HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report for SWIP and Annexation
ADDENDUM
TO THE
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE AND ANNEXATION
(State Clearinghouse #2009091089)
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce
Center
Master Case No. 22‐025
Design Review No. 22‐017
Tentative Parcel Map No. 20529
Prepared For:
City of Fontana
Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Contact: Candida Neal
Prepared By:
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Contact: David Ornelas
Project Applicant:
LDC Industrial Realty, LLC
November 2022
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Table of Contents
Banana & Rose Commerce Center i
Table of Contents
Section Number/Title Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act ..................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.3 Format and Content of this EIR Addendum ........................................................................................... 1‐4
1.4 Review and Consideration of this EIR Addendum .................................................................................. 1‐5
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................................................ 2‐1
2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 2‐1
2.2 Existing Condition of Project Site ........................................................................................................... 2‐1
2.3 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................... 2‐1
2.4 Existing General Plan and Zoning ........................................................................................................... 2‐2
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 3‐1
3.1 Project Components ............................................................................................................................... 3‐1
3.2 Project Improvements ............................................................................................................................ 3‐2
3.3 Construction Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 3‐10
3.4 Operational Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 3‐11
3.5 Summary of Requested Actions ........................................................................................................... 3‐13
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 4‐1
4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................... 4‐2
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ....................................................................................................... 4‐4
4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................... 4‐5
4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................. 4‐14
4.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................ 4‐18
4.6 Energy ................................................................................................................................................... 4‐21
4.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................. 4‐25
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................... 4‐30
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................ 4‐33
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 4‐40
4.11 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................................... 4‐45
4.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................................ 4‐46
4.13 Noise ..................................................................................................................................................... 4‐46
4.14 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................................... 4‐50
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Table of Contents
Banana & Rose Commerce Center ii
4.15 Public Services ...................................................................................................................................... 4‐51
4.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................ 4‐54
4.17 Transportation ...................................................................................................................................... 4‐55
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 4‐59
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................................ 4‐60
4.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................. 4‐62
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................................... 4‐63
5.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 5‐1
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Table of Contents
Banana & Rose Commerce Center iii
List of Figures
Figure Number/Title Page
Figure 2‐1 Regional Map .................................................................................................................................. 2‐3
Figure 2‐2 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................... 2‐4
Figure 2‐3 USGS Topographic Map .................................................................................................................. 2‐5
Figure 2‐4 Aerial Photograph ........................................................................................................................... 2‐6
Figure 2‐5 Site Photographs – Views 1 – 4 ...................................................................................................... 2‐7
Figure 2‐6 Site Photographs – Views 5 ‐ 7 ....................................................................................................... 2‐8
Figure 2‐7 Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Land Use Plan .................................................................. 2‐9
Figure 3‐1 Conceptual Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... 3‐3
Figure 3‐2 Conceptual Architectural Elevations .............................................................................................. 3‐4
Figure 3‐3 Conceptual Material Board ............................................................................................................ 3‐5
Figure 3‐4 Conceptual Landscape Plan ............................................................................................................ 3‐6
Figure 3‐5 Tentative Parcel Map No. 20529 .................................................................................................... 3‐7
Figure 3‐6 Conceptual Utility Plan ................................................................................................................... 3‐8
Figure 3‐7 Proposed Grading Plan ................................................................................................................. 3‐12
List of Tables
Table Number/Title Page
Table 3‐1 Construction Schedule ...................................................................................................................... 3‐10
Table 3‐2 Construction Equipment Fleet .......................................................................................................... 3‐10
Table 3‐3 Summary of Project Approvals/Permits ........................................................................................... 3‐13
Table 4‐1 Project Construction Emissions Summary .......................................................................................... 4‐7
Table 4‐2 Project Operational Emissions Summary ........................................................................................... 4‐8
Table 4‐3 Project Construction Localized Emissions Summary ........................................................................ 4‐12
Table 4‐4 Project Operational Localized Emissions Summary .......................................................................... 4‐12
Table 4‐5 Summary of Project‐Related Construction Health Risks .................................................................. 4‐13
Table 4‐6 Summary of Project‐Related Operational Health Risks .................................................................... 4‐13
Table 4‐7 Construction‐Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 4‐31
Table 4‐8 Annual Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................... 4‐31
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Table of Contents
Banana & Rose Commerce Center iv
List of Appendices
Appendix Document/Reference Title
A SWIP SP PEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B Air Quality Impact Analysis
C Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment
D Habitat Assessment
E Cultural Resources Study
F Energy Analysis
G Geotechnical Investigation
H Paleontological Assessment
I Greenhouse Gas Analysis
J Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
K Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
L Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
M Preliminary Hydrology Report
N Noise Impact Analysis
O Trip Generation Assessment
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
Acronym Definition
Banana & Rose Commerce Center v
AB Assembly Bill
AB 32 Assembly Bill 32
AB 2185 Assembly Bill 2185
ACMs Asbestos‐Containing Materials
ACOE Army Corps of Engineers
ADT average daily trips
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Alden Alden Environmental
AM Morning
APN Assessor Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
AQIA Air Quality Impact Analysis
amsl above mean sea level
BFSA Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
BMP Best Management Practice
CalGreen California Building Standards Code
CalTrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAGN California gnatcatcher
CBC California Building Code
CBSC California Building Standards Code
CCR California code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
cfs Cubic Feet per Second
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
cy Cubic Yards
dB decibel
dBA Leq decibel A‐weighted equivalent sound level
DOC California Department of Conservation
DRP Design Review Project
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
e.g. “exempli gratia” meaning “for example”
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EV Electric Vehicle
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
Acronym Definition
Banana & Rose Commerce Center vi
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agent
FWC Fontana Water Company
GHG Greenhouse Gas(es)
gpd gallons per day
HMBEP Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
I‐10 Interstate 10
I‐15 Interstate 15
Ibid “in the same place”
I‐L Light Industrial
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
in/sec Inches per Second
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
i.e. “is est” meaning “that is”
JND Jurupa North Research and Development District
kBTU/yr kilo‐British thermal units per year
kWh kilowatt hours
LBP Lead‐Based Paint
Lbs pounds
LOS Level of Service
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MRZ‐3 Mineral Resource Zone 3
MTCO2eq/year Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents per Year
No. Number
NOx Nitrogen Oxide
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
ONT Ontario International Airport
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
PM Evening
PM Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Particulate Matter (2.5 microns in diameter)
PM10 Particulate Matter (10 microns in diameter)
POC Point of Connection
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
REC Recognized Environmental Conditions
ROG Reactive Organic Gas(es)
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
Acronym Definition
Banana & Rose Commerce Center vii
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SANBAG San Bernardino Associated Governments
SB Senate Bill
SB 18 Senate Bill 18
SB 32 Senate Bill 32
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SBKR San Bernardino kangaroo rat
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SCG Southern California Geotechnical
SCH State Clearinghouse
s.f. Square Feet
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SP Specific Plan
Sq. ft. Square Foot
SWD Slover West Industrial District
SWIP Southwest Industrial Park
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TPM Tentative Parcel Map
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
UST Underground Storage Tanks
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VEC Vapor Encroachment Condition
VMT Vehicles Miles Traveled
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
Waterstone Waterstone Environmental, Inc.
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WS Water of the State
WUS Water of the United States
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Introduction
Banana & Rose Commerce Center 1‐1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Overview
The City of Fontana (hereinafter “City”) received applications from LDC Industrial Realty (hereinafter “Project
Applicant”) to redevelop an approximately 4.03‐gross‐acre (approximately 4.04‐net‐acre), rectangular‐shaped site
(Project Site) with an 87,590 square‐foot (sq. ft.) industrial commerce center building, inclusive of 8,000 s.f. ground
floor office and mezzanine space, and associated site improvements. The Project Site abuts Banana Avenue to
the east and Rose Avenue to the south. The Project Site consists of two (2) parcels including Assessor Parcel
Numbers (APNs) 0236‐161‐58 and ‐59. The northern portion of the Project Site is vacant and most recently used
for a wooden pallet supply/storage business. The southern portion of the Project Site contains an occupied legal
non‐conforming single‐family residence and commercial truck and truck trailer storage business. The Project
involves clearing the Project Site of existing structures and ornamental landscaping to construct and operate the
proposed warehouse building. Site improvements associated with the Project include, but are not limited to,
parking and loading areas, public utility connections, landscaping, and exterior lighting. The Project Applicant also
would construct improvements to Rose Avenue and Banana Avenue along the Project Site’s frontages.
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a statewide environmental law contained in Public Resources
Code Sections 21000‐21177, applies to most public agency decisions to carry out, authorize, or approve actions
that have the potential to adversely affect the environment. CEQA requires that public agencies inform their
decision‐makers of the environmental consequences of their discretionary actions and to consider alternatives
and mitigation measures (MMs) that could avoid or reduce the discretionary actions’ significant, adverse
environmental effects. CEQA also gives other public agencies and the public an opportunity to participate in the
environmental review process.
1.2.1 Prior CEQA Compliance
The Project Site is located within the Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan (SP) area. The City adopted
the original SWIP SP in 1983. The SWIP SP was comprehensively updated in 2012, which included the addition of
1,318 acres to the SWIP SP area (bringing the total SP area to 3,111 acres). The SWIP SP establishes the overall
vision and development plan for the SP area and acts as a bridge between the City’s General Plan and individual
development proposals. The SWIP SP combines development standards and guidelines, capital improvement
programs, and financing methods, which are tailored to meet the needs of the SWIP SP area, into a single,
comprehensive plan.
Potential environmental impacts associated with buildout of the SWIP SP were evaluated by the SWIP SP Update
and Annexation Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). The SWIP SP PEIR was prepared as a PEIR pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a PEIR is “…an EIR which may
be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related…”. The Fontana
City Council certified the PEIR on May 8, 2012 (State Clearinghouse [SCH] Number [No.] 2009091089; hereinafter
“SWIP SP PEIR”).
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Introduction
Banana & Rose Commerce Center 1‐2
In certifying the SWIP SP PEIR, the City Council found that the SWIP SP PEIR adequately addressed the potential
environmental impacts associated with planned buildout of the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR identified the
following seven (7) significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (identified as Impacts 4.1‐1, 4.2‐1, 4.2‐2,
4.2‐4, 4.7‐3, 4.8‐5, and 4.9‐1) that would result from implementation of the SWIP SP:
Aesthetics: The SWIP SP PEIR found that buildout of the SWIP SP would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts to scenic vistas, because the long‐term buildout of industrial, commercial, and office
uses would result in a significant alteration in views of the Jurupa Mountains to the south and the San
Gabriel/San Bernardino Mountains to the north.
Air Quality: The SWIP SP PEIR found that development within the SWIP SP would generate short‐term
construction‐related emissions of dust (particulate matter [PM]) and vehicle/equipment exhaust that
could exceed South Coast Air Quality Management (SCAQMD) thresholds which would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact. Additionally, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded long‐term operations within
the SWIP SP area would generate emissions that would exceed SCAQMD daily thresholds for reactive
organic gases (ROGs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5), resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Furthermore, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that
because emissions associated with buildout of the SWIP SP would exceed SCAQMD thresholds, the
emissions from the SWIP SP would result in a conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would result in significant
and unavoidable short‐term and long‐term air quality impacts.
Noise: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that buildout of the SWIP SP would result in significant and
unavoidable mobile‐source (traffic‐related) noise impacts.
Public Services: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that implementation of the SWIP SP would generate
additional demand for parks and recreational facilities. However, no development impact fees for parks
and recreation facilities would be collected as part of the development of the SWIP SP because the SWIP
would only include non‐residential land uses. Therefore, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that a significant
and unavoidable impact would occur.
Transportation and Traffic: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the SWIP SP’s addition of traffic would
result in deficient operations at 9 roadway segments and 19 intersections within the study area under the
Existing with Approved Project scenario and would contribute to deficient operations at 10 roadway
segments and 19 intersections under the Forecast Year 2030 with Project scenario. Because the City of
Fontana could not assure the installation of all needed traffic improvements, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded
that impacts to these facilities would be significant and unavoidable.
In conjunction with certifying the SWIP SP PEIR, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, which stated that the benefits of the SWIP SP outweighed the significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts summarized above.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Introduction
Banana & Rose Commerce Center 1‐3
1.2.2 CEQA Rules and Requirements for an Addendum
The CEQA Guidelines allow for the updating and re‐use of the previously approved/certified CEQA document when
a subsequent project is within the scope of the analysis of the earlier approved CEQA document and when some
changes or additions to the original CEQA document are necessary but none of the following conditions are met:
a. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due
to the involvement of environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which
will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
c. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with
the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of
the following:
1. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous
EIR;
3. MMs or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline
to adopt the MM or alternatives; or
4. MMs or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the MM or alternative. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15162)
If none of the circumstances listed above occur and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to
update the previously approved/certified CEQA document, an Addendum may be prepared (See CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164).
1.2.3 Finding for the Project
The City, serving as the CEQA Lead Agency for the Project (See CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050–15051),
determined in its independent judgment that the Project does not meet any of the circumstances from CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 and that an Addendum to the previously‐certified SWIP SP PEIR is the appropriate CEQA
compliance document for the Project. The City’s finding is based on the following facts:
a. As demonstrated in detail in Section 4.0 of this document, the Project would not require major revisions
to the previously‐certified SWIP SP PEIR because implementation of the Project would neither result in
any significant impacts to the physical environment that were not already disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR
nor result in substantial increases in the severity of the environmental impacts previously disclosed in the
SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Subsequent to the certification of the SWIP SP PEIR, no substantial changes in the circumstances under
which the Project would be undertaken have occurred that would require major revisions to the SWIP SP
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Introduction
Banana & Rose Commerce Center 1‐4
PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects.
c. There is no evidence in the public record that new information of substantial importance has become
available that is applicable to the Project and/or Project Site, was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified and would
alter the conclusions of the SWIP SP PEIR.
1.3 Format and Content of this EIR Addendum
The following components comprise the EIR Addendum in its totality:
a. This Introduction (Section 1.0), the Environmental Setting (Section 2.0), and the Project Description
(Section 3.0).
b. The environmental impact analysis (Section 4.0), which concludes that implementation of the Project
would neither result in any new, significant environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed in
the SWIP SP PEIR nor substantially increase the severity of the significant environmental impacts beyond
the levels disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
c. Fifteen (15) technical reports and other documentation that evaluate the Project, which are attached as
EIR Addendum Technical Appendices B‐O.
Appendix B Air Quality Impact Analysis
Appendix C Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment
Appendix D Habitat Assessment
Appendix E Cultural Resources Study
Appendix F Energy Analysis
Appendix G Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix H Paleontological Assessment
Appendix I Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix J Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix K Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix L Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix M Preliminary Hydrology Report
Appendix N Noise Impact Analysis
Appendix O Trip Generation Assessment
d. The Draft and Final SWIP SP PEIR, accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP),
Technical Appendices to the SWIP SP PEIR, Findings and Statement of Facts, Statement of Overriding
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Introduction
Banana & Rose Commerce Center 1‐5
Considerations, and City Council Resolution No. 2012‐035, as well as all associated staff reports,
memoranda, public comments and other materials relating to the originally approved project and SWIP
SP PEIR, which are all herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and
are available for review at City of Fontana Planning Division; 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335.
1.4 Review and Consideration of this EIR Addendum
The City of Fontana Planning Department, directed and supervised the preparation of this EIR Addendum.
Although prepared with assistance of the consulting firm T&B Planning, Inc., the content contained within, and
the conclusions drawn by this EIR Addendum reflect the sole independent judgment of the City.
This EIR Addendum will be forwarded, along with the previously certified SWIP SP PEIR, to the Fontana Planning
Commission for review as part of their deliberations concerning the Project. A public hearing will be held before
the Planning Commission to evaluate the merits of the Project and the adequacy of this EIR Addendum. Public
comments will be heard at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will take
action to approve, conditionally approve, or deny approval of the Project. If no appeal is filed, then the decision
of the Planning Commission would be final. However, if the Planning Commission’s decision is appealed, the
Fontana City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the Project. As part of their review of the Project, if
appealed, the City Council would review and consider the report of the Director of Planning Department, the
minutes of the Planning Commission, the Project’s staff report, and any comments made by members of the
public. At the conclusion of the public hearing for the appeal, the City Council would sustain, modify, reject, or
overrule the decision of the Planning Commission, based on its own independent judgment.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Setting
Banana & Rose Commerce Center 2‐1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Project Location
The Project Site is at the northwest corner of the Banana Avenue and Rose Avenue intersection in the City of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The Project Site is in the southwest portion of the City within an area
referred to as the “Southwest Industrial Park” or “SWIP.” The Project Site is located approximately 1.6 roadway
miles southwest of the Cherry Avenue on/off‐ramps to Interstate 10 (I‐10) and approximately 3.4 roadway miles
east of the Jurupa Street on/off‐ramps to Interstate 15 (I‐15). The Project’s location is illustrated in Figure 2‐1,
Regional Map, Figure 2‐2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 2‐3, USGS Topographic Map.
2.2 Existing Condition of Project Site
As shown on Figure 2‐4 through Figure 2‐6, the Project Site contains a mixture of uses, including legal non‐
conforming residences (one occupied and one vacant) and industrial uses (tractor and tractor‐trailer storage).
These uses were present at the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified in 2012 and the demolition of these uses were
included within the scope of the project evaluated by the SWIP SP PEIR. The Project Site is heavily disturbed,
mostly paved with concrete and asphalt, and has patches of bare dirt and ornamental landscaping. Chain link
fencing is installed along portions of the Site’s southern and northern boundaries; wrought iron fencing is installed
along portions of the Site’s eastern boundary.
2.3 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The Project area was historically used for rural residential and agricultural land uses before transitioning to
commercial/industrial land uses beginning in the 1950s. In recent years, the Project area has begun to transition
to a hub of warehousing and distribution land uses. Existing land uses surrounding the Project Site include the
following:
North: The City is reviewing a development application to re‐develop an approximately 15‐gross‐acre property
that abuts the Project Site on the north with an approximately 342,000 sq. ft. commerce center facility.
Further north is Santa Ana Avenue. Properties north of Santa Ana Avenue, consist of industrial uses
(vehicle and truck/trailer storage) and legal non‐conforming residential uses.
South: Rose Avenue abuts the Project Site on the south. Properties further south, on the opposite side of Rose
Avenue, are occupied by an under construction industrial complex that will contain two buildings with a
combined total building area of approximately 157,000 sq. ft.
East: Banana Avenue is immediately east of the Project Site. Properties east of the Project Site, on the opposite
side of Banana Avenue, consist of two commerce center buildings – one building with approximately
297,000 sq. ft. of building area and the other with approximately 200,000 sq. ft. of building area – both of
which are operational under existing conditions.
West: Properties immediately west of the Project Site consist of industrial commercial uses (truck repair, tire
shop), industrial uses (manufacturing)., and legal non‐conforming residential uses. Calabash Avenue is
located further west of the Project Site. Properties further west, on the opposite side of Calabash Avenue,
consist of industrial uses (vehicle storage) and legal non‐conforming residential uses.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Setting
Banana & Rose Commerce Center 2‐2
2.4 Existing General Plan and Zoning
The City of Fontana General Plan and SWIP SP are the prevailing long‐range planning documents that pertain to
the Project Site. The City of Fontana General Plan Land Use Map identifies the Project Site as being within the
SWIP SP area and designates the Project Site for Light Industrial (I‐L) land uses. The SWIP SP establishes the
specific zoning regulations, including development standards and design guidelines, for each of its nine (9)
development districts. The Project Site is located within the Slover West Industrial District (SWD) (refer to Figure
2‐7, Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Land Use Plan). The SWD occupies 289.1 acres in the central‐western
portion of the SWIP SP area. The SWD is intended to promote the continued use and expansion of existing
industrial development and logistics‐based warehousing, along with strategically located service commercial uses.
The SWIP SP assumes that almost the entirety of the SWD area will be re‐developed with a mixture of
development types and uses including industrial, manufacturing and processing, general manufacturing
warehousing, logistics‐based distribution, and service commercial, with only 88,068 s.f. of existing development
to be retained and a maximum of 4,937,885 s.f. of new development (for a total of 5,025,953 s.f. of total building
area within the SWD area). As a result, the SWIP SP PEIR assumed that the Project Site would be re‐developed,
with the proposed commerce center use as an allowable use for the subject property and analyzed the potential
impacts of such re‐development accordingly.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Project Description
Banana & Rose Commerce Center 3‐1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project evaluated by this EIR Addendum consists of two discretionary proposals: a Design Review Project (City
Case No. DRP 22‐017) and a Tentative Parcel Map (City Case No. TPM 22‐003). The proposed discretionary actions
are collectively referred to as Master Case No. 22‐025. The application materials for the Project are herein
incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and copies are available for review at the
City of Fontana Planning Department located at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, California, 92335. The individual
components of the Project are discussed below.
