Department

MM AQ -5: Each future development project within the Walnut Village SP shall prepare a construction health risk assessment to determine health impacts to surrounding residents that would result from the operation of diesel construction equipment on site and from on-road diesel trucks used for hauling soil and equipment to and from the site. The HRA will include mitigation measures, such as Applicant Prior to project
Approval
City of Fontana –
Planning
Department

4 U.S. EPA manages the Safer Choice Program which certifies products that contain safer ingredients for human health and the environment. https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/products

Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
requiring construction equipment to meet Tier 4 standards, to reduce impacts from the construction of future developments to less than significant. The construction of developments determined by a HRA to exceed the carcinogenic risk threshold and/or non - carcinogenic hazard index shall be prohibited.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO -1: Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey should be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season.

If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construc tion. The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre- construction clearance survey , construction activities should stay outside of a no- disturbance buffer. The size of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case- by-
case basis when developing buffer
distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be Applicant;
Qualified Biologist
On going, during
construction
activities
Biological monitor

Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor should be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity.

Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural co nditions,
construction activities within the buffer area can occur.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM CUL-1: Before project activities can be permitted within areas of the Project site that contain historic- period resources, they require formal recordation on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluation for the CRHR eligibility to determine if any are significant under CEQA. Evaluations must be completed under the oversight of a cultural resources professional that meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History.

Applicant;
Cultural Res ources
Professional
Prior to project
Approval
City of Fontana –
Planning
Department

MM CUL -2: Vacant parcels on the Project site require intensive - level pedestrian cultural resources field surveys under the oversight of a cultural resources professional that meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology.

This inventory would determine the presence and significance of prehistoric and historic period archeological resources.

Applicant;
Cultural Re sources
Professional
Prior to project
Approval
City of Fontana –
Planning
Department

MM CUL -3: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, 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 outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department Applicant;
Qualified Archaeologist
On going, during
construction
activities
City of Fontana –
Building and Safety
Department;
Qualified
Archaeologist

Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
(YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within MM TCR -1, regarding any pre -contact and/or historic -era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

MM CUL -4: If significant pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within MM TCR -1.

The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Monitoring and Treatment Plan accordingly.

Applicant;
Qualified Archaeologist
On going , during
construction
activities
City of Fontana –
Planning
Department;
Qualified
Archaeologist

MM CUL-5: If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during the undertaking, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100- foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a MLD. With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.

Applicant;
Qualified Archaeologist
On going, during
construction
activities
City of Fontana –
Planning
Department;
County Corner

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
MM GEO -1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the
Applicant/Developer of individual projects will retain a qualified paleontologist to create and implement a Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program (PRIMP). The project paleontologist would review the grading plan and conduct any pre -construction work necessary to render appropriate monitoring and mitigation requirements, to be documented in the PRIMP. The PRIMP would be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. Information contained in the PRIMP shall minimally include:

1. Description of the project site and proposed grading operations.

2. Description of the level of monitoring required for earth - moving activities.

3. Identification and qualifications of the paleontological monitor to be employed during earth moving.

4. Identification of personnel with authority to temporarily halt or divert grading to allow recovery of large specimens.

5. Direction for fossil discoveries to be reported to the developer and the City.

6. Means and methods to be employed by the paleontological monitor to quickly salvage fossils to minimize construction delays.

7. Sampling methods for sediments that are likely to contain small fossil remains, if any.

8. Procedures and protocol for collecting and processing of samples and specimens, as necessary.

9. Fossil identification cataloged and curated into the permanent collections of a scientific institution.

10. Identification of the repository to receive fossil material.

11. All pertinent maps and exhibits.

12. Procedures for reporting of findings.

Applicant;
Qualified Paleontologist
Prior to issuance of
grading permit.

City of Fontana –
Building and Safety
Department

Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)

13. Acknowledgment of the developer for content of the PRIMP and acceptance of financial responsibility for monitoring, reporting, and curation.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
MM GHG -1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Fontana demonstrating that the Project shall be designed to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards or exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Eff
iciency Standards by 15 percent in
effect at the time of building permit application.

