HomeMy WebLinkAboutSlover and Cherry Logistics Facility Administrative Draft Addendum to the SWIP SP Updated EIR
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
Addendum to the
Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan
Update EIR
(SCH #2009091089)
prepared by
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Contact: Candida Neal, Planning Consultant
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
March 2023
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
Addendum to the
Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan
Update EIR
(SCH #2009091089)
prepared by
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Contact: Candida Neal, Planning Consultant
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
March 2023
Table of Contents
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Previously Approved 2011 City of Fontana SWIP SP Update ......................................................... 2
Proposed Project Description ......................................................................................................... 3
3 CEQA Compliance .........................................................................................................................11
4 Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project ...................................................12
1. Aesthetics ..........................................................................................................................13
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................................................................14
3. Air Quality .........................................................................................................................15
4. Biological Resources ..........................................................................................................23
5. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................26
6. Energy ...............................................................................................................................30
7. Geology/Soils ....................................................................................................................33
8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...............................................................................................34
9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................39
10. Hydrology/ Water Quality .................................................................................................42
11. Land Use/ Planning ...........................................................................................................44
12. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................46
13. Noise .................................................................................................................................47
14. Population/ Housing .........................................................................................................55
15. Public Services ...................................................................................................................56
16. Recreation .........................................................................................................................58
17. Transportation ..................................................................................................................60
18. Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................65
19. Utilities/Service Systems ...................................................................................................66
20. Wildfire..............................................................................................................................69
5 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................70
6 References and Preparers.............................................................................................................71
References ....................................................................................................................................71
List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................73
Tables
Table 1 Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 8
Table 2 Project Construction Emissions.........................................................................................16
Table 3 Project Operational Emissions ..........................................................................................16
Table 4 Project LST Construction Emissions ..................................................................................18
Table 5 Project LST Operational Emissions ....................................................................................18
Table 6 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction ...........................................................30
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
ii
Table 7 Estimated Project Annual Operational Energy Consumption ...........................................31
Table 8 Construction GHG Emissions ............................................................................................35
Table 9 Combined Annual Emissions .............................................................................................35
Table 10 Modeled HVAC ..................................................................................................................51
Table 11 Existing and Proposed ADT Volume ..................................................................................51
Table 12 Hourly Operational Noise Levels .......................................................................................53
Table 13 Project Consistency with Fontana Circulation System Plans ............................................62
Table 14 Proposed Project Compared to SWIP SP Update EIR ........................................................70
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 5
Figure 2 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3 Preliminary Site Plan ........................................................................................................... 7
Appendices
Appendix A Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Appendix B Trip Generation Assessment
Appendix C CalEEMod and Energy Data Sheets
Appendix D Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix E Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G Noise Data
Appendix H VMT Screening Evaluation
Appendix I Will Serve Letters
Appenidx J Health Risk Assessment
Introduction
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 1
1 Introduction
This document is an Addendum to the City of Fontana’s 2011 Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific
Plan (SP) Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This Addendum has been prepared in
accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA
Guidelines.
In accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency shall prepare an addendum
to an EIR if some changes or additions are necessary that will not have significant new impacts or
substantially increase previously identified significant impacts. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines state:
▪ 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 (Section 15164(a));
▪ 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 (section 15164(b));
▪ An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the
Final EIR or adopted negative declaration (Section 15164(c));
▪ The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR or adopted negative
declaration prior to making a decision on the project (Section 15164(d)); and
▪ 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 (Section
15164(e)).
According to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to a previously certified EIR or
Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document in instances when “only minor
technical changes or additions are necessary” and when the new information does not involve new
significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the previous EIR.
This Addendum describes the details of the proposed Slover and Cherry Logistics Facility (hereafter
referred to as the “proposed project”) and compares impacts to those identified in the EIR for the City
of Fontana’s 2011 SWIP SP Update. The analysis demonstrates that the environmental impacts of the
proposed project are within the scope of the impacts identified in the SWIP SP Update.
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
2
2 Background
The EIR for the City of Fontana SWIP SP Update was certified in 2011 and consists of the text of the
Draft EIR, and the responses to public and agency comments received on the Draft EIR as part of the
Final EIR. The Final EIR provides guidance for implementation of the mitigation measures developed
for the SWIP SP Update. Information and technical analyses from the SWIP SP Update EIR are utilized
or referenced throughout this Addendum.
The SWIP SP EIR was prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. As
defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Program EIR is “…an EIR which may be prepared on a
series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related…”. The Fontana City
Council certified the Program EIR on May 8, 2012 (State Clearinghouse [SCH] Number [No.]
2009091089). Because the project would not require major revisions to the previously certified SWIP
SP Update EIR and there is no evidence in the public record that new information of substantial
importance have become available that is applicable to the proposed project or project site, an
Addendum to the previously-certified SWIP SP Update EIR is the appropriate CEQA document for the
project.
This section provides an overview of the certified SWIP SP Update EIR and the proposed Slover and
Cherry Logistics Facility Project (herein referred to as “proposed project” or “project”) in order to
provide context for this Addendum prior to evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed Housing Element Update.
Previously Approved 2012 City of Fontana SWIP SP Update
The SWIP SP was originally created on December 6, 1983 and has been amended 14 times since its
adoption. The SWIP SP was created to guide development of the City’s industrial uses south of I-10.
The approved SWIP SP Update applies to the southwestern portion of the City of Fontana, which
encompasses approximately 3,111 acres.
The City approved the SWIP SP Update on June 12, 2012. The SWIP plan area is located along
Interstate I-10 (I-10), north of State Route 60 (SR-60), and east of Interstate I-15 (I-15). The majority
of the plan area is located south of I-10, with two areas extending north of the freeway (City of
Fontana 2011).
The SWIP SP Update establishes revisions to the City’s land use regulations, regulations, and
development standards (City of Fontana 2011). The following is a summary of the overall objectives
identified by the City for the SWIP SP Update:
▪ Increase and maintain an increased daytime employment population.
▪ Coordinate land uses and transportation with infrastructure planning.
▪ Embrace flexible and diverse industrial land uses that foster economic development opportunities
for the City of Fontana and surrounding areas.
▪ Retain and expand existing businesses and business opportunities.
▪ Improve pedestrian accessibility, vehicular access, and parking to establish safety throughout the
SWIP SP Update area.
▪ Enhance the streetscape as well as the parking and loading areas throughout the SWIP SP Update
area.
Background
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 3
▪ Tailor land use regulations and design guidelines to custom-fit the SWIP SP Update area.
▪ Improve visual and functional linkages between I-10, Slover Avenue, and the City of Fontana.
▪ Identify areas of priority development and property assemblage opportunities to serve as
economic development catalysts.
▪ Coordinate and focus change in the SWIP SP Update area rather than a complete “removal and
replacement” transformation to enhance the sense of place and promote aesthetic
improvements.
▪ Incorporate planning policy that encourages viable development in the future, while paying
tribute to Fontana’s past.
The 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update evaluated potential environmental consequences of
implementation, and alternatives and mitigation measures were identified to reduce or avoid
potential adverse environmental effects associated with its implementation (City of Fontana 2011).
Specifically, the SWIP SP Update evaluated for 5,485,876 square feet of new industrial development.
Proposed Project Description
The proposed project is located on the southwest corner of Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue in the
City of Fontana in southwestern San Bernardino County, California. The project site consists of
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 023-610-123 and 023-610-124, and the approximate center of the
project is located at latitude: 34.062018° and longitude: -117.489960°. The 7.4-acre project site is
currently vacant and undeveloped. Light Industrial land uses are adjacent to the site to the north,
south and west, while General Industrial land uses are to the east of the project site (City of Fontana
2018a). Regional land uses surrounding the project site are largely light industrial and commercial.
Figure 1 shows the project site location in a regional context. Figure 2 depicts the project site location
at a local scale.
Lead Agency Name and Address
Candida Neal, Planning Consultant
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Via email: caneal@fontana.org
Applicant Contact Information
Benjamin M. Horning, Director of Development
Dedeaux Properties
Via email: benh@dedeauxproperties.com
General Plan Designation
The project site is designated by the Fontana General Plan as Light Industrial (City of Fontana 2018a).
The site is also located within the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan area, and is designated as
the Slover West Industrial District (City of Fontana 2018a).
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
4
Zoning
The project site is located within the Southwest Industrial Park Zoning District and is designated as
the Slover West Industrial District – Light Industrial (City of Fontana 2018a).
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Light Industrial land uses are adjacent to the project site to the north, south and west, while General
Industrial land uses are to the east of the project site on the other side of Cherry Avenue (City of
Fontana 2018a). Two individual residential properties occur along Slover Avenue to the east and west
of the project site, approximately 305 feet and 410 feet from the site, respectively. Regional land uses
surrounding the project site are largely light industrial and commercial. I-10 is located approximately
0.2 mile north of the project site.