3.1 Project Components
3.1.1 Design Review Project No. 22‐017 (DRP 22‐017)
The Project entails the redevelopment of the Project Site in conformance with the property’s I‐L General Plan land
use designation and SWIP SP SWD zoning designation. DRP 22‐017 provides the following:
A.Conceptual Site Plan
As illustrated in Figure 3‐1, Conceptual Site Plan, the Project is designed as a rectangular‐shaped building with its
longer walls oriented parallel to the Project Site’s eastern and western boundaries and its shorter walls oriented
parallel to the Site’s northern and southern boundaries. The proposed 87,590 sq. ft. building would consist of
approximately 79,590 square feet (s.f.) of warehouse space and 8,000 s.f. of supporting office space on the ground
level and mezzanine. A gate‐secured truck court with twelve (12) dock doors and three (3) trailer parking stalls
would be provided west of the building (2 on the west side of the building and one along the western property
line). As shown on Figure 3‐1, the Project would provide 66 automobile parking spaces on the north and west
sides of the building. Metal fencing and a concrete block retaining wall enclose the truck courts on the north and
west property lines. A retaining wall extends approximately 200 feet from the northwest corner of the site south
and a 14‐foot‐tall solid concrete screen wall is provided along the southern edge of the truck court to screen the
loading docks and trailer parking spaces from view of the Rose Avenue public right‐of‐way. Additionally, 8‐foot‐
tall metal fencing is provided at the northern entrance to the truck court and along the segment of the western
and northern Project Site boundary that abuts the truck court. The building’s trash enclosures would be located
inside the secured truck court and would not be visible from the public streets that abut the Project Site.
Access to/from the Project Site would be provided by two private driveways, one driveway connecting to Banana
Avenue (at the northeast corner of the Site) and one driveway connecting to Rose Avenue (at the southwest corner
of the Site). Both driveways would be open to both passenger vehicles and trucks and would allow full access (left
and right turns in and out of the Site).
B.Conceptual Architecture Plan
The proposed building would feature a varied roofline for visual interest and to reduce the perceived bulk and
scale of the building; the building height would vary between 41 feet and 6 inches and 43 feet and 6 inches above
the finished floor elevation. The building would be constructed with painted concrete tilt‐up panels and low‐
reflective, grey‐glazed glass. The exterior color palette for the proposed building is comprised of various neutral
colors, including shades of white, tan, and gray with a blue accent color. Additionally, the proposed building would
feature articulated building elements, mullions, vintage wood fiber cement wood siding, and aluminum canopies
as decorative elements. The proposed architectural elevations for the warehouse building are illustrated on Figure
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Project Description
Banana & Rose Commerce Center 3‐2
3‐2, Conceptual Architectural Elevations, and the proposed materials are illustrated on Figure 3‐3, Conceptual
Material Board.
C. Conceptual Landscape Plan
The Project Site has minimal ornamental plant/tree cover under existing conditions, all of which would be
removed during Project construction. Proposed landscaping would be ornamental in nature and would feature
drought‐tolerant trees, shrubs, and accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers. As shown on Figure 3‐
4, Conceptual Landscape Plan, trees, shrubs, and groundcover are proposed along the Project Site’s interfaces
with Banana Avenue and Rose Avenue, respectively; landscaping covers 15 percent of the Project Site.
Landscaping also would occur at building entries and in and around automobile parking areas. The truck court
would be devoid of plant materials to avoid inference with truck movements. Prior to building permit issuance,
the Project Applicant would be required to submit final planting and irrigation plans to the City of Fontana for
review and approval. The plans are required to comply with the “Landscape and Water Conservation Ordinance”
from Chapter 28, Article IV, Section 28‐91 through 28‐119 of the Fontana Municipal Code, which establishes
requirements for landscape design, automatic irrigation system design, and water‐use efficiency.
3.1.2 Tentative Parcel Map No. 20529 (TPM 22‐003)
The proposed tentative parcel map would consolidate the Project Site’s two existing parcels – APNs 0236‐161‐58,
and ‐59 – into one parcel consisting of 4.03‐gross‐acres (4.04‐net‐acres), as shown on Figure 3‐5, Tentative Parcel
Map No. 20529.
3.2 Project Improvements
3.2.1 Public Road Improvements
The Project Site abuts two public streets: Banana Avenue to the east and Rose Avenue to the south. As part of
the Project, frontage improvements would be made to each of these streets, as follows:
Banana Avenue
Under existing conditions, three driveways connect the Project Site to Banana Avenue; these existing driveways
would be removed as part of the Project and the west side of Banana Avenue would be improved along the Project
Site’s frontage to provide its ultimate half‐width, including a 28‐foot‐wide paved vehicular travel way, curb and
gutter, and a 12‐foot‐wide parkway that includes a curb adjacent park strip and a 5‐foot and 6‐inch‐wide sidewalk.
Rose Avenue
Under existing conditions, one driveway connects the Project Site to Rose Avenue; this existing driveway would
be removed as part of the Project and the north side of Rose Avenue would be improved along the Project Site’s
frontage to provide its ultimate half‐width, including a 20‐foot‐wide paved vehicular travel way, curb and gutter,
and a 12‐foot‐wide parkway that includes a curb adjacent park strip and 5‐foot and 6‐inch‐wide sidewalk.
3.2.2 Utility Improvements
The Project’s proposed utility plan is depicted on Figure 3‐6, Conceptual Utility Plan and described below.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Project Description
Banana & Rose Commerce Center 3‐9
Water Infrastructure
The Fontana Water Company (FWC) provides water service to all structures on the Project Site under existing
conditions. As part of Project construction, all existing points of connections (POCs) would be abandoned and
removed and five (5) new POCs would be constructed, as described further below. The Project would include the
installation of three (3) POCs within the northeast corner of the Project Site consisting of one domestic water line,
one fire flow line, and one irrigation water line (for on‐site landscaping). The proposed POCs at the northeast
corner of the Site would connect to an existing 8‐inch‐diameter water main beneath Banana Avenue. The Project
also includes the installation of two (2) POCs within the southwest corner of the Project Site consisting of one
domestic water line and one fire flow line. The POCs at the southwest corner of the Project Site would connect
to a water main beneath Banana Avenue (Note: The existing 6‐inch‐diameter water main beneath Banana Avenue
is being upsized to 12‐inch‐diameter as part of the under‐construction warehouse project to the south of the
Project Site and is expected to be fully operational by the time the Project becomes operational.) Additionally, the
Project would provide new public fire hydrants and relocate them along Banana Avenue and Rose Avenue. All
proposed water facilities would be designed and constructed in accordance with FWC standards.
Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
The City of Fontana provides wastewater conveyance services to all structures on the Project Site under existing
conditions. As part of Project construction, all existing POCs would be abandoned and removed. The proposed
building would connect to an existing 8‐inch‐diameter sewer line within Banana Avenue through a proposed sewer
lateral within the southeast corner of the Project Site. The new sewer line connection to the existing sanitary
sewer line would be constructed in accordance with City standards.
Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure
An on‐site storm drain system that consists of a network of catch basins, private storm drainpipes, and an
underground infiltration basin is proposed as part of the Project. On‐site “first flush” stormwater runoff flows
(i.e., typically the first ¾‐inch of initial surface runoff after a rainstorm, which contains the highest proportion of
waterborne pollution) would be collected by the proposed catch basins and routed via the on‐site storm drain
lines into the underground infiltration basin located within the truck court on the western portion of the Project
Site. The stormwater that flows into the underground infiltration basin would percolate into the ground (and
would be filtered of waterborne pollutants in the process). Stormwater runoff captured after the first flush would
bypass the underground infiltration basin and be discharged to the future 24‐inch diameter storm drain line to be
installed beneath Rose Avenue. A flow discharge device would be installed to ensure that stormwater runoff flows
discharged into the future 24‐inch diameter storm drain line beneath Rose Avenue would not exceed existing 100‐
year flow rates. Flows entering the future 24‐inch diameter storm drain line would ultimately flow into the existing
72‐inch diameter storm drain line beneath Banana Avenue and conveyed downstream.
Dry Utilities
The Project would entail the removal of the two (2) existing above‐ground transmission line poles along Banana
Avenue and the undergrounding of the associated above‐ground electric distribution lines. The undergrounding
of the power lines would be performed in coordination with Southern California Edison (SCE). The Project also
provides for the construction of two (2) streetlights along the Project Site’s frontage with Banana Avenue and two
(2) streetlights along the Project Site’s frontage with Rose Avenue.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Project Description
Banana & Rose Commerce Center 3‐10
3.3 Construction Characteristics
The Project Applicant anticipates that Project construction will span a period of approximately 8 months. The
expected duration of each stage of construction is summarized in Table 3‐1, Construction Schedule. The
composition of the construction equipment fleet that the Project Applicant intends to use to construct the
warehouse facility is summarized in Table 3‐2, Construction Equipment Fleet. Project construction activities and
equipment would be required to comply with the applicable sustainability standards established by City of
Fontana Ordinance No. 1891.
Table 3‐1 Construction Schedule
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Days
Demolition 08/01/2022 08/19/2022 15
Grading 08/20/2022 09/09/2022 15
Building Construction 09/10/2022 05/05/2023 170
Paving 04/20/2023 05/05/2023 12
Architectural Coating 04/24/2023 05/05/2023 10
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 3‐2)
Table 3‐2 Construction Equipment Fleet
Construction Activity Equipment Amount Hours Per Day
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws 2 8
Excavators 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Grading
Crawler Tractors 1 8
Graders 3 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Building Construction
Cranes 1 8
Crawler Tractors 1 8
Welders 1 8
Paving
Pavers 1 8
Paving Equipment 1 8
Rollers 1 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 3‐3)
The Project’s proposed grading activities would result in physical disturbance to the entire Project Site. Other
than the roadway and utility improvements described above, no other off‐site physical impacts are anticipated as
part of the Project.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Project Description
Banana & Rose Commerce Center 3‐11
Prior to the start of grading, all existing vegetation and debris, including structures, footings, foundations, rubbles,
trees, and root systems shall be removed from the site. Earthwork activities associated with Project construction
would result in approximately 5,640 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 7,025 cy of fill with an import of 1,385 cy. When
grading is complete, the property would be in a generally flat condition with the highest point of the Project Site
located at the northeastern corner of the Project Site (approximately 944.5 feet above mean sea level [amsl]) and
the lowest point located at the southwestern corner of the Project Site (approximately 924.1 feet amsl); the
Project Site would have a slight downward slope from north to south. Underground utilities would be installed to
a depth of approximately ten feet below grade. The Project grading concept is illustrated on Figure 3‐7, Proposed
Grading Plan.
3.4 Operational Characteristics
The user of the Project is not known at this time, but the Project Applicant anticipates that the proposed building
will be operated as a commerce center, with the potential for up to 25 percent of the building’s floor area to be
used for cold/refrigerated storage uses. For purposes of this Addendum, the potential operational impacts from
the building were analyzed under the most conservative assumption, that it would operate 24 hours per day,
seven days per week, with exterior loading and parking areas illuminated at night. Lighting would be subject to
compliance with Fontana Municipal Code Section 30‐544, which states that exterior lighting shall be energy‐
efficient, shielded or recessed, and directed downward and away from adjoining properties.
The building is designed such that business operations would be conducted within the enclosed building, except
for traffic movement, parking, and the loading and unloading of tractor trailers at designated loading bays. As a
practical matter, dock doors on warehouse buildings are not occupied by a truck at all times of the day. There are
typically many more dock door positions on warehouse buildings than are needed for receiving and shipping
volumes. The dock doors that are in use at any given time are usually selected based on interior building operation
efficiencies. In other words, trucks ideally dock in the position closest to where the goods carried by the truck are
stored inside the warehouse. As a result, many dock door positions are frequently inactive throughout the day.
Pursuant to State law, on‐road diesel‐fueled trucks are required to comply with various air quality and greenhouse
gas emission standards, including but not limited to the type of fuel used, engine model year stipulations,
aerodynamic features, and idling time restrictions. Compliance with State law is mandatory. In addition, Project
operational activities and equipment would be required to comply with the applicable sustainability standards
established by City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1891.
During long‐term operating conditions, employees, visitors, and vehicles hauling goods will travel to and from the
Project Site daily. Using the trip generation rates given in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (11th Edition) and based on calculations from the Project’s transportation analysis (Appendix
N.1), the Project is calculated to generate approximately 370 total vehicle trips per day, including 49 trips during
the morning (a.m.) peak hour and 44 during the evening (p.m.) peak hour. The proposed commerce center is
estimated to demand approximately 8,866 gallons of water per day12. For purposes of analysis herein, the Project
is estimated to generate approximately 8,866 gallons of wastewater per day. The wastewater generation rate
1 FWC standard demand rates for industrial warehouse/distribution land use are 2,200 gallons per acre per day.
2 4.03 acres x 2,200 gallons/acre/day
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Project Description
Banana & Rose Commerce Center 3‐13
used is conservative because it assumes that all water used by the Project enters the wastewater system. The
Project’s water demand includes landscape irrigation, which does not flow into the sewer system or require
wastewater treatment. Based on calculations from the Project’s energy report (Appendix F), the Project’s energy
use is estimated at approximately 1,046,623 kilo‐Watt hour (kWh) per year and natural gas usage is estimated at
approximately 1,459,841 thousand British thermal units per year (kBTU/yr)3.
3.5 Summary of Requested Actions
The City of Fontana has the primary approval responsibility for the Project. As such, the City is serving as the Lead
Agency for this EIR Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. The City will consider the information
contained in this EIR Addendum and this EIR Addendum’s Administrative Record in its decision‐making processes.
In the event of approval of the Project and this EIR Addendum, the City subsequently would issue administrative
permits to implement the Project. A list of the primary actions related to the Project under City jurisdiction and
the jurisdiction of other agencies is provided in Table 3‐3, Summary of Project Approvals/Permits. This EIR
Addendum covers all federal, state, local government, and quasi‐government approvals which may be needed to
construct or implement the Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed in Table 3‐3, or elsewhere in this EIR
Addendum (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(d)).
Table 3‐3 Summary of Project Approvals/Permits
Public Agency Approvals and Decisions
City of Fontana
Project – City of Fontana Discretionary Approvals
City of Fontana Planning Commission DRP 22‐017
TPM No. 20529 (Case No. TPM 22‐03)
EIR Addendum along with the appropriate CEQA Findings
Subsequent City of Fontana Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals
City of Fontana Implementing Approvals Final Maps, parcel mergers, or parcel consolidations as may be
appropriate
Precise site plan(s) and landscaping/irrigation plan(s), as may
be appropriate
Grading Permits
Building Permits
Encroachment/Construction Permits
Road Improvement Plans
Public right‐of way dedications
Sewer and storm drain infrastructure
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
Fontana Water Company On and off‐site water infrastructure
Removal of existing water meters
Southern California Edison Undergrounding existing power lines
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Construction Activity General Construction Permit
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit
3 Although the Project will not receive natural gas service, to provide the most conservative analysis, this Addendum assumes the Project
will utilize natural gas based on the default demand projections of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Project Description
Banana & Rose Commerce Center 3‐14
Public Agency Approvals and Decisions
WQMP
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐2
4.1 Aesthetics
Would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR identified scenic vistas adjacent to the southeastern portion of the SWIP
SP area in the form of uninterrupted, panoramic views of the San Gabriel/San Bernardino Mountains to the north
and Jurupa Mountains to the south, as well as scenic vistas in the form of isolated windrows viewed across large
open spaces and along several roadways within the southern portion of the SWIP SP. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded
that although the SWIP SP includes various design features to minimize impacts to scenic vistas and would comply
with existing local requirements related to scenic vistas, implementation of the SWIP SP would result in significant
and unavoidable direct and cumulatively considerable impacts to scenic vistas and there were no feasible MMs
that would reduce the impacts to a level below significance. The City of Fontana adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for this impact in conjunction with certification of the SWIP SP EIR.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is in the western portion of the SWIP SP area, which is not an area identified
within the SWIP SP PEIR as having scenic vistas. The Project Site does not contain contiguous, undisturbed stands
of trees (windrows) that offer scenic vistas (the Project Site has sparse ornamental vegetation) and does not
provide prominent views of local scenic resources. As viewed from Rose and Banana Avenues, the San Gabriel/San
Bernardino Mountains are partially obstructed under existing conditions by existing structures and trees on and
around the Project Site; with the construction of the Project, views of the San Gabriel/San Bernardino Mountains
would remain partially obstructed from public view. However, the type and character of development that would
occur on the Project Site is similar to what was anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR and the obstruction/loss of views
of the San Gabriel/San Bernardino Mountains from public viewpoints within the SWIP SP area was previously
anticipated and disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts to scenic vistas than the significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative considerable
impacts previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the SWIP SP area does not contain any geologic
formations or historic structures that could be characterized as scenic resources. Further, the SWIP SP PEIR
concludes that compliance with Article III ‐ Preservation of Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees of the City of
Fontana Municipal Code would minimize impacts to mature trees within the SWIP SP. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded
that impacts to scenic resources would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: According to the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), there are no State‐
designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the Project Site (Caltrans, 2022). Furthermore, the Project Site does
not contain any scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings.
Accordingly, the Project would have no impact on any scenic resources, including scenic resources within a State
scenic highway corridor. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant
impacts to scenic resources within a State scenic highway than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐3
c. In non‐urbanized 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 an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that construction activities within the SWIP SP area that
occur near residentially zoned property would result in temporary significant impacts to the visual
quality/character of the SWIP SP area. However, the SWIP SP PEIR included a MM (MM 4.1‐3a) that would require
development projects located within or near residentially zoned property to incorporate practices during
construction to minimize visual impact. With application of the identified mitigation, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded
that impacts to visual quality/character during construction would be less than significant. The SWIP SP PEIR
concluded that long‐term impacts to visual quality/character would be less than significant with mandatory
adherence to the land use and development regulations established in the SWIP SP.
Analysis of Project: Project‐related changes to local visual character would be less than significant during near‐
term construction activities because construction activity is common in the City (and in the SWIP SP area), would
be temporary in nature, and would not substantially degrade the visual character of the area. Because the Project
Site is neither zoned for residential land uses nor abuts residentially zoned properties, the City of Fontana
determined that SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.1‐3a is not applicable to the Project and that the Project would not be
required to implement any special construction practices to address adverse aesthetics impacts. The proposed
building would feature a contemporary architectural design with an exterior color palette comprised of various
neutral colors, including shades of white, tan, and gray with a blue accent color. Additionally, the proposed
building would feature articulated building elements, mullions, vintage wood fiber cement wood siding, and
aluminum canopies as decorative elements. The Project Site would be planted with an attractive selection of
plants, including trees, shrubs, and groundcovers, which would improve the visual condition of the Project Site
relative to existing conditions. The City conducted a thorough review of the Project’s design and determined that
the Project would be consistent with the applicable development standards and design guidelines from the SWIP
SP. Accordingly, there are no components of the Project that would degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and surroundings beyond what was evaluated and disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts to visual character
and quality than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that implementation of the SWIP SP would have the potential
to create new sources of outdoor light and glare in the form of streetlights, exterior lighting, and security lighting,
as well as glare effects caused by reflective surfaces. However, the SWIP SP PEIR determined that light and glare
impacts would be less than significant because development within the SWIP SP area would be required to comply
with the lighting requirements of the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 30 which would minimize the potential for
light and/or glare effects to occur. Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that light and/or glare impacts from
implementation of the SWIP SP would be less than significant.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐4
Analysis of Project: The Project would be required to comply with the SWIP SP design guidelines applicable to
outdoor lighting. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the outdoor lighting standards
contained in the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 30. 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 (e.g., blinking/flashing lights, unusually high
intensity, or bright lighting). Through mandatory compliance with these standards, Project implementation would
result in a less‐than‐significant impact related to lighting and glare by 1) ensuring that the Project would be
compatible with the setting of the surrounding area; 2) preventing substantial light or glare from falling on public
streets or property adjoining the Project Site; and 3) preventing “spillover” effects from the Project Site that could
interfere with day or nighttime views in the area. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or
more severe significant impacts related to lighting/glare than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that implementation of the SWIP SP would not convert any
“Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” to non‐agricultural use, as there
is no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance located within the SWIP SP
boundaries. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that no impact would occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is mapped by the California Department of Conservation (CDC) as “Urban and
Built‐Up Land” (CDC, 2018). Implementation of the Project would, therefore, not result in the conversion of Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non‐agricultural use. No impact would
occur. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts to
agricultural resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that none of the lands within the SWIP SP area were designated
or zoned for agricultural use, or subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that
no impacts would occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is not zoned for agricultural use. The SWIP SP PEIR determined that there are
no Williamson Act contracts within the SWIP SP area; therefore, under existing conditions, the Project Site is not
subject to a Williamson Act contract. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or with a Williamson Act contract. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or
more severe significant impacts to agricultural resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐5
c. 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))?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that there are no areas zoned for forest land, timberland, or
Timberland Production exist within the vicinity of the SWIP SP.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is not zoned for forest land or timberland. Additionally, there are no lands in
the Project Site vicinity that are zoned for forest land or timberland. Therefore, implementation of the Project
would not conflict with, or cause the rezoning of, forest land or timberland. Implementation of the Project would
not result in any new or more severe significant impacts to forestry resources than previously disclosed in the
SWIP SP PEIR.
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that the SWIP SP exists within an urbanized area, occupied
primarily by industrial uses, and that no forest land exists within the site vicinity.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is not zoned for forest land nor does any forest land exist in the vicinity of the
SWIP SP. The Project Site, and the surrounding area, is highly urbanized and is used primarily for industrial
purposes (Google Earth Pro, 2022). Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land, nor will any
forest land be converted to non‐forest land. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts to forestry resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that there are no active agricultural areas or forest land areas
within the SWIP SP area. Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that no impacts would occur.
Analysis of Project: As previously discussed above, the current Project Site does not include Farmland (defined
as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance) or forest land and, therefore, the
Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non‐agricultural use of forest land to non‐forest use.