Applicant;
Owner and/or Operator
Prior to issuance of
building permit
City of Fontana –
Building and
Safety
Department

MM GHG -2: All major in -unit appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, water heaters, and for space heating) provided/installed by the developer shall be Energy Star certified or of equivalent energy efficiency where applicable.

Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City of Fontana shall verify implementation of this requirement.

Installation of Energy Star –certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the Planning and Building Department during plan check.

Applicant;
Owner and/or Operator

Prior to Certificate
of Occupancy
City of Fontana –
Planning, and
Building and Safety
Departments

Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
MM GHG -3: The Project shall be required to install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or another source of renewable electricity generation on-site, based on the maximum roof area available for solar (i.e., solar-ready zone). The solar-ready zone shall comply with Section 110.10 of the 2022 California Energy Code and shall comply with access, pathway, ventilation, and spacing requirements, and exclude skylight area.

The final PV generation facility size requires approval by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE’s Rule 2 1 governs operating and metering requirements for any facility connected to SCE’s distribution system. Should SCE limit the off -site export, the proposed Project may utilize a battery energy storage system (BESS) to lower off -site export while maintaining on -site renewable generation to off-set consumption.

The electrical system and infrastructure must be clearly labeled with noticeable and permanent signage. The schedule of photovoltaic system locations may be updated as needed.

Applicant;
Owner and/or Operator

Prior to issuance of
building permit
City of Fontana –
Planning, and
Building and Safety
Departments; South
California Edison

MM GHG-4: The Project shall require all fixtures provided/installed by the developer to be low -flow or high -efficiency fixtures that exceed state standards. These fixtures include toilets, showerheads, bathroom faucets, kitchen faucets, dishwashers, and clothes washers. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City of Fontana shall verify implementation of this requirement.

Installation of water efficient fixtures shall be verified by the Planning and Building Department during plan check.

Applicant;
Owner and/or Operator

Prior to issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
City of Fontana –
Planning, and
Building and Safety
Departments

Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
MM GHG -5: The Walnut Village SP Project shall implement a recycling program to divert a minimum of 75 percent of landfill waste. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, a recyclables collection and load area shall be constructed in compliance with the City standards for Recyclable Collection and Loading Areas.

Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
City of Fontana –
Planning
Department

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MM HAZ-1: If a proposed use at the Project has a threshold quantity of a regulated substance greater than as specified by the applicable health and safety code, the user shall prepare and implement a Hazardous Materials Risk Management Plan for facilities that store, handle, or use regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code § 25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities.

This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health through the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) process prior to implementation as required by the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program.

Applicant;
Owner and/or Operator
Prior to issuance of
construction permit
San Bernar dino
County Department
of Environmental
Health

MM HAZ-2: If potentially contaminated soil is identified during site disturbance activities for the Project, as evidenced by discoloration, odor, detection by instruments, or other signs, a qualified environmental professional shall inspect the site, determine the need for sampling to confirm the nature and extent of contamination, and provide a written report to the Master Developer, Site Developer, or Lead Agency, as applicable, stating the recommended course of action. Depending on the nature and extent of contam ination, the qualified environmental professional shall have the authority to temporarily suspend construction activity at that location for the Applicant, Qualified
Environmental
Professional
Ongoing
construction
activity
City of Fontana –
Planning
Department;
Master or Site
Developer

Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
protection of workers or the public. If, in the opinion of the qualified environmental professional, substantial remediation may be required, the Master Developer, Site Developer, or Lead Agency, as applicable, shall contact representatives of the San Bernardino County Fire Department and/or DTSC for guidance and oversight and shall comply with all performance stan dards and requirements of the respective agency for proper removal and disposal of contaminated materials.

HAZ-3: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any buildings or structures on -site, the Master Developer or Site Developer, as applicable, shall conduct a comprehensive Asbestos -Containing Material survey to identify the locations and quantities o f ACM in above-ground structures. The Master Developer or Site Developer, as applicable, shall retain a licensed or certified asbestos consultant to inspect buildings and structures on-site. The consultant’s report shall include requirements for abatement, containment, and disposal of ACM, if encountered, in accordance with SCAQMD’s Rule 1403.