Background
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 5
Figure 1 Regional Location
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
6
Figure 2 Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses
Background
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 7
Figure 3 Preliminary Site Plan
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
8
Description of the Project
The proposed project involves the construction of a 155,400-square foot (sf) warehouse logistics
building, with a 5,000-sf mezzanine and a 5,000-sf office. The loading area would consist of 20 dock
doors, one grade door, and 52 truck trailer stalls.
The project site would be accessed by employees and visitors by an entrance on Slover Avenue at the
northwest side of the site, and another entrance on Cherry Avenue, at the southeast corner of the
project site. A total of 55 standard parking stalls would be located in two parking areas located at each
entrance. The primary entry would set back approximately 30 feet from the Cherry Avenue right-of-
way. Pedestrians would be able to access the project site via the sidewalks along Cherry Avenue and
Slover Avenue. Table 1 provides the details of the proposed buildings and Figure 3 shows the
proposed conceptual site plan.
Table 1 Project Summary
Building
Area
Office –
First Floor
5,000 sf
Warehouse 155,400
sf
Mezzanine 5,000 sf
Total 165,400
sf
Parking
Stalls and
Loading
Docks
Standard 55 stalls
Truck Trailer 52
stalls
Dock Doors 20
Grade Door 1
Loading Area 85,030
sf
Site Area
Summary
Building
Footprint
Area
160,400
sf
Loading
Area
85,030 sf
Standard
Parking
Areas
36,001
sf
Background
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 9
Landscaping 39,319
sf
Total Site
Area
320,750
sf
Construction
Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, asphalt paving,
and architectural coating. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to occur over
approximately 14 months, with construction commencing in 2023.
Construction would occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and
Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. pursuant to the Fontana Municipal Code
(FMC) construction standards.
Approvals/Entitlements
The City of Fontana has primary approval responsibility for the project. As such, the City is serving as
the Lead Agency for this EIR Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. The City will
consider the information contained in this EIR Addendum and this EIR Addendum’s Administrative
Record in its decision-making processes. In the event of approval of the project and this EIR
Addendum, the City subsequently would issue administrative permits to implement the project. A
list of the primary actions related to the Project under City jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of other
agencies is provided below.
City of Fontana Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals
▪ Design Review
▪ EIR Addendum
▪ Precise site plan(s) and landscaping/irrigation plan(s), as may be appropriate
▪ Grading Permits
▪ Building Permits
▪ Encroachment/Construction Permits
▪ Road Improvement Plans
▪ Public right-of-way dedications
▪ Sewer and storm drain infrastructure
▪ Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
▪ On and off-site water infrastructure – Fontana Water Company
▪ Construction Activity General Construction Permit – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit
▪ WQMP – Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
10
Geotechnical Project Design Feature (PDF)
A Preliminary Geotechnical Report was prepared for the project site by Sladden Engineering in January
2022 to analyze the geotechnical factors that may impact the development of the site (Sladden 2022;
Appendix A). The report includes a review of the geological field investigation to evaluate subsurface
conditions; laboratory testing on selected soil samples to evaluate physical, engineering, and chemical
properties of on-site soil soils; evaluation of geologic and seismic hazards (i.e., surface rupture, ground
shaking, liquefaction, expansive soils); and an evaluation of design parameters in accordance with the
California Building Code (CBC). The main geotechnical concern for the proposed project is the
presence of potentially compressible surface and near surface material. Based on the results of the
field investigation, Sladden Engineering provided the following recommendations that will be
included as part of the proposed project:
1. Stripping. Areas to be graded will be cleared of any existing vegetation, associated root systems,
and debris. All areas scheduled to receive fill will be cleared of old fills and any irreducible
matter. The stripping will be removed off site or stockpiled for later use in landscape areas.
Voids left by obstructions will be properly backfilled in accordance with the compaction
recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (Appendix A).
2. Preparation of Building Areas. In order to achieve firm and uniform foundation bearing
conditions, over-excavation and re-compaction will occur throughout the building areas. All
artificial fill and native low density near surface soil will be removed to competent native soil or
to a minimum depth of three feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper.
Remedial grading will extend laterally a minimum of five feet beyond the building foundations.
The soil exposed by over-excavation will be scarified, moisture conditioned to near optimum
moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative prior to fill placement.
3. Compaction. Soil to be used as engineered fill will be free of organic material, debris, and other
deleterious substances, and not contain irreducible matter greater than three inches in
maximum dimension. All fill materials will be placed in thin lifts, not exceeding six inches in a
loose condition at near optimum moisture content. If import fill is required, the material will be
of a low to non-expansive nature and will meet the following criteria:
Plastic Index Less than 12
Liquid Limit Less than 35
Percent Soil Passing #200 Sieve Between 15 percent and 35 percent
Maximum Aggregate Size 3 inches
The subgrade soil and all fill material will be compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction. The bottom of the exposed subgrade will be observed by a representative of
Sladden Engineering prior to fill placement. Compaction testing will be performed in order to
verify proper compaction.
4. Shrinkage and Subsidence. Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced
as controlled compacted fill is anticipated. It is estimated that this shrinkage could vary from 10
to 15 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted will be between 1
and 2 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture
content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained.
CEQA Compliance
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 11
3 CEQA Compliance
As outlined in Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) of the CEQA Guidelines,
a Lead Agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions
are necessary but none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for
preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), an
addendum to a previously certified EIR is not circulated for public review; but is considered by the
Lead Agency in making a decision about the project.
This Addendum contains a description of the approved SWIP Specific Plan Update and the proposed
project (Section 2, Background), and an environmental impact analysis that compares the impacts of
the proposed project to those of the SWIP SP Update as identified in the EIR certified in 2011
(Section 4, Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project). As determined by the
analyses in Section 4, the proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental
impacts or any substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental
impacts as compared to the SWIP SP Update. Consequently, this Addendum is the appropriate
environmental document for the proposed project under CEQA.
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
12
4 Environmental Checklist and Impacts of
the Proposed Project
This Addendum evaluates potential environmental impacts that could result from the proposed
project. The existing environmental conditions in Fontana are substantially the same under present
conditions as described in the SWIP SP Update EIR; the analysis below provides updates where
necessary to characterize potential impacts associated with the proposed project.
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of environmental issue(s) that are suggested
as the issue areas that should be assessed in CEQA analyses. The SWIP SP Update EIR analyzed ten
environmental issue areas included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and the remaining issue areas
were determined to result in less than significant or no impact. In addition, updates to the CEQA
Guidelines since certification of the SWIP SP Final EIR dated January 2012, have resulted in three
additional issue areas being addressed in this Addendum: Energy, Tribal Cultural Resources, and
Wildfire. In order to provide a thorough and conservative analysis of potential impacts associated
with the proposed project, this Addendum addresses all 20 environmental issue areas included in
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, as listed below.
1. Aesthetics
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
3. Air Quality
4. Biological Resources
5. Cultural Resources
6. Energy
7. Geology/Soils
8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
10. Hydrology/Water Quality
11. Land Use/Planning
12. Mineral Resources
13. Noise
14. Population/Housing
15. Public Services
16. Recreation
17. Transportation
18. Tribal Cultural Resources
19. Utilities/Service Systems
20. Wildfire
Potential environmental impacts of the proposed project are analyzed to determine whether impacts
are consistent with the impact analysis provided in the SWIP SP EIR, and whether additional mitigation
measures are required to minimize or avoid potential impacts. Where impacts are identified in the
following analysis, discussion of existing applicable policies and regulations are also discussed as
relevant to the avoidance of potential impacts from the proposed project.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 13
1. Aesthetics
The 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update determined that impacts relating to aesthetics would be less
than significant with exception to scenic vistas (Section 4.1.3, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the
SWIP SP Update EIR). New development under the SWIP SP Update would alter the visual character
in Fontana that would have significant and unavoidable impacts on scenic vistas of the Jurupa
Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, and San Gabriel Mountains. However, development would be
required to comply with regulations and policies in the SWIP SP Update intended to protect scenic
vistas and visual resources, including architectural guidelines, signage standards, streetscape and
landscape designs, and lighting standards.
Additionally, under the SWIP SP Update, future development that is in or immediately adjacent to a
residentially zoned property shall implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-3a (Section 4.1.3, Aesthetics and
Visual Resources, of the SWIP SP Update EIR), which addresses short-term impacts to visual character
due to construction. However, Mitigation Measure 4.1-3a would not be applicable to the proposed
project because the project site is not located immediately adjacent to residentially zoned properties.
The proposed project includes the development of a currently vacant lot located at the southwest
corner of Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue. The project site is located in a highly urbanized and
developed area of the city within the Southwest Industrial Park Zoning District (City of Fontana
2018a). Surrounding land uses include commercial and light industrial development. The scenic vista
nearest to the project site is the Jurupa Hills, located approximately two miles south of the project
site. The San Gabriel Mountains are located approximately seven miles north of the project site. Due
to the existing development between the project site and the Jurupa Hills and San Gabriel Mountains,
development under the proposed project would not interfere with established views to the south or
north.