The Project would not result in any impacts to agricultural and/or forestry resources. Implementation of the
Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts to agricultural/forestry resources than
previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.3 Air Quality
An Air Quality Impact Analysis (dated February 15, 2022) (Urban Crossroads, 2022a) and Mobile Health Risk
Assessment (date February 15, 2022) (Urban Crossroads, 2022b) were prepared for the Project by Urban
Crossroads, Inc. (Urban Crossroads) to evaluate potential criteria and hazardous air pollutant emissions that could
result from the Project’s construction and operation. These reports are included as Appendices B and C,
respectively, to this EIR Addendum and their findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐6
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that emissions resulting from buildout of the SWIP SP would
exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would potentially result in a long‐term impact on the region’s ability to meet
State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that buildout of the
SWIP SP would conflict with the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin (2007
AQMP). The SWIP SP PEIR included mitigation to minimize the SWIP SP’s air pollutant emissions; however, the
SWIP SP PEIR concluded that air quality impacts related to a conflict with or obstruction of the implementation of
the 2007 AQMP would be significant and unavoidable. The City of Fontana adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for this impact in conjunction with certification of the SWIP SP EIR.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or “Basin”). The SCAQMD
is principally responsible for air pollution control in the SCAB. The SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to
reduce air emissions in the Basin. When the SWIP SP PEIR was certified, the SCAQMD’s 2007 AQMP was the
applicable air quality plan for the SCAB. Since that time, the SCAQMD has adopted the 2016 AQMP which was
approved in March 2017 and is in effect at this time. For purposes of evaluation and to determine whether the
Project would result in any new or more severe significant air quality impacts than disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR,
consistency with both the 2007 AQMP, which was applicable at the time the SWIP SP PEIR was written, and the
2016 AQMP, which is applicable today, are discussed below.
The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that buildout of the SWIP SP would conflict with the 2007 AQMP due to the resulting
operational emissions that would impede the region’s ability to meet State and Federal Ambient Air Quality
Standards. The Project would implement the SWIP SP land use plan but would, in fact, generate substantially
fewer net daily traffic trips than the land uses assumed by the SWIP SP PEIR (the Project’s daily traffic is discussed
in further detail in EIR Addendum Subsection 4.17). Thus, the Project would reduce vehicle tailpipe emissions
within the SWIP SP area relative to the levels disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR, although the emissions reductions
provided by the Project would not be sufficient to avoid the significant and unavoidable conflict with the 2007
AQMP that was disclosed in the SWIP EIR. Further, the Project will be required to comply with much stricter
regulations than those that existed in 2012, including regulations applicable to truck and other vehicle emissions
that are much more protective of the environment, which will incrementally reduce emissions when compared to
the emissions that the SWIP SP PEIR assumed would occur from the development of the Project Site.
Implementation of the Project would contribute to a significant and unavoidable conflict with the 2007 AQMP;
but would neither result or contribute to a new, significant conflict with the 2007 AQMP nor increase the severity
of the conflict previously disclosed in the SWIP SP EIR and would instead generally result in less severe air quality
impacts.
The Project is consistent with the SWIP SP, which was approved by the City of Fontana in 2012, reflected on the
City of Fontana’s General Plan Land Use Map, and accounted for by the growth projections utilized by SCAQMD
during preparation of the 2016 AQMP. Thus, the Project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP, which relies
on adopted local General Plans for growth (and emissions) projections. Furthermore, the Project would not
increase the severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay the timely
attainment of the air quality standards established in the 2016 AQMP (as discussed under the responses to Items
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐7
“b” and “c” of Subsection 4.3, below). Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the 2016 AQMP. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts to related to air quality than the significant and unavoidable impacts previously
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. 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?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that implementation of the SWIP SP would result in
cumulatively considerable net increases of criteria pollutants, including ozone precursors, for which the SCAB is
in non‐attainment of applicable federal and/or state ambient air quality standards. The SWIP SP PEIR included
mitigation to minimize the SWIP SP’s air pollutant emissions; however, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that
cumulative air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The City of Fontana adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for this impact in conjunction with certification of the SWIP SP EIR.
Analysis of Project: The Project Applicant would redevelop the Project Site with a land use (i.e., industrial
commerce center) that was planned by the SWIP SP and evaluated in the SWIP SP PEIR; therefore, the Project
would not generate air pollutant emissions that were not already anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. Further, as
stated above, regulations enacted since 2012 would generally reduce the Project’s emissions when compared to
the emissions assumed in the SWIP SP PEIR. Notwithstanding, an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA, Appendix B)
was prepared to quantify air pollutant emission associated with the implementation of the Project. The Project’s
maximum construction‐related criteria pollutant emissions and operational criteria pollutant emissions are
summarized in Table 4‐1, Project Construction Emissions Summary, and Table 4‐2, Project Operational Emissions
Summary, respectively. The methodology used to calculate the air pollutant emissions associated with the Project
is described in detail in Appendix B of this EIR Addendum. It should be noted that although the Project would be
required to comply with all applicable MMs from the SWIP SP PEIR that were required to reduce air pollution, the
analysis below does not take credit for any emission reductions that would result from the implementation of the
SWIP SP PEIR MMs. Thus, the actual construction and operational emissions associated with the Project is
expected to be less than the quantities disclosed in Table 4‐1 and Table 4‐2.
Table 4‐1 Project Construction Emissions Summary
Year Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2022 2.56 29.04 14.59 0.04 5.49 2.64
2023 44.79 16.33 19.77 0.04 2.08 1.10
Winter
2022 2.55 29.10 14.52 0.04 5.49 2.64
2023 44.77 16.40 19.13 0.04 2.08 1.10
Maximum Daily Emissions 44.79 29.10 19.77 0.04 5.49 2.64
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3‐3)
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐8
Table 4‐2 Project Operational Emissions Summary
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Area Source 1.99 1.60E‐04 0.02 0.00 6.00E‐05 6.00E‐05
Energy Source 0.04 0.34 0.29 2.04E‐03 0.03 0.03
Mobile Source 1.45 6.50 16.05 0.06 4.33 1.22
TRU Source 0.12 0.98 1.33 0.00 0.02 0.02
On‐Site Equipment Source 0.22 2.07 1.50 0.01 0.08 0.07
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 3.82 9.90 19.18 0.07 4.46 1.33
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Area Source 1.99 1.60E‐04 0.02 0.00 6.00E‐05 6.00E‐05
Energy Source 3.74E‐02 0.34 0.29 2.04E‐03 2.58E‐02 2.58E‐02
Mobile Source 1.29 6.85 14.30 0.06 4.33 1.22
TRU Source 0.12 0.98 1.33 0.00 0.02 0.02
On‐Site Equipment Source 0.22 2.07 1.50 0.01 0.08 0.07
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 3.66 10.24 17.43 0.07 4.46 1.33
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3‐8)
As shown in Table 4‐1 and Table 4‐2, Project‐related construction and operational activities would not exceed the
SCAQMD significance threshold for any criterial pollutant. The SCAQMD considers any project‐specific criteria
pollutant emissions that exceed applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds also to be cumulatively considerable.
Conversely, if a project does not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds, then SCAQMD considers that project’s
air pollutant emissions to not be cumulatively considerable because criteria pollutant emissions that fall below
the significance threshold would not adversely affect SCAQMD’s ability to meet air quality standards within the
SCAB. Thus, because Project construction and operation would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds,
implementation of the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant, including any pollutants for which the SCAB does not attain applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standards. Furthermore, it bears noting that the Project operations would generate substantially fewer
net daily traffic trips than the land uses assumed by the SWIP SP PEIR (the Project’s daily traffic is discussed in
further detail in EIR Addendum Subsection 4.17). Thus, the Project would reduce vehicle tailpipe emissions within
the SWIP SP area relative to the levels disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR, although the emissions reductions provided
by the Project would not be sufficient to avoid the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact that was
disclosed in the SWIP EIR. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant
impacts to related to air quality than the significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative considerable impacts
previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: Although the Project would not contribute cumulatively considerable volumes of criteria pollutant
emissions, the Project would be required to comply with applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to reduce
cumulative air pollutant emissions across the SWIP SP area, as presented below in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) for the SWIP SP PEIR (attached hereto as Appendix A).
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐9
MM 4.2‐1a All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operation condition so as to reduce
emissions. The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being
properly serviced and maintained as per the manufacturer’s specification. Maintenance records
shall be available at the construction site for City verification.
The following additional MMs, as determined applicable by the City Engineer, shall be included as
conditions of the Grading Permit issuance:
Provide temporary traffic controls such as flag person, during all phases of construction to
maintain smooth traffic flow.
Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on‐ and
off‐site.
Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.
Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on‐site
construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.
Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization, and ensure that all vehicles and equipment will
be properly tuned and maintained according to manufactures’ specifications.
Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil
import/export). If the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks
cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOX and
PM emissions requirements.
During project construction, all internal combustion engines/construction equipment
operating on the Project Site shall meet EPA‐Certified Tier 3 emissions standards, or higher
according to the following:
o January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014: All off‐road diesel‐powered construction
equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 off‐road emissions standards. In addition,
all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any
emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that
are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for
a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
o Post‐January 1, 2015: All off‐road diesel‐powered construction equipment greater than
50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emissions standards, where available. In addition, all
construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any
emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that
are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for
a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
o A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or
SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable
unit of equipment.
MM 4.2‐1b Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, all Applicants shall submit construction plans to the
City of Fontana denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction
contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐10
utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors
shall also conform to any construction MMs imposed by the SCAQMD as well as City Planning
Staff.
MM 4.2‐1c All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Specifically, the following MMs shall be implemented, as feasible:
Use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required under AQMD Rule
1113.
Construct or build with materials that do not require painting.
Require the use of pre‐painted construction materials.
MM 4.2‐1d Projects that result in the construction of more than 19 single‐family residential units, 40
multifamily residential units, or 45,000 square feet of retail/commercial/industrial space shall be
required to apply paints either by hand or high volume, low pressure (HVLP) spray. These MMs
may reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) associated with the application of paints and
coatings by an estimated 60 to 75 percent. Alternatively, the contractor may specify the use of
low volatility paints and coatings. Several of currently available primers have VOC contents of less
than 0.85 pounds per gallon (e.g., dulux professional exterior primer 100 percent acrylic). Top
coats can be less than 0.07 pounds per gallon (8 grams per liter) (e.g., lifemaster 2000‐series). This
latter measure would reduce these VOC emissions by more than 70 percent. Larger projects
should incorporate both the use of HVLP or hand application and the requirement for low
volatility coatings.
MM 4.2‐1e All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108.
MM 4.2‐1f Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans for future development
projects within the project area, future developments shall include a dust control plan as part of
the construction contract standard specifications. The dust control plan shall include MMs to
meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such MMs may include, but are not limited
to, the following:
Phase and schedule activities to avoid high‐ozone days and first‐stage smog alerts.
Discontinue operation during second‐stage smog alerts.
All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the
surrounding areas.
Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding
areas.
Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut.
Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions, and as often as needed
on windy days or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and minimize
the release of visible emissions from the construction site.
Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize
soil or temporarily plant with vegetation.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐11
Wash mud‐covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites.
Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by
construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing
Project Sites.
Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight‐fitting tarp.
Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
Provide for permanent sealing of all graded areas, as applicable, at the earliest practicable
time after soil disturbance.
Use low‐sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment.
Use electric equipment whenever practicable.
Shut off engines when not in use.
MM 4.2‐2c All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling
for prolonged periods pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485,
which limits idle times to not more than five minutes.
MM 4.2‐2d The City shall require that both industrial and commercial uses designate preferential parking for
vanpools.
MM 4.2‐2e The proposed commercial and industrial areas shall incorporate food service.
MM 4.2‐2f All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post
both bus and MetroLink schedules in conspicuous areas.
MM 4.2‐2g All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be requested to
configure their operating schedules around the MetroLink schedule to the extent reasonably
feasible.
MM 4.2‐2j All residential, commercial, and industrial structures shall be required to incorporate light colored
roofing materials.
Note: The City determined that the following SWIP SP PEIR MMs do not apply to the Project or have been satisfied
as part of the City’s review of the Project’s proposed entitlement applications: MMs 4.2‐2a and 4.2‐2b do not
apply to the Project based on the location of the Project Site within the SWIP SP area; MMs 4.2‐2h and 4.2‐2i do
not apply to the Project because these MMs only apply to residential and commercial buildings; and MMs 4.2‐2k
and 4.2‐2l were satisfied by the Air Quality Impact Analysis and Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment prepared
for the Project.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that construction and operation of the SWIP SP would not
expose any sensitive receptors to substantial, localized pollutant concentrations. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded
that air quality impacts related to localized pollutant concentrations would be less than significant and no
mitigation was required.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐12
Analysis of Project: The Project would redevelop the Project Site with land uses planned by the SWIP SP;
therefore, the types of air pollutant emissions generated by the Project already were anticipated by the SWIP SP
PEIR. Further, as stated above, regulations enacted since 2012 would generally reduce the Project’s emissions
when compared to the emissions assumed in the SWIP SP PEIR. Notwithstanding, an air quality impact analysis
was performed to quantify localized criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation of
the Project. The methodology used to calculate the localized criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the
Project is described in detail in Appendix B.
Project‐related construction localized emissions are presented in Table 4‐3, Project Construction Localized
Emissions Summary. The data presented in Table 4‐3 confirms the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD
significance thresholds for localized air pollutant emissions during construction. Therefore, Project construction
would expose sensitive receptors near the Project Site to less‐than‐significant localized criteria pollutant
concentrations.
Table 4‐3 Project Construction Localized Emissions Summary
Construction Phase Year Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 2022 16.17 14.17 0.87 0.77
Grading 2022 27.80 11.23 5.20 2.55
Building Construction 2022 8.88 6.07 0.50 0.46
Building Construction 2023 8.25 5.97 0.45 0.42
Building Construction,
Paving, and Architectural
Coating
2023 15.08 15.68 0.80 0.75
Maximum Daily Emissions 27.80 15.68 5.20 2.55
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 238 1,496 12 7
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3‐10)
Project‐related operational localized emissions are presented in Table 4‐4, Project Operational Localized Emissions
Summary. The data presented in Table 4‐4 confirms the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance
thresholds for localized air pollutant emissions during operation. Therefore, Project operation would expose
sensitive receptors near the Project Site to less‐than‐significant localized criteria pollutant concentrations.
Table 4‐4 Project Operational Localized Emissions Summary
Scenario Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Summer 3.37 5.74 0.61 0.24
Winter 3.43 5.73 0.61 0.24
Maximum Daily Emissions 3.43 5.74 0.61 0.24
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 238 1,496 3 2
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3‐12)
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐13
Additionally, a mobile source health risk analysis was prepared to evaluate the potential for localized diesel
emissions associated with Project (i.e., operation of off‐road construction equipment and heavy‐duty trucks) to
result in carcinogenic and non‐carcinogenic health risk impacts to nearby residential, worker, and school child
receptors near the Project Site. It should be noted that there are no schools located within 0.25‐mile (1,320 feet)
of the Project Site. Because proximity to toxic emissions is the primary factor for carcinogenic and non‐
carcinogenic health risk impacts and because approximately 80 percent of toxic emissions settle out of the air
1,000 feet from the source, the Project would not result in substantial adverse impacts to any schools or school
child in the vicinity of the Project Site (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 2). The methodology used to calculate Project‐
related localized diesel particulate emissions is described in detail in Appendix C. The results of the mobile source
health risk analysis are summarized Table 4‐5, Summary of Project‐Related Construction Health Risks and Table 4‐
6, Summary of Project‐Related Operational Health Risks; the findings of the analyses show that the Project’s
construction and operation would result in less‐than‐significant carcinogenic and non‐carcinogenic health risks to
sensitive receptors in the Project Site vicinity.
Table 4‐5 Summary of Project‐Related Construction Health Risks
Time Period Location
Maximum
Lifetime
Cancer Risk
(Risk per
Million)
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per Million)
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold
2 Year
Exposure Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor 7.32 10 NO
Time Period Location
Maximum
Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold
Annual Average Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor 0.03 1.0 NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, Table ES‐1)
Table 4‐6 Summary of Project‐Related Operational Health Risks
Time Period Location
Maximum Lifetime
Cancer Risk
(Risk per Million)
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per Million)
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold
30 Year
Exposure Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor 2.45 10 NO
25 Year
Exposure Maximum Exposed Worker Receptor 0.10 10 NO
Time Period Location Maximum Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold
Annual Average Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor ≤0.01 1.0 NO
Annual Average Maximum Exposed Worker Receptor ≤0.01 1.0 NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, Table ES‐2)
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐14
Lastly, the Air Quality Impact Analysis concluded that the Project would not produce the volume of traffic required
to cause or contribute to the formation of a CO “hot spot” (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 53‐54).
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors near the Project Site to
significant pollutant concentrations during construction and operation. Implementation of the Project would not
result in any new or more severe significant impacts to related to air quality than previously disclosed in the SWIP
SP PEIR
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting substantial number of
people?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would not expose a
substantial number of people to objectionable odors.
Analysis of Project: Project construction activities could produce odors resulting from construction equipment
exhaust, application of asphalt, and/or the application of architectural coatings; however, standard construction
practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. Furthermore, any odors emitted
during construction would be temporary, short‐term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the
completion of the respective phase of construction. In addition, construction activities on the Project Site would
be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would
create a public nuisance. Accordingly, the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people during construction.
During long‐term operation, the Project would include commerce center land uses, which are not typically
associated with objectionable odors. The temporary outdoor storage of refuse associated with the proposed
Project’s long‐term operational use could be a potential source of odor; however, Project‐generated refuse is
required to be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid
waste regulations, thereby precluding any substantial odor effects. Furthermore, the Project would be required
to comply with Fontana Municipal Code Section 30‐261, Odors, and SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the
discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance, during long‐term operation. As such, long‐
term operation of the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during either
construction or long‐term operation; impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of the Project would
not result in any new or more severe significant impacts to related to objectional odors than previously disclosed
in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.4 Biological Resources
A Biological Resources Letter Report (dated March 22, 2022) (Alden, 2022) was prepared for the Project by Alden
Environmental (Alden). The Biological Resources Letter evaluates the existing biological resources on the Project
Site and evaluates the potential impacts to these resources that may occur because of Project implementation.
The Habitat Assessment is included as Appendix D to this EIR Addendum, and its findings are incorporated into
the analysis herein.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐15
Would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that implementation of the SWIP SP had the potential to
result in direct and/or indirect impacts to sensitive species, including the Delhi Sands flower loving fly, burrowing
owl, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, western pocket mouse, western mastiff bat, western yellow bat, and
San Diego desert woodrat. The SWIP SP PEIR also determined that portions of the SWIP SP area contain habitat
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, California gnatcatcher, and sensitive pocket mice. Lastly, the SWIP SP PEIR
determined that construction activities within the SWIP SP area could disturb/destroy active raptor and/or
migratory bird nests, which would be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The SWIP SP PEIR
included MMs 4.3‐1a through 4.3‐1h to reduce potential impacts to sensitive species and migratory birds
(including the burrowing owl) to a level below significance.
Analysis of Project: The entire Project Site is developed and does not support any native or sensitive vegetation
communities. Existing uses on‐Site included residences, truck/vehicle areas, pavement, structures, and storage
areas. There is one vacant residential structure along Banana Avenue. Another residential structure occurs along
Rose Avenue that is currently occupied. Due to the developed condition of the Project Site and the amount of
human activity that occurs on the Site daily, the Project Site has a low likelihood of supporting any of the sensitive
species identified in the SWIP SP PEIR as potentially occurring within the SWIP SP area (Alden, 2022, pp. 3‐4). No
bird nests were observed on‐Site; however, birds have the potential to build nests on‐site (Alden, 2022, p. 4).
Accordingly, the Project would be required to comply with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.3‐1b to preclude substantial
impacts to nesting birds – this MM requires pre‐construction nesting bird surveys if construction activities occur
during the avian nesting season. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with MM 4.3‐1c to preclude
potential impacts to bats that may roost in trees on‐Site. Implementation of the Project would not result in any
new or more severe impacts to sensitive wildlife or plant species than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to reduce
impacts related to sensitive plant and animal species continue to apply to the Project, as presented below and in
the MMRP for the SWIP SP PEIR (attached hereto as Appendix A).
MM 4.3‐1b Any future land disturbance for site‐specific developments within the Project Site shall be
conducted outside of the State‐identified bird nesting season (February 15 through September
1). If construction during the nesting season must occur, the site shall be evaluated by a City‐
approved biologist prior to ground disturbance to determine if nesting birds exist on‐site. If any
nests are discovered, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest,
depending on the species and type of construction activity. Only construction activities approved
by the biologist shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated.
MM 4.3‐1c Prior to any ground disturbance, trees scheduled for removal shall be evaluated by a City‐
approved biologist for roosting bats. If a roost is present the biologist will develop a plan to
minimize impacts to the bats to the greatest extent feasible.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐16
Note: The City determined that the following SWIP SP PEIR MMs do not apply to the Project or have been satisfied
as part of the City’s review of the Project’s proposed entitlement applications: MMs 4.3‐1a, 4.3‐1d, 4.3‐1e, 4.3‐1f,
4.3‐1g, 4.3‐1h do not apply due to the Project Site’s condition as fully developed/disturbed and the lack of natural
or sensitive habitat on‐site; MM 4.3‐3a does not apply due to the lack of natural drainage courses or wetlands on
the Project Site.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would not result in the
loss of riparian habitat but could result in the loss or degradation of Designated Critical Habitats of two Federally‐
listed species: the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) and the California gnatcatcher (CAGN). The SWIP SP PEIR
applied mitigation (i.e., MMs 4.3‐1a through 4.3‐1h) to future development projects within the SWIP SP area to
reduce potential impacts to sensitive natural communities to less than significant.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is completely developed/disturbed, as it was in 2012 when the SWIP SP PEIR
was certified. The Project Site is mostly paved with concrete and asphalt or covered with gravel, with patches of
bare dirt. The Project Site does not have any riparian/riverine communities, vernal pools, or potential waters of
United States (WUS) or waters of the State (WS) and the Site does not support any aquatic features necessary for
the development of these resources (Alden, 2022, p. 3). Accordingly, the Project would not result in significant
impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. The City determined that the Project would
not be subject to MMs 4.3‐1a through 4.3‐1h, except for MMs 4.3‐1b and 4.3‐1c as described in the preceding
subsection, due to the lack of riparian habitat or potentially sensitive natural communities on the Project Site.