Master Developer;
Site Developer;
Licensed/certified
asbestos consultant
Prior to issuance of
demolition permit
City of Fontana –
Planning, and
Building and Safety
Departments

NOISE
MM NOI -1: Demolition, grading, and building plan shall include measures to reduce construction- related noise impacts. The construction contractor shall implement the following noise reduction measures:
 Construction shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays, and no
construction on Sundays and Holidays unless it is approved by the building inspector for cases that are considered urgently necessary as defined in Section 18- 63(7) of the Municipal Code.
 Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake
Applicant;
Construction contractor
During initial
ground-disturbance
activity
City of Fontana –
Planning, and
Building and Safety
Departments

Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically - attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
 Impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for construction shall be hydraulically or electronically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler shall be used (this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to
approximately 10 dBA). External jackets on the tools
themselves shall be used where feasible (th is can achieve an approximately 5.0- dBA reduction. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment,
whenever feasible.
 Stationary construction-related noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and incorporate insulation barriers, or other
measures to the extent feasible.

MM NOI-2: A temporary and impermeable sound barrier shall be constructed along all Project boundaries facing residential properties prior to construction and shall remain during construction. The temporary sound barrier shall be a minimum of 8.0-feet high and shall have a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of STC -25, such as, acoustical barrier blanket (with STC -25 rating) or 3/4" thick exterior grade plywood. The sound barrier must be designed to meet a minimum 10 dBA attenuation.

Applicant;
Construction contractor
Prior to initial
construction
activities; ongoing
construction
City of Fontana –
Planning, and
Building and Safety
Departments

MM NOI -3: Prior to demolition, grading, or building permit approval, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a list of measures to respond to and track complaints pertaining to construction noise, ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction. At minimum, these measures shall include the following:

Applicant Prior to demolition,
grading, or building
permit approval
City of Fontana –
Planning
Department

Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
 A requirement fo r a sign to be posted by the Applicant on - site specifying the permitted construction days and hours, and notification procedure, and who to notify in the event of a noise-related concern. The sign shall also include the
construction contractor’s telephone numbers (during regular construction hours and off-hours); and
 A requirement for a preconstruction meeting to be held with the Applicant and general contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise measures and practices (including construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are completed.

MM NOI-4: As part of the Site Development Review Permit process for future development projects, the Applicant shall demonstrate that stationary noise sources do not exceed the City’s stationary noise source standard of 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours and 45 dBA Leq for nighttime hours for residential uses. Stationary noise sources that exceed the City’s standards shall be placed in an acoustical enclosure to reduce noise level to the required level.

Applicant Prior to project
approval
City of Fontana –
Planning
Department

MM NOI -5: Use of high impact, heavy -duty equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible within 25 feet of residential receptors and piledriving shall be prohibited within 65 feet of residential receptors. Where feasible, equipment or alternative techniques that would generate vibration velocities not exceeding 0.04 in/sec PPV at 25 feet shall be utilized. These requirements shall be incorporated in contract specifications and included in construction documents, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.

Applicant,
Construction contractor
Prior, ongoing, and
during construction
activities;

Prior to issuance of
grading permit
City of Fontana –
Planning, and
Building and Safety
Departments

City Engineer

MM NOI-6: Prior to large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and vibratory compactor/rollers being operated in Sub-District areas within 50 feet of an occupied residence, the Project Contractor(s) shall notify the affected residential property owners in writing of upcoming construction including the anticipated start and end dates and hours Applicant;
Construction contractor
Prior to use of large
machinery;

City of Fontana –
Planning, and
Building and Safety
Departments

Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature
Required)
(Date of
Compliance)
of operation. This restriction does not apply to trucks on a public right-of-way. These requirements shall be incorporated in contract specifications and included in construction documents, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.

Prior to issuance of
grading permit
City Engineer

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM TCR -1: The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in MM CUL-3, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and 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 (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the arch aeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to the Monitoring and Treatment Plan. The Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

Applicant;
Qualified Archaeologist
Ongoing, during
construction
activity
City of Fontana –
Planning
Department;
Applicant
YSMN monitor

MM TCR-2: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the project.

Qualified Archaeologist;
City of Fontana
Throughout the life
of the project
City of Fontana –
Planning
Department;
Applicant