HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum Document Santa Ana and Live OakADDENDUM TO THE SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK (SWIP)
SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2009091089 )
SANTA ANA AND LIVE OAK PROJECT
MASTER CASE NO. 22-032
Design Review No. 22-018
Live Oak Land LLC
APNs: 0236-141-20, -05, and -06
Prepared For:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Prepared By:
EPD Solutions, Inc.
2355 Main Street Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92614
December 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
SWIP Specific Plan Update i Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Purpose of the Addendum ..................................................................................................................... 1
2 Description of Proposed Project ............................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Project Setting and Location ....................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Project Approvals ........................................................................................................................ 6
3 Determination ...................................................................................................................................... 19
4 SWIP Specific Plan Update Environmental Impact Analysis Summary ................................................ 20
5 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project Environmental Impact Analysis and Project Approvals .................... 22
5.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................. 22
5.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ......................................................................................... 27
5.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 29
5.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 41
5.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 48
5.6 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................... 55
5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Climate Change) .......................................................................... 60
5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 66
5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 74
5.10 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................................. 80
5.11 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................... 82
5.12 Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 83
5.13 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................ 91
5.14 Public Services ........................................................................................................................... 93
5.15 Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 96
5.16 Transportation .......................................................................................................................... 98
5.17 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................. 111
5.18 Wildfire.................................................................................................................................... 116
5.19 Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 118
5.20 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 122
6 Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation ....................................................................... 125
7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 128
8 References .......................................................................................................................................... 129
Table of Contents
SWIP Specific Plan Update ii Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location ........................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Local Vicinity .................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 3: Aerial View ................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4: Conceptual Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 5: Elevations ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 6: Conceptual Landscape Plan ......................................................................................................... 17
LIST OF TABLES
Table AQ-1: Estimated Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emsisions (lbs/day) ................................. 33
Table AQ-2: Comparison of the Project and SWIP Buildout Regional Operational Emissions ................... 34
Table AQ-3: Estimated Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions ................................................ 37
Table AQ-4: Maximum Localized Operational Project Emissions ............................................................... 37
Table AQ-7 Unmitigated Operational Health Risks to Off-Site Receptors .................................................. 39
Table GHG-1: Project Construction GHG Emissions .................................................................................... 61
Table GHG-2: Project Operational GHG Emissions ..................................................................................... 61
Table GHG-3: Comparison of GHG Emissions – Proposed Project and SWIP Buildout of Site ................... 62
Table NOI-1: Potential Construction Nopise Impacts at Nearest Receptors .............................................. 84
Table NOI-4: Summary of Construction Vibration Levels ........................................................................... 89
Table TRA-1: Approved SWIP Use Trip Generation .................................................................................. 100
Table TRA-2: Proposed Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................... 101
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. SWIP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B. CalEEMod Emissions Summary
C. Health Risk Assessment
D. Tree Survey and Arborist Report
E. Cultural Resources Assessment
F. Paleontological Resources Assessment
G. Geotechnical Investigation
H. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
I. Preliminary Hydrology Report
J. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
K. Noise Impact Analysis
L. Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memorandum
Purpose of the Addendum
SWIP Specific Plan Update 1 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
1 PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.); the CEQA Guidelines
(Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and
procedures for implementing CEQA as set forth by the City of Fontana (City). The City is the lead agency
under the CEQA.
Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare
an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the
conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.”
Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or
Negative Declaration is only required when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous
EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
The Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan was originally created by the City on December 6, 1983,
and was intended to develop the City’s industrial uses south of Interstate 10 (I-10). The SWIP Specific Plan
originally encompassed approximately 1,800 acres. Since the adoption of the SWIP Specific Plan, changes
have occurred within the general Approved Project area and market conditions. Therefore, the City
determined that the SWIP Specific Plan should be revised to update land uses, regulations, and
Purpose of the Addendum
SWIP Specific Plan Update 2 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
development standards (SWIP Specific Plan Update). In addition, the SWIP Specific Plan Update would
promote orderly and compatible growth in newly annexed areas as well as older portions within the SWIP
Specific Plan area.0F
1
Therefore, on May 8, 2012, the City adopted Resolution No. 2012-035, certifying the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation (Approved Project),
State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2009091089, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. In 2005,
the City of Fontana proposed the annexation of approximately 2,920.9 acres (4.6+/- square miles) of
unincorporated land within its sphere of influence. This annexation action concluded in 2007 and included
32 separately identified unincorporated “islands.” Of these, seven were located within the proposed
boundaries of the SWIP Specific Plan.
The SWIP Specific Plan Update is a comprehensive policy and regulatory guidance document for the
private use and development of all properties within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. By providing the
necessary regulatory and design guidance, the SWIP Specific Plan Update ensured that future
development implement the goals and policies of the City of Fontana General Plan (General Plan). The
SWIP Specific Plan Update area, which is comprised of approximately 3,111 acres in the southwestern
portion of the City within San Bernardino County (County), includes nine land use districts. Slover Central
Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD)1F
2, at 423.7 acres, is one of those districts that the Approved Project
FEIR analyzed 3,710,006 square feet (SF) of new industrial use and 960,325 SF of existing development to
remain in place within the SCD.
The City has received an application for the Santa Ana and Live Oak Project (Proposed Project) for the
development of approximately 13.8 acres of land located within the SCD at the northwest corner of Santa
Ana Avenue and Live Oak Avenue. The Proposed Project site was analyzed in the Approved Project FEIR
for up to 480, 868 SF of industrial uses. Therefore, the existing baseline condition for this Addendum is
assumed to include 480,868 SF of industrial uses and is compared against the proposed 319,956 SF
warehouse, inclusive of a 10,000 SF office and a 5,000 SF office on the Proposed Project site.
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze any potential differences between the impacts identified for
the Proposed Project site in the Approved Project FEIR, and those that would be associated with
development of the Proposed Project. As identified above, pursuant to provisions of CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines, the City is the “Lead Agency” charged with the responsibility of deciding whether to approve
development on the Proposed Project site. As part of its decision-making process, the City is required to
review and consider whether the Proposed Project would create new significant impacts or more severe
significant impacts than those previously disclosed, analyzed and mitigated for in the Approved Project
FEIR. Additional CEQA review beyond this Addendum would only be triggered if the Proposed Project
created new significant impacts or more severe significant impacts than those disclosed, analyzed and
mitigated for in the Approved Project FEIR. New threshold guidelines do not constitute “new information”
requiring additional environmental review.2F
3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) states that an Addendum
1 City of Fontana. 2011. Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan Update and Annexation Public Review Draft Program Environmental
Impact Report.
2 City of Fontana. 2018. Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan – Land Use Map.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29671/SWIP-Land-Use-Plan-Map (accessed November 1, 2021).
3 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301.
Purpose of the Addendum
SWIP Specific Plan Update 3 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
is the appropriate CEQA document for the Proposed Project, if the City finds that major revisions to the
Approved Project FEIR are not necessary and that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 calling for the preparation of Subsequent or Supplemental EIR (SEIR) are triggered.
As detailed herein, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts and/or more
severe impacts that were not disclosed, analyzed and mitigated for in the Approved Project FEIR. As
demonstrated in this Addendum, the potential impacts associated with the Proposed Project would either
be the same or less than those described in the Approved Project FEIR. In addition, there are no substantial
changes to the circumstances under which the Proposed Project would be undertaken that would result
in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the Approved Project FEIR,
nor has any new information regarding the potential for new or more severe significant environmental
impacts been identified. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines3F
4, this
Addendum to the previously certified Approved Project FEIR is the appropriate environmental
documentation for the Project. In taking action on any of the approvals, the decision-making body must
consider the whole of the data presented in the Approved Project FEIR and the previously adopted
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as well as subsequently approved project-specific
CEQA addenda for the Proposed Project site, as augmented by this Addendum.
4 CEQA. (accessed April 2021).
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 4 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 Project Setting and Location
The Proposed Project site is located northwest of the intersection of Live Oak Avenue and Santa Ana
Avenue within the southern portion of the City of Fontana within the County of San Bernardino. The site
consists of three parcels (0236-141-20, -05, and -06) located on 13.799 acres. Regional access to the
Proposed Project site is provided by Interstate 10 (I-10) off the Cherry Avenue exit. State Route 60 (SR-
60) off the Country Village Road exit, and Interstate 15 (I-15) off the E Jurupa Street exit. The Proposed
Project site and surrounding area is pictured in Figure 1, Regional Location. Local access is provided by
Live Oak Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue as shown in Figure 2, Local Vicinity and Figure 3, Aerial View.
Existing Project Site
The Proposed Project site is currently a dirt lot used for truck storage that is used by the trucking company
Tiger Group Transport, Inc. The lot is fenced with a chain link fence and contains six structures including
one abandoned stucco dwelling structure and five auxiliary structures. The Proposed Project site is
currently accessed from a driveway along Live Oak Avenue.
Existing Land Use and Zoning Designation of the Project Site
The Proposed Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of General Industrial (I-G) and a Specific
Plan (SP) zoning designation. The Proposed Project is within the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan
(SWIP) and the Proposed Project site falls within the Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District
(SCD). As it relates to the Proposed Project, SCD is intended to provide opportunities for light and heavy
manufacturing activities that are supported by trucking routes and the existing rail spur. Logistics and
distribution facilities and warehouses are permitted uses within this zoning. The SWIP analyzed buildout
of 3,710,006 SF of industrial and included 960,325 SF of existing development to remain in place within
the 423.7 acres of SCD. Based on the maximum FAR of 0.8, the site was analyzed in the SWIP for up to
480,868SF of industrial development.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Designations
Land uses surrounding the Proposed Project site include light industrial uses and are described in Table 1
below.
Table 1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations
Existing Land Use City General Plan
Designation
Specific Plan Designation City Zoning
Designation
North Time Warner followed
by lumber yards
Specific Plan (SP); General
Industrial (I-G)
Slover Central
Manufacturing/Industrial
District (SCD)
General
Industrial (I-G)
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 5 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Existing Land Use City General Plan
Designation
Specific Plan Designation City Zoning
Designation
West
Non-conforming single-
family residence with
storage yard4F
5.
Specific Plan (SP); General
Industrial (I-G)
Slover Central
Manufacturing/Industrial
District (SCD)
General
Industrial (I-G)
South
Santa Ana Ave followed
by Saia industrial truck
loading facility
Specific Plan (SP); General
Industrial (I-G)
Slover Central
Manufacturing/Industrial
District (SCD)
General
Industrial (I-G)
East
Live Oak Ave and railroad
followed by industrial
uses and what appears to
be car storage and
maintenance.
Specific Plan (SP); General
Industrial (I-G)
Slover Central
Manufacturing/Industrial
District (SCD) General
Industrial (I-G)
2.2 Project Description
The Proposed Project consists of demolition of the existing structures on the Proposed Project site and
construction of an approximately 319,956 SF high-cube warehouse inclusive of a 15,000 SF office.
The Proposed Project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation of General Industrial and
the SWIP designation of SCD which allows for light and heavy manufacturing activities that are supported
by trucking routes and the existing rail spur. Figure 4, Conceptual Site Plan, illustrates the proposed site
plan.
A total of 46 dock doors are proposed. The dock doors would be placed along the western boundary of
the building.
The Proposed Project would have a maximum building height of 44 feet and would include 20 to 30-foot
setbacks along the eastern and southern boundaries of the Proposed Project site, consistent with the
City’s Development Standards. The Project would be required to comply with City Ordinance No. 1891
which includes additional requirements for all warehouse projects within the City specifically pertaining
to buffering and screening specifications, signage and traffic patterns, alternative energy, and
construction and operation.
Access and Circulation
Access to the Proposed Project site would be provided via four driveways. Two driveways would be
provided along Santa Ana Avenue including a 50 foot driveway for truck access and a 35 foot driveway for
vehicle access. A 40 foot truck access driveway would be included along Live Oak Avenue. A 30-foot
driveway would be located along Live Oak Avenue near the intersection of Live Oak Avenue and Santa
Ana Avenue which would only provide access for emergency vehicles. Onsite circulation would be
provided by one drive aisle that circulates along the northern, western, and southern boundaries of the
building.
5 In order to provide a conservative analysis, the residence to the west was analyzed as a sensitive receptor. However,
per Ordinance No. 1906 adopted by the City on October 25, 2022, the residence is no longer considered a sensitive
receptor as it is located on an existing unpermitted non-conforming use.
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 6 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Parking
A total of 102 passenger vehicle stalls would be provided for employees and visitors in surface lots near
the western and southern boundary of the Proposed Project site, which would meet the SWIP SCD
standard as outlined in Table 2 below. The Proposed Project would also include 65 trailer stalls along the
southern boundary of the Proposed Project site.
Landscaping
The Proposed Project includes landscaping that would cover 52,330 SF (18%) of the site which exceeds
the City’s requirement of 15%.
Offsite Improvements
The Proposed Project's off-site improvements include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights along the
property frontage. The Proposed Project would also extend an 8inch sewer line approximately 1400 feet
in Santa Ana Avenue to service the site.
Construction
Construction is expected to begin 4th Quarter of 2022 last 19 months. Earthwork would include
approximately 250 cubic yards of import.
Operation
Operation would begin in May 2024 and would occur 24 hours, 7 days a week.
2.3 Project Approvals
The City is the Lead Agency as set forth in CEQA Section 21067 and is responsible for reviewing and
approving the Addendum to the SWIP Specific Plan FEIR. In addition to this Addendum the City will
consider the following discretionary approvals for the Proposed Project:
• A Design Review permit for the proposed site and building improvements.
Regional Location
Figure 1Santa Ana & Live Oak
City of Fontana
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 8 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Local Vicinity
Figure 2Santa Ana & Live Oak
City of Fontana
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 10 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Aerial View
Figure 3Santa Ana & Live Oak
City of Fontana
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 12 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Santa Ana and Live Oak
City of Fontana Figure 4
Conceptual Site Plan
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 14 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Santa Ana and Live Oak
City of Fontana SANTA ANA AVE. & LIVE OAK AVE.FONTANA, CA
Conceptual Building Elevations - 36ft clear - Viracon 7 - Azuria
JOB# 21541.00
JULY 26, 2022
Elevations
Figure 5
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 16 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Santa Ana & Live Oak
City of Fontana 20'-1"32'-8"
TRANSFORMERTO BE SCREENED
DECORATIVE PAVING
DECORATIVE PAVING
DECORATIVE PAVING
9'-0"11'-1"9'-0"7'9'-0"9'-0"STREETLIGHT CURB/GUTTERSIDEWALKSTREETLIGHTSTREETLIGHTSTREETLIGHT
STREETLIGHT
CURB/GUTTERSIDEWALK
CORNER RAMP
LANDSCAPESCREENING
LANDSCAPESCREENING
LANDSCAPESCREENING
SIGHT LINE SIGHT LINE SIGHT LINESIGHT L
INE
SIGHT LINESIGHT LINESIGHT LINESIGHT LINE
STREETLIGHT
TRASH ENCLOSURE
TURF BLOCK
15'-0"BUILDING
36" Box 36" Box
36" Box
36" Box36" Box
36" Box
36" Box
36" Box
36" Box
36" Box
24" Box
24" Box
24" Box
24" Box
24" Box
24" Box24" Box 24" Box 24" Box24" Box24" Box
Bottle TreeBrachychiton populneus
TREES
Stone PinePinus pinea L
15 GalAleppo PinePinus halepensis 8 L
BOTANICAL/COMMON NAMESYMBOL
PLANTING LEGEND
WUCOLSSIZEQTY REMARKS
L52
Multi
Chorisia SpeciosaFloss Silk Tree
Sonoran Palo VerdeCercidium praecox
L236" Box Standard
Standard
Multi10L
24" Box 39 L Standard
Standard15 Gal
36" Box
Pistacia chinensisChinese Pistache Street Tree
724" Box
Total On-Site Trees: 12050% 15 Gal Required = 60 Provided = 6040% 24" Box Required = 48 Provided = 4810% 36" Box Required = 12 Provided = 12
24" Box 16
24" Box 6
1924" Box
Total On-Site Shrubs: 96050% 1 Gal Required = 480 Provided = 48050% 5 Gal Required = 480 Provided = 480
WUCOLSBOTANICAL/COMMON NAME
SHRUBS
SYMBOL REMARKSSIZE
Kniphofia uvariaRed Hot Poker
L5 GalAgave
Agave spp.
L
Pennisetum s. 'Cupreum'
1 Gal
Purple Fountain Grass
SPACINGSIZESYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME WUCOLS REMARKS
12" O.C.1 GalLantana montevidenses L
SPREADING SHRUBS
L5 GalAloe
Aloe spp.
L5 GalSilverberryElaeagnus pungens
12" O.C.1 GalDrosanthemum floribundumRosea Ice Plant L
L1 GalBlue HibiscusAlyopgyne huegelii
L1 Gal
Heteromeles arbutifoliaToyon L5 Gal
QTY
Trailing Lantana
12" O.C.1 GalArctostaphylos uva ursi LBearberry
20
217
20
345
103
160
95
12" O.C.1 GalVerbena peruvianaPeruvian Verbena
L
NOTE:- ALL ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES TO BE SCREENED WITH SHRUBS.- PARKING AREAS TO BE SCREENED WITH 3' HIGH HEDGE FROM PUBLIC VIEW.
15% LANDSCAPE REQUIRED( LESS BUIDLING SF AND DRIVEWAYS - 7,849 SF LANDSCAPE REQUIRED( LESS BUILDING SF AND DRIVEWAYS - 52,330 SF 35% OF TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE - 2,747 SFTOTAL PROVIDED PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE - 22,140 SF
ALL LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN SHALL INCORPORATE DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANT MATERIALS AND WATER EFFICIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS THAT COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 28.- ALL LANDSCAPING AREAS SHALL BE PROPERLY IRRIGATED FOR THE LIFE OF THE FACILITY TO ALLOW PLANTS AND TREES TO MAINTAIN GROWTH.- LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER.- MAXIMUM SLOPE FOR BERMING IS 3:1.
SCREENING SHRUB
ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS:
1 TREE FOR EACH 800 SQ. FT.:LANDSCAPE AREA: 52,072 SQ. FT.TREES REQUIRED: 65 TREES PROVIDED: 120
8 SHRUBS PER TREESHRUBS REQUIRED: 960 SHRUBS PROVIDED: 960
LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN FRONT SETBACK AREA:1 TREE FOR EACH 20 LINEAR FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE AND THREE 5 GAL SHRUBSPER EACH TREE:
LIVE OAK AVENUE: 1,072 L.F.TREES REQUIRED: 53 TREES PROVIDED: 535 GAL SHRUBS REQUIRED: 159 SHRUBS PROVIDED: 170
SANTA ANA AVENUE: 501 L.F.TREES REQUIRED: 25 TREES PROVIDED: 255 GAL SHRUBS REQUIRED: 75 SHRUBS PROVIDED: 134
STREET TREES:1 TREE FOR EACH 30 LINEAR FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE:
LIVE OAK AVENUE: 1,072 L.F.TREES REQUIRED: 35 TREES PROVIDED: 35
SANTA ANA AVENUE: 501 L.F.TREES REQUIRED: 16 TREES PROVIDED: 16
Fontana, California22-02002.17.22
WPT Santa Ana Ave and Live Oak Ave H UNTER ANDSCAPEL
711 FEE ANA STREET
714.986.2400 FAX 714.986.2408
PLACENTIA, CA 92870
04.08.2204.18.22
05.04.2206.08.2207.27.22
0 20'40'80'NSCALE: 1" = 40'
Figure 6
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 18 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of Significance
3. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation (check one):
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
I find that the amended project has previously been analyzed as part of an earlier CEQA document.
Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous documentation adequate to
cover the project which are documented in this ADDENDUM to the earlier CEQA document (CEQA
Section 15164).
CERTIFICATION:
__________________
Signature Date
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
SWIP Specific Plan Update 20 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4 SWIP SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
The environmental impact findings of the Approved Project FEIR are summarized below.
No Impact: The Approved Project FEIR determined that no impact would occur with respect to the
following environmental topic areas below. These impacts were included in the Approved Project FEIR’s
“Effects Found Not To Be Significant (EFNTBS)” section (Section 8.0).
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources (EFNTBS items 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e);
• Geology and Soils (EFNTBS items 3a-4 and 3e);
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (EFNTBS items 4b and 4c);
• Hydrology and Water Quality (EFNTBS items 5g and 5j);
• Mineral Resources (EFNTBS items 6a and 6b);
• Noise (EFNTBS item 7a); and
• Traffic and Circulation (EFNTBS items 9a and 9b).
Less Than Significant Impact: The Approved Project FEIR identified less than significant impacts in the
following environmental topic areas:
• Aesthetics, Light and Glare (Impacts 4.1-2, 4.1-4 and 4.1-5);
• Air Quality and Climate Change (Impact 4.2-3);
• Cultural Resources (Impact 4.4-4);
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (EFNTBS item 4a);
• Hydrology and Water Quality (EFNTBS items 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5h, and 5i);
• Land Use and Planning (Impacts 4.6-1 and 4.6-2);
• Population and Housing (EFNTBS item 8a and 8b);
• Public Services, Utilities and Infrastructure (Impact 4.8-10); and
• Traffic and Circulation (Impacts 4.9-2 and 4.9-3).
Less Than Significant Impact with Incorporation of Mitigation: The Approved Project FEIR identified
impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures in
the following environmental topic areas:
• Aesthetics, Light and Glare (Impact 4.1-3);
• Air Quality and Climate Change (Impact 4.2-5);
• Biological Resources (Impacts 4.3-1, 4.3-2, 4.3-3 and 4.3-5);
• Cultural Resources (Impacts 4.4-1, 4.4-2 and 4.4-3);
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Impacts 4.5-1, 4.5-2, 4.5-3, 4.5-4, 4.5-5 and 4.5-6);
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
SWIP Specific Plan Update 21 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• Noise (Impacts 4.7-1 and 4.7-2); and
• Public Services, Utilities and Infrastructure (Impacts 4.8-1, 4.8-2, 4.8-3, 4.8-4, 4.8-6, 4.8-7, 4.8-8, and
4.8-9).