Implementation of the Project would not result in a new or more severe significant impacts to riparian habitats or
sensitive natural communities than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
c. 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?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that there is a potential for streambeds, wetlands, and/or
riparian areas to occur within the SWIP SP area, and that impacts to these water features and vegetation may
require compliance with permit requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The SWIP SP PEIR included MM
4.3‐3a requiring jurisdictional delineations be performed for future development proposals that could potentially
affect jurisdictional drainages or wetlands. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MM
4.3‐3a would reduce potential impacts to streambeds, wetlands, and/or riparian to a level below significance.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is completely developed/disturbed, as it was in 2012 when the SWIP SP PEIR
was certified. The Project Site does not have any streambeds, wetlands, and/or riparian habitat (Alden, 2022, p.
3). Accordingly, the Project would not result in significant impacts to State or federally protected wetland and
SWIP SP MM 4.3‐3a would not be applicable to the Project due to the lack of potential streambeds, wetlands,
and/or riparian habitat on the Project Site. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts to State or federally protected wetlands than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐17
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that because the SWIP SP is surrounded by urban
development (paved roads, industrial, commercial, and residential development, and the I‐10 freeway) no
migratory corridors exist within or near the SWIP SP area that would be affected by the development of the SWIP
SP. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: Under existing conditions, the Project Site has no wildlife habitat value due to its
developed/disturbed condition and minimal vegetation (Alden, 2022, p. 3). Moreover, no local or regional wildlife
corridors are present within or adjacent to the Project Site (Alden, 2022, p. 4). As such, implementation of the
Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Implementation of the Project would not result in any
new or more severe significant impacts to wildlife movement corridors than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP
PEIR.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that implementation of the SWIP SP could involve the
removal of heritage, significant, or specimen trees. However, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that all development
within the SWIP SP would be subject to compliance with Chapter 28 Article III of the City’s Municipal Code (which
establishes regulations for the protection and preservation of heritage trees, significant trees, and specimen trees
on public and private property). Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that mandatory compliance with
Chapter 28 Article III of the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that impacts associated with tree removals would
be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: The Project Applicant would be subject to mandatory compliance with Chapter 28 Article III,
Preservation of Heritage, Significant, and Specimen Trees (Tree Preservation Ordinance) of the Fontana Municipal
Code and would be required to demonstrate compliance to the City as part of the City’s standard grading and
building permit review and inspections processes. Accordingly, the implementation of the Project would not
conflict with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. There are no other local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources that are applicable to the Project. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new
or more severe significant impacts due to a conflict with a local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that buildout of the SWIP SP would not conflict with an
adopted habitat conservation plan because there were no adopted/approved habitat conservation plans
applicable to the SWIP SP area at the time that the SWIP SP PEIR was prepared. A recovery plan was released in
1997 for the Delhi Sands flower‐loving fly that included the SWIP SP area; however, an assessment of the recovery
of Delhi Sands flower‐loving fly in 2008 indicated that much of the Jurupa Recovery Unit may no longer provide
conservation value for Delhi Sands flower‐loving fly. Regardless, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that compliance
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐18
with the MMs included in the EIR would reduce potential impacts to the Delhi Sands flower‐loving fly to a level
below significance.
Analysis of Project: There are no habitat conservation plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans that are
applicable to the Project Site (CDFW, 2019). As disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR, a recovery plan for the Delhi Sands
flower‐loving fly was released in 1997 that included the SWIP SP area. However, based on soil data published by
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Project’s
Biological Resources Assessment, the Project Site does not contain Delhi series soils, which are a requirement for
the species (Alden, 2022, p. 3). Because there is no potential for the Project Site to support the Delhi Sands flower‐
loving fly, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the provisions of the recovery plan for the species.
Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of an applicable habitat conservation plan or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Implementation of the Project would not result in
any new or more severe impacts related to conflicts with an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural
community conservation plan or other approved habitat conservation plan than previously disclosed in the SWIP
SP PEIR.
4.5 Cultural Resources
A Cultural Resources Study (dated March 16, 2022) (BFSA, 2022a) was prepared for the Project by Brian F. Smith
and Associated (BFSA) to identify potential archaeological and historical resources that may be affected by the
Project. This report includes the findings from an archaeological pedestrian survey; a cultural records search and
sacred lands search, and an inventory of all recorded archaeological and historical resources located on the Project
Site and within a one‐mile radius of the Project Site. This report is included as Appendix E to this EIR Addendum,
and its findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
Would the Project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR identified nine (9) historical resources in the SWIP SP area, none of which
were identified as significant historical resources under CEQA. Additionally, the SWIP SP PEIR determined that
the SWIP SP area has low sensitivity for historical resources. The SWIP SP PEIR included MMs that require future
development projects within the SWIP SP area to perform a pre‐construction historical resources survey (and
implement a mitigation program if important resources are present) and to implement safeguards during grading
to protect/preserve historical resources that may be uncovered during grading activities (MMs 4.4‐1a and 4.4‐1b).
With application of the required MMs, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that impacts to historic resources would be
less‐than‐significant.
Analysis of Project: In conformance with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4‐1a, a historic resources assessment was conducted
for the Project by BFSA. BFSA did not find any historic archaeological artifacts on the Project Site or evidence of
any important historic events or individuals associated with any of the structures on the Project Site and, also, did
not observe distinctive characteristics of type, period, region, or method of construction in any of the structures
on the Project Site (BFSA, 2022a, pp. 19, 22). BFSA conducted a records search with the South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton, which resulted in the identification of 12
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐19
previously recorded historic structures within one mile of the Project Site, including Southern Pacific Railroad
alignments, single‐family residences, transmission lines, and the Kaiser Steel Mill – none of which are located on
the Project Site (BFSA, 2022a, p. 18). Accordingly, the Project would result in less‐than‐significant impacts to
known historical resources. Notwithstanding, BFSA recommended the implementation of a historic artifact
recovery program during grading in the event that buried historic artifacts are uncovered. As a standard practice
for all development projects in Fontana, the City would require the Project Applicant to comply with conditions
of approval that establish protocols for consultation, monitoring, and resource recovery programs during
construction. The City’s standard conditions of approval would satisfy BFSA’s recommendations and would be
consistent with the requirement of SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4‐1b. With application of the City’s standard conditions
of approval and SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4‐1b, the potential for Project construction activities to adversely impact
important, previously unknown/buried historic resources would be less than significant. This determination is
consistent with the conclusion from the SWIP SP PEIR, which assumed that the Project Site would be fully
developed. The Project would not result in a new or more severe significant impact to historical resources than
previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to reduce
impacts to cultural resources continue to apply to the Project as listed below and in the MMRP for the SWIP SP
PEIR (attached hereto as Appendix A).
MM 4.4‐1b If any historical resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer shall retain a
qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take appropriate MMs to protect
or preserve them for study.
Note: The City determined that MM 4.4‐1a was satisfied by the Cultural Resources Study that was prepared for
the Project.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that no archaeological resources or Native American sites
exist within the SWIP SP area, and that the likelihood of encountering potentially significant prehistoric
archaeological resources within the SWIP SP area is considered low. The City of Fontana consulted with the
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians as part of the Senate Bill 18 (SB 18)
Native American tribal consultation process for the SWIP SP. The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians identified the
site as being located within the tribe’s Tribal Traditional Use Area. The SWIP SP PEIR included MMs to minimize
impacts related to Native American resources and previously undiscovered archaeological resources that could
be encountered during ground disturbing activities (MMs 4.4‐2a through 4.4‐2c). Following implementation of
mitigation, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would result in less‐than‐significant
impacts to prehistoric archaeological resources.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site was surveyed by BFSA for the presence/absence of prehistoric archaeological
resources in accordance with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4‐2a. No prehistoric archaeological artifacts were observed
within the Project Site and no prehistoric sites have been recorded within one mile of the Project Site (BFSA,
2022a, p. 19). Accordingly, the Project is not anticipated to result in substantial adverse impacts to any known
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐20
prehistoric archeological resources. However, as a standard practice for all development projects in Fontana, the
City would require the Project Applicant to comply with conditions of approval that establish protocols for
consultation, monitoring, and resource recovery to protect inadvertent discoveries of buried/masked prehistoric
archaeological resources. The City’s standard conditions of approval are consistent with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4‐
2b, which requires the Project Applicant to retain a qualified archaeological monitor during grading activities and
implement a mitigation recovery program and SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4‐2c, which requires the Project Applicant to
consider the requests of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and Morongo Band of Mission Indians concerning
procedures for the treatment of any Native American cultural resources. Compliance with the City’s standard
conditions of approval, which would ensure compliance with mitigation measures from the SWIP SP PEIR would
ensure the Project’s potential impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. The SWIP SP EIR
assumed that the Project Site would be fully developed. Implementation of the Project would not result in any
new or more severe significant impacts to archaeological resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to reduce
impacts to cultural resources continue to apply to the Project as listed below and in the MMRP for the SWIP SP
PEIR (attached hereto as Appendix A).
MM 4.4‐2b If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the
developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take
appropriate MMs to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist,
the City of Fontana shall:
Enact interim MMs to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification
without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value.
Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new
developments, using their special qualities at a theme or focal point.
Pursue educating the public about the area’s archaeological heritage.
Propose MMs and recommend conditions of approval (if a local government action) to
eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources,
following appropriate CEQA guidelines.
Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation,
and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the
completed report, with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological
Information Center for permanent archiving.
MM 4.4‐2c Where consistent with applicable local, State and federal law and deemed appropriate by the City,
future site‐specific development projects shall consider the following requests by the Soboba
Band of Luiseño Indians and Morongo Band of Mission Indians:
In the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction for future
development, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified
archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work
on the overall project may continue during this period;
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐21
Initiate consultation between the appropriate Native American tribal entity (as determined
by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards) and the City/project
applicant;
Transfer cultural resources investigations to the appropriate Native American entity (as
determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards) as soon as
possible;
Utilize a Native American Monitor from the appropriate Native American entity (as
determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards) where
deemed appropriate or required by the City, during initial ground disturbing activities, cultural
resource surveys, and/or cultural resource excavations.
Note: The City of Fontana determined that MM 4.4‐1a was satisfied by the Cultural Resources Study prepared for
the Project.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR did not identify any cemeteries or archaeological sites that may contain
human remains within the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that with mandatory compliance with the
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5‐7055 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources
Code, the SWIP SP would result in less‐than‐significant impacts with respect to disturbance of human remains.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site does not contain a known cemetery. While not anticipated, in the unlikely
event that human remains are discovered during Project grading or other ground‐disturbing activities, the Project
would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
as well as Public Resources Code Section 5097 et. seq. Mandatory compliance with these provisions of California
state law would require that human remains, if unearthed during construction activities, to be appropriately
treated thereby ensuring that Project impacts would be less than significant. The SWIP SP PEIR assumed that the
Project Site would be fully developed. Implementation of the Project would not result in new or more severe
significant impacts related to the potential discovery of human remains than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP
PEIR.
4.6 Energy
An Energy Analysis (dated February 15, 2022) (Urban Crossroads, 2022c) was prepared for the Project by Urban
Crossroads to quantify anticipated energy usage associated with the construction and operation of the Project,
determine if the usage amounts are efficient, typical, or wasteful for the land use type, and identify any potential
methods of avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. This report is
included as Appendix F to this EIR Addendum and its findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
Would the Project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐22
SWIP SP PIER Finding: While energy was not a specifically called out topic at the time, the SWIP SP PEIR was
prepared, it nonetheless analyzed potential impacts in this regard and concluded that implementation of the SWIP
SP, including construction and operation, would not result in wasteful or unjustifiable consumption of energy
resources.
Analysis of Project: The Project would implement the SWIP SP land use plan and the Project’s proposed land use
and development intensity is consistent with the development regulations contained within the SWIP. Therefore,
the development proposed by the Project – and its energy use – is within the scope of the project that was
evaluated in the SWIP SP PEIR. Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.2‐
5 to minimize the amount of energy consumed during operation.
Project construction would represent a “single‐event” electric energy and fuel demand and would not require on‐
going or permanent commitment of energy or diesel fuel resources for this purpose. In summary, the Project’s
construction process is estimated to consume approximately 24,592‐kWh of electricity, approximately 30,866
gallons of fuel (diesel and gasoline) (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, pp. 23‐32). The amount of energy anticipated to
be consumed during the Project’s construction is typical for a construction project at the Project’s scale (ibid.).
Further, the Project’s energy demand can be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy
delivery systems and Project construction equipment would conform to applicable California Air Resources Board
(CARB) emissions standards which act to promote equipment fuel efficiencies (ibid.). As supported by the
foregoing analysis, Project construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or
otherwise unnecessary.
During Project operation, energy would be consumed by building operations and maintenance (electricity and
natural gas) and by vehicles traveling to/from the Project Site (diesel fuel and gasoline). The Project’s building
operations and maintenance energy demands are estimated to be 1,459,841 kBTU/year of natural gas and
1,048,623 kWh/year of electricity (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 31). The Project’s anticipated operations are not
inherently energy intensive, and the Project’s anticipated energy demands are comparable to, or less than, other
warehouse project of similar scale and configuration. Additionally, the Project is required by law to comply with
the California building Standards Code (CalGreen), which will minimize the Project’s demand for energy, including
energy produced from non‐renewable resources. These regulations have become more protective of the
environment since the certification of the SWIP SP PEIR, and as a result the Project’s energy use will generally be
less than was assumed in the SWIP SP PEIR. Project‐related traffic is anticipated to consume 110,488 gallons of
fuel annually (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 30). The trips generated by the Project and the miles traveled by those
trips (vehicle miles traveled [VMT]) are consistent with other warehouse uses in the Inland Empire of similar scale
and configuration. Also, it bears noting that the Project is expected to result in a reduction in daily vehicle trips
to/from the Site relative to what was assumed by the SWIP SP PEIR; therefore, implementation of the Project is
anticipated to result in lower gasoline and diesel fuel consumption compared to the condition that was disclosed
in the SWIP SP PEIR (refer to EIR Addendum Subsection 4.17 for more information regarding the Project’s traffic).
The Project is not anticipated to result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips or VMT or associated excess and
wasteful vehicle energy consumption (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 31).
Based on the foregoing, implementation of the Project would not result in a significant environmental impact due
to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction and
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐23
operation. Implementation of the Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts related to
energy resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to maximize
energy efficiency continue to apply to the Project as listed below and included in the MMRP for the SWIP SP PEIR
(attached hereto as Appendix A).
MM 4.2‐5a Prior to the issuance of building permits, future development projects shall demonstrate the
incorporation of project design features that achieve a minimum of 28.5 percent reduction in GHG
emissions from business as usual conditions. Future projects shall include, but not be limited to,
the following list of potential design features.
Energy Efficiency
Design buildings to be energy efficient and exceed Title 24 requirements by at least 5 percent.
Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Site and design building to take
advantage of daylight.
Use trees, landscaping and sun screens on west and south exterior building walls to reduce
energy use.
Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements.
Provide information on energy management services for large energy users.
Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control
systems (e.g., minimum of Energy Star rated equipment).
Implement design features to increase the efficiency of the building envelope (i.e., the barrier
between conditioned and unconditioned spaces).
Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting.
Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
Renewable Energy
Install solar panels on carports and over parking areas. Ensure buildings are designed to have
“solar ready” roofs.
Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
Create water‐efficient landscapes with a preference for a xeriscape landscape palette.
Install water‐efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture‐based irrigation
controls.
Design buildings to be water‐efficient. Install water‐efficient fixtures and appliances (e.g., EPA
WaterSense labeled products).
Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to nonvegetated surfaces)
and control runoff.
Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles.
Implement low‐impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character
of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining storm water
runoff on‐site can drastically reduce the need for energy‐intensive imported water at the site).
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐24
Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location.
The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other innovative MMs
that are appropriate to the specific project.
Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives.
Solid Waste MMs
Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil,
vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard).
Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate
recycling containers located in public areas.
Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles.
Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces
for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting
areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for coordinating
rides).
Create local “light vehicle” networks, such as neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) systems.
Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero‐
emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative
fueling stations).
Promote “least polluting” ways to connect people and goods to their destinations.
Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large
developments.
Incorporate bicycle‐friendly intersections into street design.
For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to
promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide facilities that
encourage bicycle commuting (e.g., locked bicycle storage or covered or indoor bicycle
parking).
Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and other
destination points.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: Although the SWIP SP PEIR did not specifically address this question, the SWIP SP PEIR
disclosed that all future development within the SWIP SP area would be required to comply with Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulation (of which Part 6 establishes the State’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards),
development standards and design requirements related to sustainability and energy conservation contained in
the City of Fontana Municipal Code, and current and future State legislation, executive orders, and regulatory
guidance to maximize energy efficiency. Furthermore, the SWIP SP PEIR also acknowledged that it was probable
that new technologies would emerge and be incorporated into future development to reduce energy
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐25
consumption. Lastly, the SWIP SP PEIR included a MM (MM 4.2‐5a) that would require future development to
incorporate design features that would minimize the consumption of energy.
Analysis of Project: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency, as discussed in detail in the Project’s Energy Analysis (refer to Appendix F), and the Project
would be required to comply with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.2‐5 to minimize the amount of energy consumed by the
Project. Implementation of the Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts related to
energy resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.2‐5a, as presented above and in the MMRP
for the SWIP SP PEIR, attached hereto as Appendix A, continue to apply to the Project.
Monitoring: Monitoring shall occur as specified in the MMRP for the SWIP SP PEIR; refer to Appendix A.
4.7 Geology and Soils
A Geotechnical Investigation (dated July 21, 2021) (SCG, 2021) was prepared for the Project by Southern California
Geotechnical (SCG) to evaluate the geotechnical conditions of the subject property, identify any geological
hazards, and provide recommendations for the future development of the Project. Additionally, a Paleontological
Resources Assessment (March 16, 2022) (BFSA, 2022b), was prepared by BFSA to evaluate the potential for the
Project Site to contain significant, non‐renewable paleontological (fossil) resources. These reports are included
as Appendices G and H, respectively, to this EIR Addendum and their findings are incorporated into the analysis
presented herein.
Would the Project:
a. 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.
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that there are no Alquist‐Priolo earthquake faults located
within the SWIP SP area. The nearest fault to the SWIP SP area is the Cucamonga Fault which traverses through
the northern portion of the City of Fontana approximately 7.0 miles north of the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR
concluded that because no known earthquake faults are known to exist beneath the SWIP SP area, impacts related
to fault rupture would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: SCG did not observe any evidence of faulting on the Project Site and the Site is not located in
an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Zone (SCG, 2021, p. 9). Accordingly, the Project would not expose people or
structures to adverse effects related to the rupture of an earthquake fault. The SWIP SP PEIR assumed the Project
Site would be developed with employment‐generating (i.e., industrial) land uses; thus, based on the foregoing
analysis, implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to
fault rupture than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐26
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that development within the SWIP SP area could be exposed
to strong seismic ground shaking due to the numerous active faults located in the southern California region. The
SWIP SP PEIR concluded that future development’s adherence to standard engineering practices and design
criteria relative to seismic and geologic hazards in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) would
reduce the significance of impacts related to seismic ground shaking to a level below significance.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is in a seismically active area of Southern California and is anticipated to
experience moderate‐to‐severe ground shaking during the Project’s lifetime. This risk is not considered
substantially different than that of other similar properties in the Southern California area. Consistent with the
conclusion in the SWIP SP PEIR concerning impacts related to seismic ground shaking, the Project is required to
adhere to standard engineering practices and design criteria relative to seismic and geologic hazards in accordance
with the CBC, including the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), also known as California Code of
Regulations (CCR), Title 24 (Part 2), and the Fontana Building Code, which is based on the CBSC with local
amendments. The CBSC and Fontana Building Code provide standards that must be met to safeguard life or limb,
health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials,
use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures, and these standards have been
specifically tailored for California earthquake conditions. In addition, SCG provided recommendations for
construction of the Project to minimize on‐site hazards from strong seismic ground shaking, which will be
implemented as one of the City’s conditions of Project approval. With mandatory compliance with State and local
building standards, the Project would not expose people and structures to substantial adverse effects, including
loss, injury, or death, involving seismic ground shaking. The SWIP SP PEIR assumed the Project Site would be
developed with employment‐generating (i.e., industrial) land uses; thus, based on the foregoing analysis, the
Project would result in new or more severe significant impacts related to seismic ground‐shaking than previously
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that although the potential exists for liquefaction to occur
within the SWIP SP area, future development within the SWIP SP would be subject to site‐specific geotechnical
investigations and would comply with existing CBSC standards to minimize any potential ground failure or
liquefaction hazards. Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would not
expose people or structures to potential impacts related to seismic ground failure or liquefaction.