Similar to the SWIP SP Update, development under the proposed project would be required to comply
with relevant regulations and policies from the SWIP SP Update and standards from the Fontana
Municipal Code (FMC), including building scale, frontage and site layout, street scape, open space,
parking, signage, lighting, landscaping and architecture. Compliance with these regulations and
policies would reduce potential impacts associated with the proposed project to avoid or minimize
substantially degrading the existing visual character of project site and surrounding area, damage to
existing scenic resources, or the creation of new sources of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no new
impacts related to aesthetics or impacts that would be substantially more severe than those discussed
in the 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur related to aesthetics, and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact (Equal to the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP SP Update)
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
14
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
According to the EIR to the SWIP SP Update, the city does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmlands); agricultural uses; or forest land
(Section 8.1, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, Final EIR for the SWIP SP Update). No impact to
agriculture and forestry resources would occur from implementation of the SWIP SP Update.
The proposed project is located in an urban area and does not include forest land and is not zoned
for forest land and timberland (City of Fontana 2018a). Therefore, due to the absence of agricultural
land, forest land, and timberland at the project site, the project would not involve changes to the
existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use or the
conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The project also would not conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use, forest land, or timberland or a Williamson Act contract. No impact to agriculture
and forestry resources would occur.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur related to agriculture and forestry resources,
and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Conclusion
No Impact (Equal to the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP SP Update)
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 15
3. Air Quality
The 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update determined that air quality impacts resulting from new
development under the SWIP SP Update would be significant and unavoidable (Section 4.2.6, Air
Quality – Cumulative Impacts, of the SWIP SP Update EIR). New development under the SWIP SP
Update would generate temporary construction-related air pollutant emissions and long-term
operational air pollutant emissions that could result in potential air quality impacts. The SWIP SP
Update’s new developments would generate dust and construction vehicle and equipment emissions
during the site preparation and project construction. In addition, operational activity would result in
a significant overall increase in regional pollutant loads due to mobile emissions and area sources.
Therefore, impacts related to these issues were determined to be significant and unavoidable. In
addition, emissions associated with construction and operation of the SWIP SP Update would exceed
the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds which would not be
consistent with the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, this impact was also
determined to be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed Slover and Cherry Logistic Facility (proposed project) would be in the City of Fontana
on the corner of Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue. The proposed project would include a 165,400
square foot logistic facility, and truck and employee parking spaces. In addition, the project would be
consistent with Urban Crossroads’ Trip Generation Assessment for total passenger and truck trips per
day (Appendix B). The potential air quality impacts of these additional emissions are discussed in the
following subsections.
Air Quality Standards
The project site would be redeveloped with land uses planned by the SWIP SP; therefore, the
project would not generate air pollutant emissions that were not already anticipated by the SWIP SP
Update EIR. Further, as stated above, regulations enacted since 2012 would generally reduce the
project’s emissions when compared to the emissions assumed in the SWIP SP Update EIR.
Notwithstanding, an air quality impact analysis was prepared below to quantify air pollutant
emission associated with the implementation of the proposed project.
Construction Emissions
Construction associated with the proposed project would generate short term emissions of criteria
air pollutants. The criteria air pollutants of primary concern within the project area include O3
precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOx) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction generated emissions are
short-term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would
be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the
SCAQMD’s threshold of significance.
Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road
paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the
movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne
particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site
preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.
The duration of construction activities associated with the project is estimated to last approximately
14 months. Construction-generated emissions associated the project were calculated using the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod uses project-specific
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
16
information, including the project’s land uses, square footages for different uses (e.g., industrial, and
commercial), and location, to model a project’s construction and operational emissions. Estimated
maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the proposed project are summarized in the
following Table 2.
Table 2 Project Construction Emissions
Year
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2023 3 28 22 <1 10 6
2024 41 10 15 <1 1 <1
SCAQMD Regional
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter
with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide
Notes: Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations. Maximum on-site emissions are the highest emissions
that would occur on the project site from on-site sources, such as heavy construction equipment and architectural coatings, and
excludes off-site emissions from sources such as construction worker vehicle trips and haul truck trips
Source: See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix C – Table 2.1 “Overall Construction-mitigated” emissions. Highest of Summer and
Winter emissions results are shown for all emissions.
As shown therein, construction-related emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore,
project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient
air quality standard. Impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Emissions
Operation of the proposed project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with
area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment), energy
sources (i.e., use of natural gas for space and water heating), and mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips to
and from the project site). Table 3 summarizes the project’s maximum daily operational emissions by
emission source.
Table 3 Project Operational Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Emission Source VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile <1 8 6 <1 3 1
Project Emissions 4 8 6 <1 3 1
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 17
lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter
with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide
Notes: Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations.
Source: See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix C – Table 2.2 “Overall Operation-Mitigated” emissions. Highest of Summer and Winter
emissions results are shown for all emissions. The mitigated emissions account for project sustainability features and/or compliance
with specific regulatory standards. No mitigation measures are required for this project.
As shown therein, operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds for criteria
pollutants. Therefore, project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment, and impacts would be less
than significant. In addition, the project would comply with SCAQMD’s 2305 Indirect Source Rule for
warehouses greater than or equal to 100,000 square feet of indoor floor space. Compliance with
SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 would reduce emissions either directly from the site or elsewhere in the region.
While there is anticipated to be a reduction in emission from what is presented in the analysis, the
reductions cannot be quantified because the exact measures to be implemented are unknown at this
time.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The Trip Generation Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. estimated the project would add
284 vehicle trips per day. Of these trips, there would be 100 truck trips and 184 passenger car trips.
According to the City of Fontana Traffic Volume Map, the traffic volumes in 2020 near the project site
have an existing traffic volume of 25,000 vehicles per day. A study conducted by SCAQMD observed
an intersection at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue to have an average daily vehicle trip of
100,000. The concentrations of carbon monoxide at this intersection was 4.6 ppm, which is well below
the State and federal standards. In addition, CO in 2020 recorded a max concentration of 1.7 parts
per million for 1-hour CO and 1.2 parts per million for 8-hour CO in Central San Bernardino Valley 1
(City of Fontana). Therefore, the estimated 25,284 vehicle trips per day on the corner of Slover and
Cherry Avenue would not exceed the State and federal standards and impact would be less than
significant.
Sensitive Receptors and Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include single-family residences located east and west of the
project site, approximately 305 feet and 410 feet, respectively. The project would not include the
siting of new sensitive receptors. Localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors typically result
from localized criteria air pollutants, and toxic air contaminants (TACs). SCAQMD has developed
Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) to estimate exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in
local communities. Table 4 and Table 5 below estimates the on-site construction and operational
emissions considering the size of the project, the location, and the receptor distance to the nearest
sensitive receptor. The project-specific LST threshold in Sensitive Receptor Area (SRA) 34, with
allowable emissions for a five-acre project site with a receptor distance of 164 feet. As shown therein,
localized construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LST thresholds for
criteria pollutants. Therefore, project construction and operation would not result in a local air quality
impact. Project impact would be less than significant.
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
18
Table 4 Project LST Construction Emissions
Year
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum On-site Emissions 41 28 18 <1 10 6
SCAQMD LST N/A 168 2,396 N/A 44 8
Threshold Exceeded? N/A No No N/A No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter
with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide
Notes: Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations. Maximum on-site emissions are the highest emissions
that would occur on the project site from on-site sources, such as heavy construction equipment and architectural coatings, and
excludes off-site emissions from sources such as construction worker vehicle trips and haul truck trips
Source: See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix C – Table 3.2 – 3.6 “Overall Construction-mitigated” emissions. Highest of Summer and
Winter emissions results are shown for all emissions.
Table 5 Project LST Operational Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Emission Source VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Onsite Emissions 4 8 6 <1 3 1
SCAQMD LST N/A 168 2,396 N/A 11 2
Threshold Exceeded? N/A No No N/A No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter
with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide
Notes: Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations.
Source: See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix C – Table 2.2 “Overall Operation-Mitigated” emissions. Highest of Summer and Winter
emissions results are shown for all emissions. The mitigated emissions account for project sustainability features and/or compliance
with specific regulatory standards. No mitigation measures are required for this project.
Construction-related activities would result in temporary project-generated emissions of diesel
particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site
preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. The proposed project
would be consistent with the applicable AQMP requirements and control strategies intended to
reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. The project would comply with the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered
equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use Off-
Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these would minimize emissions of TACs during
construction. However, the project would incorporate the SWIP SP Update EIR Mitigation Measures
4.2-1a through 4.2.1f to reduce construction emission impacts. Therefore, construction related health
impacts would be less than significant.
Measure AQ-4.2.1-a: 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.
Measure AQ-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
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 19
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.
Measure AQ-4.2.1c: All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in
SCAQMD.