Significant and Unavoidable Impact: The Approved Project FEIR identified significant and unavoidable
impacts in the following environmental topic areas:
• Aesthetics, Light and Glare (Impact 4.1-1)
• Air Quality and Climate Change (Impacts 4.2-1, 4.2-2 and 4.2-4);
• Noise (Impact 4.7-3);
• Public Services, Utilities and Infrastructure (Impact 4.8-5); and
• Traffic and Circulation (Impact 4.9-1).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 22 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5 SANTA ANA AND LIVE OAK PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
AND PROJECT APPROVALS
The scope of the City’s review of the Proposed Project is set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. This
review is limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated with the Proposed Project when
compared to the Approved Project as set forth in the FEIR. This Addendum also reviews new information,
if any, of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable due diligence at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified. This evaluation includes a
determination as to whether the changes proposed for the Project would result in any new significant
impacts or more severe significant impact.
Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 does not stipulate the format or content of an Addendum, the
topical areas identified in the City of Fontana Environmental Information Form5F
6 were used as guidance
for this Addendum. In addition, Section 15164(e) of the CEQA Guidelines states that: “A brief explanation
of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an
addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the Project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation
must be supported by substantial evidence.” This comparative analysis provides the City with the factual
basis for determining whether any changes in the Proposed Project, any changes in circumstances, or any
new information since the Approved Project FEIR was certified would require additional environmental
review or preparation of an SEIR.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the City has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence
in the light of the whole record, that implementation of the Proposed Project does not result in
substantial changes to the Approved Project, no substantial changes in circumstances would occur which
would require major revisions to the Approved Project FEIR, and no new information of substantial
importance has been revealed since the certification of Approved Project FEIR that would result in either
new significant effects or an increase in the severity of previously analyzed significant effects.
A MMRP was adopted as a part of the Approved Project FEIR that mitigated impacts associated with
implementation of the Approved Project. The previously adopted mitigation measures applicable to the
Approved Project will be imposed as conditions of the Proposed Project, and the MMRP, as applicable to
the Approved Project, is contained in Appendix A.
5.1 Aesthetics
5.1.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that although the Approved Project includes various design features
to minimize impacts to scenic vistas and would comply with existing local requirements, impacts related
to the buildout of future development associated with the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would remain
significant and unavoidable. The long-term buildout of industrial, commercial, and office uses throughout
the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would result in a significant alteration in views of the Jurupa
Mountains to the south and the San Gabriel/San Bernardino Mountains to the northwest. For this reason,
6 City of Fontana. ND. Environmental Information Form. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2177/Environmental-Information-
Form-PDF (accessed April 15, 2021).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 23 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the Approved Project FEIR concluded that impacts to scenic vistas would remain significant and
unavoidable.
The Approved Project’s impacts associated with light/glare, scenic resources, and long-term visual
character were determined to be less than significant. Impacts associated with the short-term visual
character of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area were determined to be less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3a.
5.1.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista. The dominant scenic views from the Proposed Project site and the surrounding area include
the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest, the San Bernardino National Forest to the north, the San
Jacinto Mountains to the southeast, and the Jurupa Mountains to the south. The Proposed Project site is
located in the Slover Central Manufacturing District (SCD), which is described in the Approved Project FEIR
as intended to provide opportunities for light and heavy manufacturing activities. The design intent of the
SCD is to provide for innovative and high-quality design that accommodates and supports light and heavy
manufacturing uses. In addition, design intent and architecture that meets the functional needs of the
uses while allowing for buffering from adjacent uses and aesthetically-pleasing environments is highly
encouraged. This area has been completely developed and urbanized. Due to the proximity to the I-10,
this area is occupied primarily by truck-related industrial uses. The Proposed Project site is immediately
surrounded by industrial uses to the north,, south,east, and west with the exception of a legal non-
conforming residence to the west.
According to requirements within the SWIP Specific Plan Update, the maximum structure height within
the SCD would have a maximum structure height of 100 feet. Because the Proposed Project site is located
in the SCD, the maximum allowed building height would be 100 feet. The proposed high-cube warehouse
building would be within the allowed height, at 42 feet in height; refer to Figure 5, Elevations. Because
the proposed building would be well below the allowed building height, the Proposed Project’s
encroachment into the viewshed would not be significant.
In addition, similar scale industrial uses are established within the immediate vicinity of the Proposed
Project site. Therefore, the change in views of the Proposed Project site from the surrounding area would
not cause a significant impact on a scenic vista. Thus, impacts are less than significant.
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects on a scenic vista or a substantial increase in the
severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved FEIR would occur.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding
of no significant impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 24 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts on a scenic vista(s). A significant and
unavoidable impact was identified in the Approved Project FEIR with respect to scenic vistas. The
Proposed Project would be designed consistent with the guidelines and standards within the SWIP Specific
Plan Update. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to
aesthetics.
Threshold (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR determined that future development that is
consistent with the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not result in any adverse scenic resource impacts.
Therefore, no adverse impacts on scenic resources, including resources within a State scenic highway,
would result from the Proposed Project’s implementation.
The Proposed Project site consists of a dirt lot used for truck storage. The Proposed Project site is currently
a dirt lot used for truck storage that is used by the trucking company Tiger Group Transport, Inc. The lot
contains various storage structures and is fenced with a chain-link fence. Various ornamental trees are
dispersed onsite. Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, there are no rock outcroppings, or historic
buildings within a State- or County-designated scenic highway, nor is there one in the vicinity of the
Proposed Project site.6F
7 The area surrounding the Proposed Project site is fully developed. No new impacts
relative to adverse aesthetic impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified
significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. According to the Approved Project
FEIR, future development within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would involve the removal of
heritage, significant, or specimen trees. The Proposed Project would replace the trees onsite and as such,
no impacts would occur.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding
of no significant impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on a scenic resource(s). Except for
the trees on the Proposed Project site that would be removed and which would require a removal permit
and approval by the Director of Planning7F
8, there would be no significant impacts to scenic resources. The
Proposed Project would be designed consistent with the guidelines and standards within the SWIP Specific
Plan Update. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures, outside of the General Plan goals
7 Caltrans. 2019. Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-
highways (accessed June 18, 2022).
8 CalPacific Sciences. Tree Survey and Arborist Report. (Appendix D)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 25 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
and policies and Fontana Municipal Code (Municipal Code) regulations, are required for issues related to
aesthetics.
Threshold (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project would change the site appearance from a truck
storage lot and disturbed land to a high-cube warehouse. The Proposed Project site is surrounded by land
zoned for industrial use with a General Plan land use designation of General Industrial. Accordingly, no
new impacts relative to adverse aesthetic impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously
identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on visual character or quality. The
Proposed Project would be designed consistent with the guidelines and standards within the SWIP Specific
Plan Update. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to
aesthetics.
Threshold (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the land use and development regulations provided in the
SWIP Specific Plan Update all future development would be required to comply with the lighting
requirements of the Municipal Code (Chapter 30), to reduce the potential for light and/or glare effects to
occur. In addition, outdoor lighting will not exceed 20 feet in height unless it has a light cutoff of 90
degrees or less, in which case a maximum height of 30 feet may be allowed.
Consistent with the Municipal Code and the Specific Plan Update development regulations, and as
applicable, all exterior lighting shall be adequately controlled and shielded to prevent glare and
undesirable illumination to adjacent properties or streets. Adequate lighting levels shall be provided to
ensure a safe environment, while not creating areas of intense light or glare. Light fixtures and poles shall
also be designed and placed in a manner consistent and compatible with overall site and building design,
and high-intensity security lighting fixtures shall not be substituted for site or landscape lighting or general
building exterior illumination but shall be limited to loading and storage locations or other similar service
areas. In addition, all lighting provided to illuminate parking areas or buildings shall be positioned so as to
direct light away from adjoining properties.
These regulations are considered to be either design measures or existing regulations pursuant to CEQA
standards. Incorporation of such features into the Proposed Project would ensure proper design,
installation, and operation of all exterior lighting, thereby reducing the potential for glare effects or light
spillover onto adjacent properties. As such, consistency with the Municipal Code and lighting
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 26 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
requirements of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would ensure that potential impacts associated with light
and glare would be less than significant. Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, no mitigation
measures are required.
Accordingly, no new or more severe impacts relative to the significant and unavoidable light and glare
aesthetic impacts previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would
occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have
been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior
finding of significant and unavoidable impacts.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact from light or glare. No significant
impacts associated with light and glare are identified in the Approved Project FEIR. The Proposed Project
would be designed consistent with the guidelines and standards within the Specific Plan Update.
Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to aesthetics.
Overall Aesthetics Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Proposed Project
would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to aesthetics. Therefore, the preparation
of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 27 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
5.2.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR identified that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not
impact or conflict with Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, a
Williamson Act contract, or with the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use. As such, the Approved Project FEIR found that no impacts would occur, and
no mitigation measures were required.
5.2.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (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;
Threshold (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; and
Threshold (c) 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?
No New Impact: According to the Approved Project FEIR, there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Important within SWIP Specific Plan Update boundaries. The only area where
these types of farmland occur are located within the northwestern portion of the City. The Proposed
Project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land.8F
9 Thus, no impacts would occur related to Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance .
Lands within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area are designated as Single Family Residential (R-SF),
Residential Planned Community (R-PC), Public Facilities (P-PF), Community Commercial (C-C), General
Commercial (C-G), Regional Mixed Use (RMU), Light Industrial (I-L), and General Industrial (I-G). There are
currently no Williamson Act contracts for any parcels within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area.
Therefore, no impacts to existing agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contracts are expected.
Due to the location of the Proposed Project site and the lack of natural resources, including farmland, the
Proposed Project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural land. As such, no impacts related to the
loss of farmland would occur. Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR’s findings, no significant impacts
to agricultural resources would occur from Project implementation. No mitigation measures are
necessary.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
9 Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland: 1984-2016. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 28 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Overall Agricultural and Forestry Resources Impact Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact to agricultural or forestry resources.
No significant impacts to agricultural resources are identified in the Approved Project FEIR. The Proposed
Project is located within the boundaries of the SWIP Specific Plan Update; therefore, no new and/or
considerably different mitigation measures are required for issues related to agricultural or forestry
resources.
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to agricultural
resources. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 29 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.3 Air Quality
5.3.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts relative to air quality for both short and long-term air quality as well
as consistency with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The Approved Project FEIR
concluded a less than significant impact related to carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots. Construction and
operational impacts associated with the Proposed Project relative to impacts identified in the Approved
Project FEIR were analyzed in CalEEMod Emissions Summary (Appendix B).
5.3.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin)
which includes parts of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside Counties and all of Orange County. The
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
monitor air quality within the Basin.
Air quality plans describe air pollution control strategies and measures to be implemented by a city,
county, region, and/or air district. The primary purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area that does
not attain federal and State air quality standards into compliance with the requirements of the federal
Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. In addition, air quality plans are developed to ensure that an
area maintains a healthful level of air quality based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The AQMP is prepared by SCAQMD
and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The AQMP provides policies and control
measures that reduce emissions to attain both State and federal ambient air quality standards.
According to the SCAQMD, a project is consistent with the AQMP if the project is consistent with
anticipated growth and would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or
the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook, identifies two
key indicators of consistency with the AQMP:
1. Whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality
standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
2. Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of project buildout
and phase.
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Table AQ-
1 and Table AQ-2, below and discussed further in Appendix B, the Proposed Project would not exceed the
short-term construction standards or long-term operational standards and would therefore not violate
any air quality standards. Thus, no impact would occur, and the Proposed Project would be consistent
with the first criterion.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 30 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on
SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local
governments and with reference to local general plans and specific plans. The Proposed Project is
consistent with the land use designation and development density presented in the SWIP. The site is
within the Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD) that permits logistics and distribution
facilities and warehouses. The SWIP analyzed buildout of the site based on the maximum FAR of 0.8, which
would result in up to 480,868 SF of industrial development. The Proposed Project would develop a
319,956 SF high-cube warehouse inclusive of a 10,000 SF office and a 5,000 SF office; and therefore, would
not exceed the anticipated buildout evaluated in the SWIP Specific Plan Final EIR, and would not exceed
the anticipated job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the AQMP. Thus, no new impact
would occur.
The Approved Project FEIR identified impacts during construction as a significant and unavoidable impact
on air quality. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f were identified in the FEIR to reduce air
emissions from implementation/development of the Approved Project.
The Approved Project FEIR identified air quality operational impacts associated with the buildout of the
SWIP Specific Plan as significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a to 4.2-1f were identified
that would reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible. The Proposed Project would be required
to implement the following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR but the impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Project. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR
are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
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.
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 utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible
for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by
the SCAQMD as well as City Planning Staff.
4.2-1c All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD
Rule 1113.
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
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 31 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
shall be required to apply paints either by hand or high-volume low pressure (HVLP) spray.
These measures 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.
4.2-1e All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108.
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 measures to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403.
Such measures 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.
• 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.
4.2-2a All “large-scale” (e.g., over 10 acres per day) project Applicants shall provide incentives to
use mass transit including the placement of bus stop shelters along major thoroughfares
if not so equipped. (City Staff shall determine what denotes a “large-scale” project.) This
MM does not apply because the proposed Project is not “large scale” as the site is not
over 10 acres.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 32 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.2-2b All “large-scale” (e.g., over 10 acres per day) project Applicants shall incorporate a
bike/walking path between these shelters, the proposed residential areas, and the
proposed commercial areas. These paths shall be lit and configured so as to avoid
potential conflict with roadways and railroad activities. This MM does not apply because
the proposed Project is not “large scale” as the site is not over 10 acres.
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.
4.2-2d The City shall require that both industrial and commercial uses designate preferential
parking for vanpools.
4.2-2e The proposed commercial and industrial areas shall incorporate food service.
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.
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.
4.2-2j All residential, commercial, and industrial structures shall be required to incorporate light
colored roofing materials.
4.2-2k Prior to approval of future development projects within the project area, the City of
Fontana shall conduct project‐level environmental review to determine potential vehicle
emission impacts associated with the project(s). Mitigation measures shall be developed
for each project as it is considered to mitigate potentially significant impacts to the extent
feasible. Potential mitigation measures may require that facilities with over 250
employees (full or part‐time employees at a worksite for a consecutive six‐month period
calculated as a monthly average), as required by the Air Quality Management Plan,
implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact pertaining to conflict with or
obstructing implementation of the AQMP. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a to 4.2-1f and 4.2-2a through 4.2-
2g and 4.4-2j and 4.4-2k would reduce construction and operational emissions to a level of less than
significant. The Proposed Project’s impacts would be consistent with development in the area and would
be in compliance with applicable AQMP measures. Therefore, no new or more severe impact relative to
air quality emissions from the previously identified significant and unavoidable impact evaluated in the
Approved Project FEIR would occur with implementation of the Project. Additionally, no new information
of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved
Project FEIR was certified is available that would change the significance determination in the Approved
Project FEIR but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Threshold (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 33 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Construction Emissions
No New or More Severe Impact: Emissions from the construction phase were estimated based on
information from the Applicant for construction equipment requirements and schedule. It is assumed
construction of the Proposed Project would occur over a period of approximately 19 months. Construction
activity would occur for eight hours per day, at least five days per week; sometimes six days if necessary.
The onsite building and structures would be demolished. Site preparation includes the grading of the
Project site and utilities installation, as well as off-site improvements. Following site preparation, activities
would include the construction of buildings, architectural coatings application, and the paving of the
parking areas. CalEEMod was used to calculate expected pollutant emissions generated from the
construction of the Proposed Project. Emissions were estimated for summer and winter seasons. Table
AQ-1 below displays the maximum daily emissions in pounds per day that are expected to be generated
from the construction of the Proposed Project in comparison to the daily thresholds established by the
SCAQMD.
Table AQ-1: Estimated Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emsisions (lbs/day)
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2022
Demolition 3.1 31.8 26.4 0.0 2.9 1.5
Site Prep 5.3 51.2 40.6 0.1 8.4 5.2
Grading 4.6 44.6 35.2 0.1 4.8 3.0
Trenching 0.9 7.2 10.3 0.0 0.3 0.3
Building Construction 2.3 17.7 26.1 0.0 0.9 0.7
Maximum Daily Emissions 5.3 51.2 40.6 0.1 8.4 5.2
2023
Building Construction 2.2 15.7 27.8 0.0 0.8 0.6
Maximum Daily Emissions 2.2 15.7 27.8 0.0 0.8 0.6
2024
Building Construction 2.0 14.9 23.8 0.0 0.8 0.6
Paving 1.6 7.9 11.0 0.0 0.4 0.4
Architectural Coating 63.5 1.4 3.8 0.0 0.1 0.0
Maximum Daily Emissions 63.5 14.9 23.8 0.0 0.8 0.6
Maximum Daily Emission 2022-2024 63.5 51.2 40.6 0.1 8.4 5.2
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Emissions Summary, Appendix B
As shown in Table AQ-1, construction of the Proposed Project would not cause exceedances for ROG, NOX,
CO, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10. Therefore, no new impacts related to regional construction air quality emissions
would occur from implementation of the Proposed Project.
Operational Emissions
No New or More Severe Impact: Operational impacts are related to area source emissions, energy source
emissions, and mobile source emissions. Area source emissions are associated with landscape
maintenance activities and periodic architectural coatings, while energy-source emissions are associated
with natural gas and electricity consumption. Mobile sources from the daily vehicle trips constitute the
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 34 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
largest source of operational emissions. CalEEMod estimated emissions from the operation of the
Proposed Project and SWIP buildout (Approved Project) are shown in Table AQ-2 below.
Table AQ-2: Comparison of the Project and SWIP Buildout Regional Operational Emissions
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 9.6 0.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy 0.1 1.6 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.1
Mobile 3.5 18.6 23.8 0.2 3.9 1.0
Off Road 0.0 14.1 141.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Stationary 0.4 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Proposed Project
Operational Emissions 13.5 35.6 181.1 0.2 4.1 1.2
Total SWIP Site Buildout
Operational Emissions 19.9 30.8 59.2 0.3 6.1 1.8
Total Net Operational Emissions -6.4 4.8 121.9 -0.1 -2.0 -0.6
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Emissions Summary, Appendix B
As shown in Table AQ-2 above, regional emissions for the Proposed Project would be less than the
SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds and less than the emissions that would be generated by buildout
of the site per the SWIP anticipated maximum buildout, as analyzed in the Approved Project FEIR.
CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 was used to calculate average daily emissions for area source, energy source,
and mobile source emissions (Appendix B). Proposed Project-related emissions do not exceed the
SCAQMD’s established thresholds. Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a through 4.2-2g and 4.4-2j and 4.4-2k were
identified in the SWIP Final EIR to reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible. The Proposed
Project would be required to implement the mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR but the
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative Emissions
No New or More Severe Impact: The regional analysis of construction and operational emissions
conducted for the Approved Project FEIR indicates that without mitigation, the SWIP Specific Plan Project
would exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, PM-10, and PM-2.5.
Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a through 4.2-2g and 4.4-2j and 4.4-2k were identified within the Approved
Project FEIR that would reduce cumulative emissions to the extent feasible. However, the Approved
Project FEIR concluded that even with implementation of these mitigation measures, cumulative impacts
would be significant and unavoidable.
The Proposed Project’s emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during both construction and
operations. Thus, the impact would not be cumulatively considerable. The Proposed Project would not
result in a new or greater impact than identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 35 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a to 4.2-1f are applicable for construction and 4.2-2a through 4.2-2g and 4.4-2j
and 4.4-2k are applicable for operations.
Conclusion
No new or more severe impacts from previously identified significant impacts evaluated in the Approved
Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known
and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would
impact the prior finding of no significant and unavoidable impact under this issue area.
Threshold (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No New or More Severe Impact: The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a potentially significant impact could
occur if a project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The criteria
used in the Approved Project FEIR to address this impact included the preparation of a localized impact
traffic analysis and a CO hot spot analysis. CO concentrations would be well below the state and Federal
standards according to the Approved Project FEIR. The onsite residences would be demolished upon
Proposed Project approval. In addition, the Approved Project FEIR concluded a less than significant impact
from CO hotspots. Therefore, the Proposed Project construction and operation emissions were analyzed
to assess localized significance thresholds (LSTs).
Air quality impacts related to the Proposed Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the
Approved Project FEIR. No new or more severe impact relative to air quality from previously identified
significant impacts evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information
of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved
Project FEIR was certified is available.
The Basin is currently considered a nonattainment area for the NAAQS for O3, PM-10, and PM-2.5.
Although the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is designated a nonattainment area for the NAAQS
for lead, all other portions of the Basin (including San Bernardino County) is designated as in attainment
(Appendix B). The Basin is considered a nonattainment area for CAAQS for NO2, O3, and PM-10, and PM-
2.5. Levels of PM-10 and PM-2.5 are locally high enough that contributions from new sources may add to
the concentrations of those pollutants and contribute to a projected air quality violation. Two criteria are
used to assess the significance of this impact: (1) the localized significance analysis; and (2) the CO hot
spots analysis.
The localized significance analysis in the FEIR demonstrated that the Approved Project would exceed the
localized thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM-10, and PM-2.5.