Analysis of Project: According to SCG’s examination of the Project Site and regional information sources, the
Project Site is not within an area of liquefaction susceptibility (SCG, 2021, p. 11). Accordingly, the Project would
not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury, or death, involving
liquefaction. The SWIP SP PEIR assumed the Project Site would be developed with employment‐generating (i.e.,
industrial) land uses; thus, based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not result in new or more severe
significant impacts related to liquefaction than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐27
iv. Landslides?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that the risk of landslides in the SWIP SP area is low due to the
relatively flat topography of the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that no impact would occur with
regard to landslides.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is flat and has no substantial natural or man‐made slopes under existing
conditions. Additionally, there are no substantial natural or man‐made slopes in proximity to the Project Site.
Therefore, the potential for landslides on‐ or off‐site is low. Proposed grading would not create manufactured
slopes; therefore, implementation of the Project would not create a landslide risk to surrounding properties. The
SWIP SP PEIR assumed the Project Site would be developed with employment‐generating (i.e., industrial) land
uses; thus, based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts
related to landslide than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that compliance with all requirements set forth in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities (e.g., implementation of BMPs
through preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan [SWPPP]) would preclude potential soil erosion
impacts.
Analysis of Project: The analysis below summarizes the likelihood of the Project to result in substantial soil erosion
during temporary construction activities and/or long‐term operation. As demonstrated in the analysis below,
implementation of the Project would not result in substantial effects related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe significant impacts related to
soil erosion than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR, which assumed the Project Site would be fully
developed.
Construction Activities
Project construction would involve demolition, grading, paving, utility installation, building construction, and
landscaping installation, which has the potential to temporarily expose on‐site soils that are currently covered by
concrete and could be subject to erosion during rainfall events or high winds.
Pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board requirements, the Project Applicant 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 projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or
excavation that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. Compliance with the NPDES Permit requires the
Project Applicant to prepare and submit to the City for approval a Project‐specific SWPPP. The SWPPP would
identify a combination of erosion control and sediment control MMs (i.e., BMPs) to reduce or eliminate sediment
discharge to surface water from stormwater and non‐stormwater discharges during construction. In addition, the
Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which establishes requirements for the control of
dust during construction (including wind erosion) (SCAQMD, 2005). With mandatory compliance to the
requirements noted in the Project’s SWPPP, as well as applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no
potential for substantial water and/or wind erosion impacts during Project construction. Implementation of the
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐28
Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to soil erosion than previously
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Operational Activities
Upon Project build‐out, the Project Site would be redeveloped with an industrial building, landscaping, and
impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the Project Site would be captured and treated to reduce
waterborne pollutants (including sediment). A portion of the runoff that occurs on the Project Site would be
routed to an on‐Site underground infiltration basin, where it would percolate into the ground, while excess runoff
would be conveyed off‐Site via an on‐site storm drain system.
The City’s Municipal Storm Water Permit will require the Project Applicant to prepare and implement a WQMP
(see City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 5‐14 & Chapter 23, Article IX). The WQMP is required to identify an
effective combination of erosion control and sediment control MMs (i.e., BMP) to reduce or eliminate sediment
discharge to surface water from stormwater and non‐stormwater discharges. The Preliminary WQMP for the
Project is attached hereto as Appendix L. Compliance with the WQMP would be required as a condition of Project
approval and long‐term maintenance of on‐site water quality features is required. Because the Project would be
required to utilize erosion and sediment control MMs to preclude substantial, long‐term soil erosion and loss of
topsoil, substantial soil erosion would not occur. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or
more severe significant impacts related to soil erosion than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the SWIP SP area is not located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The SWIP SP EIR concluded that a less‐than‐
significant impact would occur.
Analysis of Project: As previously discussed under the response to Item “a,” of Subsection 4.7, the Project Site’s
soils are not susceptible to landsliding, liquefication, and subsidence (a phenomenon associated with
liquefaction). Therefore, the Project would not be subjected to these geologic phenomena. Additionally,
according to SCG, the potential for lateral spreading occurring on the Project Site is considered low (SCG, 2021, p.
9). The Project Site does contain undocumented fill that could experience settlement/collapse; however, the
settlement/collapse hazard can be attenuated through the removal of near surface soils down to competent
materials and replacement with properly compacted fill, which is included as a recommendation in the Project’s
Geotechnical Investigation (SCG, 2021, pp. 11‐12). The Project would be required to implement the design,
grading, and construction recommendations within its Geotechnical Investigation pursuant to Chapter 26, Division
4 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code, which would ensure that the Project Site’s soils remain stable post‐
development. (The City will assign a condition of approval to the Project requiring implementation of the
Geotechnical Investigation pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 26, Division 4.) Implementation of the Project
would not expose people or structures to significant hazards related to unstable soils. The SWIP SP PEIR assumed
the Project Site would be developed with employment‐generating (i.e., industrial) land uses; thus, based on the
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐29
foregoing analysis, the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe significant impacts related to
unstable soils than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐ B of the Uniform Building Code (since renamed as
the California Building Code), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that soils in portions of the SWIP SP area are susceptible to
expansion. However, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that because future development within the SWIP SP would be
subject to site‐specific geotechnical investigations and would be required to comply with CBSC standards
addressing expansive soil hazards, impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: Soils on the Project Site soils generally consist of gravelly sands, sands, and silty sands with no
appreciable clay content; these materials are classified as non‐expansive (SCG, 2021, p. 12). Accordingly, the
Project would not create substantial risks to life or property through locating structures on expansive soil. The
SWIP SP PEIR assumed the Project Site would be developed with employment‐generating (i.e., industrial) land
uses; thus, based on the foregoing analysis, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or
more severe significant impacts related to expansive soil than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
e. 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?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR did not identify any significant adverse effects related to septic systems,
because the SWIP SP would be served by sewer facilities and therefore not entail the installation of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Analysis of Project: The Project would connect to the existing municipal sewer system and does not propose the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Implementation of the Project would not result
in any new impacts or more severe significant impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that the southern portion of the SWIP SP area is underlain by
Pleistocene older fan deposits, which have a high potential to contain important fossil resources. The SWIP SP
PEIR included MMs 4.4‐3a and 4.4‐3b which require future development projects within the SWIP SP to analyze
potential impacts to paleontological resources on a site‐specific basis prior to construction and then, implement
any recommended mitigation program (if required). The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that with implementation of
mitigation, the SWIP SP would result in less‐than‐significant impacts to paleontological resources.
Analysis of Project: In accordance with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4‐3a, a Paleontological Resources Assessment (see
Appendix H), was prepared for the Project Site by BFSA. The Paleontological Assessment concluded that
fossiliferous, late Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits underlie the Holocene young alluvial fan sediments that are on
the Project Site (BFSA, 2022b, p. 9). Older Pleistocene deposits, specifically in the Inland Empire, have a high
paleontological sensitivity. Accordingly, BFSA concluded that the strata underlying the Project Site has the
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐30
potential to contain important fossil deposits and, thusly, recommended paleontological monitoring be
performed during the Project’s grading, excavation, or utility trenching activities that occur at or below 5 feet
below the existing ground surface (ibid.). The Project’s monitoring program would be required to comply with
the performance standards established by SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4‐3b. With compliance with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4‐
3b, the Project would minimize the significance of the Project’s potential effects to important paleontological
resources to less‐than‐significant levels. This conclusion is consistent with the conclusion from the SWIP SP PEIR,
which assumed the Project Site would be fully developed. Implementation of the Project would not result in any
new or more severe significant impacts to paleontological resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to reduce impacts to
paleontological resources continue to apply to the Project, as listed below and included in the MMRP for the SWIP
SP PEIR (attached hereto as Appendix A).
MM 4.4‐3b Should mitigation monitoring be recommended for a specific project within the Project Site, the
program shall include, but not be limited to, the following MMs:
Assign a paleontological monitor, trained, and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils
with minimal construction delay, to the site full‐time during the interval of earth‐disturbing
activities.
Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, earth‐disturbing activities shall
be diverted elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel
make the discovery, the grading contractor shall immediately divert construction and notify
the monitor of the find.
All recovered fossils shall be prepared, identified, and curated for documentation in the
summary report and transferred to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County
Museum).
A summary report shall be submitted to City of Fontana. Collected specimens shall be
transferred with copy of report to San Bernardino County Museum.
Note: The City determined that MM 4.4‐3a was satisfied by the Paleontological Resources Assessment that was
prepared for the Project.
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A Greenhouse Gas Analysis (dated February 15, 2022) (Urban Crossroads, 2022d) was prepared for the Project by
Urban Crossroads to quantify the GHG emissions that would result from Project‐related construction and
operational activities. This report is included as Appendix I to this EIR Addendum and its findings are incorporated
into the analysis presented herein.
Would the Project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐31
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that implementation of the SWIP SP would result in GHG
emissions equal to 1,147,515.21 MTCO2eq/year absent project design features and mitigation. The SWIP SP PEIR
included mitigation (MM 4.2‐5a) that would require the individual development projects within the SWIP SP area
to incorporate sustainable practices related to water usage, energy usage, solid waste generation, and
transportation. The SWIP SP PEIR determined that implementation of the reduction MMs required by MM 4.2‐5a
would reduce GHG emission from buildout of the SWIP SP to 774,572.77 MTCO2eq/year (an approximate 32.5
percent reduction relative to the unmitigated emissions). The SWIP SP PEIR determined that because MM 4.2‐5
would result in GHG reductions that would exceed the mandate of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, that implementation of
the SWIP SP would not generate GHG emissions that have a significant impact on the environment and, also, that
the SWIP SP would be consistent with applicable plans and policies related GHG emissions reductions.
Analysis of Project: The Project’s construction phase GHG emissions are summarized in Table 4‐7, Construction‐
Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The GHG emissions reported in Table 4‐7 are unmitigated and do not account
for mitigation required by the SWIP SP PEIR. Construction phase GHG emissions were amortized over a 30‐year
period and added to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. The methodology used to quantify the Project’s
construction phase GHG emissions is described in the Project’s Greenhouse Gas Analysis (see Appendix I).
Table 4‐7 Construction‐Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Year Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
2022 128.84 0.02 4.48E‐03 130.74
2023 103.61 0.02 4.16E‐03 105.24
Total GHG Emissions 232.45 0.04 0.01 235.98
Amortized Construction Emissions (MTCO2e) 7.75 0.00 0.00 7.87
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 3‐4)
The Project’s annual GHG emissions are summarized in Table 4‐8, Annual Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The
GHG emissions reported in Table 4‐8 are unmitigated and do not account for any mitigation required by the SWIP
SP PEIR. The methodology used to quantify the Project’s annual GHG emission is described in the Project’s
Greenhouse Gas Analysis (see Appendix I).
Table 4‐8 Annual Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
Annual construction‐related emissions amortized
over 30 years 7.75 1.28E‐03 2.88E‐04 7.87
Area Source 4.40E‐03 1.00E‐05 0.00 4.69E‐03
Energy Source 253.11 1.70E‐02 3.14E‐03 254.47
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐32
Emission Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
Mobile Source 995.02 0.04 0.09 1,024.18
TRU Source 22.05
On‐Site Equipment 101.50 0.03 0.00 102.32
Waste 16.72 0.99 0.00 41.43
Water Usage 54.58 0.66 1.61E‐02 75.98
Total CO2e (All Sources) 1,528.30
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 3‐7)
The Project would implement the SWIP SP land use plan and the Project’s proposed land use and development
intensity is consistent with the development plan and regulations contained within the SWIP. Therefore, the GHG
emissions produced by the Project are within the scope of the project that was evaluated in the SWIP SP PEIR. Of
note, the proposed industrial building would generate fewer daily traffic trips than the land uses assumed for the
Site by the SWIP SP PEIR (the Project’s daily traffic is discussed in further detail in EIR Addendum Subsection 4.17);
therefore, the Project would reduce vehicle tailpipe emissions within the SWIP SP area relative to the levels
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR (vehicle tailpipe emissions represent a substantial share of GHG emissions). Senate
Bill 32 (SB 32), which was not in effect at the time the SWIP SP EIR was certified, establishes a more stringent GHG
reduction target than the regulations that were in effect at the time (i.e., Assembly Bill 32 [AB 32]). The Project
will have to comply with these more stringent GHG reduction targets, as well as other regulations that have been
enacted since 2012 that are more protective of the environment and will reduce the Project’s GHG emissions
when compared to the emissions levels the SWIP SP PEIR assumed would occur from the development of the
Project Site. Accordingly, the Project’s GHG emissions do not represent a new, significant air quality impact or an
increase in the severity of a significant air quality impact previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Additionally, the Project’s GHG Analysis demonstrates that the Project would be consistent with and would not
conflict with implementation of the goals and objectives established by applicable GHG emissions reductions
plans, and policies, including AB 32, SB 32, and the CARB Scoping Plan. Refer the Project’s Greenhouse Gas Analysis
(see Appendix I) for a detailed analysis of the Project’s consistency with the consistency GHG emissions reductions
plans and policies.
Lastly, the Project would be required to comply with MM 4.2‐5a from the SWIP SP PEIR, which would reduce the
Project’s GHG emissions below the levels listed in Table 4‐8 (and further reduce GHG emissions below the levels
disclosed by the SWIP SP PEIR).
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project’s GHG emissions would be less than significant and would be further
reduced by after the application of required mitigation from the SWIP SP PEIR. Implementation of the Project
would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to conflicts with goals and objectives
established by applicable GHG emissions reductions plans, and policies than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP
PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐33
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.2‐5a, as presented previously in EIR
Addendum Subsection 4.6 applies to the Project.
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), (dated July 20, 2021) (V3, 2021a) and a Phase II ESA (dated
September 3, 2021) (V3, 2021b) were prepared by V3 Companies (V3) to determine the presence/absence of
hazards and hazardous materials on the Project Site. These reports are included as Appendix J and K, to this EIR
Addendum and their findings are incorporated in the analysis presented herein.
Would the Project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the land uses proposed by the SWIP SP could entail the
routine transport, use, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that all future
development within the SWIP SP would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations
related to handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste. Additionally, the SWIP SP PEIR
established mitigation that prohibits the siting of facilities that handle hazardous materials near sensitive
receptors (i.e., schools, childcare facilities, and senior centers) and requires businesses that handle hazardous
materials to submit hazardous materials inventories to the San Bernardino County Fire Department (MM 4.5‐1a
and 4.5‐1c, respectively). The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that mandatory compliance with applicable regulations
and implementation of the MMs included in the SWIP SP PEIR would ensure that the SWIP SP would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials. Impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: As demonstrated in the analysis below, the Project would not result in a hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Project would not
result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts, as compared to the
analysis presented in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Existing Conditions
V3 performed a comprehensive Phase I ESA to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) that may pose
potential environmental risks associated with the Project Site. The Phase I ESA identified two RECs for the Project
Site: 1) potential soil contamination related to the Project Site’s historic use for automobile/truck repair and
maintenance; and 2) the undocumented removal of a 5,000‐gallon diesel underground storage tank (UST) in the
1990s (V3, 2021a, pp. 21‐22). V3 performed a Phase II ESA, including soil testing and soil vapor sampling, to assess
environmental conditions associated with the previously mentioned RECs. According to the Phase II ESA, no
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs) were detected in any of the soil
samples; soil gas samples were all non‐detect for VOCs; and arsenic, barium, chromium, and lead (all naturally
occurring metals) were detected at levels below background concentrations (V3, 2021b, p. 5). The sampling
conducted as part of the Phase II ESA demonstrates that the soil conditions at the Project Site do not pose a
potential hazard for development of the Project Site. Notwithstanding, the Project Applicant would be required
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐34
to comply with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.5‐2b, which requires the excavation/removal, remediation, and off‐site
transport and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local
requirements, should any contamination be discovered on the Project Site during construction. Compliance with
SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.5‐2b would ensure that any potentially hazardous materials that may present on the Project
Site under existing conditions would not present a substantial hazard to people or the environment. The Project
would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts, as
compared to the analysis presented in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Construction Activities
Heavy equipment would be used on the Project Site during the Project’s construction, which would be fueled and
maintained by substances such as oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, and other liquid materials that would
be considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, roofing materials,
solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be present on the Project Site during
construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases
or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all
construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated
with the Project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors would be
required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use,
and storage of hazardous construction‐related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), SCAQMD,
Santa Ana RWQCB, and the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District. With mandatory compliance with
applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase.
The Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of previously identified significant
impacts, as compared to the analysis presented in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Operational Activities
The Project would redevelop the Project Site with an industrial building. The future building occupant(s) for the
Project Site are not yet identified; however, the Project is designed to house commerce center and light industrial
occupants, and it is possible that hazardous materials could be used during a future building users’ daily operation.
State and federal Community‐Right‐to‐Know laws allow the public access to information about the amounts and
types of chemicals in use at local businesses. Laws also are in place that require businesses to plan and prepare
for possible chemical emergencies. Any business that occupies a building on the Project Site and that handles
hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95)
will require a permit from the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District – Hazardous Materials Division to
register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to comply with
California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting
to the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District – Hazardous Materials Division and the State Office of
Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount
handled by the business. In addition, any business handling at any one time, greater than 500 pounds of solid, 55
gallons of liquid, or 200 cubic feet of gaseous hazardous material, is required, under Assembly Bill 2185 (AB 2185),
to file a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP). A HMBEP is a written set of procedures and
information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous
material. The intent of the HMBEP is to satisfy federal and State Community Right‐To‐Know laws and to provide
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐35
detailed information for use by emergency responders. Lastly, the Project would be required to comply with City
of Fontana Municipal Code Section 9‐1, which establishes development and performance standards, as well as
reporting and permitting requirements for the use, handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials.
If businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the Project, the business owners and operators would
be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, use,
emission, and disposal of hazardous substances (as described above and as required by SWIP SP EIR MM 4.5‐1c).
With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project is not anticipated to pose a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe impacts related to hazardous
materials than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to reduce
hazards and hazardous materials impacts continue to apply to the Project, as presented below and in the MMRP
for the SWIP SP PEIR, attached hereto as Appendix A.
MM 4.5‐1c The City shall require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable
quantity to submit an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the San
Bernardino County Fire Department – Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with the
Fontana Fire Protection District.
MM 4.5‐2b Prior to potential remedial evacuation and grading activities within the site (if remediation is
required), impacted areas shall be cleared of all maintenance equipment and materials (e.g.,
solvents, grease, waste‐oil), construction materials, miscellaneous stockpiled debris (e.g., scrap
metal, pallets, storage bins, construction parts), above ground storage tanks, surface trash, piping,
excess vegetation and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed off‐site and
properly disposed of at an approved disposal facility. Once removed, a visual inspection of the
areas beneath the removed materials shall be performed. Any stained soils observed underneath
the removed materials shall be sampled. In the event concentrations of materials are detected
above regulatory cleanup levels during demolition or construction activities, the project applicant
shall comply with the following MMs in accordance with Federal, State, and local requirements:
Excavation and disposal at a permitted, off‐site facility;
On‐site remediation, if necessary, or
Other MMs as deemed appropriate by the County.
MM 4.5‐2c Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, a Certified Environmental Professional shall
confirm the presence or absence of asbestos‐containing materials (ACMs) and lead‐based paint
(LBPs) prior to structural demolition/renovation activities. Should ACMs or LBPs be present,
demolition materials containing ACMs and/or LBPs shall be removed and disposed of at an
appropriate permitted facility.
MM 4.5‐2d In the event any electrical transformers require relocation as a result of future development
associated with the project, the relocation shall be conducted under the purview of the local
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐36
electricity purveyor to identify property‐handling procedures regarding potential polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
Note: The City determined that the following SWIP SP PEIR MMs do not apply to the Project or have been satisfied
as part of the City’s review of the Project’s proposed entitlement applications: MMs 4.5‐1a, 4.5‐1b, 4.5‐1d were
addressed during City review; MM 4.5‐2a was addressed by the Phase I & Phase II ESAs that were prepared for
the Project; MMs 4.5‐2e and 4.5‐2f are not applicable to the Project due to the Project Site’s location.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding:
Short‐Term Construction Activities
The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the existing structures within the SWIP SP area likely contain LBP, ACMs, and/or
other contaminants, and therefore demolition of the buildings would potentially 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, which presents a potentially significant impact. The SWIP SP PEIR
concluded that compliance with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.5‐2c requiring an ACM/LBP survey and any necessary
abatement be conducted prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, as well as compliance with SCAQMD
Rule 1403, would reduce potential impacts associated with demolition to the existing buildings to a less‐than‐
significant level.
The SWIP SP PEIR also determined that grading and excavation for future development within the SWIP SP area
could expose construction workers and the public to unidentified hazardous substances present in the soil or
groundwater associated with the I‐10 freeway, Union Pacific Railroad alignment, and unidentified underground
storage tanks (USTs). The SWIP SP PEIR included MMs to ensure that future development projects evaluate
potential, site‐specific hazardous conditions and implement remediation programs, as needed, to ensure that
development activities within the SWIP SP area would not increase the potential for accident conditions that could
result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment (i.e., MM 4.5‐2a, 4.5‐2b, 4.5‐2d‐4.5‐2f). The
SWIP SP PEIR concluded that compliance with the required MMs and applicable regulatory requirements would
reduce potential construction‐related impacts to a level below significance.