Measure AQ-4.2.1d: Projects that result in the construction of more than 19 single-family
residential units, 40 multifamily residential units, or 45,000 square feet of
retail/commercial/industrial space shall be required to apply paints either by
hand or high volume, low pressure (HVLP) spray. These 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.
Measure AQ-4.2.1e: All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD
Rule 1108.
Measure AQ-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.
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
20
▪ 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.
The proposed project is considered a land use that could generate substantial TAC emissions from
trucks, trailers, shipping containers, and other equipment with diesel engines during the operation
period. The proposed project would comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits
diesel-powered vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location. Based on the SWIP SP EIR,
any projects with 100 daily truck trips per warehouse would need an operational health risk
assessment (HRA). According to the Trip Generation Assessment, the proposed project would
generate 100 daily truck trips; therefore, an operational HRA was prepared for this analysis (see
Appendix J). To evaluate the potential impacts of TACs emitted during operation of the warehouse, a
stand-alone spreadsheet was used to quantify risk. In addition, the potential health risks were
analyzed in accordance with the SCAQMD’s Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1 and
212 (SCAQMD 2017) and the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation
of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2015). Emissions sources, such as truck routes, and idling
locations, were located on the project site corresponding to the location of the loading docks as well
as the truck parking to estimate concentrations from idling. Sensitive receptors identified for
modeling were placed at the location of nearby residential land uses within 1,000 feet of the project
site. Specific modeling details are included in Operational Health Risk Assessment (see Appendix J).
As shown in the HRA, the maximum exposed induvial receptor would be exposed to a 30-year excess
cancer risk of approximately 0.53 in one million, which does not exceed SCAQMD’s recommended
cancer risk criteria of ten excess cases of cancer in one million individuals. In addition, chronic health
risk is <0.001, which does not exceed SCAQMD’s hazard index threshold of 1 (SCAQMD 2019).
Therefore, the long-term operation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the impact would be less than
significant.
Odors
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), land uses associated with odor
complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain
industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). The proposed
project, a warehouse with office building, would not include any of these uses. The proposed project
would emit odors during operation in the form of diesel exhaust from vehicles. The increase in odor
emissions, however, would be minimal, as vehicle exhaust is already prevalent due to the highly
industrialized nature of the area and the already prevalent truck trips along major roadways. Solid
waste generated by the proposed on-site uses would be collected by a contracted waste hauler,
ensuring that any odors resulting from on-site waste would be managed and collected in a manner to
prevent the proliferation of odors. Operational odor impacts would be less than significant.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 21
Consistency with the SCAQMD AQMP
As mentioned previously, when the SWIP SP Update EIR was certified, the SCAQMD’s 2007 AQMP was
the applicable air quality plan for the SCAB. Since that time, the SCAQMD has adopted the 2016 AQMP
which was approved in March 2017 and is in effect at this time. As such, the project would be required
to comply with more stringent regulations than those that existed in 2012, including regulations
applicable to truck and other vehicle emissions that are more protective of the environment, which
would incrementally reduce emissions when compared to the emissions that the SWIP SP Update EIR
assumed would occur from the development of the project site. Implementation of the project would
contribute to a significant and unavoidable conflict with the 2007 AQMP; but would neither result or
contribute to a new, significant conflict with the 2007 AQMP nor increase the severity of the conflict
previously disclosed in the SWIP SP Update EIR and would instead result in less severe air quality
impacts.
The proposed project would be consistent with the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP if it: (1) is consistent with
the growth assumptions in the AQMP; and (2) does not increase the frequency or severity of an air
quality standards violation or cause new air quality standards violations (SCAQMD 1993). The
proposed project would involve the construction and operation of a logistics building. The proposed
project would not directly increase the city’s population since it does not involve the construction of
housing and because the project site would be developed with land uses planned by the SWIP SP
Update. Therefore, the project would not generate air pollutant emissions that were not already
anticipated by the SWIP SP Update EIR. However, the proposed project could potentially increase the
number of new employees in Fontana. The project is estimated to add approximately 50 new
employees. Although, project employees would likely be drawn from the existing labor pool in the
region and may not relocate to the city, the analysis conservatively assumes that all 50 new employees
would become new residents.
According to the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) 2016 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Demographic and Growth Forecast
Appendix, the City of Fontana had an estimated population of 200,200 in 2012 (SCAG 2016). SCAG’s
2016 RTP/SCS forecast the city’s population is to increase to approximately 280,900 by 2040, which
is an increase of 80,700 or 40 percent from the 2012 population (SCAG 2016). The addition of
approximately 50 new residents (employees moving to the city for employment) would constitute
approximately 0.1 percent of the city’s total projected population growth through year 2040. In
addition, according to the United State Census Bureau, the City of Fontana has grown from
approximately 196,069 in 2010 to approximately 210,761 in 2022, which is consistent with SCAG’s
2016 RTP/SCS forecast (U.S. Census 2022). Therefore, potential indirect population growth generated
by the project would be within the respective SCAG growth forecast.
The employment growth forecasts in SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS for City of Fontana estimate that the total
number of jobs would increase from 47,000 in 2012 to 70,800 in 2040, for an increase of 23,800 jobs
(SCAG 2016b). The project would include approximately 50 employment opportunities from a logistics
building and office. The proposed project would be within the SCAG’s project 2040 employment
increase of 23,800 from 2012, and the project would not cause the City of Fontana to exceed official
regional employment projections. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP
and impacts would be less than significant.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur related to air quality, and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
22
Conclusion
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Less than the certified EIR for the
2011 EIR)
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 23
4. Biological Resources
The 2011 EIR determined that the majority of development under the SWIP SP Update would occur
in already developed, urbanized areas, which do not support a wide diversity of biological species.
The 2011 EIR determined that impacts relating to the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species, and compliance with tree preservation policies or ordinances would be less
than significant with no mitigation measures required. However, the 2011 EIR determined that the
SWIP SP Update could result in adverse effects to special status plant and wildlife species and habitats,
riparian habitat and other sensitive plant communities, jurisdictional wetlands and waters, and
approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans, because the city contains sensitive
habitats, including creeks, wetlands, and areas of intact plant and animal habitat (Section 4.3,
Biological Resources, of the SWIP SP Update EIR). With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-
4.3-1a through BIO-4.3-1h, and BIO-4.3-3a, the SWIP SP Update was found to have less than
significant impacts on biological resources (Section 4.3.7, Biological Resources, of the SWIP SP Update
EIR).
Measure BIO-4.3-1a: The City of Fontana Planning Division shall require that all future project
applicants prepare a Biological Assessment prior to the issuance of grading
permits. The Biological Assessment shall include a vegetation map of the
proposed project are, analysis of the impacts associated with plant and
animal species and habitats, and conduct habitat evaluations for burrowing
owl, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, San Diego pocket mouse, western mastiff
bat, western yellow bat, and San Diego desert woodrat. If any of these
species are determined to be present, then coordination with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish and Game shall be
conducted to determine what, if any, permits or clearances are required prior
to development.
Measure BIO-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.
Measure BIO-4.1-1c: 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.
Measure BIO-4.3-1d: The City shall encourage the preservation of natural habitat in conjunction
with private or public development projects. [General Plan (GP) EIR, MM-
Biological Resources (BR)-4]
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
24
Measure BIO-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. [GPEIR MM BR-
5]
Measure BIO-4.3-1f: Local CEQA procedures shall be applied to identify potential impacts to rare,
threatened and endangered species. [GPEIR MM BR-9]
Measure BIO-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. [GPEIR MM BR-10]
Measure BIO-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 applicable protocols.
Consultation shall be on a project-by-project basis and measures shall be
negotiated independently for each development project. [GPEIR MM BR-11]
Measure BIO-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.
The project site is located in a highly urban area of the city that consists of commercial and light
industrial development. A field reconnaissance survey was conducted to document the existing
conditions and to evaluate the potential for presence of sensitive biological resources on site
(Appendix D). The currently vacant and undeveloped project site is highly disturbed with minimal
vegetation and is level at an elevation of about 1,000 feet above mean sea level. It consists of mostly
bare ground and patches of non-native grasses. Given the disturbed nature of the site in a
predominantly commercial and industrial area, the project site does not provide suitable habitat for
special status species. As such, the project site is not expected to support any candidate, sensitive, or
special status species and none have a moderate or high potential to occur. Therefore, development
of the proposed project would not have a substantial, adverse effect on such species.
Additionally, based on the National Wetland Inventory, no riparian habitats, wetlands, or other water
features have been identified on or adjacent to the project site (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2022).
Further, the project site does not include any discernable drainage courses, inundated areas, wetland
vegetation, or hydric soils (U.S Department of Agriculture 2022). As a result, no State or federally
protected wetlands or other waters that may be considered jurisdictional by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, United State Army Corps of Engineers, or Regional Water Quality
Control Board occur on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not
directly or indirectly have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands or
other jurisdictional waters.