Localized Mobile Source Impacts - CO Hot Spot Analysis
The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate 547 daily vehicle trips. Based on the analysis presented
below, a CO “hot spots” analysis is not needed to determine whether the change in the level of service
(LOS) at an intersection would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. An
adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot,” would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour
standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. At the time of
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 36 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the 1993 Handbook9F
10, the SCAG was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. It
has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at
congested intersections. However, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the
last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4
grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With
the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of increasingly
sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the Basin is now
designated as attainment. Also, CO concentrations in the Proposed Project vicinity have steadily declined.
Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO
concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase
traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour- or 24,000 vehicles per
hours where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix to generate a significant CO impact. A trip
generation was prepared for the Proposed Project and the Proposed Project would generate 348 daily
trips. This would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hot spot.” Therefore, CO
“hotspots” are not an environmental impact of concern for the Proposed Project. Localized air quality
impacts related to mobile-source emissions would therefore be less than significant.
Localized Significance Threshold
The SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology (2008) was used to analyze the
neighborhood scale impacts of NOX, CO, PM-10, and PM-2.5 associated with Project-specific mass
emissions. Introduced in 2003, the LST methodology was revised in 2008 to include the PM-2.5
significance threshold methodology and update the LST mass rate lookup tables for the new 1-hour NO2
standard.
For determining localized air quality impacts from small projects in a defined geographic Source Receptor
Area (SRA), the LST methodology provides mass emission rate lookup tables for 1-acre, 2-acre, and 5-acre
parcels by SRA. During construction, the maximum disturbed area serves to determine the LSTs’ project
size value for construction. The maximum daily area disturbed during construction is 3.5 acres during the
site grading activity. Therefore, the analysis set the maximum daily disturbed area during construction as
3.5 acres for the localized assessment of construction impacts.
For most projects, the highest daily emission rates occur during the site preparation and grading phases
of construction due to the use of heavy earthmoving equipment. The Proposed Project site is in SRA Zone
34, the Central San Bernardino Valley. In addition, sensitive receptors were assumed to be at 25 meters
(82 feet) from construction area to provide for a conservative analysis of potential impacts.
Additionally, the 5-acre thresholds were used for operations. The LSTs increase as site acreages increase
because pollutants would be able to disperse more readily. Although the Project site is greater than 5
acres, the LST lookup tables are conservatively used to show that even if the daily emissions from all
Project operations were emitted on a 5-acre site, the impacts would be less than significant.
10 SCAQMD is in the process of developing an “Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook” to replace the 1993 Handbook. Refer to
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook for updated sections.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 37 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
As shown in Table AQ-3 and AQ-4 below, the Proposed Project’s localized construction and operational
emissions would be less than the SCAQMD thresholds. Thus, impacts related to exposing sensitive
receptors to substantial criteria pollutants would be less than significant, and no new impacts would
occur.
Table AQ-3: Estimated Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2022
Demolition 29.6 24.3 2.8 1.4
Site Prep 51.1 39.3 8.4 5.2
Grading 44.3 33.6 4.8 3.0
Building Construction 7.0 8.4 0.3 0.3
Maximum Daily Emissions 14.2 14.7 0.7 0.7
2023
Building Construction 12.8 14.3 0.6 0.6
Maximum Daily Emissions 12.8 14.3 0.6 0.6
2024
Building Construction 12.2 14.2 0.5 0.5
Paving 7.8 10.0 0.4 0.4
Architectural Coating 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.0
Maximum Daily Emissions 12.2 14.2 0.5 0.5
Maximum Daily Emission 2022-2024 51.1 39.3 8.4 5.2
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 220 1,359 11 6
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Emissions Summary, Appendix B
Table AQ-4: Maximum Localized Operational Project Emissions
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.1 13.9 0.0 0.0
Energy 1.6 1.4 0.1 0.1
Total Mobile 1.9 4.3 0.1 0.0
Off Road 14.1 141.0 0.0 0.0
Stationary 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.1
Total Project LST Operational Emissions 18.8 161.6 0.3 0.2
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 270 1,746 4 2
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Total SWIP Site Buildout LST Operational Emissions 5.5 29.7 0.3 0.3
Comparative LST Operational Emissions 13.3 131.9 0.0 -0.1
Source: CalEEMod Emissions Summary, Appendix B
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 38 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Operational-Related Diesel Particulate Matter
CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) in 1998. Mobile sources
(including trucks, buses, automobiles, trains, ships, and farm equipment) are by far the largest source of
diesel emissions. The exhaust from diesel engines includes hundreds of different gaseous and particulate
components, many of which are toxic. Diesel exhaust is composed of two phases, either gas or particulate
– both contribute to the risk. The gas phase is composed of many of the urban TACs, such as acetaldehyde,
acrolein, benzene, 1,3‐butadiene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The particulate
phase has many different types that can be classified by size or composition. The sizes of diesel
particulates of greatest health concern are fine and ultrafine particles. These particles may be composed
of elemental carbon with adsorbed compounds such as organics, sulfates, nitrates, metals, and other trace
elements. Diesel exhaust is emitted from a broad range of on‐ and off‐road diesel engines.
A health risk assessment (HRA) was conducted for the Proposed Project (Appendix C). The closest sensitive
receptor is the legal non-conforming single-family residence at 14790 Santa Ana Avenue, approximately
100 ft away from the Project site boundary line.
Construction: A construction HRA, which evaluates construction-period health risk to off-site receptors,
was performed for the Proposed Project. Table AQ-5 identifies the results of the analysis assuming the
use of Tier 2 construction equipment at the closest sensitive receptor. Table AQ-6 below identifies the
results of the analysis with implementation of a best management practice. The Project contractor shall
ensure all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment of 50 horsepower or more used for Project
construction, at minimum meets the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 2 emissions standards or
the equivalent and is equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters, would reduce potential risks.
Table AQ-5: Unmitigated Health Risks from Project Construction to Off-Site Receptors
Location
Carcinogenic
Inhalation Health Risk
in 1 Million
Chronic Inhalation
Hazard Index
Acute Inhalation
Hazard Index
Worker Receptor Risk 0.72 0.040 0.000
Sensitive Receptor Risk 17.0 0.02 0.000
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 10 in 1 million 1.0 1.0
Significant? Yes No No
Source: HRA, Appendix C
Table AQ-6: Health Risks from Project Construction to Off-Site Receptors with Best Management
Practice
Location
Carcinogenic
Inhalation Health Risk
in 1 Million
Chronic Inhalation
Hazard Index
Acute Inhalation
Hazard Index
Worker Receptor Risk 0.15 0.009 0.000
Sensitive Receptor Risk 3.46 0.004 0.000
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 10 in 1 million 1.0 1.0
Significant? No No No
Source: HRA, Appendix C
As shown in Table AQ-6, the maximum cancer risk for the sensitive receptor MEI would be 3.46 in 1 million,
which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in 1 million. The worker receptor risk
would be lower at 0.15 in 1 million and would also not exceed the threshold. The total chronic hazard
index would be 0.009 for the worker receptor MEI and 0.004 for the sensitive receptor MEI, which is below
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 39 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the threshold of 1.0. In addition, the total acute hazard index would be nominal (0.000), which would also
not exceed the threshold of 1.0. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. No new impact would occur.
Operation: To determine the potential health risk to people living and working near the Proposed Project
associated with the exhaust of diesel-powered trucks and equipment, an operational HRA was conducted.
The residential risk incorporates both the risk for a child living in a nearby residence for 9 years (the
standard period of time for child risk) and an adult living in a nearby residence for 30 years (considered a
conservative period of time for an individual to live in any one residence).
As shown in Table AQ-7, the maximum cancer risk for the sensitive receptor MEI would be 1.54 in 1 million,
less than the threshold of 10 in 1 million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of
10 in 1 million. The worker receptor risk would be lower at 0.39 in 1 million, which would also not exceed
the threshold. The total chronic hazard index would be 0.001 for the worker receptor MEI and nominal
(0.000) for the sensitive receptor MEI, which is below the threshold of 1.0. In addition, the total acute
hazard index would be nominal (0.000), which would also not exceed the threshold of 1.0. As these results
show, all health risk levels to nearby residents from operation- related emissions of TACs would be well
below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds. Therefore, no new impacts would occur from operation of the
Proposed Project.
Table AQ-7 Unmitigated Operational Health Risks to Off-Site Receptors
Location
Carcinogenic
Inhalation Health Risk
in 1 Million
Chronic Inhalation
Hazard Index
Acute Inhalation
Hazard Index
Worker Receptor Risk 0.39 0.001 0.000
Sensitive Receptor Risk 1.54 0.000 0.000
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 10.0 in 1 million 1.0 1.0
Significant? No No No
Source: HRA, Appendix C
The Proposed Project would have 547 daily vehicle trips, which includes 397 passenger vehicle trips, 25
two-axle truck trips, 31 three-axle truck trips, and 94 four-axle truck trips. As the Proposed Project includes
76 less truck trips than the Approved Project, health risk impacts would be less than previously identified
and analyzed in the Approved Project FEIR, and no new impacts would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a through 4.2-2g and 4.4-2j and 4.4-2k, discussed above, are applicable.
Condition of Approval (COA)
COA AQ-1 Construction Best Management Practices
The Project contractor shall ensure all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment of 50 horsepower
or more used for Project construction, at minimum meets the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier
2 emissions standards or the equivalent and is equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 40 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
Air quality impacts related to the Proposed Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the
Approved Project FEIR, as supplemented by additional technical analysis. No new or more severe impacts
relative to air quality from previously identified significant impacts evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR
would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could
not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would alter the
Approved Project FEIR’s significance finding.
Threshold (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of people)?
No New or More Severe Impact: The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as
sources of odors. These land uses include the following: agriculture, wastewater treatment plant, food
processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, diaries, and fiberglass molding. The
Proposed Project is a warehouse facility and does not propose to include any odor-inducing uses on the
Project site. As the Proposed Project would not be a source of objectionable odors; no impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact from odors. There are no new
potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or
considerably different mitigation measures are required for issues related to air quality.
Overall Air Quality Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to air quality.
Therefore, preparation of an SEIR analysis is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 41 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.4 Biological Resources
5.4.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that future development occurring within the SWIP Specific Plan
Update area would not adversely affect, either directly or through habitat modification, any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species, any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community upon the implementation of the following mitigation measures: 4.3-1a through 4.3-1h.
Similarly, the Approved Project FEIR determined that future development would not affect any wetlands
and drainages with implementation of mitigation measure 4.3-3a, or habitat conservation plans upon the
implementation of the following mitigation measures: 4.3-1a through 4.3-1f.
5.4.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
CalPacific Sciences prepared the Tree Survey and Arborist Report for the Proposed Project on July 1, 2022
which is included as Appendix D. The results of the Tree Survey and Arborist Report are summarized herein
and included as Appendix D to this Addendum. A tree survey was conducted which included assessing 25
onsite trees to determine if the trees qualify as Heritage, Significant, or Specimen trees.
Threshold (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
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project site is fully disturbed and utilized as a truck trailer storage
yard. Thus, no State- and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species are documented and no
USFWS-designated Critical Habitat occurs on-site due to lack of suitable habitat and ongoing site
disturbances.
The Proposed Project site consists of approximately 13.8 acres of disturbed areas. The onsite uses include
a truck/trailer storage yard. The Project site included 25 trees which included 13 trees of heaven
(Ailanthus altissima) and 12 Red River Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) (Appendix D). Due to the disturbed
nature of the Proposed Project site and lack of Heritage, Specimen, or Significant trees, the Proposed
Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations. Therefore, no new impacts relative to a substantial adverse
effect to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species would be caused due to the Proposed Project
implementation.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the Project. Note: Where mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR have been
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 42 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
derived from the General Plan EIR, the corresponding General Plan EIR mitigation measure is cited in brackets.
The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Although 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 (CDFW) or United States Fish
& Wildlife Service (USFWS) are determined to be absent from the Proposed Project site, the Approved
Project FEIR requires implementation of the following Mitigation Measures: 4.3-1b, 4.3-1d, and 4.3-1g in
order to further reduce potentially significant impacts on special status species and maintain a less than
significant level.
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.
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. [NOTE: this mitigation
measure has been accomplished through preparation of this Addendum EIR and related
arborist report.]
4.3-1d The City shall encourage the preservation of natural habitat in conjunction with private
or public development projects.
4.3-1e Mitigation shall be provided for removal of any natural habitat, including restoration of
degraded habitat of the same type, creation of new or extension of existing habitat of the
same type, financial contribution to a habitat conservation fund administered by a
Federal, State, or local government agency, or by a non-profit agency conservancy.
[NOTE: this mitigation measure does not apply to the Project because it does not have
natural habitat impacts requiring mitigation.]
4.3-1f Local CEQA procedures shall be applied to identify potential impacts to rare, threatened
and endangered species. [NOTE: this mitigation measure has been accomplished through
preparation of this Addendum EIR and related biological study.]
4.3-1g Evidence of satisfactory compliance shall be provided by Project Applicant with any
required State and/or Federal permits, prior to issuance of grading permits for individual
projects.
4.3-1h Any development that results in the potential take or substantial loss of occupied habitat
for any threatened or endangered species shall conduct formal consultation with the
appropriate regulatory agency, and shall implement required mitigation pursuant to
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 43 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
applicable protocols. Consultation shall be on a project-by-project basis and measures
shall be negotiated independently for each development project. [NOTE: this mitigation
measure has been accomplished through preparation of this Addendum EIR and related
biological study.]
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe or more severe impact on a status or listed
species. Similar to the Approved Project FEIR findings, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to cause
any impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by the CDFW or
USFWS. The Proposed Project would redevelop an existing developed area and previously disturbed land.
To minimize any potentially unforeseen impacts, the Approved Project FEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b,
4.3-1d, and 4.3-1g would be implemented. With implementation of the Mitigation Measures, the
Proposed Project would be consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, and no new or more severe impacts
from the Proposed Project implementation would occur.
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR found that future development within the
SWIP Specific Plan Update area would not adversely affect any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community upon the implementation of recommended mitigation measures. The Project site is currently
utilized as a truck trailer yard and does not have presence of jurisdictional waters, i.e., Waters of the U.S.
as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), and/or streambed and associated riparian habitat as regulated by the CDFW. No CDFW
jurisdictional stream or associated riparian habitat occurs on the site as the Project site has been fully
disturbed. In addition, no waters of the U.S. or wetlands occur on the Project site. Further, no vernal pools
are located on the site.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR findings, no drainages are located on-site, and no aspect of the
Proposed Project site presents evidence of jurisdictional waters. None of the following indicators are
present on-site: riparian vegetation, facultative, facultative wet or obligate wet vegetation, harrow marks,
sand bars shaped by water, racking, rilling, destruction of vegetation, defined bed and bank, distinct line
between vegetation types, clear natural scour line, meander bars, mud cracks, staining, silt deposits, or
litter-organic debris. Therefore, no new impacts relative to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community would be caused due to the Proposed Project implementation. Although the Proposed Project
would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, the following Approved Project
FEIR Mitigation Measures are applicable.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Refer to Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1d, and 4.3-1g, discussed above.
Conclusion
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 44 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on a riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed
Project. No riparian habitat exists on-site; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation
measures are required. With implementation of the above referenced Approved Project FEIR Mitigation
Measures, the Proposed Project would not result in a new or more serve impact.
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR found that the SWIP Specific Plan Update
area has the potential for streambeds, wetlands, and/or riparian areas to occur on-site, especially in
undeveloped or unpaved areas throughout the Specific Plan Update area. The Approved Project FEIR
suggested that as development proposals within the Specific Plan Update area are received, properties,
where a potential for wetlands and/or drainages exists, will require the preparation of a jurisdictional
delineation (Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a). The jurisdictional delineation would be utilized to determine the
acreage of impact, regulating agencies, jurisdictional limits, and mitigation requirements. Upon
implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, impacts related to wetlands and drainages
would be less than significant.
As discussed in the previous response, no CDFW jurisdictional streams or riparian habitat occur on the
Proposed Project site. Thus, a jurisdictional delineation is not required for the Proposed Project. In
addition, no waters of the United States or wetlands occur on the site. Further, no vernal pools are located
on the site. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not
have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would change the
finding of less than significant impact under this threshold.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
4.3-3a For future development proposals that could potentially affect jurisdictional drainages or
wetlands (to be determined by the City of Fontana Planning Division), the project
applicant shall prepare a jurisdictional delineation to determine the extent of
jurisdictional area, if any, as part of the regulatory permitting process. [NOTE: this
mitigation measure does not apply to the Proposed Project because no jurisdictional
wetlands or drainages exist on site.]
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on wetlands. The Proposed Project
would be consistent with the Approved Project FEIR in that it would not result in a significant impact to
wetlands including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc. No jurisdictional drainages and/or
wetlands exist on site. No new or more severe impact would occur from the Proposed Project
implementation.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 45 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (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 native wildlife nursery sites?
No New or More Severe Impact: Refer above to thresholds 4.4.2(a) and (b). The Approved Project FEIR
concluded that the SWIP Specific Plan Update area does not function as a wildlife movement corridor,
since the area is mostly developed, with most of the land converted to industrial, commercial, and
residential uses. It is noted that the Jurupa Mountains, located south of the SWIP Specific Plan Update
area, provide habitat for many species of plants and animals. However, it functions as an ecological island
and does not provide for significant movement to the urbanized north.
Consistent of the Approved Project FEIR findings, the Proposed Project site is surrounded by urban
development (paved roads and industrial development); because of the Proposed Project site’s location,
and due to the urbanized nature of the area, no migratory corridors, migratory fish, or established native
resident species would be affected.
In regard to wildlife nursery sites, the Approved Project FEIR concluded that the removal or alteration of
nonnative habitats within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area could result in the temporary or permanent
displacement of plants, vegetation types, small mammals, reptiles, and other animals. These factors could
disrupt the behavioral and reproductive patterns of wildlife. Thus, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b is
recommended. Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, the Arborist Report (Appendix D) determined
that the trees within the Proposed Project site contain habitat suitable for nesting birds.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b, discussed above, applies.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on fish and wildlife and their habitat.
The Proposed Project would not conflict with the movement of wildlife habitat, including migratory birds.
However, any potential conflict with foraging/nesting birds would be mitigated to a less than significant
impact with compliance to the Approved Project FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b.
There are no new or more severe impacts from the Proposed Project associated with interference of
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or foraging/nesting birds. In addition
to measures noted in the Approved Project FEIR, the Proposed Project would comply with applicable local,
state and federal regulations pertaining to migratory birds, as required in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA), such as 16 U.S.C. § 703, which enacts the provisions of treaties between the United States, Great
Britain (now Canada), Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union (now Russia), and authorizes the U.S. Secretary
of the Interior to protect and regulate the taking of migratory birds. It establishes seasons and bag limits
for hunted species and protects migratory birds, their occupied nests, and their eggs (16 U.S.C § 703; 50
C.F.R. §§ 10, 21).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 46 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances related to protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the Approved Project FEIR, the SWIP Specific Plan Update
developments would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, or local
policies/ordinances upon implementation of recommended mitigation. Additionally, the Approved
Project FEIR concluded that development in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area could involve the removal
of heritage, significant, or specimen trees; the Approved Project FEIR concluded that for protection and
preservation of heritage trees, significant trees, and specimen trees on public and private property, the
Proposed Project should comply with Chapter 28 Article III of the Municipal Code, in particular, Code
Section 28-64, Permit Required for Removal of Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees, which specifies
no person shall remove or cause the removal of any heritage, significant, or specimen tree unless a Tree
Removal Permit is first obtained. Impacts in this regard are considered less than significant following
compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Code.
Moreover, the Approved Project FEIR concluded that neither the City nor the County has adopted a
federal or state habitat conservation plan that provides any requirements or guidance for the SWIP
Specific Plan Update area. Buildout of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would not conflict with an
adopted habitat conservation plan. Although a recovery plan was released in 1997 for Delhi sands flower-
loving fly (DSF) that includes the SWIP Specific Plan Update area, an assessment of the recovery of DSF in
2008 indicated that much of the Jurupa Recovery Unit may no longer provide conservation value for DSF.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a through 4.3-1f would provide the necessary
analysis to formally determine whether areas within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area provide viable
habitat for DSF. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Similarly, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources. While the Proposed Project would remove common shrubs and trees found on site,
the Arborist Report determined that the trees onsite are not considered heritage trees by Chapter 28,
Article III of the Municipal Code. Thus, the Proposed Project would comply with the requirements of the
Municipal Code. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and
could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would
change the finding of less than significant impact under this threshold.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1d, and 4.3-1g, discussed above, apply.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 47 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to conflict with plans,
policies, and ordinances. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed
Project; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Overall Biological Resources Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified
impacts, with respect to biological resources. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 48 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.5 Cultural Resources
5.5.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR determined that although the likelihood for adverse impacts to historical and
archaeological resources within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area are not likely to occur, in order to
maintain any potential unforeseeable impacts to a less than significant level, the following Mitigation
Measures were recommended: Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a, 4.4-1b, 4.4-2a through 4.4-2c, and 4.4-3a and
4.4-3b. In addition, the Approved Project FEIR complied with Senate Bill 18 which involved consultation
with a total of eight tribes, from whom two responses were received (Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and
the Morongo Band of Mission Indians).
5.5.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A Project site-specific Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
in June 2022 (see Appendix E) which is summarized below.
Research was conducted, and data gathered from the South-Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC),
that revealed a total of 5 previously recorded cultural resources were identified within half a-mile of the
Proposed Project area. However, none of the cultural resources identified were documented directly
within the Proposed Project area.
Prior to fieldwork, an archaeological records search was conducted at the SCCIC. This included a review
of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources, as well as a review of known cultural resources,
and survey and excavation reports generated from projects completed within a half mile of the Proposed
Project site. In addition, a review was conducted of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and documents and inventories from the California
Office of Historic Preservation including the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California Points of
Historical Interest, Listing of National Register Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures.