Long‐Term Operational Activities
The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the operation of future development associated with the SWIP SP could create
a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that
typical incidents associated with operations of typical commercial and industrial development projects that could
result in accidental release of hazardous materials include leaking storage tanks, spills during transport,
inappropriate storage, inappropriate use, and/or natural disasters. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that compliance
with mandatory regulations and SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.5‐1a through 4.5‐1d, which prohibit the siting of facilities
that handle hazardous materials near sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, childcare facilities and senior centers) and
the transportation of hazardous materials near sensitive receptors, and requires businesses that handle hazardous
materials to submit hazardous materials inventories to the San Bernardino County Fire Department would ensure
that operational impacts are less than significant.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐37
Analysis of Project: As discussed above under the preceding response, if hazardous materials are used or stored
on the Project Site under near‐term construction or long‐term operational activities, the Project would be required
to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations and MMs from the SWIP SP EIR to ensure the safe
handling of hazardous materials. Mandatory compliance with these regulations and MMs would ensure that, if an
accident involving hazardous materials occurs on‐site, it would be treated appropriately to avoid a significant
hazard to the public or the environment. With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials
regulations and implementation of the applicable SWIP SP EIR MMs related to hazardous materials that are
discussed herein, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment in the event
an accident on‐site results in the release of hazardous materials. The SWIP SP PEIR assumed the Project Site would
be fully developed. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe impacts
related to hazardous materials than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to mitigate
hazards and hazardous materials impacts continue to apply to the Project, as listed above. Refer to the MMRP
for the SWIP SP PEIR, attached hereto as Appendix A.
Note: The City determined that the following SWIP SP PEIR MMs do not apply to the Project or have been satisfied
as part of the City’s review of the Project’s proposed entitlement applications: MMs 4.5‐1a, 4.5‐1b, 4.5‐1d were
addressed during City review; MM 4.5‐2a was addressed by the Phase I & II ESAs prepared for the Project; MMs
4.5‐2e and 4.5‐2f are not applicable to the Project due to the Project Site’s location.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that there are four (4) schools located either inside or within
one‐quarter mile of the SWIP SP boundaries and that hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials
or substances would occur within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded
that compliance with standard regulatory requirements and MMs from the SWIP SP PEIR would ensure that
impacts associated with construction and operation of the SWIP SP are less than significant.
Analysis of Project: There are no schools within one quarter of a mile of the Project Site. The closest school to
the Project Site is Henry J. Kaiser High School, which is approximately 0.27‐mile southeast from the Project Site.
As such, the Project would not emit hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Nonetheless, the Project would
comply with standard regulatory requirements and MMs from the SWIP SP PEIR to ensure safe handling of
hazardous materials, substances, or waste (as described in previous responses). Implementation of the Project
would not result in any new impacts or more severe significant impacts related to hazardous materials than
previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐38
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that there are various hazardous material sites listed on federal,
State, and local records databases located within the SWIP SP area. As previously discussed under the analysis for
Items “a” and “b,” above, the SWIP SP PEIR included mitigation that requires future development projects within
the SWIP SP area to conduct site‐specific investigations (i.e., Phase I ESAs) and perform remedial activities, as
necessary, prior to construction to correct any identified environmental conditions (SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.5‐2a and
4.5‐2b, respectively). The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that with the required mitigation, impacts would be reduced
to a level below significance.
Analysis of Project: Government Code Section 65962.5 requires DTSC, the State Department of Health Services,
State Water Resources Control Board, and the State Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to maintain
a list of hazardous materials sites that fall within specific, defined categories. According to the records search
conducted by V3, the Project Site was listed in 13 environmental databases; these listings show that the Project
Site generated small amounts of hazardous waste but do not identify the Project Site as having an undocumented
release (V3, 2021a, pp. 9‐13). Although the Project Site is listed on 13 environmental/hazardous materials
databases, none of the databases where the Project Site is listed fall within the categories regulated by
Government Code Section 65962.5. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more
severe significant impacts related to hazardous materials than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the project area?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that the Ontario Airport is located approximately three miles
west of the SWIP SP Area and that the southwestern portion of the SWIP SP area is located within the Ontario
Airport’s “Airport Influence Area.” The SWIP SP PEIR determined that development within the SWIP SP area would
consist of industrial, commercial, and office development and would not result in a safety hazard for people
working in the SWIP SP area. Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that a less‐than‐significant impact would
occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is located within the “Airport Influence Area” (AIA) for the Ontario Airport.
However, the Project Site is not located in any of the Ontario Airport’s safety or noise impact zones, and the height
of the Project’s buildings would be consistent with the applicable airspace protection zones in the Project area.
(City of Ontario, 2011, Map 2‐1) Therefore, development of the Project would neither introduce a hazard to the
Ontario Airport nor would the Ontario Airport pose a hazard to future employees on the Project Site.
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe significant impacts related to
air travel than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that construction activities associated with future development
could temporarily impact traffic on streets that would serve as evacuation routes due to roadway improvements
and extension of construction activities into the rights‐of‐way. The SWIP SP PEIR included MMs 4.5‐6a and 4.5‐
6b, which require the implementation of a traffic control plan during construction of future development projects
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐39
within the SWIP SP area and, also, require coordination between the City of Fontana Engineering Department and
City of Fontana Police Department to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles during the construction of
future development projects within the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that with implementation of
the recommended mitigation, future construction activities related to the SWIP SP would result in less‐than‐
significant impacts with regard to emergency access. Additionally, the SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that all future
development would be required to provide sufficient emergency access, as required by the City’s Zoning Code.
Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure the
operational impacts of the SWIP SP would be less than significant with regard to emergency access.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site does not have any emergency facilities nor is it identified as an emergency
evacuation route by any emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans (City of Fontana, 2018a)
During construction and at Project build out, adequate emergency vehicle access would be required to be always
maintained. As part of the City’s discretionary review process, the City reviewed the Project’s plans and found
that appropriate emergency ingress and egress is available to and from the site to ensure public safety, and that
the Project would not substantially impede emergency response times in the local area. Furthermore, the Project
would be required to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles is maintained throughout the Project’s
construction activities pursuant to SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.5‐6a; mandatory compliance with this MM would ensure
the Project’s impacts regarding interference with the City’s emergency response plan and evacuation routes
would be less than significant. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe
impacts related to emergency response plans than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to mitigate
hazards and hazardous materials impacts – as presented below – continue to apply to the Project. Refer to the
MMRP for the SWIP SP PEIR, attached hereto as Appendix A.
MM 4.5‐6a Prior to the issuance of grading permits, future developers shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan for
implementation during the construction phase. The Plan may include the following provisions,
among others:
At least one unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions on surrounding
roadways.
At any time only a single lane is available, the developer shall provide a temporary traffic
signal, signal carriers (i.e., flagpersons), or other appropriate traffic controls to allow travel in
both directions.
If construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway segment, the developer
shall provide appropriate signage indicating detours/alternative routes.
MM 4.5‐6b Prior to construction, the City of Fontana Engineering Department shall consult with the City of
Fontana Police Department to disclose temporary closures and alternative travel routes, in order
to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction of future projects would
result in temporary lane or roadway closures.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐40
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the SWIP SP is located in an urbanized area, and no
wildlands exist in the vicinity of the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that no impact related to wildland
hazards would occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is in an urbanized area and is not located adjacent to wildlands (Google Earth
Pro, 2022). The SWIP SP PEIR assumed the Project Site would be fully developed. Therefore, the Project would
not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe significant
impacts related to wildland fires than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (dated January 27, 2022, revised May 24, 2022) (JLC,
2022a) and Preliminary Hydrology Report (dated January 28, 2022, revised May 24, 2022) (JLC, 2022b) were
prepared for the Project by JLC Engineering & Consulting, Inc. (JLC). The purpose of the Preliminary WQMP is to
help identify pollutants of concern, establish the BMP for the Project to minimize the release of pollutants of
concern, and establish long term maintenance responsibilities for the Project’s water quality features. The
Preliminary Hydrology Report identifies drainage patterns and off‐site flow tributary to the Project Site and
evaluates post‐development runoff conditions. The hydraulic calculations are intended to be used to design the
Project’s storm drain system. These reports are included as Appendices L and M, respectively, to this EIR
Addendum and their findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
Would the Project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that development of the SWIP SP could adversely affect
water quality through the discharge of various waterborne pollutants. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that future
development projects within the SWIP SP would be required to comply with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce water
pollution from urban runoff. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that with adherence to existing State water quality
requirements, impacts to water quality would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: As demonstrated in the analysis below, the Project would not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project would not result in any significant impacts that were not
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR or increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Construction Activities
Construction of the Project would involve clearing and demolition, grading, paving, utility installation, building
construction, and landscaping activities. Construction activities would result in the generation of potential water
quality pollutants such as silt, debris, and construction chemicals (such as paints and solvents), and other
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐41
chemicals with the potential to adversely affect water quality (should these materials come into contact with
water that reaches the groundwater table or flows off‐site).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB and Fontana Municipal Code Section 5‐14 & Chapter 23,
Article IX, the Project Applicant 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, which disturb at least
one (1) acre of total land area. In addition, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the Santa Ana
RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa
Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for
construction‐related activities. The SWPPP will specify the BMPs that the Project’s construction contractors would
be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that potential pollutants of concern are
prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject
property. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to sandbag
barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro‐seeding.
Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities.
Operational Activities
To meet the requirements of the City’s Municipal Storm Water Permit – and in accordance with Fontana Municipal
Code Chapter 23, Article IX – the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a WQMP. A
WQMP is a site‐specific post‐construction water quality management program designed to minimize the release
of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters, under long‐
term conditions via BMPs. Implementation of the WQMP ensures on‐going, long‐term protection of the
watershed basin. The Project’s Preliminary WQMP is included as Appendix L to this EIR Addendum. As identified
in the Preliminary WQMP, the Project is designed to include structural source control BMPs consisting of catch
basins, and an underground infiltration basin, as well as operational source control BMPs (including but not limited
to: activity restrictions, landscape management BMPs, employee training, catch basin inspection program) to
minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat stormwater runoff flows before they are discharged into
the City’s storm drain system (JLC, 2022a, pp. 4‐2 ‐ 4‐5). Compliance with the Preliminary WQMP would be
required as a condition of approval for the Project. Long‐term maintenance of on‐site water quality features also
would be required as a condition of approval to ensure the long‐term effectiveness of all on‐site water quality
features.
Additionally, the NPDES program requires certain land uses, including certain industrial land uses, to prepare a
SWPPP for operational activities and to implement a long‐term water quality sampling and monitoring program,
unless an exemption has been granted (Industrial General Permit). Under this currently effective NPDES Industrial
General Permit, the Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and implement a
long‐term water quality sampling and monitoring program or receive an exemption. Because the permit is
dependent upon a detailed accounting of all operational activities and procedures, and the Project’s building users
and their operational characteristics are not currently known, details of the operational SWPPP (including BMPs)
or potential exemption to the SWPPP operational activities requirement cannot be determined with certainty at
this time. However, based on the performance requirements of the NPDES Industrial General Permit, the Project’s
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐42
mandatory compliance with all applicable water quality regulations would further reduce potential water quality
impacts during long‐term operation.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during long‐term operation.
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to water
quality than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the majority of the SWIP SP area is developed and
urbanized and, therefore, that implementation of the SWIP SP would not introduce substantial new impervious
surfaces to the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR also disclosed that no groundwater extraction would occur as
part of the SWIP SP. Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would result
in less‐than‐significant impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater
recharge.
Analysis of Project: The Project would be required to connect to the City of Fontana’s municipal water system;
therefore, no water wells would be constructed on the Project Site and Project operations would not directly draw
from groundwater supplies. The Project Site is underlain by the Chino Groundwater Basin. Most of the
groundwater recharge in the Chino Groundwater Basin occurs within percolation basins located mostly in the
northern and western portions of the Basin (and north and west of the City of Fontana) (CBWCD, 2022). The
Project would not physically impact any of the major groundwater recharge facilities in the Basin. The Project
includes design features that would maximize the percolation of on‐site storm water runoff into the groundwater
basin, such as the proposed underground infiltration basin and permeable landscape areas. Accordingly, buildout
of the Project with these design features would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede
sustainable groundwater management of the Chino Groundwater Basin. Implementation of the Project would
not result in any new impacts or more severe significant impacts related to groundwater supplies and
management than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of 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?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that the SWIP SP area is located within an urbanized area that
is served by existing stormwater drainage facilities operated by the City of Fontana and the County of San
Bernardino. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that the drainage infrastructure proposed by the SWIP SP would
adequately serve future development within the SWIP SP area and would minimize impacts related to erosion or
siltation, resulting in less‐than‐significant impacts regarding erosion or siltation.
Analysis of Project: As previously discussed in Subsection 4.7 (refer to response to Item “b”), implementation of
the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Implementation of the Project would
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐43
not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to soil erosion or siltation than previously
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run off in a manner which would result in
flooding on‐ or off‐site?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would not result in a
substantial increase in surface runoff and would result in less‐than‐significant impacts related to flooding.
Analysis of Project: The Project would develop a commerce center on the Project Site in accordance with the
SWIP SP land plan. Therefore, the site development activities proposed by the Project (and the resulting surface
runoff flows) were planned by the SWIP SP (and its storm drain master plan) and anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR,
which assumed the entire Project Site would be developed. According to the Project’s Preliminary Hydrology
Report, the Project would be required to reduce peak stormwater discharge to no more than 90 percent of peak
existing conditions and the existing Banana Avenue storm drain is appropriately sized to convey flows from the
Project Site under developed conditions (industrial land use) (JLC, 2022b, p. 3). Therefore, implementation of the
Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding on‐ or off‐site. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant
impacts related to flooding on‐ or off‐site than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would require the
installation of drainage infrastructure improvements; but that existing and planned stormwater drainage systems
would have adequate capacity to convey surface runoff flows from the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR also
concluded that the SWIP SP would not generate substantial, additional sources of polluted runoff.
Analysis of Project: As discussed in the response to Item “a,” above, the Project will be required to comply with a
SWPPP and a site‐specific WQMP, which will identify BMPs that are required to ensure that near‐term
construction activities and long‐term post‐development activities would not result in substantial amounts of
polluted runoff. The Project proposes to redevelop the Project Site with a land use with the same impervious area
as existing conditions; thus, the Project would generate stormwater runoff that neither exceeds existing runoff
discharges from the Project Site nor the capacity of existing and planned master planned storm drain facilities
(JLC, 2022b, p. 3). Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts
related to existing or planned stormwater drainage systems than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flow?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that although portions of the SWIP SP area would be located
within the 100‐year base flood plain, the SWIP SP area is already developed with urbanized uses, and future
development of structures within the SWIP SP area would not occur within an existing floodway or otherwise
impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that the SWIP SP would result in a less‐
than‐significant impact.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐44
Analysis of Project: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) No. 06071C8665H, the Project Site and surrounding area are within FEMA Zone X (unshaded), which is
identified as an area of minimal flooding (FEMA, 2008) . Accordingly, the Project would not place structures within
a 100‐year flood hazard area that could impede or redirect flood flows, which the same area that the SWIP SP
PEIR assumed would be developed with structures. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or
more severe significant impacts related to flood flows than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the SWIP SP area is not located near a major dam or
within a dam inundation area. Additionally, the SWIP SP PEIR did not identify any significant effects within the
SWIP SP area related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Analysis of Project: The Pacific Ocean is located over 42 miles southwest of the Project Site; consequently, there
is no potential for the Project Site to be impacted by a tsunami as tsunamis typically only reach up to a few miles
inland. The Project Site is not subject to flooding hazards associated with a seiche as the nearest large body of
surface water (Prado Reservoir) is located approximately more than 10 miles southwest of the Project Site. Due
to distance, the Project would not be affected by inundation caused by a seiche. Furthermore, as noted in the
City of Fontana General Plan EIR on Figure 4‐2, Dam Inundation Areas in Fontana, the Project Site is not located
within any mapped dam inundation area, which the same area that the SWIP SP PEIR assumed would be developed
with structures (City of Fontana, 2018b). Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts related to inundation than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that future development within the SWIP SP area would be
required to adhere to State water quality requirements and would not result in substantial adverse water quality
effects. Although the SWIP SP PEIR did not specifically address the potential for the SWIP SP PEIR to conflict with
or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan, the PEIR did address the potential
for the SWIP SP to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge (and concluded that
such impacts would be less than significant).
Analysis of Project: As discussed in the response to Item “a,” above, the Project Site is located within the Santa
Ana River Basin and Project‐related construction and operational activities 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. Implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water
Quality Control Plan.
The Project Site is located 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
their long‐term sustainability. It should be noted that the Project includes an underground infiltration basin, which
is anticipated to help recharge the basin. No component of the Project would obstruct with or prevent
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐45
implementation of the management plan for the Chino Groundwater Basin. As such, the Project’s construction
and operation would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater management plan.
Based on the foregoing information, implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe
significant impacts related to the implementation of water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater
management plans than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the Project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined the SWIP SP would not divide an established community, as
it would implement a range of industrial, commercial, public, and residential land uses similar to the land uses
that already existed within the SWIP SP boundaries. Additionally, the SWIP SP PEIR determined that existing
development within the SWIP SP area was already divided by the existing local roadway network, and the SWIP
SP would not create additional physical barriers between these land uses. Therefore, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded
impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: The Project would implement the land use plan for the SWIP SP. While there are legal non‐
conforming residences scattered on non‐contiguous properties adjacent to and throughout the vicinity of the
Project Site, the Project would not divide an established community, nor would the Project prevent or obstruct
access to an established community. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe
significant impacts related to physically dividing an established community than previously disclosed in the SWIP
SP PEIR.
b. 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?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the SWIP SP would not directly conflict with the policy
or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including the City’s
General Plan and Zoning and Development Code. Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that the SWIP SP would
result in a less‐than‐significant impact.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site would be developed in accordance with the land use regulations and
development standards contained within the SWIP SP; therefore, the development activities proposed by the
Project were anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR, and in fact, the Project would implement the vision of the SWIP SP,
making the Project Site more much consistent with applicable land use policies, plans and regulations that existing
uses. As noted above, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would not conflict with
any land use policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of mitigating or avoiding an environmental impact.
Thus, because the Project is consistent with the SWIP SP and because the SWIP SP was previously found to not
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect, implementation of the Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to
a land use planning conflict. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐46
impacts related to conflicts with a land use plan, policy, or regulation than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP
PEIR.
4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the Project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that according to the City’s General Plan, no known deposits
of precious gemstones, ores, or unique, or rare minerals have been identified within the vicinity of the SWIP SP
area. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is located within the mineral resource zone 3 (MRZ‐3), which is classified as
an area where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from available data (DOC, 1984). As
such, the Project Site does not contain a “known mineral resource.” Additionally, the Project Site is not zoned for
mining. The Project, which would develop an area that the SWIP SP PEIR assumed would be developed, would not
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. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related
to mineral resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR did not identify any significant environmental effects within the SWIP SP
area related to 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. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that no impact would occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is not located in an area that the City’s General Plan or the SWIP SP have
identified as being of local importance for mineral resources. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would
not 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. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new
impacts or more severe impacts related to the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery
site than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.13 Noise
A Noise Impact Analysis (dated February 18, 2022) (Urban Crossroads, 2022e) was prepared for the Project by
Urban Crossroads to evaluate Project‐related long‐term operational and short‐term construction noise impacts.
This report is included as Appendix N to this EIR Addendum, and its findings are incorporated into the analysis
presented herein.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐47
Would the Project result in:
a. 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?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that although the construction of future development and
improvements in the SWIP SP Area would be required to adhere to the hours permitted by the City’s Municipal
Code (between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays), due to
the proximity of residential and institutional uses to the SWIP SP area, such construction could result in temporary,
localized increases in noise levels and vibration that may exceed established standards. As such, the SWIP SP PEIR
included mitigation to minimize potential adverse effects to sensitive receptors (SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.7‐1a and
4.7‐1b). The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that compliance with the City’s permitted hours of construction and
implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.7‐1a and 4.7‐1b would ensure construction‐related noise levels do not
exceed regulatory standards, and impacts would be less than significant.
The SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development in the SWIP SP area could, potentially, result in a
permanent exposure of sensitive receptors to ambient noise from stationary sources that exceeds established
standards. The SWIP SP PEIR included MM 4.7‐2a, which requires industrial facilities in proximity to existing
sensitive receptor land uses to implement design MMs such as noise walls and berms to minimize operational
noise levels. Additionally, the SWIP SP includes design guidelines and development standards that are aimed at
reducing noise impacts, including building orientation, wall placement, lot dimensions, maximum intensity,
outdoor storage, setbacks, buffers, edge conditions, and landscaping that would serve to minimize noise impacts
on sensitive land uses in the vicinity. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that with implementation of the SWIP SP design
guidelines and development standards and implementation of mitigation, the SWIP SP would result in less‐than‐
significant stationary source noise impacts.
The SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development in the SWIP SP area could result in a permanent increase
in ambient noise levels from mobile sources (vehicular traffic and rail) in excess of established standards. The
SWIP SP PEIR concluded that future mobile noise source impacts from buildout of the SWIP SP would be significant
and unavoidable.
Analysis of Project: The analysis below summarizes the potential for Project‐related activities to generate or
expose sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of applicable standards during temporary construction
activities and/or long‐term operation. As demonstrated in the analysis below, implementation of the Project
would not result in any new or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts, as compared to
the analysis presented in the SWIP SP PEIR. Refer to the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (see Appendix N) for a
detailed discussion of the methodologies and assumptions used to calculate the Project’s construction and
operational noise.
Construction Activities
The Project would generate short‐term noise during construction ranging between 46.4 and 69.5 decibels
equivalent sound level (dBA Leq) at sensitive receiver locations nearest the Project Site, which would not exceed
the City’s daytime noise standard of 70 dBA Leq (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 37). The Project would implement
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐48
the land uses planned for the Project Site by the SWIP SP land use plan; therefore, the construction activities that
would occur on‐site would be similar to those anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR, which disclosed that construction
within the SWIP SP area could expose sensitive receptors to high‐noise levels. The Project would be required to
comply with SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.7‐1a and 4.7‐1b, which requires the Project’s construction contractor to comply
with the permitted daytime hours of construction as defined in Section 18‐63 of the City’s Municipal Code and
with defined performance criteria to minimize noise emissions from the Project Site during construction.