Furthermore, the project site is located approximately 16 miles west of the closest conservation plan
to the site, the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Habitat Conservation Plan area in San Bernardino County,
and would not conflict with the provisions of any other habitat conservation plans.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 25
For compliance with Mitigation Measure BIO-4.3-1a, the Biological Resources Assessment is included
as Appendix D of this Addendum. Mitigation Measures BIO-4.3-1b and Measure BIO-4.1-1c would be
implemented upon approval of the project and prior to the start of construction. Due to the highlight
disturbed conditions of the site, along with the lack of any sensitive species or habitats, Mitigation
Measures 4.3-1d through BIO-4.3-1h, and BIO-4.3-3a, do not apply to the proposed project.
Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce new impacts or substantially increased impacts
related to biological resources and would be consistent with the impact analysis provided in the 2011
EIR for the approved SWIP SP Update.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur to biological resources, and no new
mitigation measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation (Equal to the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP
SP Update)
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
26
5. Cultural Resources
The 2011 EIR determined that impacts related to historical, archaeological, and paleontological
resources from implementation of the SWIP SP Update would be less than significant with mitigation,
and impacts related to human remains were found to be less than significant (Section 4.4, Cultural
Resources, of the SWIP SP Update EIR). The 2011 EIR identified the presence of historic era buildings
within the plan area that could potentially be considered historical resources and that would be
vulnerable to future development activities under the SWIP SP Update. In addition, the Soboba Band
of Luiseño Indians documented that the plan area is within the tribe’s Tribal Traditional Use Area, and
thus is considered highly sensitive to the people of Soboba. The 2011 EIR concluded that potential
future development within the plan area could directly or indirectly impact a unique paleontological
resource or site, as the southern portion of the plan area may be underlain with older Pleistocene fan
deposits that have a moderate potential to produce Pleistocene vertebrate fossils. Due to the level of
past disturbance in the plan area, the project was not anticipated to encounter human remains during
earth removal or disturbance activities; however, if human remains were uncovered, the remains
would be required to be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code (Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the
SWIP SP Update EIR). With implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a through 4.4-3b, the SWIP
SP Update was found to have less than significant impacts related to historical, archaeological, and
paleontological resources. The 2011 EIR included the following seven measures to mitigate potential
impacts related to cultural resources. The following are the only applicable measures to the proposed
project.
Measure 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.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 27
▪ 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.
Measure 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.
▪ 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.
Measure 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.
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
28
▪ Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of
archaeological sites within new developments, using their special
qualities at a theme or focal point.
▪ Pursue educating the public about the area’s archaeological heritage.
▪ Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval (if
a local government action) to eliminate adverse project effects on
significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, following
appropriate CEQA guidelines.
▪ Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the
inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the
project area. Submit one copy of the completed report, with original
illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information
Center for permanent archiving.
Measure 4.4-2c: Where consistent with applicable local, State and federal law and deemed
appropriate by the City, future site-specific development projects shall
consider the following requests by the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and
Morongo Band of Mission Indians:
▪ In the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during
construction for future development, all work in the immediate vicinity
of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of
Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall
project may continue during this period;
▪ 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.
Measure 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.
Measure 4.4-3b: Should mitigation monitoring be recommended for a specific project within
the project site, the program shall include, but not be limited to, the following
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.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 29
▪ 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 prepare, 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.
The proposed project site is entirely located within the boundaries of the SWIP SP Update area. A
Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix E) was prepared for the project in May 2022. The Cultural
Resources Assessment concluded that no historic architectural resources were documented on the
project site and therefore, no impacts were found related to historical resources. In addition, no pre-
contact or historic period archaeological sites or human remains were documented on the project
site. However, native soils present below the artificial fill (approximately one to two feet below
ground surface) still present a moderate sensitivity for subsurface, intact archaeological deposits.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a, 4.4-2a, 4.4-2b, 4.4-2c, 4.4-3a, and 4.4-3b from the
2011 EIR would reduce potential impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources to a less
than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce new impacts or
substantially increased impacts related to cultural resources and would be consistent with the impact
analysis provided in the 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update. Impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur to historical, archaeological, or
paleontological resources, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation (Equal to the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP
SP Update)
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
30
6. Energy
This environmental issue area was not separately included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Environmental Checklist Form at the time of preparation of the 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update, and
therefore, was not assessed as an individual issue area. However, the 2011 EIR addressed the
potential for impacts associated with energy usage in Section 4.2, Air Quality and Climate Change,
under Impact 4.2-5, which evaluated whether implementation of the SWIP SP Update would result in
a substantial increase in net energy demand or result in the use of fuel or energy in a wasteful manner.
That section determined that impacts related to energy consumption would be less than significant.
In addition, this section concluded that compliance with existing State and local Laws, regulations,
and policies would minimize the potential for the SWIP SP Update to result in wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary energy usage.
The SWIP SP Update facilitates the construction of new industrial, manufacturing, office, commercial,
research and development, flex-tech, residential, public, and public utility/utility right-of-way uses.
Similar to the 2011 EIR, the proposed project would consume energy during construction activities by
worker, vendor, and hauling vehicles as well as construction equipment and during operational
activities by vehicle trips, building electricity and natural gas usage, and water and wastewater
conveyance. The anticipated use of these resources is detailed in the following subsections.
Construction Energy Demand
The project would require site preparation and grading, including pavement and asphalt installation;
building construction; architectural coating; and hardscaping. During project construction, energy
would be consumed in the form of petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction
vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the project site,
and vehicles used to deliver materials to the site. As shown in Table 6, project construction would
require approximately 18,750 gallons of gasoline and approximately 48,784 gallons of diesel fuel.
These construction energy estimates are conservative because they assume that the construction
equipment used in each phase of construction is operating every day of construction.
Table 6 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction
Source
Fuel Consumption (gallons)
Gasoline Diesel
Construction Equipment & Vendor - 48,784
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 18,750 -
See Appendix C for energy calculation sheets.
Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used
would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. In addition, construction
contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13
Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel
vehicles from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption.
Construction equipment would be subject to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. Furthermore, per applicable regulatory requirements
such as 2019 CALGreen, the project would comply with construction waste management practices to
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 31
divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction debris. These practices would result in efficient use
of energy necessary to construct the project. In the interest of cost-efficiency, construction
contractors also would not utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. Therefore, the
project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during
construction, and construction impacts related to energy consumption would be less than significant.
Operational Energy Demand
Operation of the project would contribute to regional energy demand by consuming electricity,
natural gas, and gasoline and diesel fuels. Natural gas and electricity would be used for heating and
cooling systems, lighting, appliances, and water and wastewater conveyance, among other purposes.
Gasoline and diesel consumption would be associated with vehicle trips generated by customers and
employees. Table 7 summarizes estimated operational energy consumption for the proposed project.
As shown therein, project operation would require approximately 27,757 gallons of gasoline and
57,720 gallons of diesel for transportation fuels, 0.41 GWh of electricity, and 1,124 U.S. therms of
natural gas. Vehicle trips associated with incoming and outgoing shipments and deliveries via medium
heavy-duty and heavy-duty trucks would represent the greatest operational use of energy associated
with the proposed project.
Table 7 Estimated Project Annual Operational Energy Consumption
Energy Source Energy Consumption Conversion to MMBtu
Transportation Fuels
Gasoline 27,757 gallons 3,047 MMBtu
Diesel 57,720 gallons 7,357 MMBtu
Electricity 414.2 GWh 1,413 MMBtu
Natural Gas Usage 3,544 U.S. therms 330 MMBtu
MMBtu = million metric British thermal units; GWh = gigawatt-hours
See Appendix C for energy calculation sheets and the CalEEMod output results for electricity and natural gas usage.
The proposed project would be required to comply with all standards set in the latest iteration of the
California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24), which would minimize
the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources by the built environment
during operation. California’s CALGreen standards (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11)
require implementation of energy-efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new
construction projects. Furthermore, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Code of
Regulations Title 24, Part 6) require newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance
standards set by the CEC. These standards are specifically crafted for new buildings to result in energy
efficient performance so that the buildings do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy. In addition, per CALGreen, all plumbing fixtures used for the proposed project
would be high-efficiency fixtures, which would minimize the potential the inefficient or wasteful
consumption of energy related to water and wastewater.
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
32
The City of Fontana has not adopted any specific renewable energy or energy efficiency plan,
however, the Sustainability and Resilience Element of the Fontana General Plan contains goals and
policies related to energy conservation, including compliance with Title 24 energy regulations and
encouraging project design that increases energy efficiency. As demonstrated in in Section 8,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would not conflict with the energy-related policies
of the City’s General Plan. Measures included in the proposed project to meet these energy standards
include low-flow plumbing fixtures, water-efficient irrigation systems, rooftop photovoltaic solar
panels, and energy-efficient lighting. Compliance with these regulations would avoid potential
conflicts with adopted energy conservation plans.