A pedestrian survey of the was conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc on June 2, 2022.
According to the Approved Project FEIR, the Historical/Archaeological Records Search prepared for the
SWIP Specific Plan Update concluded that the likelihood of encountering potentially significant historic-
period resources within boundaries is low. Although a total of nine historic-period resources were
documented as part of the Historical/Archaeological Records Search, it was determined that all nine were
either unlikely to be impacted by the Approved Project or did not merit listing in the NRHP or CRHR. The
Approved Project FEIR determined that the SWIP Specific Plan Update area was highly disturbed due to
industrial, residential and agricultural land uses and that the site has had more than 19 previous cultural
resources studies that have taken place, resulting in the recording of 36 cultural resources within a one-
mile radius of the Approved Project site. As a result of these studies, no archaeological resources or Native
American sites were found within the boundaries. Thus, the Approved Project FEIR determined that the
likelihood of encountering potentially significant prehistoric archaeological remains within SWIP Specific
Plan Update area is also low; however, the following Mitigation Measures were recommended: 4.4-1a,
4.4-1b, 4.4-2a, 4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 49 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The results of the Cultural Resources Assessment are summarized herein and included as Appendix E to
this Addendum.
Threshold (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant
Section 15064.5?
Threshold (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Significance Evaluations
No New or More Severe Impact:
The Project site consists of gravel parking areas for trailers and contains six structures. One abandoned
stucco dwelling structure constructed in 1979 and five auxiliary structures are located within the property,
none of which meet the minimum age to be considered historic (Appendix E). Thus, the onsite buildings
are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical
Resources. Under CEQA, these buildings do not warrant further consideration. Thus, no historic resources
would be impacted from implementation of the Proposed Project.
Due to a lack of historical resources located within the Proposed Project site, Brian F. Smith does not
recommend any additional mitigation measures beyond those included in the SWIP FEIR (Appendix E).
However, if previously undocumented cultural resources are identified during earthmoving activities, a
qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find and divert
earthmoving activities, if necessary, in accordance with Mitigation Measures 4.4-1b, 4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c.
No new or more severe impact relative to historical or archaeological resources from previously identified
significant impacts evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. In addition, the Proposed Project
would be subject to the Cultural Resources standard conditions of approval. Furthermore, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than
significant impact with mitigation under this threshold.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Approved
Project. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Note that Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a from the Approved Project FEIR does not apply to the Proposed
Project as the Project site has already been assessed for cultural resources and none were found.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 50 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.4-1a A qualified archaeologist shall perform the following tasks, prior to construction activities
within project boundaries:
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for historic
resources, a field survey for historical resources within portions of the project site not
previously surveyed for cultural resources shall be conducted.
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for historic
resources, the San Bernardino County Archives shall be contacted for information on
historical property records.
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for sacred
land resources, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted for
information regarding sacred lands.
• All historical resources within the project site, including archaeological and historic
resources older than 50 years, shall be inventoried using appropriate State record
forms and guidelines followed according to the California Office of Historic
Preservation’s handbook “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.” The
archaeologist shall then submit two (2) copies of the completed forms to the San
Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for the assignment of
trinomials.
• The significance and integrity of all historical resources within the project site shall be
evaluated, using criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines for important
archaeological resources and/or 36 CFR 60.4 for eligibility for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places.
• Mitigation measures shall be proposed and conditions of approval (if a local
government action) recommended to eliminate adverse project effects on significant,
important, and unique historical resources, following appropriate CEQA and/or
National Historic Preservation Act’s Section 106 guidelines.
• A technical resources management report shall be prepared, documenting the
inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project site,
following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by
the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a),
December 1989. One copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, shall
be submitted to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for
permanent archiving. [NOTE: this mitigation measure has been accomplished through
preparation of this Addendum EIR and related cultural studies.]
4.4-1b If any historical resources and/or human resources are encountered before or during
grading, the developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction
activities and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study.
4.4-2a A qualified archaeologist shall perform the following tasks, prior to construction activities
within project boundaries:
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for
prehistoric resources, a field survey for prehistoric resources within portions of the
project site not previously surveyed for cultural resources shall be conducted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 51 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for sacred
land resources, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted for
information regarding sacred lands.
• All prehistoric resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms
and two (2) copies of the completed forms shall be submitted to the San Bernardino
County Archaeological Information Center.
• The significance and integrity of all prehistoric resources within the project site shall
be evaluated using criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines for important
archaeological resources.
• If human remains are encountered on the project site, the San Bernardino County
Coroner’s Office shall be contacted within 24 hours of the find, and all work shall be
halted until a clearance is given by that office and any other involved agencies.
• All resources and data collected within the project site shall be permanently curated
at an appropriate repository within the County.
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 measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of
the archaeologist, the City of Fontana shall:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant
modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites
within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the area’s archaeological heritage.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval (if a local
government action) to eliminate adverse Project effects on significant, important, and
unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory,
evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the Project area. Submit one
copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County
Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving.
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, Morongo Band of Mission Indians and/or other
tribes as appropriate:
• 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;
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 52 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• 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.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts on a historic or archaeological
resource. Similar to the Approved Project FEIR’s conclusion, implementation of the Proposed Project
would have a less than significant impact to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources. No new or
more severe impact from previously identified significant impacts evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR
would occur. Furthermore, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could
not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact
the prior finding of less than significant impact with mitigation under this threshold. The above-referenced
mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable.
Threshold (c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outsides of formal cemeteries?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the Approved Project FEIR, the Proposed Project site is not
located within a known or suspected cemetery and there are no known human remains within the
Proposed Project site. No conditions exist that suggest human remains are likely to be found within the
boundaries of the Proposed Project site. Due to the level of past disturbance in the SWIP Specific Plan
Update area, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or ground-disturbing activities.
The Proposed Project site-specific Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix E) confirmed that the
Proposed Project site is not likely to contain human remains. However, consistent with the Approved
Project FEIR, if human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance
with applicable laws. The California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Sections 7050.5-7055 describes the
general provisions for human remains. Specifically, HSC Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any
human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the
requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the PRC would be implemented, including
notification of the County Coroner, notification of the NAHC, and consultation with the individual
identified by the NAHC to be the “most likely descendant.”
If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any
area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been called
out, and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the
treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with State regulations, which detail the
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 53 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts in this regard, would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The Proposed Project would be subject to comply with the City’s Cultural and Tribal Standard Conditions
of Approval as listed below.
• Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in
the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and
archaeological and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin,
interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the
landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request
preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of
the project while evaluation takes place.
• Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to
remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural
Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native
American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in
the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in
the area for educational purposes.
• Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall
be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary
disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary
objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for
archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with
Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologists shall
ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact pertaining to the disturbance of
human remains. The Proposed Project is consistent with the Approved Project FEIR. The Cultural
Resources Assessment did not find new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed
Project regarding historical, archaeological, or human remains; therefore, no new and/or considerably
different mitigation measures are required, but the Proposed Project must comply with the above
referenced applicable Approved Project FEIR mitigation measures.
Overall Cultural Resources Impacts Conclusion
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 54 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to cultural resources.
Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 55 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.6 Geology and Soils
5.6.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not
result in significant impacts relative to geology and soils, and no mitigation was identified as necessary to
reduce potential impacts. A Project site-specific geotechnical investigation and infiltration testing were
conducted by Aragon Geotechnical, Inc. on December 16, 2021 (Appendix G).
5.6.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk 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.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(iv) Landslides?
Faulting and Seismicity
No New or More Severe Impact: The Alquist-Priolo Zones Special Studies Act defines active faults as those
that have experienced surface displacement or movement during the last 11,000 years. According to the
General Plan EIR, although several earthquake faults exist within and in proximity to the City, none exist
beneath the SWIP Specific Plan Update area boundaries, including the Proposed Project site. The nearest
active regional fault traces are associated with the Sierra Madre Fault Zone northeast of central Rancho
Cucamonga approximately 7.4 miles from the Proposed Project site. Consistent with the General Plan EIR,
the Project-specific geotechnical study concluded that the Proposed Project site is not located within an
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No evidence of faulting was identified during the geotechnical
investigation.10F
11
The intensity of ground shaking would depend upon the magnitude of the earthquake, distance to the
epicenter, and the geology of the area between the epicenter and the Proposed Project site. The Proposed
Project would be subject to adherence to standard engineering practices and design criteria relative to
seismic and geologic hazards, in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). The CBC
includes detailed design requirements related to structural design, soils and foundations, and grading to
ensure that public safety risks due to seismic shaking are minimized to levels below significant.
Liquefaction and Landslides
No New or More Severe Impact: The California Geological Survey (CGS) has not yet conducted detailed
seismic hazards mapping in the area of the Proposed Project site. The general liquefaction susceptibility
of the site was determined by research of the San Bernardino County Official Land Use Plan, General Plan,
11 Aragon Geotechnical, Inc. 2021. Geotechnical Investigation. See Appendix G.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 56 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
and Geologic Hazard Overlay. Map FH29C11F
12 for the Fontana USGS quadrangle indicates that the Proposed
Project site is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility. Based on the mapping performed
by the County, and the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations, liquefaction is not
considered to be a design concern for the Proposed Project. Because the SWIP Specific Plan Update area
and surrounding area are characterized by relatively flat topography, there are no land features in the
vicinity capable of producing landslides.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe new impact on a geologic and soil resources.
The Proposed Project is consistent with the Approved Project FEIR. Proposed Project implementation
would not expose people or structures to abnormal seismic ground shaking, ground failure or liquefaction,
or landslides; therefore, no impact would occur from Proposed Project implementation.
Threshold (b) Result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR concluded that the construction associated
with future development in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would produce loose soils, which would
be subject to erosion during on-site grading and excavation. Grading and trenching for construction may
expose soils to short-term wind and water erosion. The Proposed Project would be required to comply
with all requirements set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for
construction activities (e.g., implementation of Best Management Practices [BMPs] through preparation
of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan [SWPPP]), reducing potential impacts to less than significant
levels. Compliance with the NPDES is a condition of approval which would be verified through the building
plan check process.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts as it pertains to erosion or loss of
topsoil. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project. In addition
to measures noted in the Approved Project FEIR and as required by standard City plan check processes,
the Project Applicant would comply with applicable recommendations as set forth in the Proposed Project
geotechnical investigation, contained in Appendix G to this Addendum. These measures will be reviewed
and checked as part of the City’s grading and building plan check process. A less than significant impact to
erosion or loss of topsoil would occur with adherence to recommendations in the Project-specific
geotechnical report.
12 San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Maps. Available at http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH29C.pdf.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 57 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: Refer to the threshold (a) (i-iv) discussion, above. Consistent with the
Approved Project FEIR findings, the geotechnical study concluded that the Proposed Project site would
not become unstable as a result of the Proposed Project, or potentially result in an on-site or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. No mitigation measures were
recommended.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more serve impact on geologic and soil resources. There
are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required for issues related to on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
Threshold (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code,
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR concluded that impacts associated with
expansive soils were less than significant. Construction associated with development within the Specific
Plan Update area could produce finer-grained soils that are moderately to highly expansive which may be
present in the southern portions of the City. The Approved Project FEIR concluded that although the
potential for expansive soils exists, future developments in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would be
subject to site-specific geotechnical investigations and would comply with 2019 (CBC) standards to
minimize any potential for hazards due to expansive soils.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR and the 2019 CBC requirements, a Project site-specific
geotechnical investigation was prepared. The geotechnical report concluded that near-surface soils in the
Proposed Project site generally consist of silty sands and sandy gravels (Appendix G). These materials have
been classified as very low expansion potential. Therefore, no design considerations related to expansive
soils are considered warranted for this site. Consequently, impacts in this regard are considered less than
significant.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to expansive soil. There
are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required for issues related to expansive soils.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 58 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewer are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
No New or More Severe Impact: Consistent with the SWIP Specific Plan Update, development within the
SWIP Specific Plan Update area would be served by sewer facilities. No septic tanks would be used as part
of the Proposed Project. As a result, no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks would occur as
part of the Proposed Project’s implementation.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. There are no
new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project regarding septic tanks or
wastewater disposal systems; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are
required.
Threshold (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR concluded that future developments within
SWIP Specific Plan Update area boundaries would not directly or indirectly result in significant impacts on
a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. However, Mitigation Measures 4.4-
3a and 4.4-3b were incorporated into the Approved Project FEIR that would require an analysis of
potential impacts to paleontological resources on a site-specific basis.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR requirements, a Paleontological Assessment (Appendix XX) was
conducted and included a locality records search, literature review, and a field pedestrian survey. No
significant paleontological resources were identified within 1-mile of the Proposed Project site, however;
eight fossil localities were identified approximately 1.4-miles southwest of the Proposed Project site.
While these deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils within the uppermost layers, it
is likely there are underlaying sediments of older Quaternary deposits.12F
13
Excavation activity associated with the development of the Proposed Project site would have the potential
to impact the paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene alluvial units. Thus, it is the recommendation of Brian
F. Smith and Associates that a paleontological resource mitigation program be put in place to monitor,
salvage, and curate any recovered fossils from the study area (Appendix F). The recommendation of Brian
F. Smith and Associates would be satisfied with adherence to Mitigations Measures 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b.
13 Brian F. Smith and Associates. Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Assessment. See Appendix D.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 59 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Consistent with the paleontological consultation findings recommendations, the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b are applicable. With implementation of the mitigation measures,
a less than significant impacts on paleontological resources would occur.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation
of the Approved Project. Note: Where mitigation measures have been derived from the General Plan EIR,
the corresponding General Plan EIR mitigation measures are cited below. The following measures from
the FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
4.4-3a: A qualified paleontologist shall conduct a pre-construction field survey of any Project site
within the Specific Plan Update area that is underlain by older alluvium. The
paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that provides specific recommendations
regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be
appropriate.
4.4-3b Should mitigation monitoring be recommended for a specific project within the Project
site (Specific Plan Update), the Mitigation Program shall include, but not be limited to,
the following measures:
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of
fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of
earth-disturbing activities.
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, earth-disturbing
activities shall be diverted elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If
construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor 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.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact to paleontological resources. There
are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures required for issues related to expansive soils. However, the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b are applicable.
Overall Geology and Soils Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to geology and soils. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 60 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Climate Change)
5.7.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan would result in less
than significant impacts with mitigation relative to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions but significant and
unavoidable impacts from cumulative GHG emissions. This analysis evaluates construction and
operational impacts associated with the Proposed Project relative to thresholds provided in the Approved
Project FEIR, as well as the updated Environmental Checklist Form.
5.7.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
This analysis evaluates construction and operational impacts associated with the Proposed Project relative
to thresholds provided in the Approved Project FEIR, as well as the updated Environmental Checklist Form.
Refer to Appendix B.
Background
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including
temperature, wind patterns and precipitation. Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring
atmospheric gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O),
as well as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These GHGs
allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth’s atmosphere but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus
warming the Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities.
Concentrations of GHG have increased in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Human activities
that generate GHG emissions include combustion of fossil fuels (CO2 and N2O); natural gas generated from
landfills, fermentation of manure and cattle farming (CH4); and industrial processes such as nylon and
nitric acid production (N2O).
GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap
heat in the atmosphere; it is the “cumulative radiative forcing effect of a gas over a specified time horizon
resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to a reference gas.” The reference gas for GWP
is CO2; therefore, CO2 has a GWP factor of 1. The other main GHGs that have been attributed to human
activity include CH4, which has a GWP factor of 28, and N2O, which has a GWP factor of 265. When
accounting for GHGs, all types of GHG emissions are expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) and are
typically quantified in metric tons (MT) or million metric tons (MMT).
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established a State goal of
reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, which would require a reduction of
approximately 173 MMT net CO2e below “business as usual” emission levels. Senate Bill (SB) 97, a
companion bill, directed the California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency) to certify and adopt
guidelines for the mitigation of GHGs or the effects of GHG emissions. SB 97 was the State Legislature’s
directive to the Resources Agency to specifically establish that GHG emissions and their impacts are
appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was enacted in June 2005 and calls
for an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 was signed into law in 2016 and establishes
an interim GHG emission reduction goal for the State to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990
levels by the year 2030.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 61 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR concluded that, due to uncertainties in
implementation of Federal, State and local programs to reduce GHGs and the reliance of the SWIP Specific
Plan on these programs to reduce GHG emissions, impacts to greenhouse gas emissions would be
significant and unavoidable.
GHG emissions for the Proposed Project were calculated using CalEEMod to estimate construction and
operational GHG emissions. Table GHG-1 below shows the annual construction GHG emissions in metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), which are amortized over 30 years and added to operational
emissions pursuant to SCAQMD methodology. Table GHG-3 shows the Proposed Project’s operational
GHG emissions and Table GHG-3 shows the comparison of GHG emissions for the Proposed Project and
SWIP buildout.
Table GHG-1: Project Construction GHG Emissions
Activity
Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2022 169
2023 738
2024 116
Total Emissions 1,023
Total Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 34
Source: AQ/Energy/GHG, Appendix B
Table GHG-2: Project Operational GHG Emissions
Activity
Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Area 7
Energy 560
Mobile 3,346
Offroad 517
Stationary 5
Waste 70
Water 136
Total Proposed Project Gross
Operation Emissions 4,636
Project Construction Emissions 34
Total Proposed Project Emissions 4,670
Existing Gross Operation Emissions 2,923
Net Emissions 1,747
Significance Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: AQ/Energy/GHG, Appendix B
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 62 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table GHG-3: Comparison of GHG Emissions – Proposed Project and SWIP Buildout of Site
Activity
Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Area 7
Energy 560
Mobile 3,346
Offroad 517
Stationary 5
Waste 70
Water 136
Total Proposed Project Gross Operation Emissions 4,636
Project Construction Emissions 34
Total Proposed Project Emissions 4,670
SWIP Buildout of Site Gross Operation Emissions 6,227
Comparative Emissions -1,557
The City utilizes 3,000 MTCO2e per year as the GHG threshold for warehouse projects, this threshold has
been determined to be the most appropriate for the Proposed Project. Table GHG-2 shows that the net
annual GHG emissions would be 1,747 MTCO2e per year, which is below the 3,000 MTCO2e per year
threshold. In addition, Table GHG-3 shows that the Proposed Project would result in a net decrease from
the Final EIR estimated emissions from buildout of the Project site. Also, the Approved Project FEIR
identified mitigation measures that would further reduce GHG emissions, as previously identified
(Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a). Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant
impact, and no new impacts would result from the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would be
required to implement the following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR but the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Program
According to the Approved Project FEIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a would reduce
impacts to a less than significant impact.
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 project shall include:
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.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 63 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• 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 non-vegetated
surfaces) and control runoff.
• Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles.
• Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic
character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining
storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive imported
water at the site).
• Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and
location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other
innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project.
• Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives.
Solid Waste Measures
• Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil,
vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and 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 website or message board for
coordinating rides).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 64 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• 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.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would not result in new impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. As shown in the table
above, GHG emissions are less than the emissions disclosed in the Approved Project FEIR. No new impact
or increase in the severity of an identified impact would therefore occur with implementation of the
Proposed Project.
Threshold (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New or More Severe Impact: Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a above would be implemented and would
reduce emissions of GHGs generated by the Proposed Project and emissions would be below SCAQMD’s
3,000 MTCO2e screening threshold. The Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts related to
an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. GHG emissions are less than the
emissions disclosed in the Approved Project FEIR. Therefore, no new impacts related to GHG emissions
would occur.
Mitigation Program
Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
As previously identified, Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the
proposed Project.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Overall Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Conclusion
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 65 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified
impacts, with respect to GHG. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 66 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5.8.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not
result in significant impacts relative to hazards and hazardous materials with implementation of the below
referenced Mitigation Measures. Additionally, a Proposed Project site-specific Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment was prepared for the Proposed Project by Stantec in October 2021 (Appendix H).
Threshold (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No New or More Severe Impact: The proposed construction activities would involve the transport, use,
and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking which are typical
with construction sites, including the construction of warehouse facilities. In addition, hazardous materials
would be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site. These types of materials
are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by
federal and state requirements, which the Proposed Project construction activities are required to strictly
adhere to. These regulations include: the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act and Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act; Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CalOSHA), and the state Unified
Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program. As a result, routine
transport and use of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.
Proposed Project operations would not involve acutely hazardous materials. The routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials would be limited to materials and solvents used for maintenance and
operation of the facility, including the upkeeping of landscaping and cleaning products. The Proposed
Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, as permitted
by the Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino County Fire Department to ensure proper use,
storage, and disposal of any hazardous substances. Overall, operation of the Proposed Project would
result in a less than significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials. No new impact or increase in the severity of an identified impact would
therefore occur with implementation of the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Approved
Project. Note: Where mitigation measures have been derived from the General Plan EIR, the
corresponding General Plan EIR mitigation measures are cited below. The following measures from the
FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.5-1b through 4.5-1d were included in the Approved Project FEIR to mitigate
impacts associated with hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.
4.5-1a The City shall require that new proposed facilities involved in the production, use, storage,
transport or disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from land uses
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 67 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
that may be adversely impacted by such activities. Conversely, new sensitive facilities,
such as schools, child-care centers, and senior enters, shall not to be located near existing
sites that use, store, or generate hazardous materials. [NOTE: this mitigation measure has
been accomplished through preparation of this Addendum and Project design]
4.5-1b The City shall assure the continued response and capability of the San Bernardino County
Fire Department/Fontana Fire Protection District to handle hazardous materials incidents
in the City and along the sections of freeways that extend across the City.
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.