Compliance with applicable mitigation from the SWIP SP PEIR and applicable standards from the City’s Municipal
Code would ensure that the Project’s construction activities. Implementation of the Project would not result in
any new or more severe impacts from construction noise than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Operational Activities – On‐Site Stationary Noise
The Project would generate long‐term stationary noise from routine outdoor activities (e.g., utilization of loading
docks) and the operation stationary mechanical equipment (e.g., building heating/cooling equipment). The long‐
term stationary noise from Project operation during the day would range from 43.7 to 61.3 dBA Leq at nearby
receiver locations, and at night would range from 42.6 to 60.2 dBA Leq, which would not exceed the City’s standards
for residential uses of 70 dBA Leq (daytime) or 65 dBA Leq (nighttime), respectively (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p.
32). Additionally, the implementation of the Project would increase ambient noise levels by 0.0 to 1.4 dBA Leq
during daytime hours and by 0.1 to 2.3 dBA Leq during nighttime hours at the nearest receiver locations (Urban
Crossroads, 2022e, p. 34). The Project‐related operational noise level increases would not exceed the significance
criteria used by the City (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 34). Accordingly, operation of the Project would not result
in the generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Site in
excess of the standards from the City of Fontana’s Noise Ordinance. Implementation of the Project would not
result in any new or more severe significant impacts from on‐site stationary operational noise sources than
previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Operational Activities – Off‐Site Traffic Noise
The Project would implement the SWIP SP land use plan; therefore, the mobile‐source noise emissions (i.e., traffic
noise) produced by the Project were anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. The Project’s proposed land uses would
generate fewer daily traffic trips than the land uses assumed by the SWIP SP PEIR (the Project’s daily traffic is
discussed in further detail in Subsection 4.17); therefore, the Project would reduce mobile‐source noise emissions
within the SWIP SP area relative to the levels disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR but the mobile‐source noise reductions
afforded by the Project would not be sufficient to avoid the significant and unavoidable mobile‐source noise
impact, as identified in the SWIP SP PEIR. Notwithstanding and based on the foregoing, the Project would not
result in any new or more severe significant impacts from mobile sources than the significant and unavoidable
impacts that were previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to reduce
noise impacts continue to apply to the Project, as listed below and in the MMRP for the SWIP SP PEIR (attached
hereto as Appendix A).
MM 4.7‐1a The following MMs shall be implemented when construction is to be conducted within 500 feet
of any sensitive structures or has the potential to disrupt classroom activities or religious
functions.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐49
The City shall restrict noise intensive construction activities to the days and hours specified
under Section 18‐63 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code. These days and hours shall also
apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site.
All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g.,
intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original
equipment and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust.
The City shall require that the contractor maintain and tune‐up all construction equipment to
minimize noise emissions.
Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the
sensitive use structures.
All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance
to the sensitive use structures.
If construction noise does prove to be detrimental to the learning environment, the City shall
allow for a temporary waiver thereby allowing construction on Weekends and/or holidays in
those areas where this construction is to be performed in excess of 500 feet from any
residential structures.
The construction contractor shall provide an on‐site name and telephone number of a contact
person. Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job
superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for surrounding
owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the City or the job superintendent
receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action,
and report the action taken to the reporting party. In the event that construction noise is
intrusive to an educational process, the construction liaison will revise the construction
schedule to preserve the learning environment.
MM 4.7‐1b Should potential future development facilitated by the proposed project require offsite
import/export of fill material during construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive
to sensitive receptors, preferable major roadways (Interstate 10, Interstate 15, State Route 60,
Sierra Avenue, Beech Avenue, Jurupa Avenue, and Slover Avenue). Construction trucks should,
to the extent practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to
9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
Note: The City of Fontana determined that the following SWIP SP PEIR MMs do not apply to the Project or have
been satisfied as part of the City’s review of the Project’s proposed entitlement applications; MMs 4.7‐2a and 4.7‐
3b were satisfied by the Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the Project; MM 4.7‐3a does not apply to the Project
due to the proposed land use for the Project and location of the Project Site.
b. Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that construction activities associated with the SWIP SP could
potentially expose sensitive receptors to sporadic, high vibration levels. However, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded
that with implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.7‐1a and 4.7‐1b (previously described under Threshold “a”), the
SWIP SP would generate less‐than‐significant ground borne vibration or ground borne noise during construction
activities.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐50
Analysis of Project: During peak Project construction activities, the maximum vibration levels at the nearest
sensitive receptor would be 0.035 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at the nearest receptor
(Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 42). Based on the CalTrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance
Manual threshold of 0.3 PPV in/sec, Project‐related construction activities would not produce excessive vibration
levels (Caltrans, 2020; Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 42). During long‐term operation, vibration levels from truck
activity on the Project Site and along the public streets that abut the Project Site is anticipated to be similar to
existing conditions due to the substantial amount of truck activity that already occurs on the Project Site.
Accordingly, there is no potential for operation of the Project to expose persons to or generate excessive (i.e.,
significant) ground borne vibration or noise. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts related to excessive ground borne vibration or noise levels than previously disclosed in
the SWIP SP PEIR.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that people residing or working within the SWIP SP area
would not be exposed to excessive aircraft noise levels from operations at the Ontario International Airport
(located approximately 11 miles to the west of the SWIP SP area). Therefore, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that a
less‐than‐significant impact would occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan (ALUCP) for the Ontario International Airport (ONT) and is subject to the 60‐65 decibel community noise
equivalent level (dB CNEL) Noise Impact Zone. According to Table 2‐3 of the ONT ALUCP, light industrial uses –
like the one proposed by the Project – are compatible within the 60‐65 dB CNEL noise contour (City of Ontario,
2011, Table 2‐3). Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts
related to noise from air travel than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.14 Population and Housing
Would the Project:
a. 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)?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that the SWIP SP would be a growth‐inducing project due to
the following factors: development of infrastructure improvements that would provide additional capacity
necessary to support development within the SWIP SP area; the creation of 39,416 new employment positions
that would foster economic expansion and growth within the City of Fontana; and direct growth in the City’s
population due to the potential for future employees (and their families) to relocate to the City of Fontana.
Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded the SWIP SP would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related
to growth inducement.
Analysis of Project: The Project does not include a residential component and, therefore, would not directly
induce population growth within the area. The Project would create additional employment opportunities and
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐51
foster economic growth within the City which, could indirectly induce population growth in the area. However,
the Project is merely implementing the approved SWIP SP land plan – which designates the Project Site for
industrial land uses – and development proposed by the Project was anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. Accordingly,
the Project would not induce population growth in the SWIP SP area to a greater degree than previously disclosed
in the SWIP SP PEIR, but instead implements the predicted development analyzed therein. Implementation of the
Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe impacts related to substantial unplanned population
growth than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined the SWIP SP would not result in any direct impacts to existing
residences located within the SWIP SP area that would necessitate construction of replacement housing. The
SWIP SP PEIR concluded impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: There is one occupied dwelling unit and one vacant and abandoned dwelling unit on the
Project Site under existing conditions. These residences were present at the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified
in 2012 and the demolition of these units was included within the scope of the project evaluated by the SWIP SP
PEIR. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe impacts related to the
displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.15 Public Services
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:
a. Fire Protection?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development associated with the SWIP SP would
increase the need for fire protection and emergency medical services within the SWIP SP area. However, all future
development projects located within the SWIP SP area would be required to pay the City’s development impact
fee and the SWIP SP PEIR included MMs 4.8‐2a through 4.8‐2c that established performance goals for the City to
monitor to ensure that acceptable fire protection resources, service ratios, and response times are met. The SWIP
SP PEIR concluded that with payment of development impact fees and implementation of the required mitigation,
the SWIP SP would result in less‐than‐significant impacts regarding fire protection services.
Analysis of Project: The Project Applicant would develop the Project Site in accordance with the SWIP SP land use
plan. Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by the SWIP SP and, thus,
the Project’s demand for fire protection services was anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. The Project Applicant
would also be required to pay applicable development impact fees, as specified in the SWIP SP PEIR, to offset its
demand for fire protection services. (The City uses a portion of collected development impact fees to fund fire
protection facilities.) Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe impacts
related to fire protection services than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐52
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8‐2a through 4.8‐2c, which address
impacts to fire protection services, are policy‐level actions that fall under the City’s responsibility and do not
require any actions from private development projects. No component of the Project would prevent or obstruct
the City’s implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8‐2a through 4.8‐2c.
b. Police Protection?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development associated with the SWIP SP would
increase the need for police protection services within the SWIP SP area. However, all future development
projects located within the SWIP SP area would be required to pay the City’s development impact fee and the
SWIP SP PEIR included MMs 4.8‐1a through 4.8‐1i that established performance goals and identified community
outreach and involvement programs to ensure that acceptable police protection resources, service ratios, and
response times are met. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that with payment of development impact fees and
implementation of the required mitigation, the SWIP SP would result in less‐than‐significant impacts regarding
police protection services.
Analysis of Project: The Project would develop the Project Site in accordance with the SWIP SP land use plan.
Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by the SWIP SP and, thus, the
Project’s demand for police protection services was anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. The Project Applicant would
also be required to pay applicable development impact fees, as specified in the SWIP SP PEIR, to offset its demand
for police protection services. (The City uses a portion of collected development impact fees to fund police
protection services/facilities.) Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe
impacts related to police protection services than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8‐1a through 4.8‐1i, which address
impacts to police protection services, are policy‐level actions that fall under the City’s responsibility and do not
require any actions from private development projects. No component of the Project would prevent or obstruct
the City’s implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8‐1a through 4.8‐1i.
c. Schools?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development associated with the SWIP SP could
increase the demand for public school services. However, all future development projects located within the SWIP
SP area would be required to pay the applicable school district development impact fee and the SWIP SP PEIR
included MM 4.8‐3a through 4.8‐3f to ensure that acceptable public‐school resources are available. The SWIP SP
PEIR concluded that with payment of development impact fees and implementation of the required mitigation,
the SWIP SP would result in less‐than‐significant impacts regarding public school services.
Analysis of Project: The Project would develop the Project Site in accordance with the SWIP SP land use plan.
Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by the SWIP SP and, thus, the
Project’s indirect demand for public school services was anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. The Project Applicant
would be required to pay all applicable development impact fees, as required by State law, to offset its demand
for public school services. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe
impacts related to school facilities than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐53
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8‐3a through 4.8‐3f, which address
impacts to public schools, are policy‐level actions that fall under the City’s responsibility and do not require actions
from private development projects. No component of the Project would prevent or obstruct the City’s
implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8‐3a through 4.8‐3f.
d. Parks?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development associated with the SWIP SP could
attract new residents to the City of Fontana that would increase the demand for parks and recreation facilities in
the City. The SWIP SP does not propose any new neighborhood and community park facilities nor does the SWIP
SP propose any development that would directly contribute park development impact fees to the City (i.e.,
residential); therefore, existing recreational facilities within the City would be accessed by new residents indirectly
generated by the SWIP SP without the addition of new revenue sources to offset the potential deterioration of
such facilities. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that future park and recreational facility impacts resulting from future
development associated with the SWIP SP would be significant and unavoidable. The SWIP SP PEIR included MMs
4.8‐5a through 4.8‐5g to ensure the City achieves park design requirements and parkland standards in other areas
of the City; nevertheless, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable after
mitigation.
Analysis of Project: The Project would develop the Project Site in accordance with the SWIP SP land use plan.
Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by the SWIP SP and, thus, would
not create a demand for public park areas that was not previously anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. (Although it
should be noted that, as a proposed industrial use, the Project is not anticipated to create a substantial demand
for public park facilities.) Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe
impacts related to park facilities than the significant and unavoidable impacts previously disclosed in the SWIP SP
PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8‐5a through 4.8‐5g, which address
impacts to public parks, are policy‐level actions that fall under the City’s responsibility and do not require actions
from private development projects. No component of the Project would prevent or obstruct the City’s
implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8‐5a through 4.8‐5g.
e. Other Public Facilities?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that future industrial, commercial, and office development
associated with the SWIP SP would create substantial employment opportunities within the SWIP SP area, which
could, in turn, lead to a population increase within the City and an associated increase in demand for library
facilities. However, the SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development associated with the SWIP SP would
not significantly increase the demand for library services to the extent that would require construction of
additional library facilities. Additionally, library facility impact fees would be imposed on future development
projects within the SWIP SP area that would fund improvements to the library system. The SWIP SP PEIR also
included MM 4.8‐4a, which tasked the City with pursuing opportunities to expand library services. The SWIP SP
PEIR concluded that with payment of library facility impact fees and implementation of mitigation, the SWIP SP
would result in less‐than‐significant impacts to library facilities.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐54
Analysis of Project: The Project Applicant would develop the Project Site in accordance with the SWIP SP land use
plan. Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by the SWIP SP and, thus,
would not create a demand for public library services that was not previously anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR.
The Project Applicant would be required to pay all applicable development impact fees, as specified in the SWIP
SP PEIR, to offset its demand for public library services and ensure that impacts to public library services remain
less than significant. (The City uses a portion of collected development impact fees to fund public library facilities.)
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe impacts related to other public
facilities than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.8‐4a, which addresses impacts to other
public services, is a policy‐level action that falls under the City’s responsibility and does not require actions from
private development projects. No component of the Project would prevent or obstruct the City’s implementation
of SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.8‐4a.
4.16 Recreation
Would the Project:
a. 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?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development associated with the SWIP SP could
attract new residents to the City of Fontana that would increase the demand for parks and recreation facilities in
the City. The SWIP SP does not propose any new neighborhood and community park facilities nor does the SWIP
SP propose any development that would directly contribute park development impact fees to the City (i.e.,
residential); therefore, existing recreational facilities within the City would be accessed by new residents indirectly
generated by the SWIP SP without the addition of new revenue sources to offset the potential deterioration of
such facilities. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that future park and recreational facility impacts resulting from future
development associated with the SWIP SP would be significant and unavoidable. The SWIP SP PEIR included MMs
4.8‐5a through 4.8‐5g (which are policy‐level actions that fall under the City’s responsibility, as noted above) to
ensure the City achieves park design requirements and parkland standards in other areas of the City; nevertheless,
the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
Analysis of Project: The Project would develop the Project Site in accordance with the SWIP SP land use plan.
Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by the SWIP SP and, thus, the
Project’s indirect demand for parks was anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. As a proposed commerce center, the
Project is not anticipated to create a substantial demand for public park facilities and is not anticipated to include
any action that would increase the availability of park land in the City. Implementation of the Project would not
result in any new impacts or more severe impacts related to recreational facilities than previously disclosed in the
SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐55
4.17 Transportation
A Trip Generation Assessment (dated February 17, 2022) (Urban Crossroads, 2022f) was prepared for the Project
by Urban Crossroads to quantify the total daily and peak hour traffic expected during Project and to analyze the
Project’s consistency with the City’s VMT standards. The Trip Generation Assessment is included as Appendix O
to this EIR Addendum and its findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
Would the Project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: At the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified, the Project Site was located within the JND of
SWIP SP. The JND is divided into three subzones, JND West, JND Central, and JND East. The Project Site is located
within the JND West subzone. The SWIP SP provides for the development 3,348,781 sq. ft. of new development
within the JND West subzone. According to the SWIP SP PEIR, buildout of the JND West would generate
approximately 29,278 new net daily traffic trips, including 4,214 net AM peak hour trips and 3,946 net PM peak
hour trips. (Net traffic represents total traffic volumes after then‐existing traffic within the JND area was
subtracted from traffic volumes that were expected upon buildout of the JND pursuant to the SWIP SP). The traffic
projections from the SWIP SP PEIR for the JND West subarea correlate to 8.74 net daily traffic trips, including 1.25
net AM peak hour trips and 1.18 PM peak hour trips, for every 1,000 s.f. of new industrial building area in the JND.
The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that the addition of traffic from the SWIP SP would cause nine (9) roadway segments
and 19 deficient intersections within the study area to operate deficiently (“Existing with Project” traffic analysis
scenario). However, the SWIP SP PEIR determined that upon implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.9‐1a through
4.9‐1cc, which include a range of new roadway improvements, including roadway widenings, signalizations, and
intersection improvements, the study area intersections and roadway segments would operate at a satisfactory
level of service (LOS). Notwithstanding, because the majority of the recommended improvements were either
unfunded ‐ or only partially funded ‐ at the time the SWIP SP was approved and several of the needed
improvements are situated outside of the City’s jurisdiction, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded the full implementation
of the needed improvements could not be assured and, therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable
in the short‐term.
The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that, under long‐term conditions, the addition of trips from the SWIP SP would
contribute to deficient operations at 10 roadway segments and 19 intersections within the study area (“2030 with
Project” traffic analysis scenario). However, the SWIP SP PEIR determined that upon implementation of SWIP SP
PEIR MMs 4.9‐1dd through 4.9‐1ll, which include a range of new roadway improvements, including roadway
widenings, signalizations, and intersection improvements, the study area intersections and roadway segments
would operate at a satisfactory LOS. Notwithstanding, because the majority of the recommended improvements
were either unfunded ‐ or only partially funded ‐ at the time the SWIP SP was approved and several of the needed
improvements are situated outside of the City of Fontana’s jurisdiction, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded the full
implementation of the needed improvements could not be assured and therefore impacts would be significant
and unavoidable.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐56
Analysis of Project: At the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified, the Project Site was located within the JND of
SWIP SP; as such, the analysis herein addresses the Project's impacts against the conditions that were existing at
the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified. According to the Project’s Traffic Study and using trip generation rates
from the 11th Edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, the Project is calculated to
generate 370 vehicle trips per day (334 passenger vehicles and 36 truck trips) (Urban Crossroads, 2022f, p. 4).
When converted to passenger car equivalent (PCE), which reports passenger cars and trucks as a single, weighted
metric, the Project is calculated to generate 424 trips per day with 51 trips during the AM peak hour and 48 trips
during the PM peak hour (ibid.). For comparison, the Project would be expected to generate 766 PCE trips per
day, including 109 PCE AM peak hour and 103 PCE PM peak hour using the traffic generation factors from the
SWIP SP PEIR (Urban Crossroads, 2022f, p. 5). The Project would result in a net reduction of 342 two‐way PCE trips
(45 percent reduction) with 58 fewer PCE AM peak hour trips (53 percent reduction) and 55 fewer PCE PM peak
hour trips (53 percent reduction) as compared to the traffic levels assumed by the SWIP SP PEIR. Because the
Project would result in a substantial reduction in total daily and peak hour traffic relative to the assumptions used
in the SWIP SP PEIR, implementation of the Project would neither result in new significant transportation impacts
that were not disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR nor substantially increase the severity of the significant transportation
effects previously identified in the SWIP SP PEIR. Although the Project would generate substantially less traffic
than assumed by the SWIP SP PEIR, the reduction in traffic would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable
traffic impacts (i.e., level of service [LOS]) identified in the SWIP SP PEIR; LOS impacts are longer considered an
environmental impact under CEQA.
Mitigation: In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 743, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) adopted
changes to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018 related to the evaluation of transportation impacts from
development projects. As of December 2018, when the revised CEQA Guidelines were adopted, automobile delay,
as measured by “level of service” (LOS) and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental
effect under CEQA. Accordingly, the following information is disclosed for informational purposes but does not
relate to an environmental impact or mitigation under CEQA. Due to the relatively small volume of peak hour
traffic generated by the Project and the Project Site’s location (which does not abut any roadway facility identified
in the SWIP SP PEIR as requiring improvement), the City of Fontana Engineering Department determined the
Project was not responsible for directly implementing any of the transportation improvements identified in the
SWIP SP PEIR. However, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant would be required to pay
applicable development impact fees to the City of Fontana, from which the City would reserve a portion to fund
the design and construction roadway improvements that would improve traffic conditions within the City
generally and within the SWIP SP area specifically. Additionally, as part of construction of the Project, the Project
Applicant would improve the segments of Rose Avenue and Banana Avenue abutting the Project Site’s frontage,
thereby implementing the SWIP SP Circulation Master Plan and improving local vehicular and non‐vehicular
circulation.
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 or will conflict with an applicable
congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel
demand MMs, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The topic of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was not specifically addressed in the SWIP SP PEIR
as this threshold of significance was not in place at the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified. Notwithstanding,
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐57
VMT was assessed as part of the air quality impact analysis included as part of the SWIP SP PEIR. Thus, the SWIP
SP PEIR contained sufficient information was available to the public about projected VMT resulting from vehicle
trips originating from or terminating within the SWIP SP area that associated effects could be determined with
the exercise of reasonable diligence.
The SWIP SP PEIR determined that because the City has a standard program (Circulation Development Fees) to
fund regional improvements, the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) considers the City exempt
from congestion management plan (CMP) traffic impact analysis and no CMP analysis was required for the SWIP
SP. (Since certification of the SWIP SP PEIR, SANBAG was re‐organized as the San Bernardino County
Transportation Authority [SBCTA].)
Analysis of Project: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(c) is clear that “[t]he provisions of [Section 15064.3] shall
apply prospectively as described in [CEQA Guidelines] Section 15007.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15007(c)
specifically states: “[i]f a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for
public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in
Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved.” The CEQA Guidelines changes
with respect to VMT took effect on July 1, 2020, whereas the SWIP SP PEIR was certified in 2012. As such, and in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3(c) and 15007(c), revisions to the SWIP SP PEIR are not required
under CEQA in order to conform to the new requirements established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3.