Additionally, the 2011 EIR contains Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a, which is relevant to energy impacts
(see Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions) and would further reduce energy consumption. Therefore,
the proposed project would result in no new impacts related to energy or impacts that would be
substantially more severe than those discussed in the 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur associated with energy, and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact (Equal to the certified EIR for the SWIP SP Update)
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 33
7. Geology/Soils
The 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update determined that impacts relating to geology and soils would be
less than significant with no mitigation required (Section 8.1, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, of
the SWIP SP Update EIR). The 2011 EIR concluded that the plan area under the SWIP SP Update is
located in a seismically active region of southern California, and therefore would experience ground
shaking from earthquakes generated along active faults in the project vicinity. However, compliance
with existing State regulations, including the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, State of
California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, CBC, and the policies regarding seismic hazards outlined in
the FMC, would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposed project is located within the SWIP SP Update boundary and includes the development
of a currently vacant lot. Therefore, similar to the findings of the SWIP SP Update, the proposed
project has the potential to expose people and structures to a fault rupture or earthquake induced
landslide, and could result in impacts associated with soil erosion, water quality degradation, and
liquefaction. However, the proposed project would be required to adhere to the same State
regulations and policies as the SWIP SP Update which would minimize potential hazards relating to
geology and soils and would reduce the potential for property damage, injury, or death resulting from
seismic hazards.
Furthermore, a Preliminary Geotechnical Report was prepared for the project site by Sladden
Engineering in January 2022 to analyze the geotechnical factors that may impact the development of
the project site (Sladden 2022; Appendix A). The report includes a review of the geological field
investigation to evaluate subsurface conditions; laboratory testing on selected soil samples to
evaluate physical, engineering, and chemical properties of on-site soils; evaluation of geologic and
seismic hazards (i.e., surface rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, expansive soils); and an evaluation
of design parameters in accordance with the CBC. The main geotechnical concern in the design and
construction of the proposed project is the presence of potentially compressible surface and near
surface materials. However, the report concluded that the project is feasible from a geotechnical
perspective and provided recommendations for the design and construction phases of the proposed
project (see Section 2, Geotechnical Project Design Features). The geotechnical recommendations
include remedial grading, including over-excavation and re-compaction of the artificial fill and primary
foundation bearing soil, for the proposed building and foundation areas. Additionally, all earth work
shall be performed under the observation and testing of a qualified soil engineer.
With the incorporation of Geotechnical Project Design Features, the proposed project would not
introduce new impacts or substantially increased impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity, and
would be consistent with the impact analysis provided in the 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur to geology, soils, and seismicity, and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact (Equal to the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP SP Update)
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
34
8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update determined that impacts relating to global climate change and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(Section 4.2.6, Cumulative Impacts-Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the SWIP SP Update EIR). New
development under the SWIP SP Update would generate temporary construction-related GHG
emissions and long-term operational GHG emissions that could result in potential GHG emissions
impacts. The SWIP SP Update requires that development projects incorporate design features that
are consistent with the California Office of the Attorney General’s recommended measures, such as
water, energy, solid waste, land use, and transportation efficiency measures. The SWIP SP Update
would reduce its GHG emissions 32.5 percent below the business as usual (BAU) scenario with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a (included in this analysis). Assembly Bill (AB) 32
requires the reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 levels which would require a 28.5 percent reduction
in BAU GHG emissions for the entire State. The SWIP SP Update would reduce GHG emissions below
the BAU scenario, and would not conflict with applicable GHG reduction plan, policy or regulation.
Therefore, GHG impacts would be less than significant with Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a.
The proposed project would include a 165,400 square foot logistic facility, and truck and employee
parking spaces. In addition, the project would be consistent with Urban Crossroads’ Trip Generation
Assessment for total passenger and truck trips per day (Appendix B). The potential GHG emissions
impacts of these additional emissions are discussed in the following subsections.
Generation of Significant GHG Emissions
Slover and Cherry Logistics Facility Impact Analysis
The project would implement the SWIP SP land use plan and the project’s proposed land use and
development intensity is consistent with the development regulations contained within the SWIP SP
Update. Therefore, the GHG emissions produced by the project are within the scope of the project
that was evaluated in the SWIP SP Update EIR. The proposed project’s construction and operational
GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0. It was assumed the project would
comply with all applicable regulatory standards. The project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403
for dust control measures, Rule 2305 Warehouse Indirect Source for NOx and particulate matter
emissions, and Rule 1113 for architectural coating VOC limits. In accordance with SCAQMD’s
recommendation, GHG emissions from construction of the proposed project were amortized over a
30-year period and added to annual operational emissions to determine the project’s annual GHG
emissions. Operational emissions modeled include mobile source emissions (i.e., vehicle emissions),
energy emissions, and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by vehicle trips
to and from the project site. Daily vehicle trips were sourced from the Trip Generation Assessment
prepared for the project by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2022). The trip generation
rates, and fleet mix were adjusted in CalEEMod to be consistent with Trip Generation Assessment’s
estimate of 284 daily vehicle trips and 100 truck trips. Emissions attributed to energy use include
natural gas consumption by appliances as well as for space and water heating. Area source emissions
are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products and architectural coatings.
The City of Fontana does not have an adopted threshold of significance for GHG emissions, but for
CEQA purposes, it has discretion to select an appropriate significance criterion based on substantial
evidence. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions
in their CEQA documents, the SCAQMD formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 35
that developed a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions where SCAQMD is not the lead agency
(SCAQMD 2008). Although SCAQMD did not adopt a threshold, the approach developed by the
Working Group, which includes a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for non-stationary
source projects, is supported by substantial evidence and the City has selected this value as a
significance criterion. Therefore, the 3,000 MTCO2e criterion is the correct criterion used for this
project. Note that this approach to evaluating GHG emissions differs from how GHG emissions were
evaluated in the SWIP Update EIR due to the SWIP Update EIR being a programmatic analysis, which
evaluates impacts from a more cumulative perspective rather than a site-specific project.
Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily as a result
of operation of construction equipment on-site as well as from vehicles transporting construction
workers to and from individual project sites and heavy trucks to transport building materials. Project
operation would also generate GHG emissions associated with area sources (e.g., landscape
maintenance), energy and water usage, vehicle trips, and wastewater and solid waste generation. As
shown in Table 8, construction associated with the proposed project would generate 575 MT of CO2e.
Amortized over a 30-year period pursuant to SCAQMD guidance, construction associated with the
project would generate 19 MT of CO2e per year. As shown in Table 9, the project proposed project
would be approximately 1,062 MT of CO2e per year, which would not exceed the SCAQMD’s
screening-level criterion of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year for non-stationary source projects. Further,
compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 would reduce local and regional emission reductions
associated with warehouses and the mobile sources attracted to warehouses.
Table 8 Construction GHG Emissions
Year Emissions (MT of CO2e)
2023 554
2024 26
Total 581
Amortized over 30 years 19
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
Notes: Emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix C for modeling worksheets.
Table 9 Combined Annual Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e)
Construction1 19
Operational
Area <1
Energy 88
Mobile 819
Solid Waste 78
Waste 90
Total 1,094
SCAQMD Numeric
Threshold
3,000
Exceed Threshold? No
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
36
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e)
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 Amortized construction related GHG emissions over 30 years
Source: See Appendix C for the CalEEMod worksheets
GHG emissions from the proposed project would result in impacts that are less than significant.
Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a from the 2011 EIR would further reduce impacts and GHG
emissions associated from the project.
Measure 4.2-5a: Prior to the issuance of building permits, future development projects shall
demonstrate the incorporation of project design features that achieve a
minimum of 28.5 percent reduction in GHG emissions from business as usual
conditions. Future projects shall include, but not be limited to, the following
list of potential design features.
Energy Efficiency
▪ Design buildings to be energy efficient and exceed Title 24 requirements
by at least 5 percent.
▪ Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Site and design
building to take advantage of daylight.
▪ Use trees, landscaping and sun screens on west and south exterior
building walls to reduce energy use.
▪ Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements.
▪ Provide information on energy management services for large energy
users.
▪ Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and
equipment, and control systems (e.g., minimum of Energy Star rated
equipment).
▪ Implement design features to increase the efficiency of the building
envelope (i.e., the barrier between conditioned and unconditioned
spaces).
▪ Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor
lighting.
▪ Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
Renewable Energy
▪ Install solar panels on carports and over parking areas. Ensure buildings
are designed to have “solar ready” roofs.
▪ Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
▪ Create water-efficient landscapes with a preference for a xeriscape
landscape palette.
▪ Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil
moisture-based irrigation controls.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 37
▪ 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.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
▪ Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and
construction vehicles.
▪ Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by designating a certain percentage
of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate
passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride sharing
vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for coordinating
rides).
▪ 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.