4.5-1d The City shall identify roadways along which hazardous materials are routinely
transported. If essential facilities, such as schools, hospitals, childcare centers or other
facilities with special evacuation needs are located along these routes, identify
emergency response plans that these facilities can implement in the event of an
unauthorized release of hazardous materials in their area.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact(s) as it pertains to routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with
the Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
No New or More Severe Impact: As described above, the risks related to upset or accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be adequately addressed
through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations. Development of the Proposed
Project would result in high-cube warehouse uses that would use and store common hazardous materials
such as oils, paints, solvents, and cleaning products. Also, building mechanical systems and grounds and
landscape maintenance could also use a variety of products formulated with hazardous materials,
including fuels, cleaners, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides.
The environmental and health effects of different chemicals are unique to each chemical and depend on
the extent to which an individual is exposed. The extent and exposure of individuals to hazardous
materials would be limited by the relatively small quantities of these materials that would be stored, used,
and handled. Additionally, any business or facility which uses, generates, processes, produces, packages,
treats, stores, emits, discharges, or disposes of hazardous material (or waste) would require a hazardous
materials handler permit from the Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino County Fire
Department, as described previously.
Through existing City and County Health Hazardous Materials Division permitting and occupancy
procedures, hazardous materials would be used and stored in accordance with applicable regulations and
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 68 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
such uses would be required to comply with federal and state laws to reduce the potential consequences
of hazardous materials accidents. In addition, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required to
be implemented for the Proposed Project (as further discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality). The BMPs that would be implemented as part of the WQMP would protect human health and
the environment should any accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials occur during operation of
the Proposed Project.
As a result, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in 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, and operational impacts would be less than significant.
The Approved Project FEIR recommended mitigation measures to address hazardous materials, when
developing portions of the Specific Plan Update area. The Proposed Project would adhere to Mitigation
Measures 4.5-2b through 4.5-2c to minimize hazardous materials impacts during construction.
In accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b and in case of accidental release of hazardous materials
into the environment, the City shall assure that the continued response and capability of the Fontana Fire
Protection District and San Bernardino County Fire Department handle all hazardous materials incidents
in the City and along I-10. Short-term and long-term construction activities within the SWIP Specific Plan
Update area will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. No new impact or increase
in the severity of an identified impact would therefore occur with implementation of the Proposed
Project.
Mitigation Program
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required for issues related to hazardous materials.
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
The Proposed Project will adhere to mitigation measures 4.5-1b through 4.5-1d, 4.5-2b, and 4.5-2c for
both short term and long-term accidental releases, according to the Approved Project FEIR. Additionally,
A Phase I Assessment was conducted by Stantec in compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.5-2(a) to (c).
4.5-2a A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared in accordance with American
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards and Standards and Practices for All
Appropriate Inquiries prior to issuance of a Grading Permit for future development within
the Project site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall investigate the potential
for site contamination, and will identify Specific Recognized Environmental Conditions
(i.e., asbestos-containing materials [ACMs], lead-based paints [LBPs], polychlorinated
biphenyls [PCBs], etc.) that may require remedial activities prior to land acquisition or
construction. [NOTE: this mitigation measure has been satisfied through preparation of
this Addendum and related hazardous materials studies.]
4.5-2b Prior to potential remedial excavation 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,
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 69 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
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 measures in accordance with Federal, State, and local requirements:
• Excavation and disposal at a permitted, off-site facility;
• On-site remediation, if necessary; or
• Other measures as deemed appropriate by the County.
4.5-2c Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, a Certified Environmental
Professional shall confirm the presence or absence of ACMs and 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.
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 electricity purveyor to identify property-handling procedures
regarding potential polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). [NOTE: this mitigation measure
does not apply to the Proposed Project because relocation of electric transformers would
not be required.]
4.5-2e Due to the railroad alignment within project boundaries, any construction in which the
soil around the railroad is to be disturbed shall be conducted under the purview of the
Fontana Fire Protection District to identify proper handling procedures. Once the soil
around the railroad has been removed, a visual inspection of the areas beneath and
around the removed area shall be performed. Any stained soils observed underneath the
area shall be sampled. Results of the sampling (if necessary) shall indicate the level of
remediation efforts that may be required (if necessary). [NOTE: this mitigation measure
does not apply to the Proposed Project because a railroad alignment is not located on the
site.]
4.5-2f Areas of exposed soils within Caltrans right-of-way that would be disturbed during
excavation/grading activities shall be sampled and tested for lead prior to ground
disturbance activities on a project-by-project basis, so that any special handling,
treatment, or disposal provisions associated with aerially deposited lead may be included
in construction documents (if aerially deposited lead is above regulatory criteria). [NOTE:
this mitigation measure does not apply to the Proposed Project because Caltrans right-
of-way would not be disturbed as part of the Project.]
Conclusion
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 70 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact to as it pertains to upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. There are no new potentially significant impacts
associated with the Proposed Project. The Phase I Assessment concluded that there is no evidence of
recognized environmental conditions connected with the property (refer to Appendix H); therefore, no
new mitigation measures are required for issues related to hazardous materials.
Threshold (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No New or More Severe Impact. There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the Proposed
Project site. The nearest schools are Henry J. Kaiser High School approximately 0.8 mile southwest and
Chaparral Elementary School approximately 2.2 miles southwest. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in
the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that
was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is
available that would change the impact finding.
Mitigation Program
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required for issues related to hazardous materials.
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.5-1b through 4.5-1d were included in the Approved Project FEIR to mitigate
impacts associated with hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile from a school. However, these
mitigation measures are not applicable to this impact, as the Proposed Project site is not located within
one-quarter mile of a school.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact to as it pertains to emission or
hazardous materials release near a school. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated
with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are
required.
Threshold (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 create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the Approved Project FEIR, there are various hazardous
material sites recorded within Federal, State, and local records databases. Potential hazards to
construction workers and the public may occur as a result of construction activities on existing sites that
could be contaminated. Future development of any of these documented hazardous materials sites would
require prior remediation and cleanup under the supervision of the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) in order to meet Federal, State, and local standards. Since the Specific Plan Update does
not include any specific development projects, future development would be evaluated on a project-by-
project basis (e.g., through preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to document the
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 71 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
presence and extent of hazardous materials contamination) to determine if such sites are listed on a
current regulatory hazardous materials site list. Mitigation Measures 4.5-2a to 4.5-2f would reduce
potential impacts in this regard to less than significant levels.
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment concluded that no RECs were found in connection with the
Proposed Project site. In addition, the Proposed Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials
site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 according to the DTSC Envirostor database.13F
14 No new
impacts are anticipated as part of the Proposed Project and no new mitigation measures are
recommended. The Approved Project FEIR recommended measures are applicable to the Proposed
Project and would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Program
Refer to Mitigation Measures 4.5-2a and 4.5-2f, discussed above
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. There are no new potentially significant
impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation
measures are required.
Threshold (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, result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the project area; and
Threshold (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New or More Severe Impact: The City’s Emergency Operations Plan anticipates that all major streets
within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would serve as evacuation routes. Construction activities
associated with the Proposed Project could temporarily impact street traffic adjacent to the Proposed
Project site during the construction phase due to roadway improvements and potential extension of
construction activities into the right-of-way. This could reduce the number of lanes or temporarily close
certain street segments. Any such impacts would be limited to the construction period and would affect
only adjacent streets or intersections. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures
identified in the Approved Project FEIR, temporary street closures would not affect emergency access in
the vicinity of the Proposed Project site, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard. This
would be accomplished through compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.5-6a and 4.5-6b which include
preparation of an Emergency Evacuation Plan, including a Traffic Control Plan, and consultation with the
City Police Department to disclose temporary closures and alternative travel routes.
All future developments would be required to provide sufficient emergency access, as required by the
Municipal Code. Additionally, the City’s Emergency Operations Plan complies with and relies on the City’s
Hazardous Materials Response Plan. Project features to ensure sufficient emergency access include access
14 DTSC Envirostor Database https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Santa+ana+and+calabash+avenue+fontana (accessed
November 1, 2021)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 72 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
via a 35-foot and 50-foot wide driveway from Santa Ana Avenue, a 40-foot wide driveway from Live Oak
Avenue, metal access gates with knox-pad locks per fire department standards, and 35-foot wide drive
aisles which would allow for fire/emergency response vehicles to maneuver throughout the Proposed
Project site.
As such, future development within the Proposed Project boundaries would not interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan and/or the emergency evacuation plan and less than significant impacts would
occur. Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact
evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR
was certified is available that would change the impact finding.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
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 that 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.
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.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new impact as it pertains to airport and land use plans. There are
no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or
considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands. The Proposed Project site is located within an urbanized area and is surrounded
by development on all sides. The Proposed Project site is not located within or adjacent to land designated
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 73 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
as a very high fire hazard severity zone.14F
15 Impacts related to wildland fires would not be significant.
Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in
the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that
was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is
available that would change the impact finding.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new impact from wildland fires. There are no new anticipated
potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or
considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Overall Hazards-Related Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not
warranted.
15 CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps (2021). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed May 23, 2022).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 74 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.9.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan Update would not result
in significant impacts relative to hydrology and water quality, and no mitigation is necessary to reduce
potential impacts. Additionally, Proposed Project-specific Preliminary Drainage Report and Water Quality
Management Plan were prepared for the Proposed Project by Huitt-Zollars, Inc. on February 24, 2022 and
are incorporated as Appendix I and Appendix J to this document.
5.9.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Threshold (b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
No New or More Severe Impact: As stated in the Approved Project FEIR, development on the SWIP
Specific Plan Update area would be subject to NPDES requirements during both construction and
operations. The NPDES program would require that future development projects within the SWIP Specific
Plan Update area implement BMPs that adequately minimize potential off-site water quality impacts.
Construction-related BMPs would be identified based on site-specific conditions during preparation of a
SWPPP for each future development project. Long term operational BMPs would be identified through
issuance of an NPDES permit through the RWQCB and would include water quality features to ensure that
runoff is treated prior to discharge into the storm drain or regional conveyance facilities. Moreover, the
Approved Project FEIR concluded that because the majority of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is
developed and urbanized, development of the area would not cause a significant increase in impervious
surfaces and therefore would not substantially impact groundwater supplies or interfere with
groundwater recharge. Additionally, the Approved Project FEIR identifies that the majority of the SWIP
Specific Plan Update area is developed and urbanized and implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan
Update would result in a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies. The FEIR found that the
Approved Project would not cause a significant increase in impervious surfaces and therefore would not
substantially impact groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. No groundwater
extraction would occur as part of the Approved Project.
The Proposed Project site is located within the service area of the Fontana Water Company (FWC). The
use of groundwater for the Approved Project is discussed later in this Addendum under Section 4.17,
Utilities and Service Systems. As discussed in that section, there are sufficient water supplies (groundwater
is one of the sources) available to serve the Proposed Project. Additionally, the FEIR planned for the
Approved Project area (including the Proposed Project site) to be developed predominantly with industrial
uses. The Proposed Project would be a 319,956 SF high-cube warehouse which is not a water-intensive
use, compared to the 480,868 SF warehouse planned in the Approved Project FEIR. To further minimize
any potential groundwater depletion, the Proposed Project would include landscaped areas and an
underground infiltration/detention system in the west area of the Proposed Project site. Site runoff would
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 75 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
be collected by two catch basins and conveyed by storm drain lines to the underground
infiltration/detention basin. Runoff from the roof area and east landscape area would be collected by
planter drains and conveyed to the underground infiltration/detention basin. The FWC’s Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) also found that there would be sufficient water supplies to meet demands,
with approximately 50% of water supply provided by groundwater in the FWC service area through the
year 2045. See Table 4-4, Retail: Total Water Use and Table 6-1, Historical and Projected Water Supplies
in Normal Years, AFY of the FWC’s UWMP for detailed information (https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/07/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf). Per Table 6-1, historical percentage
groundwater of the total supply varied between 52.8 percent and 93.5 percent, between 1995 and 2020.
Projected percent groundwater of the total supply is reduced and varies between 47.2 percent and 49.8
percent from 2025 to 2045.
The Proposed Project would consume water at a rate of approximately 2.4 acre-foot per year, based on
FWC water consumption rates (0.33 acre-foot, per acre, per year for industrial use15F
16). The Approved
Project FEIR warehouse would consume water at a rate of 3.64 acre-feet per year (0.33 acre-foot per acre
per year for industrial use). As summarized in the Approved Project’s Water Supply Assessment (WSA),
the water supplies (including groundwater) available to the FWC will be sufficient to meet all present and
future water supply requirements in the FWC’s services area with the Approved Project for at least the
next 20 years (City of Fontana 2009). Therefore, the supply would meet the demand of the less water-
intensive project, like the Proposed Project.
Based on the above discussion, the Approved Project FEIR finding of a less than significant impact, and
the type of development for this proposed Project (high-cube warehouse), it is anticipated that the
Proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality, nor would it substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Proposed
Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basins. Lastly, the FWC is considering a
future groundwater recharge project, but its projected volume has not been quantified.16F
17 No new impact
or increase in the severity of an identified impact would therefore occur with implementation of the
Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to groundwater.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would change the impact
16 Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. https://18x37n2ovtbb3434n48jhbs1-wpengine.netdna-
ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FINAL-IEUA-WFA-2015-UWMP-2016-07-07.pdf (accessed June 18, 2022).
17 FWC. 2020. San Gabriel Valley Water Company Fontana Water Company Division 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf (accessed May 25, 2022).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 76 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
determination. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not significantly impact local groundwater
recharge. Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR found erosion and siltation impacts to be less
than significant. The Proposed Project is located in an already urbanized area where drainage is directed
to a network of City and County-operated stormwater drainage facilities. Development of the site would
increase the amount of impervious surfaces to 90%. However, the Proposed Project would provide
approximately 18.6% of pervious landscaped areas and would also implement an underground infiltration
basin designed to collect and infiltrate post-development surface runoff and maintain existing water
infiltration rates. The Proposed Project would require placement of new drainage structures. This would
ensure that the drainage infrastructure is adequate to serve future development and minimize impacts
related to erosion or siltation. Although the Proposed Project site is not developed, pre-developed
pervious area conditions are considered poor due to the lack of vegetation cover.17F
18 In addition, as stated
in the Approved Project FEIR, development on the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would be subject to
NPDES requirements during both construction and operations. The NPDES program would require that
future development projects within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area implement BMPs that adequately
minimize substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site. In addition, the Proposed Project does not contain
any water features including a stream or river; therefore, substantial erosion and siltation on- or off-site
would not occur. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site;
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the Approved Project FEIR, the Proposed Project site is not
located within a FEMA designated 100-year floodplain, but in FEMA Zone X. Zone X are areas determined
to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. As stated previously, the Proposed Project would
increase the amount of impervious surface from to 90% and would include approximately 18.6% of
pervious landscaped areas compared to existing conditions and would introduce a new drainage system.
The Proposed Project would introduce landscaped pervious surfaces as well as on-site catch basins that
would convey surface runoff to the onsite underground infiltration/detention basin. The underground
infiltration system would be designed to accommodate a surface flow and catch and absorb surface water.
The basin would capture, and the infiltration system overflow would direct flows off the site and onto
Santa Ana Avenue. With implementation of the Proposed Project and associated drainage
improvement/features, on-site and off-site flooding impacts would be reduced, resulting in a less than
significant impact.
18 Huitt-Zollars. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (Appendix I).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 77 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provided substantial additional
resources of polluted runoff; or
No New or More Severe Impact: Refer to Responses 4.9.2 (c)(i) and, (ii) . Less than significant impact.
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
No New or More Severe Impact: As previously noted, the Proposed Project site is not located within a
FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be constructed within
a 100-year floodplain and the Proposed Project would increase impervious surfaces compared to existing
conditions. However, the Proposed Project includes landscaped pervious surfaces and on-site catch basins
that would convey surface runoff to the onsite underground infiltration system and manage flood flows.
See also Responses 4.9.2(c)(i) and (ii). Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact from erosion or siltation. Based on
the Approved Project FEIR findings, the Proposed Project site is not located in an area prone to the
previously mentioned natural or manmade disasters. Thus, the Proposed Project would not substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create the above-
mentioned disasters. A less than significant impact is anticipated from the Proposed Project
implementation.
Threshold (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR determined that the SWIP Specific Plan
Update area is not located in the immediate vicinity of a body of water. In addition, the SWIP Specific Plan
Update area is generally void of land features capable of producing mudflow.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts as it pertains to flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zones, or risk the release of pollutants due to Proposed Project site inundation. Based
on the Approved Project FEIR findings, the Proposed Project site is not located in an area prone to the
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 78 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
previously mentioned natural or manmade disasters. Thus, no pollutants would be released due to
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Threshold (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project is underlain by the Upper Santa Ana Valley
Groundwater Basin – Chino Subbasin. The basin is not subject to a Sustainable Groundwater Management
Plan because it is adjudicated and exempted from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
The City, and therefore Proposed Project site, are subject to the Santa Ana Watershed Authority’s
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Santa Ana River Watershed called the One Water
One Watershed Plan (OWOW) Update 2018. The OWOW Plan describes how collaborative watershed
planning, water and land management, and project implementation supports improved sustainability,
resilience, and quality of life throughout the Santa Ana River Watershed through 2040.18F
19 The Proposed
Project is also subject to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for the San Gabriel Valley Water
Company – Fontana Water Company Division, prepared in accordance with the Urban Water Management
Planning Act. The purpose of the UWMP is to provide a planning tool for FWC for developing and delivering
municipal water supplies to FWC’s water service area.
The Approved Project FEIR identified the FWC as the main water provider in the SWIP Specific Plan Update
area. As shown in Table 4.8-1, Fontana Water Company Historical Water Usage and Production (1988-
2008) of the Approved Project FEIR, the FWC’s historical production of water has met usage demands for
the SWIP Specific Plan Update area and surrounding service area. According to the FWC’s 2020 UWMP,
water supply met water demand for the FWC coverage area through 2020 and is forecasted to continue
to do so through 2045. See Table 4-3, Demands for Potable and Non-Potable Water-Projected and Table
6-1, Historical and Projected Water Supplies in Normal Years, AFY of the FWC’s UWMP for detailed
information (https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-
2021-Final.pdf). Piping for the distribution of potable water is available within the local roadways
surrounding and within the Specific Plan Update area and is sufficient to meet current water supply needs.
In addition, the Proposed Project includes the replacement of some existing water lines and placement of
new water lines.
The Proposed Project will meet applicable local and regional water consumption and water quality goals
of the FWC, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, and
the City.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
19 Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. 2018. One Water One Watershed Plan Update 2018. https://www.sawpa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/OWOW-Plan-Update-2018-1.pdf (accessed April 21, 2021).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 79 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts as it pertains to any conflicts with
water quality and groundwater plans. Based on the Approved Project FEIR findings, FWC prepared an
UWMP in 2005 which included water demand projections in their service area through 2025. Although
projections indicated that FWC would need to seek additional sources of water to serve it service area,
the Proposed Project would not conflict with any water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan. The Proposed Project site is proposing a less water-intensive use than the Approved
Project. Additionally, an on-site water quality detention basin would help recharge groundwater in the
basin. A less than significant impact is anticipated.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 80 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.10 Land Use and Planning
5.10.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
According to the Approved Project FEIR, development within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would
not divide an established community. The SWIP Specific Plan Update proposes to implement a range of
industrial, commercial, public, and residential uses, similar to what exists within the Specific Plan Update
boundaries today. The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan
Update would not result in significant impacts relative to land use and planning, and no mitigation is
necessary to reduce potential impacts.
5.10.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Physically divide an established community?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project site consists of a dirt lot utilized for truck storage.
The Proposed Project site is surrounded by Time Warner followed by lumber yards to the north, a storage
yard and legal non-conforming residence to the west, Santa Ana Avenue followed by an industrial truck
loading facility to the south, and Live Oak Avenue and a railroad followed by industrial uses to the east.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, the Proposed Project would not divide an established
community. The Proposed Project will implement a warehouse facility that is similar and consistent with
surrounding uses. Existing development within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is already divided by
the existing local roadway network, including I-10, and the Proposed Project is not anticipated to create
additional physical barriers between these uses. Therefore, there are no new or more severe impacts.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to physically dividing a
community. No new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in
the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that
was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is
available that would change the impact determination.
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: No potentially significant impacts related to land use and planning are
identified in the Approved Project FEIR. The Proposed Project is located within the boundaries of the SCD.
The Proposed Project would not require an amendment to the SWIP Specific Plan Update, because the
SCD is intended to provide opportunities for light and heavy manufacturing activities that are supported
by trucking routes and the existing rail spur. According to the SWIP, “logistics and distribution facilities”
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 81 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
and “warehousing facilities” are permitted by right within the SCD. As such, the Proposed Project would
be consistent with applicable land use plans, including the General Plan and SWIP. The Proposed Project
would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Overall Land Use Impacts Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact to as it pertains to conflict with land
use plans, policies, and regulations. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the SWIP Specific Plan
Update and General Plan, and the Proposed Project would not cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts, with respect to land use and planning. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 82 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.11 Mineral Resources
5.11.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that according to the General Plan, it is not anticipated that the
SWIP Specific Plan Update area would contain known deposits of precious gemstones, ores, or unique, or
rare minerals within the SWIP Specific Plan Update vicinity and development projects would not result in
significant impacts relative to mineral resources, and no mitigation measures were implemented.
5.11.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (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; and
Threshold (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No New or More Severe Impact: Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR conclusions, the Proposed
Project site is not located in an area known to contain mineral resources that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state.19F
20 Additionally, implementation of the Proposed Project would not
result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovery site delineated on the
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No new or more severe impact relative to mineral
resources not already evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur with implementation of the
Proposed Project. A less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Overall Mineral Resources Impacts Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact to mineral resources. Therefore, no
new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required for issues related to mineral
resources. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
proposed by the Project would not result in any new ore more severe impacts from the previously
identified impacts, with respect to mineral resources. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
20 California Department of Conservation. 2022. Mineral Land Classification.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc (accessed June 6, 2022).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 83 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.12 Noise
5.12.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR considered noise from construction activities as well as noise from operations,
including vehicle traffic and the exposure of employees to noise in the Approved Project area, as well as
potential exposure of nearby residents and other sensitive receptors to noise. With implementation of
mitigation measures, all noise impacts were determined to be less than significant with the exception of
long-term mobile noise and cumulative noise impacts, which would remain significant and unavoidable.