Once a project is approved, CEQA does not require that it be analyzed anew every time another discretionary
action is required to implement the project. Quite the opposite, where an EIR or MND has previously been
prepared for a project, CEQA expressly prohibits agencies from requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR or
MND, except in specified circumstances (Pub. Res. Code Section 21166.). Under CEQA, “Section 21166 comes into
play precisely because in‐depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original
EIR has long since expired, and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating
a substantial portion of the process.” (Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (“CAAP”) (2014), 227
Cal.App.4th at 796.) There was no CEQA requirement to analyze VMT at the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified;
thus, there is no need to analyze VMT impacts in connection with this EIR Addendum.
Furthermore, the new VMT requirements set forth by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 do not relate to a different
type of impact, but merely a different way of analyzing transportation impacts. The SWIP SP PEIR included a
detailed assessment of potential impacts, including potential impacts to air quality as a result of projected VMT.
As this information was disclosed as part of the SWIP SP PEIR, VMT associated with buildout of the SWIP SP do
not comprise “new information” that was not known or could not have been known at the time the SWIP SP PEIR
was certified. Because VMT impacts were known, the adoption of the requirement to analyze VMT therefore
does not constitute significant new information requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320.
In the case of the Project, there are no changed circumstances that would warrant additional analysis under Public
Resources Code Section 21166. Even if an analysis was conducted, the results of such an analysis would show that
VMT from the Project is less than what would occur under the development assumptions utilized in the SWIP SP
PEIR, based on the Project’s substantial reduction in passenger vehicle and heavy truck traffic relative to the
calculations utilized in the SWIP SP PEIR. As shown in the preceding response, the Project is calculated to eliminate
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐58
342 daily vehicle traffic trips within the SWIP SP area based on the original traffic generation factors that were
assumed in the SWIP SP PEIR. Therefore, there is substantial evidence that the Project as proposed would result
in reduced VMT as compared to the project evaluated by the SWIP SP PEIR.
Regarding the Project’s potential to conflict with the applicable congestion management program (the San
Bernardino County Congestion Management Program), the Project would not contribute substantial traffic, which
is defined as 50 or more peak hour trips, to any San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program facility
and, therefore, would have no potential to result in substantial adverse effects/conflicts to appliable level of
service standards. Implementation of the Project would not result in any impacts that were not previously
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Therefore, and based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not result in any new impacts not already
analyzed in the SWIP SP PEIR, and the Project would not increase the severity of a significant impact as previously
identified and analyzed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR did not identify any safety hazards related to a design feature or land use
proposed by the SWIP SP.
Analysis of Project: Based on the City staff’s review of the Project’s application materials, no unsafe design
features are proposed as part of the Project. All improvements planned as part of the Project would be in
conformance with applicable City engineering/design standards and would not result in any hazards due to a
design feature. Additionally, the Project Applicant would not introduce an incompatible use to the Project Site.
Impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or
more severe impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature than previously disclosed in the SWIP
SP PEIR.
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR did not identify substantial adverse impacts related to inadequate
emergency access. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that potential impacts to emergency access caused by
construction activities associated with the SWIP SP would be addressed through the required implementation of
a traffic management plan, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that
the improvements proposed by the SWIP SP would be implemented in a manner that would improve local
circulation and emergency access, and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant without the need for
mitigation.
Analysis of Project: The Project would construct industrial land uses on the Project Site, which would require the
need for emergency access to‐and‐from the Site. The City reviewed the Project’s design to ensure that adequate
access to‐and‐from the site would be provided for emergency vehicles. The City also will require the Project to
provide adequate paved access to‐and‐from the site (via a condition of approval) and will review all future Project
construction drawings to ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained along abutting public streets
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐59
during temporary construction activities. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or
more severe impacts related to inadequate emergency access than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
a. 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)?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: Although the SWIP SP PEIR did not specifically address this subject, the SWIP SP PEIR
disclosed all recorded historical resources in the SWIP SP area and identified the potential for discovery of historic
and archaeological resources during earth moving construction activity. Mitigation was included in the SWIP SP
PEIR to reduce impacts to historical and archaeological resources to a level below significance.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site – which the SWIP SP PEIR assumed would be fully developed – does not have
any resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in any local register
of historical resources. Accordingly, the Project would not impact a tribal cultural resource is 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). Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: Although the SWIP SP PEIR did not specifically address this subject, the SWIP SP PEIR
contained sufficient information related to the SWIP SP’s cultural setting to conclude that there was the potential
for tribal cultural resources to be located within the SWIP SP area.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is highly disturbed, and no known tribal cultural resources were determined
to occur on the Project Site or in the Project Site’s immediate vicinity (refer to Item “b” under Subsection 4.5 of
this EIR Addendum). Notwithstanding, as a standard practice for all development projects in Fontana, the City
would require the Project Applicant to comply with conditions of approval that establish protocols for
consultation, monitoring, and resource recovery to protect inadvertent discoveries of buried/masked prehistoric
archaeological resources. The City’s standard conditions of approval would be consistent with SWIP SP PEIR MMs
4.4‐1b, 4.4‐2b, and MM 4.4‐2c.. Mandatory compliance with the City’s standard conditions of approval (which
would ensure implementation of SWIP SP EIR MMs 4.4‐1a, 4.4‐1b, 4.4‐2a, and 4.4‐2b) would preclude potential
impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code 5024.1(c). Implementation of the Project
would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources than previously
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐60
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP EIR MMs 4.4‐2b and 4.4‐2c apply to the Project, as
presented in Subsection 4.5 of this EIR Addendum and in the MMRP for the SWIP SP PEIR, attached hereto as
Appendix A.
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the Project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, telecommunication facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that each future development proposal within the SWIP SP area
will be reviewed by the City staff to confirm that utility/infrastructure improvements would be available to serve
the project or that improvements planned by the SWIP SP would be installed as part of development.
Analysis of Project: The utility and infrastructure improvements proposed by the Project Applicant are discussed
in Section 3.0 of this EIR Addendum. The installation of the infrastructure improvements proposed by the Project
Applicant would result in physical environmental impacts; however, these impacts have already been disclosed
throughout this EIR Addendum and were determined to be within the scope of the analysis for the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that the City would have sufficient water supply to meet the
water demands of the SWIP SP in addition to the City’s existing and projected future service obligations.
Analysis of Project: The Project would implement industrial land uses on the Project Site in accordance with the
SWIP SP land plan. Accordingly, the development activities – and water demand – proposed by the Project were
planned by the SWIP SP and, therefore, anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. Furthermore, the FWC’s 2020 Urban
Water Management Plan (UWMP), which anticipates buildout of the SWIP SP and its associated water demand,
indicates that the FWC has sufficient water supplies to meet its service demand for normal, single‐dry year, and
multiple‐dry year conditions through at least the year 2045 (FWC, 2021, pp. 7‐6 ‐ 7‐8). Accordingly, the Project
would not require new or expanded water entitlements. Implementation of the Project would not result in any
new impacts or more severe impacts related to water supplies than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project,
that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that existing wastewater treatment facilities could
accommodate the SWIP SP’s demand for wastewater treatment services.
Analysis of Project: For purposes of analysis herein, the Project is estimated to produce approximately 8,866
gallons of wastewater per day. Wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed to the Inland Empire
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐61
Utilities Agency (IEUA) RP‐1 for wastewater treatment. The RP‐1 facility has an existing treatment capacity of
approximately 44 million gallons of wastewater per day and treats approximately 28 million gallons of wastewater
per day (gpd)on average (IEUA, 2022). The RP‐1 facility has approximately 16 million gallons of excess treatment
capacity under existing conditions (44 million gpd ‐ 28 million gpd = 16 million gpd). The wastewater generated by
the Project would represent less than one percent of the excess daily treatment capacity of RP‐1; therefore, it is
anticipated that RP‐1 has adequate treatment capacity to provide service to the Project. The Project would not
require the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment. Implementation of the Project would not
result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to wastewater treatment than previously disclosed
in the SWIP SP PEIR.
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid wastes reduction goals?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: Solid waste from the SWIP SP area would be disposed at the Mid‐Valley Landfill. The SWIP
SP PEIR determined that the Mid‐Valley Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the solid waste disposal
needs of the SWIP SP. The SWIP SP PEIR incorporated mitigation from the City of Fontana General Plan EIR that
pertain to solid waste as MMs 4.8‐9a through 4.8‐9d to further reduce the amount of solid waste that would be
diverted to the Mid‐Valley Landfill. (SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8‐9a through 4.8‐9d are policy‐level actions that are the
responsibility of the City that do not require any actions of development projects.)
Analysis of Project: The Project Site would receive landfill services from the Mid‐Valley Landfill. The Mid‐Valley
Landfill is permitted to receive 7,500 tons of refuse per day and has a total capacity of 101,300,000 cy. According
CalRecycle, the Mid‐Valley Landfill has a total remaining capacity of 61,219,377 cy as of June 30, 2019. The Mid‐
Valley Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2045 (CalRecycle, 2022a). In
December 2021, the peak daily disposal at the Mid‐Valley Landfill was 4,272.78 tons, which correlates to an excess
daily disposal capacity of 3,227.22 tons (CalRecycle, 2022b).
The analysis below summarizes the Project’s potential to generate solid waste during construction and/or
operation that would exceed the disposal capacity of local landfill facilities. As demonstrated in the analysis below,
the Project would generate less‐than‐significant volumes of solid waste and would not result in any new impacts,
or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts, as compared to the analysis presented in the
SWIP SP PEIR.
Construction Impact Analysis
The existing structures would be demolished during Project construction (the demolished asphalt/concrete is
anticipated to be re‐used on‐site as fill material). According to Project Applicant assumptions, the Project’s
construction phase is anticipated to generate 111 tons of mixed construction and demotion solid waste. CalGreen
requires a minimum of 65 percent of all solid waste be diverted from landfills (by recycling, reusing, and other
waste reduction strategies); therefore, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 67 tons of construction
and demolition waste requiring landfill disposal.
The Project’s construction phase is estimated to have a duration of approximately 222 days; therefore, the Project
is estimated to generate approximately 0.2 tons of solid waste per day requiring landfill during construction. The
Project’s daily solid waste generation during construction would utilize less than one‐tenth of one percent of the
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐62
excess daily disposal capacity at the Mid‐Valley Landfill. Accordingly, the Mid‐Valley Landfill would have sufficient
daily capacity to accept solid waste generate by the Project’s construction phase. Implementation of the Project
would not result in any new impacts or more severe impacts related to solid waste generation than previously
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Operational Impact Analysis
Based CalRecycle’s daily waste generation rate for industrial uses, which is 1.42 lbs/100 s.f., long‐term operation
of the Project would generate approximately 0.6 tons (1.42 lbs/100 s.f. x 87,590 s.f. ≈ 1,243.8 lbs x 1 ton/2,000 lbs
≈ 0.6 tons) of solid waste per day (CalRecycle, 2021). CalGreen requires a minimum of 65 percent of all solid waste
be diverted from landfills (by recycling, reusing, and other waste reduction strategies); therefore, the Project is
estimated to generate approximately 0.24 tons per day of waste requiring landfill disposal. The Project’s daily
solid waste generation during construction would utilize less than one‐tenth of one percent of the excess daily
disposal capacity at the Mid‐Valley Landfill. Accordingly, the Mid‐Valley Landfill would have sufficient daily
capacity to accept solid waste generate by the Project’s operation. Implementation of the Project would not result
in any new or more severe significant impacts related to solid waste generation than previously disclosed in the
SWIP SP PEIR.
e. Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
wastes?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that SWIP SP would be in compliance with all State and local
requirements related to solid waste. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: The Project would be required to comply with Chapter 24 of the City’s Municipal Code, which
would require future tenants of the Project to segregate and place solid waste generated by the Project into
containers for collection. There are no components of the Project that would result in non‐compliance with
federal, state, or local statutes or regulations related to solid waste. Implementation of the Project would not
result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to conflicts with federal, State, and local management
and reduction statues than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones would the
project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary
ongoing impact to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐63
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the SWIP SP is located in an urbanized area, and no
wildlands exist in the vicinity of the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that no impact related to wildland
hazards would occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very
high fire hazard severity zones (Cal Fire, 2008; City of Fontana, 2018a); therefore, implementation of the Project
would not exacerbate existing wildfire hazard risks or expose people or the environment to adverse environmental
effects related to wildfires within a state responsibility area or very high fire hazard severity zone. The SWIP SP
PEIR assumed the Project Site would be developed. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or
more severe significant impacts related to wildfire hazards than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the Project:
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that, following mitigation, the SWIP SP would result in less‐
than‐significant impacts to sensitive plant and animal species as well as habitats. Additionally, the SWIP SP PEIR
concluded that, with mitigation, the SWIP SP would result in less‐than‐significant impacts to archaeological,
historical, and paleontological resources, and, therefore, would not eliminate important examples of major
periods of California history or prehistory.
Analysis of Project: As indicated throughout the analysis presented herein, implementation of the Project would
not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife populations to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, to a greater degree than
previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR addressed cumulative impacts for each of the environmental topics
evaluated. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded the SWIP SP would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative
impacts regarding the following issues:
Aesthetics (scenic vistas);
Air Quality (construction‐related and operational emissions);
Noise (long‐term mobile noise and increases to incremental noise levels);
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 4‐64
Recreation (parks/recreation facilities); and
Transportation/Traffic (roadway segments/intersections performance).
Analysis of Project: As described throughout this analysis, implementation of the Project would not result in new
environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR and would not increase the severity
of environmental impacts disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR. There is also no new information of substantial
importance since the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified that was not already known and analyzed in the SWIP
SP PEIR. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to result in cumulatively considerable effects to the
environment beyond those previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR (and already disclosed throughout this
analysis), and instead, the Project’s impacts are generally less than the impacts assumed and analyzed in the SWIP
SP PEIR. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that cumulative effects would be significant and unavoidable for the topics
of aesthetics, air quality, noise, recreation, and transportation and traffic.
c. Have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that while changes to the environment that could indirectly
affect human beings would be possible in all of the designated CEQA issue areas, those changes to the
environment that the SWIP SP would cause that could directly affect human beings include:
Air Quality (construction‐related and operational emissions);
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (contaminated soil and groundwater [SWIP SP PEIR concluded impacts
in this issue area would be less than significant with implementation of MMs]);
Noise (long‐term mobile noise and increases to incremental noise levels);
Recreation (parks/recreation facilities); and
Transportation/Traffic (roadway segments/intersections performance).
Analysis of Project: Implementation of the Project would not result in environmental effects that would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, beyond those disclosed in the SWIP SP
PEIR, and instead, the Project’s impacts are generally less than the impacts assumed by the SWIP SP PEIR.
5.0 REFERENCES
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 5‐1
5.0 REFERENCES
This Addendum was prepared by:
City of Fontana
Contract Planner ..................................................................................................................................... Candida Neal
T&B Planning, Inc.
Principal‐in‐Charge ............................................................................................................................. Tracy Zinn, AICP
Senior Project Manager ......................................................................................................................... David Ornelas
Environmental Analyst .................................................................................................................... Christhida Mrosla
Graphics Specialist ................................................................................................................................ Cristina Maxey
The following information sources were used during the preparation of this Addendum:
Cited As Reference
Alden, 2022 Alden Environmental, Inc. (Alden), 2022. Banana Avenue and Rose Avenue Biological
Resources Letter. March 22, 2022. (Appendix D).
BFSA, 2022a Brian F. Smith and Associates, 2022a. Cultural Resources Study for the Banana and Rose
Avenues Project. March 16, 2022. (Appendix E).
BFSA, 2022b Brian F. Smith and Associates, 2022b. Paleontological Assessment for the Banana and Rose
Avenues Project. March 16, 2022. (Appendix H).
CalFire, 2008 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2008. Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
Web. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf. Accessed: March 30,
2022.
CalRecycle,
2022a
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2022. Facility/Site
Summary Details: Mid‐Valley Sanitary Landfill (36‐AA‐0055). Web. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662.
Accessed: March 20, 2022.
CalRecycle,
2022b
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2022. SWIS
Facility/Site Inspection Details: Mid‐Valley Sanitary Landfill (36‐AA‐0055). Web. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteInspection/Details/336713. Accessed April
6, 2022.
CalRecycle, 2021 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2021. Estimated
Solid Waste Generation Rates. Web. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed August
04, 2021.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 5‐2
Cited As Reference
Caltrans, 2020 California Department of Transportation, 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual. Web. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/‐/media/dot‐
media/programs/environmental‐analysis/documents/env/tcvgm‐apr2020‐a11y.pdf
Accessed: March 30,2022.
Caltrans, 2022 California Department of Transportation, 2022. Scenic Highways. Web. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8
e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed: March 30, 2022.
CBWM, 2022 Chino Basin Watermaster, n.d. District Map. Web. Available at:
https://www.cbwcd.org/241/District‐Maps. Accessed March 29, 2022.
CDFW, 2019 California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Community Conservation Plans
– April 2019. Web. Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline. Accessed March 30,
2022.
CDC, 2018 Department of Conservation, 2018. San Bernardino County Important Farmland Finder.
Web. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed March 30, 2022.
City of Fontana,
2018a
City of Fontana, 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015‐2035. Adopted
November 13, 2018. Web. Available at: https://www.fontana.org/2632/General‐Plan‐
Update‐2015‐‐‐2035. Accessed March 30, 2022.
City of Fontana,
2018b
City of Fontana, 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015‐2035 Draft
Environmental Impact Report. June 8, 2018. Web. Available at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft‐Environmental‐Impact‐
Report‐for‐the‐General‐Plan‐Update. Accessed March 30, 2022.
City of Ontario,
2011
City of Ontario, 2011. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted
April 19, 2011. Web. Available at: http://www.ontarioplan.org/wp‐
content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/chapter‐2.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2022.
County of San
Bernardino,
2021
County of San Bernardino, 2021. Public San Bernardino County Parcel Viewer. Web. Available
at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=87e70bb9b6994559ba75127
92588d57a
DOC, 1984 Department of Conservation, 1984. Special Report 143 Mineral Land Classification of the
Greater Los Angeles Area Part VII Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, San
Bernardino Production – Consumption Region. Web. Available at:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_143/PartVII/SR_143_PartVII_Text.pdf.
Accessed April 6, 2022.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 5‐3
Cited As Reference
FEMA, 2008 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2008. FEMA Flood Map Service Center.
Web. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/mscprintb_gpserver/j1
73c9e62c4674ce5a480c74cc2738eed/scratch/FIRMETTE_d98eee0e‐e0a7‐4526‐b265‐
89486810fb2a.pdf. Accessed March 30 2022.
FWC, 2021 Fontana Water Company (FWC), 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Web.
Available at: https://www.fontanawater.com/wp‐content/uploads/2021/07/FWC‐2020‐
UWMP‐June‐2021‐Final.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2022.
Google Earth
Pro, 2022
Google Earth Pro. Google Earth. Web. Available at: https://www.google.com/earth/
IEUA, 2022 Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), 2019. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1. Web.
Available at https://www.ieua.org/facilities/regional‐water‐recycling‐plant‐no‐1/. Accessed
August March 30, 2022.
JLC, 2022a JLC Engineering and Consulting (JLC), 2022. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for
Banana Ave & Rose Ave. January 27, 2022. (Appendix L)
JLC, 2022b JLC Engineering and Consulting (JLC), 2022. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for
Banana Avenue & Rose Avenue Industrial Project. January 28, 2022. (Appendix M)
SCAQMD, 2005 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2005. Rule 402. Web. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/rule‐book/rule‐iv/rule‐403.pdf. Accessed
March 30, 2022.
SCG, 2021a Southern California Geotechnical, 2021a. Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Warehouse
NWC of Banana Avenue and Rose Avenue, Fontana, California for Molto Properties, LLC c/o
LDC Industrial Realty, LLC. July 21, 2021. (Appendix G).
Urban
Crossroads,
2022a
Urban Crossroads, Inc (Urban Crossroads), 2022a. Banana & Rose Warehouse Air Quality
Impact Analysis City of Fontana. February 15, 2022. (Appendix B)
Urban
Crossroads,
2022b
Urban Crossroads, Inc (Urban Crossroads), 2022b. Banana & Rose Warehouse Mobile
Source Health Risk Assessment City of Fontana. February 15, 2022. (Appendix C).
Urban
Crossroads,
2022c
Urban Crossroads, Inc (Urban Crossroads), 2022c. Banana & Rose Warehouse Energy
Analysis City of Fontana. February 15, 2022. (Appendix F).
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
Banana & Rose Industrial Commerce Center 5‐4
Cited As Reference
Urban
Crossroads,
2022d
Urban Crossroads, Inc (Urban Crossroads), 2022d. Banana & Rose Warehouse Greenhouse
Gas Analysis City of Fontana. February 15, 2022. (Appendix I).
Urban
Crossroads,
2022e
Urban Crossroads, Inc (Urban Crossroads), 2022e. Banana & Rose Warehouse Noise
Impact Analysis. February 18, 2022. (Appendix N).
Urban
Crossroads,
2022f
Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Urban Crossroads), 2021e. Banana & Rose Warehouse Trip
Generation Assessment. February 17, 2022. (Appendix O)
USDA, 2019 United States Department of Agriculture, 2019. Web Soil Survey. Web. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed August 04,
2021.
V3, 2021a V3 Companies (V3), 2021a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. July 20, 2021.
(Appendix J)
V3, 2021b V3 Companies (V3), 2021a. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment – Report
Findings. September 3, 2021. (Appendix K)