Plan Consistency
Several plans have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in Fontana and at the State level, including
the California Air Resources Board’s 2017 Scoping Plan and the SCAG RTP/SCS. Similar to the SWIP SP
Update, the proposed project would comply with applicable State and local energy efficiency,
renewable energy, green building, water conservation, and solid waste diversion requirements for
new construction. As a result, the project would be consistent with the CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. The
project would include internal walking paths that connect to the existing sidewalks surrounding the
project site, as well as dedicated bicycle parking to enable pedestrian and bicycle access to and from
the site. In addition, the project site is within bicycling distance of Omnitrans bus stops and within
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
38
walking and bicycling distance of existing commercial uses. The proposed project would reduce GHG
emissions by complying with the 2019 Title 24 requirements, which include installation of water
efficient irrigation systems and landscapes, as well as incorporate water reducing features and
fixtures into the building per CALGreen. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with
the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. In addition, the project would be consistent with the City’s General
Plan and the Climate Action Plan through implementation of the 2019 CaLGreen Building Standards.
Therefore, the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable GHG emissions.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur related to global climate change and GHG
emissions, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less than significant Impact with Mitigation (Equal to the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP
SP Update)
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 39
9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The 2011 EIR determined that hazards and hazardous materials impacts from implementation of the
SWIP SP Update related to airports and wildland fires would be less than significant or no impact, as
discussed in Section 8, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, of the SWIP SP Update EIR. All other
hazards and hazardous materials impacts were found to be potentially significant and were further
analyzed in Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the SWIP SP Update EIR. The 2011 EIR
identified 1,345 regulatory sites, including underground storage tanks, aboveground storage tanks,
hazardous spills, and multiple clandestine drug lab locations, within the boundaries of the plan area.1
The types and quantities of hazardous materials utilized by future commercial, office, and residential
uses would vary and could include common automobile oil, chlorine, dry-cleaning solutions,
ammonia, cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, and pesticides. Future industrial development
in the plan area could routinely transport, use, store, and/or dispose of hazardous materials in larger
quantities that are typically utilized for manufacturing, processing, and distribution operations.
Hazardous material issues may exist on industrial and commercial sites, in agricultural areas, and in
structures containing hazardous building materials (i.e., asbestos containing materials or lead based
paints). In addition, the disturbance of soils and demolition of structures could expose construction
workers, employees, and off-site sensitive receptors to health or safety risks in the event
contaminated structures, soils, and/or groundwater are encountered during construction. The Union
Pacific Railroad and I-10, which both serve as major rail/highway transportation corridors through the
plan area, could also result in the potential for the accidental release of hazardous materials.
Construction activities of future development under the SWIP SP Update could temporarily impact
street traffic adjacent to the proposed sites during the construction phase due to roadway
improvements and potential extension of construction activities into the right-of-way which could
reduce the number of lanes or temporarily close certain street segments. The 2011 EIR found that
compliance with existing federal and State regulations relevant to hazards and hazardous materials
and Mitigation Measures 4.5-1a through 4.5-6b would reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level (Section 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the SWIP SP Update EIR). The 2011
EIR included 12 measures to mitigate potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
The following are the only applicable measures to the proposed project.
Measure 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 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.
Measure 4.5-2a: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared in accordance
with American Society of Testing and Materials 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, lead-based paints, polychlorinated biphenyls, etc.) that
may require remedial activities prior to land acquisition or construction.
1 It should be noted that individual properties may have been listed in more than one regulatory database.
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
40
Measure 4.5-6a: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, future developers shall prepare a
Traffic Control Plan for implementation during the construction phase. The
Plan may include the following provisions, among others:
▪ At least one unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions on
surrounding roadways.
▪ At any time only a single lane is available, the developer shall provide a
temporary traffic signal, signal carriers (i.e., flagpersons), or other
appropriate traffic controls to allow travel in both directions.
▪ If construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway
segment, the developer shall provide appropriate signage indicating
detours/alternative routes.
Measure 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.
The proposed project site is entirely located within the boundaries of the SWIP SP Update area. A site
reconnaissance and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) were performed for the project site
in December 2021 and January 2022 (Appendix F), respectively. During the site visit, no potential
environmental concerns, including hazardous substances, petroleum products, aboveground storage
tanks, underground storage tanks, evidence of releases, polychlorinated biphenyls, strong or noxious
odors, pools of liquids, sumps or clarifiers, pits or lagoons, or stressed vegetation, were identified on
the project site (Appendix F). Historical sources reviewed as part of the Phase I ESA include aerial
photographs, fire insurance maps, City directories, and topographic maps. According to the historical
resources reviewed, the project site was formerly used for agricultural purposes beginning in 1938
until approximately 1994; and has been vacant land from approximately 2002 to present. A data gap
exists from 1995 to 2001; however, based on the agricultural use observed in the 1994 aerial
photograph and the vacant land observed in the 2002 aerial photograph, this data gap is not
considered significant (Appendix F). Based on the results of the database search conducted for the
Phase I ESA, there are no recognized environmental conditions2 associated with the project site,
including controlled and historical recognized environmental conditions. In addition, the Phase I ESA
determined that no properties in the vicinity of the project site (within a one-mile radius) pose a
potential threat to the project site due to hazardous materials or other hazardous uses.
Development-related activities associated with the proposed project would be similar to those
described in the SWIP SP Update EIR and would be subject to compliance with existing federal and
State regulations relevant to hazards and hazardous materials. The project site does not have a history
of contamination, and on-site soil conditions would not pose a risk to the public or construction
workers from upset or accident hazardous materials release during ground disturbing construction
activities. During construction, temporary and occasional lane closures on Slover Avenue and Cherry
Avenue may be required, but two-way traffic would be maintained on these roadways and at
construction entry points. The City, as part of its requirements for obtaining an excavation and Traffic
2 A recognized environmental condition is defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances of petroleum products
in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment, (2) under conditions indicative of release to the environment, or
(3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The REC term does not include de minimis
conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment, and that generally would not be the subject of an
enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 41
Control Permit, would require the contractor to submit a construction work site traffic control plan
for any street/lane closures to the City for review and approval prior to the commencement of
construction activities (City of Fontana 2022). Other than the addition of a driveway on both Slover
Avenue and Cherry Avenue, the proposed project would not modify these streets. The project would
be subject to Fire Department review of site plans, site construction, and the actual structure prior to
occupancy to ensure that required fire protection safety features, including building sprinklers and
emergency access, are implemented. The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of a school, within
two miles of a public airport, or within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) or Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CALFIRE 2022).
The proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts associated with hazards
and hazardous materials. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measures 4.5-1a, 4.5-2a, 4.5-6a, and 4.5-6b from
the 2011 EIR do apply to all development under the SWIP SP Update and will be implemented.
Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce new impacts or substantially increased impacts
related to hazards and hazardous materials and would be consistent with the impact analysis provided
in the 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur related to hazards and hazardous materials
and no new mitigation measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation (Equal to the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP
SP Update)
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
42
10. Hydrology/ Water Quality
The 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update determined that hydrology and water quality impacts from
implementation of the SWIP SP Update would be less than significant with no mitigation required
(Section 8.1, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, of the SWIP SP Update EIR). The construction and
operation of future development under the SWIP SP Update could result in discharges of hazardous
materials or sediment, which could contaminate downstream waters. However, development under
the SWIP SP Update would be required to comply with required laws, permits, ordinances, and plans,
including an MS4 Permit and best management practices (BMPs), which would reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level (Section 8.1, Effects Found Not To Be Significant of the SWIP SP
Update EIR).
Under existing conditions, the project site is entirely pervious. The proposed project would decrease
pervious area due to construction of the proposed warehouse facility. The proposed development
would reduce infiltration potential and increase stormwater flow, which can carry pollutants to
downstream water bodies and adversely affect water quality. Common pollutants associated with
commercial development include sediment, nutrients, pesticides, metals, pathogens, oil, and grease.
However, in accordance with the requirements of FMC Chapter 23 and the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System Areawide Stormwater Program Permit for San Bernardino County (MS4
Permit), the project would prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which
is a program designed to minimize stormwater runoff and water pollutants through the installation
and long-term maintenance of BMPs. Additionally, the project site and its vicinity contain no water
bodies, and therefore the project would not alter the course of a stream or river.
Regarding water supplies and groundwater, the project site receives its water service from the San
Gabriel Valley Water Company (SGVWC) –Fontana Water Company (FWC) Division. According to its
2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency (UWMP), SGCWC would be
able to provide reliable water supplies for an average year, single dry year, and multiple dry years for
its existing and planned supplies through 2045 (FWC 2021). Therefore, operational water use
associated with the proposed project would not significantly deplete groundwater supplies or impede
sustainable groundwater management of the Main San Gabriel and Central Groundwater Basins.
The project site is designated Zone X on the most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, indicating it is within an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2016).
The project site is approximately 40 miles from the Pacific Ocean and not subject to tsunami. The
nearest inland water body subject to seiche is the Live Oak Reservoir, located approximately 16 miles
northwest of the project site. The project site is not located in the inundation zone for the Live Oak
Reservoir (California Department of Water Resources 2015). Furthermore, the project does not
involve storage or processing of pollutants, other than minor quantities of typical household
hazardous wastes such as cleaning agents and landscaping maintenance materials, that would be
released due to inundation should such an event occur. Therefore, the project would result in no
impact related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation.