Additionally, a Proposed Project-specific Noise Assessment was prepared by LSA in May 2022. It is
incorporated as Appendix K of this document.
5.12.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Generation of noise levels in excess standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
No New or More Severe Impact: Noise levels associated with the Proposed Project would increase over
existing noise levels. This increase was identified in the Approved Project FEIR as a significant and
unavoidable impact associated with the SWIP Specific Plan Update. According to the Approved Project
FEIR, SWIP Specific Plan Update implementation may result in a long-term increase in ambient noise levels
associated with traffic noise and adjacent stationary sources. However, impacts associated with
implementation of the Proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts disclosed in the Approved
Project FEIR. The Proposed Project would be required to implement the following mitigation measures
from the Approved Project FEIR but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Construction
Construction-related activities would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the Proposed Project
vicinity. Construction-related noise levels at and near the Proposed Project site would fluctuate depending
on the level and type of construction activity on a given day. The analysis performed in the Approved
Project FEIR used conservative assumptions to calculate worst-case construction noise levels. Noise from
the Proposed Project construction activities could be audible at nearby residential uses. Construction
noise would be intermittent and last for several days or a few weeks. As discussed in the Approved Project
FEIR, short-term noise impacts associated with excavation, earthmoving, and construction activities would
be considered less than significant if: 1) construction activities are limited to daytime hours; 2)
construction equipment is equipped with noise control filters, as appropriate; and 3) construction activity
is monitored to ensure that noise reduction specifications and guidelines are met. Proposed Project
construction would be implemented in accordance with these conditions. As shown in Table NOI-1, the
Proposed Project would have a maximum noise level of 82 at the nearest residence to the west which is
less than the City. 69.6 dBA at the property line which is less than the 90 dBA Leq and 100 dBA and 100
dBA Leq 1-hour construction noise level criteria for daytime construction noise level criteria as established
by the FTA for residential and industrial land uses. In addition, the Proposed Project would comply with
the construction hours specified in the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states that the construction activities
are allowed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays except in the case of urgent necessity.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 84 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table NOI-1: Potential Construction Nopise Impacts at Nearest Receptors
Receptor (Location) Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq) at 50 feet1 Distance (feet) Cumulative Noise Level
@ 50 Feet (dBA)
Residence (West)
88
105 82
Industrial Uses (West) 400 70
Industrial Uses (East) 625 66
Residence (West) 715 65
Industrial Uses (South) 900 63
Church (North) 1365 59
Residence (Southwest) 1800 57
1The composite construction noise level represents the site preparation phase which is expected to result in the greatest noise
level as compared to other phases.
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix K)
As shown in Table NOI-1 above, it is not anticipated that construction of the Proposed Project would result
in new short-term noise impacts or increase the severity of impacts previously analyzed in the Approved
Project FEIR. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure
4.7-1a and 4.7-1b of the Approved Project FEIR. In addition, the Proposed Project would comply with the
best construction practices as stated below.
In addition to compliance with the City’s Municipal Code allowed hours of construction of 7:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sundays and federal holidays, the
following best construction practices would further minimize construction noise impacts:
• The Project construction contractor shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with
properly operating and maintained noise mufflers consistent with manufacturer’s standards.
• The Project construction contractor shall locate staging areas away from off-site sensitive uses
during the later phases of project development.
• The Project construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that
emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site whenever
feasible.
The Proposed Project would comply with the best construction practices which would further minimize
the less than significant impacts related to construction noise. Therefore, no further environmental review
is required.
Operational
Mitigation Measure 4.7-2a of the Approved Project FEIR requires new industrial facilities within 160 feet
of an existing sensitive land use to prepare a dedicated noise analysis that documents the noise producing
operations. The closest sensitive receptor is located approximately 100 feet to the west of the Proposed
Project site. The Proposed Project would generate fewer daily PCE trips during the PM peak hour than the
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 85 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
existing use. Thus, due to the daily decrease in traffic volumes associated with the Proposed Project, there
would be no traffic noise impacts from the Proposed Project-related traffic to off-site sensitive receptors.
The primary noise producing operations associated with the Proposed Project would occur from the truck
operations and the rooftop mechanical ventilation system (HVAC).
Truck Noise
Noise levels generated by delivery trucks would include arriving on site and maneuvering the trailers to
park within the loading docks. During this process, noise levels are associated with the truck engine, air
brakes, and back-up alarms while the truck is backing into the dock. These noise levels would occur for a
short period of time typically less than 5 minutes. A conservative analysis was used and assumed truck
arrivals and departure activities could occur at 23 docks for less than 5 minutes and unloading activities
could occur at 23 docks simultaneously for a period of more than 30 minutes in a given hour.
Air Conditioning Units
Rooftop mechanical ventilation units (HVAC) would be installed on the proposed buildings. A conservative
assumption of 8 rooftop HVAC units operating for 24 hours a day was utilized. The HVAC units would
generate up 63 dBA Leq at 5 feet. However, the mechanical ventilation system will cycle on and off
throughout the day.
Table NOI-2 and NOI-3 below shows the combined hourly noise levels generated by HVAC equipment and
truck delivery activities at the closest sensitive receptors during the daytime and nighttime.
Table NOI-2: Daytime Exterior Noise Level Impacts
Receptor Direction
Existing
Quietist
Daytime
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Propose
d Project
Generate
d Noise
Levels
Potential
Operational Noise
Impact Exceeding
70 dBA?
Residential (14790
Redwood Ave) West 59.9 53.3 No
Residential (10880
Redwood Ave) West 59.9 50.8 No
Residential (11046
Redwood Ave) Southwest 59.9 44.9 No
Church (10654
Live Oak Ave) North 58.5 38.6 No
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix K)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 86 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table NOI-3: Nighttime Exterior Noise Level Impacts
Receptor Direction
Existing
Quietist
Daytime
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Propose
d Project
Generate
d Noise
Levels
Potential
Operational Noise
Impact Exceeding
70 dBA?
Residential (14790
Redwood Ave) West 53.0 53.3 No
Residential (10880
Redwood Ave) West 53.0 51.0 No
Residential (11046
Redwood Ave) Southwest 53.0 44.9 No
Church (10654
Live Oak Ave) North 66.0 38.6 No
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix K)
As shown in Table NOI-2 above, the cumulative noise levels of the Proposed Project would not exceed the
70 dBA daytime or 65 dBA nighttime noise standards established by the City. Thus, impacts related to
operational noise would be less than significant.
The Approved Project FEIR analyzed the noise impacts for the entire SWIP Specific Plan Update area, which
includes the Proposed Project. The noise analysis included in the Approved Project FEIR was based on the
regulatory requirements and noise generation factors resulting from the proposed land uses. The
Proposed Project includes uses which are consistent with development assumed in the Approved Project
FEIR and would not generate abnormal noise levels. Noise associated with the Proposed Project is
anticipated to primarily be from vehicle-related noise and HVAC. The amount of traffic associated with
the Proposed Project are less than what was assumed in the Approved Project FEIR. As such, the noise
generated by the Proposed Project are not anticipated to exceed the noise levels identified in the
Approved Project FEIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new noise-related stationary
or vehicular impacts not considered in the Approved Project FEIR. The Proposed Project would be required
to comply with Mitigation Measure 4.7-1a and 4.7-1b, 4.7-2a, and 4.7-3b of the Approved Project FEIR.
Accordingly, no new or more severe impact relative to noise from a previously identified significant impact
evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Although the Approved Project FEIR identified a
significant and unavoidable impact, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact after
implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-1a and 4.7-1b. The Proposed Project would be required to
implement the following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR but the impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Program
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 87 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation
of the SWIP Specific Plan Update. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable
to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project Final EIR
4.7-1a The following measures 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.
• 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.
4.7-1b Should potential future development facilitated by the proposed project require off-site
import/export of fill material during construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least
disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably 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.).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 88 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.7-2a No new industrial facilities shall be constructed within 160 feet of any existing sensitive
land use property line without the preparation of a dedicated noise analysis. This analysis
shall document the nature of the industrial facility as well as “noise producing” operations
associated with that facility. Furthermore, the analysis shall document the placement of
any existing or proposed noise-sensitive land uses situated within the 160-foot distance.
The analysis shall determine the potential noise levels that could be received at these
sensitive land uses and specify very specific measures to be employed by the industrial
facility to ensure that these levels do not exceed those City noise requirements of 65 dBA
CNEL. Such measures could include, but are not limited to, the use of enclosures for noisy
pieces of equipment, the use of noise walls and/or berms for exterior equipment and/or
on-site truck operations, and/or restrictions on hours of operations. No development
permits or approval of land use applications shall be issued until the noted acoustic
analysis is received and approved by the City Staff. (MM 4.7-2a has been satisfied through
the preparation of the Noise Impact Analysis included as Appendix K).
4.7-3b Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a developer shall contract for a site-specific noise
study for the parcel. The noise study shall be performed by an acoustic consultant
experienced in such studies and the consultant’s qualifications and methodology to be
used in the study must be presented to City staff for consideration. The site-specific
acoustic study shall specifically identify potential noise impacts upon any proposed
sensitive uses (addressing General Plan buildout conditions), as well as potential project
impacts upon off-site sensitive uses due to construction, stationary and mobile noise
sources. Mitigation for mobile noise impacts, where identified as significant, shall
consider facility siting and truck routes such that project-related truck traffic utilizes
existing established truck routes. Mitigation shall be required if noise levels exceed 65
dBA, as identified in Section 30-182 of the City’s Municipal Code. (MM 4.7-3b has been
satisfied through the preparation of the Noise Impact Analysis included as Appendix K).
Conclusion
Mitigation Measures 4.7-1a to 4.7-1b,, 4.7-2a, and 4.7-3b would reduce construction and operational
noise levels. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could
not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would change
the significant and unavoidable determination in the Approved Project FEIR. Mitigation Measures 4.7-2a
and 4.7-3b have been satisfied through the preparation of a Noise Impact Analysis included as Appendix
K.
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to noise. Therefore,
preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Threshold (b) Generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No New or More Severe Impact: Construction of the Proposed Project could generate varying degrees of
groundborne vibration depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 89 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The nearest sensitive receptors is the legal non-conforming single-family residence approximately 100
feet to the west of the Proposed Project boundary. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criterion for
vibration induced structural damage is 0.20 in/sec for the peak particle velocity (PPV). As shown in Table
NOI-4 below, the vibration levels would not exceed the 0.20 in/sec PPV FTA threshold.
Table NOI-4: Summary of Construction Vibration Levels
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix K)
As shown in Table NOI-4 above, the threshold at which vibration levels would result in annoyance would
be 90 VdB for workshop or industrial type uses and 78 VdB for daytime residential uses. Based on the
information provided in Table NOI-4, vibration levels are expected to approach 75 VdB at the closest
industrial uses to the west and 68 VdB at the closest residential use to the west and would not exceed the
annoyance thresholds. Other building structures surrounding the Proposed Project site are farther away
and would experience further reduced vibration. Therefore, construction vibration impacts would be less
than significant.
Once operational, the Proposed Project would not be a source of groundborne vibration. Operations of
the Proposed Project would include truck deliveries. Due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-borne
vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced ground-borne
vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that
cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. Thus, impacts relate to operational vibration levels would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.7-1a to 4.7-1b listed above would lessen groundborne vibration and noise levels.
Land Use Direction Equipme
nt
Refere
nce
Vibrati
on
Level
(VdB)
at 25 ft
Distance (ft)
Maximum
Vibration Level
(VdB)
Maximum
Vibration Level
(PPV)
Industrial West
Large
Bulldozer
s
0.089
70 74 0.019
Residential West 105 68 0.010
Industrial South 305 54 0.002
Industrial North 355 52 0.002
Industrial East 390 51 0.001
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 90 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
No new or more severe impacts from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved
Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known
and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would
impact the prior finding of no significant impact under this issue area.
Threshold 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?
No New or More Severe Impact: Ontario International Airport (ONT) is located approximately 5.4 miles
west of the Proposed Project site. The majority of the SWIP Specific Plan are, including the Proposed
Project site, is located within the Airport Influence Area of the Ontario International Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). According to Policy Map 2-1 of the Ontario ALUCP, the Proposed Project site
is within the ONT Airport Influence Area. According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, industrial land uses
within the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise level contours of ONT, such as the Proposed Project, are considered
normally compatible land use and must reduce interior noise levels to 50 dBA CNEL. Standard building
construction practices required under CALGreen typically provide up to 25 dBA CNEL of attenuation. With
respect to noise generated by the ONT Airport facilities and activities, application of standard CALGreen
construction practices would yield acceptable project interior noise levels of approximately 40 dBA CNEL.
In addition, the Proposed Project does not propose or require facilities or actions that would contribute
to or exacerbate noise generated by ONT facilities and activities. Additionally, the Proposed Project site is
not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally,
no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the
time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would change the impact finding.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
There are no new or more severe potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project;
therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Overall Acoustical Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to noise. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 91 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.13 Population and Housing
5.13.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
According to the Approved Project FEIR, development of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would not
result in any impacts to existing residential units on-site. Should future development proposals result in
the potential for displacement of residential uses, each development application would be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis for impacts. In addition, any potential impacts to existing on-site housing within the
SWIP Specific Plan Update area is anticipated to occur over a long period of time, and the construction of
replacement housing would not be required. As such, the Approved Project FEIR concluded that impacts
in this regard would be less than significant and no mitigation measures were recommended.
5.13.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly;
and
Threshold (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New or More Severe Impact: Population and housing stock within Fontana have grown from
approximately 196,069 residents to 204,900 residents in 2020 and 51,857 households in 2010 to 53,510
households in 201820F
21. This is an increase of approximately 1.1 percent per year for both household units
and population.
According to the SCAG, the generation rate for employees required for operation of an industrial project
is one employee for every 1,195 SF of industrial space22. As the Proposed Project would construct and
operate a 319,956 SF warehouse, operation of the Project would generate 268 employees compared to
the 403 employees generated by the 480,868 SF building approved by the Approved Project FEIR. As such,
the Proposed Project would generate 135 less employees than the approved Project. The employees that
would fill these roles are anticipated to come from the region. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed
Project would not result in unplanned population growth.
As reported by the California Department of Finance (DOF), the vacancy rate is a measure of the
availability of housing in a community. It also demonstrates how well the available units meet the market
demand. A low vacancy rate suggests that residents may have difficulty finding housing within their price
range and a high supply of vacant units may indicate either the existence of a high number of desired
units, or an oversupply of units. A healthy vacancy rate is generally accepted at seven or eight percent. A
low vacancy rate is about two percent. The City has a moderate vacancy rate at 3.2 percent.21F
23
The Proposed Project would not induce population growth through the introduction of housing because
no housing is associated with the development. Senate Bill (SB) 330, the Housing Accountability Act, which
21 Fontana. 2022. 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/37230/Fontana-Housing-
Element_January-2022_Clean (accessed June 20, 2022)
22SCAG Employment Density Study. https://www.mwcog.org/file.aspx?A=QTTlTR24POOOUIw5mPNzK8F4d8djdJe4LF9Exj6lXOU%3D (accessed
July 15, 2022)
23 Fontana. 2022. 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/37230/Fontana-Housing-
Element_January-2022_Clean (accessed June 20, 2022)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 92 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning
approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or
moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written
findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. In this instance, SB 330 is not applicable
because as previously noted, the Proposed Project does not propose any housing and the Proposed
Project site is not zoned for residential development and does not consist of any residences. As such, the
construction of replacement housing would not be necessary. In some cases, direct population growth
can be created through the introduction of new businesses; however, direct population growth associated
with the Proposed Project is not anticipated because the community has a need for employment and the
Proposed Project’s workforce would likely be local residents. Additionally, the Proposed Project would
not involve any infrastructure improvements that would induce growth. Therefore, the Proposed Project
would not substantially induce population growth.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Overall Population and Housing Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact to as it pertains to population and
housing. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
proposed by the Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously
identified impacts, with respect to population and housing. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 93 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.14 Public Services
5.14.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that there is potential for service needs to increase relative to fire
protection, police protection, schools with the development/redevelopment of the SWIP Specific Plan
Update area. However, to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant impact, the Approved Project
FEIR incorporated Mitigation Measures 4.8-1a through 4.8-3f, referenced below. The Approved Project
FEIR also concluded that development of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would not significantly
increase the demand for library services that would require construction of additional library facilities.
Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure 4.8-4a was incorporated to maintain this impact at less than significant.
5.14.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) 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:
Fire protection, Police protection, Schools, and other Public Facilities?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project does not include or require construction of any
new or physically altered fire protection, police protection, school, or other public facilities. Prior to
commencement of construction activities, the Proposed Project plans would be reviewed by applicable
local agencies to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code as well as all applicable regulations to ensure
adequate site signage, lighting, and other crime safety preventative measures. The Fontana Police
Department is located approximately six miles northeast of the Proposed Project site at 17005 Upland
Avenue, Fontana. The closest fire station is San Bernardino County Fire Station 72 at 15380 San Bernardino
Avenue, Fontana, located approximately three miles from the Proposed Project site. Since the Proposed
Project site is already served by the existing fire station, and the Proposed Project would be constructed
pursuant to existing California Fire Code regulations, the Proposed Project would not result in the need
for new or physically altered police and/or fire department facilities that could cause significant
environmental impacts.
The Proposed Project site is located within the limits of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. Accordingly,
no new or more severe impact relative to public services or a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. The Proposed
Project does not have a residential component and would therefore not directly introduce new residents
to the City that would require public services.
Construction of the Proposed Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of or need for new or physically altered public facilities, and would not adversely affect service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Compliance with applicable local regulations will
ensure that Proposed Project construction will result in a less than significant impact to public services.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 94 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the
time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available. Although impacts to public facilities and services
is anticipated to be low, with implementation of the Approved Project FEIR mitigation measures,
referenced below, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to fire protection,
police protection, schools, and other public facilities. Lastly, development impact fees would aid in
offsetting any potential impacts.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the Approved Project. The following measures from the FEIR are applicable to the
Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The below mitigation measure are listed in the Approved Project FEIR; however, these are goals/policies
to be implemented by the City, not the Proposed Project.
4.8-1a The City shall continue to work towards a ratio of 1.4 sworn officers per 1,000 residents.
4.8-1b The Fontana Police Department shall continue to expand its Area Commander Program
to more effectively serve specific areas of the City.
4.8-1c The Fontana Police Department shall expand its Contact Stations to more effectively serve
outlying areas.
4.8-1d The Fontana Police Department shall continue its School Resource Officer Program on all
current and future middle school campuses.
4.8-1e The Fontana Police Department shall continue its extensive volunteer crime prevention
programs, including Citizen Volunteers, Explorers, Citizens on Patrol, Neighborhood
Watch, Police Reserves, and Community Emergency.
4.8-1f The Fontana Police Department shall continue its bilingual incentive program to more
effectively serve the Latino community.
4.8-1g The City shall maintain an average police and fire response time of four to five minutes.
4.8-1h The City shall continue to promote the establishment of Neighborhood Watch programs
in residential neighborhoods, aimed at encouraging neighborhoods to form associations
to patrol or watch for any suspicious activity.
4.8-1i The City shall incorporate appropriate staffing levels in the annual budget process keyed
to City growth in population and employment.
4.8-2a The City shall maintain an average fire response time of four to five minutes.
4.8-2b The City shall continue to maintain an Insurance Service office (ISO) fire rating of Class 3.
4.8-2c The City shall ensure that new fire stations are built in areas of new development so that
response times are not eroded.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 95 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.8-3a Planning and development in the City shall continue to be integrated with the needs of
school districts for new facilities.
4.8-3b The City shall continue to support local school districts in their efforts to obtain additional
funding sources, including special assessment districts and supplementary state and
federal funding.
4.8-3c The City shall establish and maintain effective joint use agreements with school districts
serving the community to achieve optimum, cost-effective use of school facilities.
4.8-3d The City shall continue to withhold building permits until verification that applicable
school fees have been collected by the appropriate school district.
4.8-3e The City shall collaborate with school districts in designing adjacent school/recreation
facilities to achieve maximum usability and cost-effectiveness for both the City and the
school districts.
4.8-3f The City shall collaborate with school districts in expanding educational opportunities and
programs that benefit from City facilities.
4.8-4a As part of future development and infrastructure projects within the Specific Plan Update
area, the City shall continue to explore options to provide additional library service,
through the Fontana Unified School district (FUSD) joint use agreements and/or City-
sponsored facilities using General Fund or other revenue sources.
Overall Public Services Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to public services. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 96 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.15 Recreation
5.15.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that future development associated with the SWIP Specific Plan
Update could result in a significant and unavoidable impact to parks and recreation due to future
industrial, commercial, and office development. The Proposed Project could create employment
opportunities within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. In turn, this employment growth could lead to a
population increase within the City and an associated increase in demand for parks and recreational
facilities. To reduce potential impacts to a less than significant impact, the Approved Project FEIR
incorporated Mitigation Measures 4.8-5a through 4.8-5g.
5.15.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (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; or
Threshold (b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR determined that impacts to parks and
recreation uses would be significant and unavoidable. Because the Proposed Project is a permitted, by
right use in the SCD, the Approved Project FEIR has previously analyzed and accounted for this type of
development on the site and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated to adequately
reduce any impact caused to recreational facilities. As previously noted in Population and Housing, it is
anticipated that the labor force would come mostly from within the City or immediate surrounding
communities. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially 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, nor would it include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment. A less than significant impact would occur. The Proposed Project would be required
to implement the following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR but the impact would
remain significant and unavoidable
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Approved
Project. The following measures from the FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The below mitigation measures are listed in the Approved Project FEIR; however, these are goals/policies
to be implemented by the City, not the Proposed Project.
4.8-5a A wide variety of parks and recreation facilities, including regional, community,
neighborhood and sub-neighborhood parks, shall be provided throughout the City.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 97 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.8-5b The design of all parks shall meet the particular needs of the specialized populations they
serve, such as seniors, young adults, families, and children.
4.8-5c Barrier-free access to all parks shall be provided.
4.8-5d The park standards for the City shall be two-acres per thousand residents for community
parks and three-acres per thousand for neighborhood parks.
4.8-5e Each park within the City shall provide a variety of activity options for users, including
active and passive uses.
4.8-5f The City shall reevaluate the design of each of its parks as part of the periodic update of
its Parks, Recreation, and Trails Master Plan. [GPEIR MM PR-6] 4.8-5g Each park within
the City shall be evaluated for safety on a periodic basis.
Overall Public Services Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to parks and recreation. Therefore, preparation of an
SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 98 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.16 Transportation
5.16.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Although
not addressed as a separate threshold, the Approved Project FEIR analyzed VMT as part of air quality and
greenhouse gas (GHG) modeling and the Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the
SWIP Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts with the incorporation of mitigation
relative to GHG emissions but significant and unavoidable impacts from cumulative GHG emissions. The
Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan would result in significant
and unavoidable impacts relative to air quality for both short and long-term air quality as well as
consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that the implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would
lead to less than significant impacts in relation to roadway hazards and emergency access. Common
construction practices such as public access restrictions, construction signage, and flagmen would be
implemented to minimize hazard risks. A Traffic Management Plan is required for all projects that propose
construction activities in a public right-of-way (Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1nn). The Traffic
Management Plan is reviewed by the City’s Engineering department and must include provisions for
construction safety and emergency access. Implementation of a Traffic Management Plan was found to
be sufficient to minimize impacts to both hazards and emergency access.
The Approved Project FEIR also concluded that the implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update
would cause an increase in traffic that exceeded the load capacity of surrounding streets. A deficiency was
identified in 10 roadway segments and 19 intersections within the Specific Plan Update area. These
potential impacts were to be reduced to less than significant levels due to the roadway upgrades included
in the proposed mitigation measures. However, the majority of the improvements identified as mitigation
measures were unfunded or partially funded, therefore, their implementation remained unassured. As a
result, it was determined that these mitigation measures were infeasible and impacts related to increased
roadway traffic were considered to be significant and unavoidable. Additionally, a Trip Generation and
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis was prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., on May 23, 2022. It
is incorporated as Appendix L of this document.
5.16.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Conflict with program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Threshold (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
No New or More Severe Impact:
Vehicle Miles Traveled:
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed by Governor Brown in 2013 and required the Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 99 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
transportation impacts. SB 743 specified that the new criteria should promote the reduction of GHGs, the
development of multimodal transportation networks and a diversity of land uses. In response, Section
15064.3 was added to the CEQA Guidelines.
As described previously, the Approved Project FEIR anticipated buildout of the Proposed Project site
pursuant to its industrial land use designation was 480,868 SF of industrial uses; 160,912 SF greater than
the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project includes 319,956 SF of high-cube warehouse, inclusive of
15,000 SF of office space. The approved SWIP use trip generation is shown in Table TRA-1 and the
Proposed Project trip generation is shown in Table TRA-2. As shown in Table TRA-1 and TRA-2, the
Proposed Project would result in 504 daily trips using the 11th edition ITE rates (Land Use Code 150 –
Warehouse) and the approved SWIP use would result in 822 trips using the same 11th edition ITE rates.
Thus, the Proposed Project would result in a net negative of 298 trips in comparison to the Approved
Project FEIR. According to the City’s guidelines, projects which would generate fewer than 500 average
daily trips (ADT) would not cause a substantial increase in the total citywide or regional VMT Because the
Proposed Project would generate a net negative of 298 trips when compared to the existing use, it is
presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT and further analysis would not be required. Thus
the Proposed Project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT and further analysis would
not be required.
In addition, based on the 11th edition peak hour trip generation of the Proposed Project use (Land Use
Code 150 – Warehouse), the Proposed Project would not meet the City’s threshold for preparation of a
LOS Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). It should be noted that the Proposed Project would pay all applicable
traffic impact fees, which would be used to fund the local and regional transportation system (Appendix
L). These fees are intended to mitigate the cumulative traffic effects of land development projects. The
Proposed Project would be required to implement the following mitigation measures from the Approved
Project FEIR but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 100 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table TRA-1: Approved SWIP Use Trip Generation
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 101 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table TRA-2: Proposed Project Trip Generation
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 102 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
There are no new or more severe significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no
new mitigation measures are required for issues related to transportation. The FEIR includes measures to
reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Approved Project.
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Forecast Existing with Project Conditions
The following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR were intended to achieve acceptable
operations at the deficient roadway segments for forecast existing with the Approved Project conditions.
The mitigation measures shown below did not apply to the Proposed Project site because the Approved
Project TIA found that based on the City’s LOS standards and significant impact criteria, the project-related
impact would not be considered significant at the study intersections. Similarly, because the Proposed
Project would have a smaller trip generation (as shown on Table TRA-2), the mitigation measures are not
applicable to the Proposed Project.
4.9-1a Mulberry Avenue – Consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, construct
Mulberry Avenue connection from Slover Avenue to Valley Boulevard over I-10 freeway.
This improvement is identified to provide additional north-south capacity, reducing
forecast traffic on Etiwanda Avenue and Cherry Avenue.
4.9-1b Beech Avenue – Consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, construct Beech
Avenue from Slover Avenue to Valley Boulevard including an interchange with I-10. This
improvement is consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan. This
improvement is identified to provide additional north-south capacity and freeway access,
reducing forecast traffic on Cherry Avenue and Citrus Avenue.
4.9-1c Jurupa Street between Etiwanda Avenue and Mulberry Avenue – Consistent with the City
of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 4-lane
divided roadway segment to a 6-lane divided roadway segment. This improvement is
included in the City of Fontana 7-Year Capital Improvement Program, but is not yet fully
funded.
4.9-1d Mulberry Avenue between Slover Avenue and Jurupa Avenue – Consistent with the City
of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-lane
undivided roadway segment to a 4-lane undivided roadway segment.
4.9-1e Jurupa Street between Mulberry Avenue and Cherry Avenue – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 4-lane divided
roadway to a 6-lane divided roadway. This improvement is included in the City of Fontana
7-Year Capital Improvement Program, but is not yet fully funded.
4.9-1f Beech Avenue between Slover Avenue and Jurupa Street – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-lane divided
roadway to a 4-lane divided roadway.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 103 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.9-1g Citrus Avenue between I-10 Eastbound Ramps and Santa Ana Avenue – Consistent with
the City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-
lane undivided roadway segment to a 4-lane undivided roadway segment.
4.9-1h Citrus Avenue between Santa Ana Avenue and Jurupa Street – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-lane
undivided roadway segment to a 4-lane undivided roadway segment.
The following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR were intended to achieve acceptable
operations at the deficient intersections for forecast existing with Approved Project conditions. However,
the below mitigation measures do not apply to the Proposed Project because the Approved Project TIA
found that based on the City’s LOS standards and significant impact criteria, the Proposed Project-related
impact would not be considered significant at the study intersections; therefore, no mitigation is required.
4.9-1i Etiwanda Avenue/San Bernardino Avenue – Widen the northbound Etiwanda Avenue
approach from two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound
San Bernardino Avenue approach from two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and
one right-turn lane. Additionally, modify the westbound San Bernardino Avenue signal
phasing to include a westbound right-turn overlap, which will preclude U-turn movement
from southbound to northbound Etiwanda Avenue.
4.9-1j Etiwanda Avenue/East Airport Drive-Slover Avenue – Widen the northbound Etiwanda
Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared
through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Etiwanda Avenue approach from
one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of
two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the
westbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
two right-turn lanes.
4.9-1k Etiwanda Avenue/Jurupa Street – Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street approach from two
left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Street
approach from two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1l Mulberry Avenue/Slover Avenue – In concert with construction of the extension of
Mulberry Avenue north of Slover Avenue, widen the northbound Mulberry Avenue
approach from one left-turn lane and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane,
two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Construct and stripe the southbound
Mulberry Avenue approach to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one
right-turn lane. Widen the eastbound Slover Avenue approach from two through lanes
and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through
lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Slover Avenue
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 104 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
approach from one left-turn lane and two through lanes to consist of one left-turn lane,
two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Additionally, modify the signal phasing to
consist of protected left-turn phasing.
4.9-1m Mulberry Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue – Widen the northbound Mulberry Avenue approach
from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-
turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Re-stripe the eastbound Santa Ana
Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane to
consist of one left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the
westbound Santa Ana Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/ through/right-turn
lane to consist of one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn
lane. Additionally, modify the east-west signal phasing from permitted left-turns to
protected left-turns.
4.9-1n Mulberry Avenue/Jurupa Street – Modify the northbound Mulberry Avenue signal
phasing to include a northbound right-turn overlap, which will preclude U-turn movement
from westbound to eastbound Jurupa Street. Widen the southbound Mulberry Avenue
approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Additionally, modify
the southbound Mulberry Avenue signal phasing to include a southbound right-turn
overlap, which will preclude U-turn movement from eastbound to westbound Jurupa
Avenue. Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street approach from one left-turn lane, two
through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through
lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Avenue approach from one
left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1o Banana Avenue/Valley Boulevard – Signalize the Banana Avenue/Valley Boulevard
intersection. According to the City of Fontana, the Banana Avenue/Valley Boulevard
satisfies traffic signal warrants and is in the pre-construction phase.
4.9-1p Cherry Avenue/Valley Boulevard – Widen the northbound Cherry Avenue approach from
one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one defacto right-turn lane to consist of one
left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Cherry
Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to
consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the
westbound Valley Boulevard approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn
lane.
4.9-1q Cherry Avenue/Slover Avenue – Widen the northbound Cherry Avenue approach from
one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn
lane, four through lanes and one right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Cherry Avenue
approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn
lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Widen
the eastbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
one defacto right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 105 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane,
two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through
lanes, and two right-turn lanes.
4.9-1r Cherry Avenue/Jurupa Street – Widen the northbound Cherry Avenue approach from two
left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Cherry Avenue
approach from two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Widen the
eastbound Jurupa Avenue approach from two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one
shared through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and
one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Street approach from two left-turn
lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three
through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1s Beech Avenue/Valley Boulevard – Signalize the Beech Avenue/Valley Boulevard
intersection. Widen the northbound Beech Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/
through lane and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, one through lane,
and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Beech Avenue approach
from one shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn
lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1t Beech Avenue/Slover Avenue – Signalize the Beech Avenue/Slover Avenue intersection.
Widen the northbound Beech Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/through/right-
turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
Widen the southbound Beech Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/through/right-
turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
Widen the eastbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane,
and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through
lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Slover Avenue approach from one
left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one
left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1u Beech Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue – Signalize the Beech Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue
intersection.
4.9-1v Beech Avenue/Jurupa Street – Signalize the Beech Avenue/Jurupa Street intersection.
Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street approach from one shared left-turn/through lane and
one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes,
and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Street approach from one shared
left-turn/through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
one right-turn lane.
4.9-1w Citrus Avenue/Valley Boulevard – Widen the northbound Citrus Avenue approach from
one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of
two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the
southbound Citrus Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 106 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
one right-turn lane. Widen the eastbound Valley Boulevard approach from two left-turn
lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-
turn lanes, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes.
4.9-1x Citrus Avenue/Slover Avenue – Widen the northbound Citrus Avenue approach from one
left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two
through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Citrus Avenue approach
from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-
turn lane, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Widen the eastbound Slover
Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one defacto right-turn
lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen
the westbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and
one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes,
and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1y Citrus Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue – Signalize the Citrus Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue
intersection. Widen the northbound Citrus Avenue approach from one shared left-
turn/through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Citrus Avenue approach from one shared
left-turn/through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane. Widen the eastbound Santa Ana Avenue approach from one
shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane. Re-stripe the westbound Santa Ana Avenue approach from one
shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and
one shared through/right-turn lane.
4.9-1z Citrus Avenue/Jurupa Street – Signalize the Citrus Avenue/Jurupa Street intersection.
Widen the southbound Citrus Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared
through/right-turn lane. Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street approach from one left-turn
lane, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-
turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa
Street approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-
turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1aa Sierra Avenue/Slover Avenue – Widen the eastbound Slover Avenue approach from two
left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1bb Sierra Avenue/Jurupa Street – Widen the southbound Sierra Avenue approach from two
left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lane,
two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street
approach from one left-turn lane, one shared left-turn/through lane, one through lane,
and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-
turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Street approach from one left-turn lane, one
through lane, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes,
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 107 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
and one right-turn lane. Improvements have recently been constructed at this
intersection satisfying the lane configuration recommended.
4.9-1cc Armstrong Road/SR-60 Eastbound Ramps – Contribute towards preparation of a Project
Study Report to improve operations, circulation, and access at the Armstrong Road/SR-
60 interchange.
Forecast Year 2030 with Approved Project Conditions
The following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR were intended to achieve acceptable
operations at the deficient roadway segments for the forecast year 2030 with Approved Project
conditions. However, the below mitigation measures do not apply to the Proposed Project because the
Approved Project TIA found that based on the City’s LOS standards and significant impact criteria, the
Proposed Project-related impact would not be considered significant at the study intersections; therefore,
no mitigation is required.
4.9-1dd Cypress Avenue – Consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, construct
Cypress Avenue from Slover Avenue to Valley Boulevard over I-10 freeway. This
improvement is consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan. This
improvement is identified to provide additional north-south capacity, reducing forecast
traffic on Cherry Avenue and Citrus Avenue.
4.9-1ee Country Village Road between Philadelphia Avenue and SR-60 Westbound Ramps –
Consistent with the County of Riverside Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway
segment from a 4-lane undivided roadway segment to a 6-lane divided roadway segment.
Since this improvement is within the jurisdiction of the recently incorporated City of
Jurupa Valley, implementation by the City of Fontana cannot be assured. Therefore, this
improvement shall be included in the planning and collection of fees and coordination
with the appropriate lead agency shall occur to administer the improvement.
4.9-1ff San Bernardino Avenue between Cherry Avenue and Fontana Avenue – Consistent with
the City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-
lane divided roadway to a 4-lane divided roadway. Since this improvement is within the
jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino, implementation by the City of Fontana
cannot be assured. Therefore, this improvement shall be included in the planning and
collection of fees and coordination with the appropriate lead agency shall occur to
administer the improvement.
4.9-1gg Jurupa Street between Cherry Avenue and Citrus Avenue – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 5-lane divided
roadway to a 6-lane divided roadway. A portion of this improvement has recently been
implemented by the City of Fontana providing the capacity for a 6-lane roadway between
Poplar Avenue and Citrus Avenue.
4.9-1hh Jurupa Street between Citrus Avenue and Sierra Avenue – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 5-lane divided
roadway to a 6-lane divided roadway. This improvement has recently been implemented
by the City of Fontana providing the capacity for a 6-lane roadway between Citrus Avenue
and Sierra Avenue.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 108 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR were intended to achieve acceptable
operations at the deficient intersection for the forecast year 2030 with Approved Project conditions.
However, the below mitigation measures do not apply to the Proposed Project because the Approved
Project TIA found that based on the City’s LOS standards and significant impact criteria, the Proposed
Project-related impact would not be considered significant at the study intersections; therefore, no
mitigation is required.
4.9-1ii I-15 Southbound Ramps/Jurupa Street – Widen the southbound I-15 Southbound Off-
Ramp from one left-turn lane, one shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane, and one
right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1jj Commerce Way/Ontario Mills Parkway – Widen the northbound Commerce Way
approach from two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1kk Cherry Avenue/San Bernardino Avenue – Widen the eastbound San Bernardino Avenue
approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1ll Cherry Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue – Widen the southbound Cherry Avenue approach
from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane to
consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1mm Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicants for future development associated with
the proposed project shall prepare site-specific traffic studies, to the satisfaction of the
City’s Engineering Department. As determined by these subsequent traffic studies, traffic
improvements identified as mitigation measures in this Program EIR shall be implemented
as a condition of the approved future development project, either through direct
construction by the project applicant and/or through development impact fees. [NOTE:
this mitigation measure has been accomplished through preparation of this Addendum
EIR and related transportation studies].
4.9-1nn The City of Fontana shall perform monitoring of traffic generation and phasing of
development within the project area to defer or eliminate identified improvements due
to potential circulation impact changes or reduced land use intensities. This monitoring
shall be achieved through project-specific traffic studies tied to future development
within the Specific Plan Update area with land use in excess of 100,000 square feet of
non-residential land use
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to conflict with a
program, plan, ordinance, policy, or guideline addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. No new or more severe impacts from a previously identified
significant and unavoidable impact evaluated in the Approved FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of significant and
unavoidable impacts under this issue area.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 109 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
No New or More Severe Impact: Proposed Project construction activities could require the restriction of
public access in its duration. Standard construction safety measures would also be applied which would
include appropriate signage and flagmen visible to approaching motorists and pedestrians indicating
access options and warnings. Because the Proposed Project would impact a public right-of-way, a Traffic
Management Plan would be created and include further provisions to minimize risks during Proposed
Project construction.
Proposed Project geometric design features, including the two entrances and internal driveway system,
have been designed to meet the standards for the turning radii of large truck with trailers. This is also
beneficial for the access of emergency response equipment, including a ladder fire truck. The Proposed
Project area is vacant and no agricultural activities occur in the Proposed Project area; therefore, there
would be no incompatible use with farm equipment.
Three driveways would be incorporated into the Proposed Project design along Santa Ana Avenue and
Live Oak. These driveways would allow traffic to safely enter and exit the Proposed Project site. The
Proposed Project would therefore generate a less than significant traffic hazard impact, and no mitigation
would be required.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no or more severe new impact as it pertains to geometric design
feature or incompatible uses. No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously
identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant
impact under this issue area.
Threshold (d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No New or More Severe Impact: Proposed Project features to ensure sufficient emergency access include
access via a 40-foot wide, 35-foot wide, and a 50-foot wide driveways, metal access gates with fire
department padlocks, and 30 feet between truck and trailer parking aisles to allow for fire/emergency
response vehicles to maneuver throughout the Proposed Project site.
The Approved Project FEIR stipulates that the Traffic Management Plan would be created via the City’s
requirements for any projects that include construction activities within the public right-of-way. The
Proposed Project would therefore be required to create a Traffic Management Plan which would include
practices such as directional signage, flagmen, and emergency access creation. Further, the Municipal
Code Section 30-529(A) requires developments to incorporate access for emergency vehicles to project
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 110 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
designs. The two driveways along Almond Avenue would be of sufficient size to allow emergency vehicles
to traverse onto the Proposed Project site. By complying with the City’s Traffic Management Plan and
other traffic management regulations, the Proposed Project would maintain adequate emergency access
and result in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no or more severe new impact as it pertains to emergency access.
No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact
evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR
was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact under this issue area.
Overall Transportation Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts, with respect to transportation. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 111 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.17 Utilities and Service Systems
5.17.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not
result in significant impacts relative to utilities and service systems. However, the implementation of the
below referenced Mitigation Measures was recommended.
5.17.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Require or result in the construction of new water, wastewater treatment facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project is a permitted use, allowed by right in the SWIP’s
SCD. As such, the proposed use has been previously accounted for in the Approved Project FEIR, including
the potential water and wastewater required for the site. The Proposed Project would consume water at
a rate of approximately 2.4 acre-foot per year, based on FWC water consumption rates (0.33 acre-foot,
per acre, per year for industrial use22F
24). The Approved Project FEIR warehouse would consume water at a
rate of 3.64 acre-feet per year (0.33 acre-foot per acre per year for industrial use). The Proposed Project
would thus consume less water per year compared to the Approved Project and would also produce less
wastewater, as a result.
Additionally, the Approved Project FEIR determined that impacts to storm water drainage facilities would
be less than significant. The Proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of
polluted runoff.
Furthermore, as previously addressed, the Proposed Project will be required to prepare a SWPPP that
details construction and post-construction measures to control surface runoff in a manner that is
consistent with master planning efforts. Therefore, associated impacts are considered less than
significant. Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact
evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Approved
Project. The following measures from the FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The mitigation measures listed below are included in the Approved Project FEIR; however, these are
goals/policies to be implemented by the City, and are not applicable to the Proposed Project.
4.8-8a The City shall maintain its current Master Plan of Sewers as the basis for development of
a sewer system to serve the community.
24 Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. https://18x37n2ovtbb3434n48jhbs1-wpengine.netdna-
ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FINAL-IEUA-WFA-2015-UWMP-2016-07-07.pdf (accessed June 18, 2022).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 112 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.8-8b The City shall design and operate its local and trunk sewer system in close collaboration
with the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA).
4.8-8c The City shall establish and maintain an aggressive water recycling program.
4.8-8d The City shall devote sufficient financial support for wastewater system maintenance so
that current levels of service, health, and safety are sustained or improved.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to placement of utilities
and sewer systems. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and
could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would
impact the prior finding of no significant impact.
Threshold (b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR determined that implementation of the SWIP
Specific Plan Update would have a less than significant impact with respect to water supplies. No potable
groundwater wells are proposed as part of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would be served
with potable water by the FWC. The FWC prepared a WSA for the SWIP Specific Plan Update as part of the
Approved Project FEIR process. Based on the results of the WSA, existing and future water entitlements
from groundwater, surface, and imported sources in addition to recycling and conservation were
determined to be sufficient to meet the Approved Project’s demand at buildout, in addition to forecast
demand for the FWC’s entire service area.23F
25 Development of the Proposed Project site, which is located
in the SCD, was calculated in the WSA, and the Proposed Project is consistent with the type of
development and square footage maximum anticipated for the site in the SCD. Lastly, according to the
FWC’s latest 2015 UWMP, the FWC has sufficient water supply through year 2040.24F
26
Domestic water supplies from this service provider are reliant on groundwater from the Chino
Groundwater Basin and Rialto Groundwater Basin. All municipal water entities that exceed their safe yield
incur a groundwater replenishment obligation, which is used to recharge the groundwater basin. Thus,
the Proposed Project’s demand for domestic water service would not substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
Accordingly, no new or more severe impact relative to water supply from a previously identified significant
impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of
substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved
Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact related
to the provision of water.
Mitigation Program
25 City of Fontana. 2009. Water Supply Assessment for the Southwest Industrial Park Project.
26 San Gabriel Valley Water Company FWC Division. Amended 2017. Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/San-Gabriel-Fontana_Amended-Final-December-2017-1.pdf (accessed
November 1, 2021).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 113 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Approved
Project. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
The mitigation measures listed below are goals/policies to be implemented by the City and are not
applicable to the Proposed Project.
4.8-7a The City shall work closely with water supply agencies to assure the continued supply of
water.
4.8-7b The City shall act to conserve water in whatever cost-effective ways are reasonably
available.
4.8-7c The City shall manage urban runoff to minimize water supply contamination.
4.8-7d The City shall collaborate with water management authorities to devise and implement
creative and cost-effective water management strategies.
4.8-7e The City shall provide educational material to its residents and businesses regarding the
critical necessity for careful use of water and management of water systems.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to water supplies.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding
of no significant impact to utilities and service systems.
Threshold (c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No New or More Severe Impact: See discussion for Threshold 4.17.2(a) above. The SWIP Specific Plan
Update area is within the sewer service area of the City and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The
City is a member agency of the IEUA, which provides the City contracting privileges with the IEUA for off-
site collection, treatment, disposal and reuse.
A Water and Sewer Infrastructure Study (Study) was conducted for the SWIP Specific Plan Update in 2009.
The Study calculated existing sewer flow for the SCD at 110,024 gallons per day (gpd) and 310,143 gpd for
ultimate buildout. Existing peak flow is 153 gallons per minute (gpm) and ultimate buildout is 431 gpm.
The Study found that existing sewerage collection capacity would be sufficient for ultimate Approved
Project land uses of the areas currently within the City limits, which includes the SCD. However, the Study
recommended that because much of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is under-utilized, estimated flows
for each trunk sewer system should be revised as these activities occur, in order to optimize sewer sizing.
In addition, potential trunk system alignment modifications may be in order to efficiently serve new parcel
construction.
The Proposed Project would produce 79.09 gpd of wastewater based on the wastewater generation
factors provided in the City’s General Plan.25 No significant impacts are anticipated with respect to
providing adequate wastewater facilities to serve the Proposed Project.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 114 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures 4.8-8a through 4.8-8d are listed in the Approved Project FEIR; however, these are
goals/policies to be implemented by the City, not the Proposed Project.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to wastewater
treatment capacity. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and
could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would
impact the prior finding of no significant impact to wastewater treatment systems.
Threshold (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 waste reduction
goals?
Threshold (e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR determined that the SWIP Specific Plan
Update would not result in significant impacts relative to solid waste with the implementation of
mitigation measures. Implementation of the Proposed Project would be expected to generate additional
waste during the temporary, short-term construction phase, as well as the long-term operational phase.
Solid waste service for the City is provided by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill located east of the City.
According to CalRecycle, the landfill has a maximum throughput of 7,500 tons per day. This landfill has a
maximum permitted capacity of approximately 101.3 million cubic yards, and the landfill has a remaining
capacity of approximately 61 million cubic yards. The landfill has an expected operational life through
2033 with the potential for vertical, or downward expansion.25F
27 However, the Approved Project FEIR notes
that while the 2011 projected capacity of the landfill was thought to be met by 2033, more recent
projections indicate the same landfill may have capacity to accept waste for another 30 to 40 years.26F
28 For
these reasons, the Proposed Project’s solid waste disposal needs can be met by the Mid-Valley Sanitary
Landfill. Additionally, the Proposed Project, as with all other development in the City, would be required
to adhere to City ordinances with respect to waste reduction and recycling. As a result, no impacts related
to State and local statutes governing solid waste are anticipated and no mitigation is required. Consistent
with the Approved Project FEIR, with implementation of the below-referenced mitigation measures, the
Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the Proposed
Project:
27 CalRecycle. 2022. Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/36-AA-0055/Detail (accessed June 20,
2022).
28 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed
November 1, 2021).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 115 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The below mitigation measures are listed in the Approved Project FEIR; however, these are goals/policies
to be implemented by the City, not the Proposed Project.
4.8-9a The City shall continue to maintain a contractual arrangement that achieves maximum
recycling rates at a reasonable price.
4.8-9b Where joint programs offer improvement efficiency or reduced cost, the City shall
collaborate with other entities in recycling efforts.
4.8-9c The City shall continue to provide services to resident and business citizens that facilitate
community cleanup, curbside collections and diversion of oil and other hazardous waste
materials.
4.8-9d The City should maintain an aggressive public information program to stimulate waste
reduction by its resident and business citizens.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to conflict with solid
waste standards and regulations. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not
known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available
that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact to solid waste generation.
Overall Utility and Service Systems Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to utilities and service systems. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 116 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.18 Wildfire
5.18.1 Analysis of Proposed Project
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for Wildfire hazards. Although not
addressed as a separate threshold, the Approved Project FEIR noted in the Air Quality and Climate Change
chapter that climate change could result in increased occurrences and duration of wildfire events.
However, the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is located within an urbanized area and is surrounded by
development on all sides; it is not located adjacent to wildlands that may increase the risk of wildland
fires. Because the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is not considered susceptible to wildland fires, wildfire
risks as a result of global climate change is anticipated to be less than significant in the Approved Project
FEIR.
Threshold (a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Threshold (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?
Threshold (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 or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Threshold (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?
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, the Proposed Project site is located in a flat/leveled area which
does not include wild habitat and is not located near hillsides. The Proposed Project site is surrounded by
a fully developed commercial and industrial areas in all directions. Because the Proposed Project site
would not be exposed to wildfires, wind, slope, or other factors would not exacerbate wildfire risks.
Additionally, the Proposed Project site would not require the installation of additional roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, or other features that could result in fire risks. Finally, the Proposed Project
site is not exposed to flooding, landslides, runoff conditions. No impact is anticipated to occur from
Proposed Project implementation.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Not evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR; therefore, there are no mitigation measures from the
Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, the Proposed Project is not located near hillsides. No new
impact from wildfires would occur.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 117 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Overall Wildfire Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to Wildfire. Therefore,
preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 118 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.19 Energy
5.19.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for Energy. Although not addressed as a
separate threshold in the Approved Project FEIR, the Approved Project FEIR analyzed energy conservation
as part of the Other CEQA Considerations and concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan
Update would result in a less than significant impact on energy resources. Additionally, the SWIP Specific
Plan had planned the Proposed Project site to be developed with light industrial uses. With this, the SWIP
Specific Plan Update planned and accounted for the use of energy from the permitted use.
5.19.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation, and
Threshold (b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Based on the land use types, CalEEMod is able to estimate the usage of natural gas, electricity, and annual
vehicle miles traveled which correlates with amount of fuel consumed. Table E-1 below shows the
anticipated construction energy usage for the Proposed Project.
The Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in an impact on the environment due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. A less than significant impact would occur
from energy consumption from Proposed Project implementation.
Table E-1: Construction Equipment Fuel Usage
Activity Equipment Number
Hours
per
day
Horse-
power
Load
Factor
Days of
Construction
Total
Horsepower-
hours
Fuel Rate
(gal/hp-hr)
Fuel Use
(gallons)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73 10 1,927 0.041881728 81
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 36 0.38 10 3,283 0.01985595 65
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 367 0.4 10 23,488 0.020601315 484
Site
Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4 10 35,232 0.020601315 726
Crawler Tractors 4 8 87 0.43 10 11,971 0.022175849 265
Grading
Excavator 2 8 36 0.38 30 6,566 0.01985595 130
Graders 1 8 148 0.41 30 14,563 0.021161331 308
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 30 35,232 0.020601315 726
Scraper 2 8 423 0.48 30 97,459 0.024988526 2,435
Crawler Tractors 2 8 87 0.43 30 17,957 0.022175849 398
Utilities
Excavator 4 8 36 0.38 10 4,378 0.045116197 198
Plate Compactors 4 8 8 0.43 10 1,101 0.024592837 27
Skid Steer Loaders 1 8 71 0.37 10 2,102 0.019369887 41
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 10 2,486 0.010444403 26
Building
Construction
Cranes 1 8 367 0.29 300 255,432 0.014895293 3,805
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 300 118,080 0.010444403 1,233
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 300 24,864 0.045116197 1,122
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 300 223,776 0.022175849 4,962
Welder 1 8 46 0.45 300 49,680 0.026298689 1,307
Paving
Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 20 10,886 0.021532281 234
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 20 10,253 0.018464524 189
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 20 4,378 0.019836075 87
Architectural
Coating
Air Compressors 1 8 37 0.48 25 3,552 0.027796281 99
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 119 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Activity Equipment Number
Hours
per
day
Horse-
power
Load
Factor
Days of
Construction
Total
Horsepower-
hours
Fuel Rate
(gal/hp-hr)
Fuel Use
(gallons)
Total 18,948
Source: CalEEMod Emissions Summary, Appendix B
Table E-2: Estimated Project Vehicle Fuel Usage
Construction
Source Number VMT Fuel Rate Gallons of
Diesel Fuel
Gallons of
Gasoline Fuel
Haul Trucks 18 360 5.85 62 0
Vendor Trucks 52 159,120 8.94 17,789 0
Worker Vehicles 254 783,568 24.02 0 32,139
Total 17,851 32,139
Source: CalEEMod Emissions Summary, Appendix B
Table 1 Total Construction Fuel Usage
Construction Source Gallons of Diesel Fuel Gallons of Gasoline
Fuel
Construction Vehicles 17,851 32,139
Off-road Construction Equipment 18,948 0
Total 36,799 32,139
Source: CalEEMod Emissions Summary, Appendix B
Operation
The operation of the Proposed Project would consume electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. The
comparative energy consumption can be found in Table E-4, which includes the estimates with project
design features and mitigation from the SWIP. As shown in Table E-4, the Proposed Project is estimated
to require less electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel fuel then the SWIP development assumptions.
Table 18 shows the net energy consumption of the Proposed Project when accounting for the existing
gasoline and diesel consumption. As can be seen in Table E-4, the Proposed Project would consume more
electricity, natural gas, and diesel; however, would consume less gasoline. While the total VMT of gasoline
consuming vehicles would increase with the Proposed Project, the estimated vehicle splits would favor
more fuel-efficient vehicles (like automobile or passenger trucks) when compared to the existing Project
site uses that consist of more light heavy duty vehicles. As shown in Table E-4, the Proposed Project would
result in a lower annual VMT and fuel usage than the SWIP buildout of the site. The Proposed Project
would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 120 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table 2 Proposed Project Comparative Annual Operational Energy Requirements
Operational Source Energy Usage
Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours)
Proposed Project 1,446,403
Previous SWIP 2,189,735
Difference -743,332
Natural Gas (Thousands British Thermal Units)*
Proposed Project 6,133,999
Previous SWIP 9,247,203
Difference -3,113,204
Petroleum (gasoline) Consumption
Annual VMT Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
Proposed Project 1,902,970 79,136
Previous SWIP 2,880,939 119,805
Difference -977,969 -40,669
Petroleum (diesel) Consumption*
Annual VMT Gallons of diesel Fuel
Proposed Project 1,882,003 288,904
Previous SWIP 2,849,197 436,788
Difference -967,194 -147,884
Source: CalEEMod Emissions Summary, Appendix B
Table 3 Proposed Project Net Annual Operational Energy Requirements
Operational Source Energy Usage
Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours)
Proposed Project 1,446,403
Existing 0
Difference 1,446,403
Natural Gas (Thousands British Thermal Units)*
Proposed Project 6,133,999
Existing 0
Difference 6,133,999
Petroleum (gasoline) Consumption
Annual VMT Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
Proposed Project 1,902,970 79,136
Existing 1,755,522 84,305
Difference 147,448 -5,169
Petroleum (diesel) Consumption*
Annual VMT Gallons of diesel Fuel
Proposed Project 1,882,003 288,904
Existing 1,657,489 217,527
Difference 224,514 71,377
Source: CalEEMod Emissions Summary, Appendix B
Conclusion
The Proposed Project’s energy consumption for construction activities related to redevelopment of the
site for new industrial warehousing uses would be permitted to require compliance with existing fuel
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 121 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
standards, machinery efficiency standards, and CARB requirements that limit idling of trucks. Through
compliance with existing standards the Proposed Project would not result in demand for fuel greater on
a per-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. There are no unusual
project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy
efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the State. The operation of the
Proposed Project would consume less electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel then the SWIP
development assumptions. In addition, the Proposed Project is similar to other industrial projects and
would comply with current Title 24 requirements as well as all applicable City business and energy codes
and ordinances. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact on energy
consumption, and no new impacts would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Not evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR; therefore, there are no mitigation measures from the
Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
No new impact from energy consumption would occur.
Overall Energy Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to energy. Therefore,
preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 122 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.20 Tribal Cultural Resources
5.20.1 Analysis of Proposed Project
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). This
section briefly examines potential impacts related to TCRs that could result from implementation of the
Proposed Project. The analysis is based primarily on confidential cultural resource studies conducted for
the Approved Project FEIR and the Proposed Project. PRC language relevant to the TCR thresholds is
below:
PRC Section 21074 defines a TRC as follows:
(a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical
Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section
5020.1.
(2) 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 Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this
paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
(b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the
extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape.
(c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in
subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in
subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the
criteria of subdivision (a).
Subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5020.1 is as follows:
(k) “Local register of historical resources” means a list of properties officially designated or
recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or
resolution.
Subdivisions (a) and (c) of PRC Section 5024.1 are as follows:
(c) A resource may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if it meets any of the
following National Register of Historic Places criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 123 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction,
or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Threshold (a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
Threshold (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?
In June 2022, a cultural resources assessment was conducted which included a cultural resources records
search, reconnaissance-level pedestrian cultural resources survey, and Sacred Lands File (SLF) Search with
the NAHC. The result of the SLF check conducted through the NAHC was negative. Following coordination
with the NAHC, they provided a list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places within the boundaries
of the County. There are no CRHR- or NRHP-eligible tribal cultural resources located on the Proposed
Project site. Although no prehistoric sites have been locally recorded, in general the Proposed Project site
is situated at an ethnographic nexus peripherally occupied by the Gabrielino and Serrano.
The Notice of Preparation for the Approved Project was filed in 2009; therefore, AB 52, which was enacted
in July 1, 2015, did not apply to the Approved Project FEIR. Likewise, the provisions of AB 52 are
inapplicable to this Addendum. In addition, the Proposed Project would be subject to comply with the
Tribal Cultural Resources standard conditions of approval listed below.
Based on the above, a less than significant impact would occur on TCRs from Proposed Project
implementation; however, if previously undocumented cultural resources are identified during
earthmoving activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the nature and significance
of the find, diverting earthmoving activities if necessary., in accordance with Mitigation Measures 4.4-1b,
4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.4-1b, 4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c apply, as discussed above.
Standard Conditions of Approval
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 124 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The Proposed Project would be subject to comply with the City’s Cultural and Tribal Standard Conditions
of Approval as listed below.
• Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in
the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and
archaeological and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin,
interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the
landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request
preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of
the project while evaluation takes place.
• Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to
remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural
Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native
American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in
the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in
the area for educational purposes.
• Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall
be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary
disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary
objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for
archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with
Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologists shall
ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.
Conclusion
No new impact related to TCRs would occur.
Overall Tribal Cultural Resources Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to tribal cultural
resources. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
SWIP Specific Plan Update 125 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
6 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION
The following discussion lists the appropriate subsections of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA
Guidelines and provides justification for the City to make a determination of the appropriate CEQA
document for the Proposed Project, based on the environmental analysis provided above.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 ‒ Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent
EIR shall be prepared for that Project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of
substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
The City proposes to implement the Proposed Project within the context of the SWIP Specific Plan Update,
as described in this Addendum. As discussed in the Environmental Impact Analysis section of this
Addendum, no new or more severe significant environmental effects beyond what was evaluated in the
Approved Project FEIR would occur.
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects.
As documented herein, no circumstances associated with the location, type, setting, or operations of the
Proposed Project have substantively changed beyond what was evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR;
and none of the Proposed Project elements would result in new or more severe significant environmental
effects than previously identified. No major revisions to the Approved Project FEIR are required.
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant environmental effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
No new significant environmental effects beyond those addressed in the Approved Project FEIR were
identified.
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
Significant effects previously examined would not be more severe than were disclosed in the Approved
Project FEIR as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts associated with all environmental resource areas
would be the same as or less than disclosed in the Approved Project FEIR. Implementation of the Proposed
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
SWIP Specific Plan Update 126 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Project within the context of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not substantially increase the severity
of previously identified impacts.
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
Based on the discussion above, no mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
are now feasible.
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
No other mitigation measures or feasible alternatives have been identified that would be considerably
different than those incorporated in the Approved Project FEIR.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after
adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required
under subsection (a). Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a
subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
Subsequent to certification of the Approved Project FEIR in May 2012, additional technical analyses were
performed for the Proposed Project and are the subject of this Addendum. Based on the analysis in this
document, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects nor would
it increase the severity of significant effects previously identified in the Approved Project FEIR. None of
the conditions listed under subsection (a) would occur that would require preparation of a subsequent
EIR.
(c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless
further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval
does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions
described in subsection (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared
by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this
situation, no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the
subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.
None of the conditions listed in subsection (a) would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. No SEIR is
required.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 ‒ Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
SWIP Specific Plan Update 127 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if
some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
As described above, none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the
preparation of a SEIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling
for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a SEIR would occur as a result
of the Proposed Project. Therefore, an Addendum to the certified Approved Project FEIR is the appropriate
CEQA document for the Proposed Project.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the
FEIR or adopted negative declaration.
This Addendum will be attached to the Approved Project FEIR and maintained in the administrative record
files at the City.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the FEIR or adopted negative
declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
The City will consider this Addendum with the Approved Project FEIR prior to making a decision on the
Proposed Project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162
should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the Project,
or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
This document provides substantial evidence for City records to support the preparation of this
Addendum for the Proposed Project.
Conclusion
SWIP Specific Plan Update 128 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
7 CONCLUSION
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines
to document the finding that none of the conditions or circumstances that would require preparation of
a SEIR, pursuant to Section 15162 and Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, exist in connection with the
Proposed Project. No major revisions would be required to the Approved Project FEIR prepared for the
SWIP Specific Plan Update as a result of the Proposed Project. No new significant environmental impacts
have been identified. Since the certification of the Approved Project FEIR, there has been no new
information showing that mitigation measures or alternatives once considered infeasible are now feasible
or showing that there are feasible new mitigation measures or alternatives substantially different from
those analyzed in the Approved Project FEIR that the City declined to adopt. Therefore, preparation of a
SEIR is not required and the appropriate CEQA document for the Proposed Project is this Addendum to
the Approved Project FEIR. This document will be maintained in the administrative record files at the City.
References
SWIP Specific Plan Update 129 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
8 REFERENCES
Caltrans. 2020. Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-
community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed June 18, 2022).
City of Fontana. 2009. Water Supply Assessment for the Southwest Industrial Park Project.
City of Fontana. 2011. Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update and Annexation Environmental
Impact Report.
City of Fontana. 2012. SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation FPEIR Mitigation and Monitoring
Program (Available in Appendix A).
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26738/Acknowledgements-and-Table-of-
Contents (accessed November 1, 2021).
California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland: 1984-2018.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/ (accessed June 18, 2022).
Aragon Geotechnical, Inc., 2021. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Available in Appendix G).
Brian F. Smith and Associates, 2022. Cultural Resources Assessment (Available in Appendix E).
Brian F. Smith and Associates, 2022. Paleontological Resources Assessment (Available in Appendix F).
CalPacific Sciences, 2022. Tree Survey and Arborist Report. (Available in Appendix D).
EPD Solutions, Inc., 2022. CalEEMod Emissions Summary. (Available in Appendix B).
EPD Solutions, Inc., 2022. Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memorandum. (Available in Appendix K).
LSA, 2022. Health Risk Assessment (Available in Appendix C).
LSA, 2022. Noise Impact Assessment (Available in Appendix J).
Stantec, 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. (Available in Appendix G).
State of California Department of Finance. 2021. Report E-5, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State – January 1, 2011-2018, with Benchmark. Available at
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed June 18, 2022).
References
SWIP Specific Plan Update 130 Santa Ana and Live Oak Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
APPENDIX B
CALEEMOD EMISSIONS SUMMARY
APPENDIX C
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D
TREE SURVEY AND ARBORIST REPORT
APPENDIX E
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX F
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX G
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX H
PHASE I ESA
APPENDIX I
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
APPENDIX J
PRELIMINARY WQMP
APPENDIX K
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX L
TRIP GENERATION AND VMT SCREENING MEMO