Implementation of the proposed project would not alter drainage patterns or expose additional
residents to flood-related hazards. While the project would decrease the impervious area of the
project site, compliance with the MS4 Permit and implementation of BMPs would reduce the impacts
of stormwater runoff to a less than significant level. As a result, the proposed project would not
introduce new impacts or substantially increased impacts related to hydrology and flooding and
would be consistent with the impact analysis provided in the 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 43
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur to hydrology and water quality, and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact (Equal to the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP SP Update)
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
44
11. Land Use/ Planning
The 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update determined that land use impacts resulting from development
under the SWIP SP Update would be less than significant with no mitigation required (Section 4.6-2,
Land Use and Planning, of the SWIP SP Update EIR). Although the SWIP SP Update included an
amendment to the General Plan to revise the Land Use, Housing, and Circulation Elements in order
to maintain internal consistency between the General Plan and the SWIP SP Update, the EIR
concluded these changes would not divide an established community or indirectly lead to the division
of an established community because they would not authorize any land-altering activities or trigger
development of major new infrastructure that could divide a community or other developed area
(Section 4.6-2, Land Use and Planning, of the SWIP SP Update EIR).
The proposed project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, and surrounding land use consists of
commercial and light industrial development. Primary vehicular access to the project would be by an
entrance on Slover Avenue and an entrance on Cherry Avenue. Pedestrians would be able to access
the project site via the sidewalks along Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue. The project site already has
developed sidewalks along the access routes, so the proposed project would not substantially alter
access in and around the project site or divide an established community. Therefore, no impact would
occur.
Additionally, the proposed project involves the construction of a warehouse logistics building on a
site designated by the General Plan as Light Industrial, which permits a FAR of 0.1-0.6. The project site
is located within the Slover West Industrial District of the SWIP SP Area (City of Fontana 2018a). The
Slover West Industrial District is intended to promote the expansion and continued use of existing
industrial, warehousing, distribution, and logistics-based developments in the city (City of Fontana
2012). The project would be consistent with the General Plan’s goals and polices, such as Goal 5
under Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, which states that high-quality job-producing
industrial uses are concentrated in a few locations where there is easy access to regional
transportation routes (City of Fontana 2018a). The proposed development would comply with all
applicable policies contained in the General Plan and the development standards for the SWIP SP. In
addition, in May 2021, the City approved the Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards
Ordinance as an amendment to the FMC. The proposed project has been designed to meet the site
standards, such as signage and screening, as well as the operational standards, which include but are
not limited to idling restrictions, truck routing, and zero-emissions equipment.
Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan or zoning standards,
and the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the AQMP, SCAG’s 2020-
2045 RTP/SCS, and the Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards. Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant. In addition,
compliance with existing State regulations, regulations and policies within the SWIP SP Update
relating to land use and planning, and updated zoning requirements listed in the FMC would ensure
that the proposed project would be compatible with the existing industrial development surrounding
the project site. As a result, the proposed project would not introduce new or substantially increased
impacts related to land use and would be consistent with the impact analysis provided in the 2011
EIR for the SWIP SP Update. Impacts would be less than significant.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 45
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur to land use, and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact (Equal to the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP SP Update)
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
46
12. Mineral Resources
The City of Fontana consists of developed urban areas with residential, commercial, and industrial
uses. According to the California Department of Conservation Mineral Land Classification Maps, the
city is located in an area classified as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-2, which indicates that the project
area contains identified mineral resources (DOC 1994). However, the 2011 EIR determined that the
SWIP SP Update would not cause a loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on the General Plan, a specific plan, or other land use plan (Section 8.1, Effects Found
Not To Be Significant, of the SWIP SP Update EIR). No impacts to mineral resources were found to
occur.
Though the proposed project site is in an area with identified mineral resources, the project site has
not historically been used for mineral resource recovery and is surrounded by urbanized area
primarily developed with industrial and commercial land uses. The project site and its vicinity are
therefore not used for or compatible with mineral deposit recovery. In addition, according to the
California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), there are no active oil extraction-sites in
the vicinity of the project (CalGEM 2022). Given the existing conditions of the project site and its
surroundings, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource, and there would be no impact.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur related to mineral resources, and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
Conclusion
No Impact (Equal to the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP SP Update)
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 47
13. Noise
The 2011 EIR determined that noise and vibration-related impacts from new development under the
SWIP SP Update could be divided into short-term impacts (i.e., those impacts related to construction
activities) and long-term impacts (i.e., those impacts related to major operational noise sources such
as traffic and transit). New development would comply with the daytime construction hours
permitted by the FMC and policies to minimize construction noise included in Mitigation Measure N-1
of the 2011 EIR, as listed in this section. Therefore, construction noise impacts were found to be less
than significant with implementation of mitigation.
New development under the SWIP SP Update would exacerbate long-term noise levels for land uses
along major roadways and transit in proximity to these noise sources. The SWIP SP Update found that
operational activities, including delivery truck traffic and dock activity could increase noise levels on
the project site. This impact was determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
The SWIP SP Update increases the number of vehicle trips, which could increase noise levels at the
surrounding sensitive receivers, resulting in a significant impact. The SWIP SP Update addressed the
potential traffic impacts by incorporating Mitigation Measures 4.7-3a and 4.3-7b, which include
increased setbacks, attenuation measures, and site-specific noise studies to reduce noise levels
attenuating at the surrounding residential uses. However, since site-specific development was not
known at the time, it was concluded that future noise impacts could not be determined. As such, long-
term noise exposure impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable (Section 4.7-3, Noise, of
the SWIP SP Update EIR). Short-term and long-term vibration impacts were determined to result in
less-than-significant impacts related to structural damage and human annoyance with
implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-1a and 4.7-1b, as listed in this section, which would
require construction activities to implement features to reduce noise impacts within 500 feet of any
sensitive receiver, and for off-site import and export trucks to utilize roads that would be least
disruptive to sensitive receivers (Section 4.7-1, Noise, of the SWIP SP Update EIR). Although the city
is subject to intermittent noise from aircraft overflights, the SWIP SP Update determined that impacts
related to exposure of aircraft operations would be less than significant since the city is not within an
airport’s noise contours and there would be no substantial noise contribution to ambient noise levels
in the city (Section 4.7-3, Noise, of the SWIP SP Update EIR).
Measure 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. [GPEIR MM N-1]
▪ 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. [GPEIR MM N-1]
▪ The City shall require that the contractor maintain and tune-up all
construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. [GPEIR MM N-1]
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
48
▪ Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest
possible distance to the sensitive use structures. [GPEIR MM N-1]
▪ All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest
possible distance to the sensitive use structures. [GPEIR MM N-1]
▪ 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. [GPEIR MM N-1]
▪ 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.
Measure 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.).
Measure 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.
[GPEIR MM N-10]
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 49
Measure 4.7-3a: With respect to the proposed land uses, developers may specify increased
setbacks such that they do not lie within the 65 dBA CNEL overlay zone
residential and noise sensitive land uses depicted in the Proposed General
Plan or the distances to both the MetroLink and Union Pacific Railroad tracks
discussed in Section 5.4.3 (Railroad Noise Impacts on New, Proposed Land
Uses) [Section 5.4.3 of the General Plan EIR]. This would ensure that any
proposed land uses do not exceed the goals of the City General Plan Noise
Element and would also ensure that any railroad vibration is reduced to less
than a significant level. [GPEIR MM N-3]
Measure 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. [GPEIR MM N-5].
Construction Noise
Construction noise was estimated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway
Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2006). RCNM predicts construction noise levels for a
variety of construction operations based on empirical data and the application of acoustical
propagation formulas. Using RCNM, construction noise levels were estimated at noise sensitive
receivers near the project site. RCNM provides reference noise levels for standard construction
equipment, with an attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance for stationary equipment.
Variation in power from construction equipment imposes additional complexity in characterizing the
noise source level. Power variation is accounted for by describing the noise at a reference distance
from the equipment operating at full power and adjusting it based on the duty cycle of the activity to
determine the equivalent noise level (Leq) of the operation (FHWA 2006). Each phase of construction
has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be accomplished during that phase. Each
phase also has its own noise characteristics; some will have higher continuous noise levels than
others, and some have high-impact noise levels.
Construction activity would result in temporary noise in the project site vicinity, exposing surrounding
nearby receivers to increased noise levels, but only during certain times of a day. Construction noise
would typically be higher during the heavier periods of initial construction (i.e., site preparation and
grading) and would be lower during the later construction phases (i.e., building construction and
paving). Typical heavy construction equipment during project grading could include dozers, loaders,
graders, and dump trucks. It is assumed that diesel engines would power all construction equipment.
However, construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location. In addition,
construction equipment would not be in constant use during the eight-hour operating day.
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
50
Construction activities would be required to occur 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 Saturday pursuant, to the City’s Noise
Ordinance Section 18-63(b)(7). For purposes of analyzing impacts from this project, the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018)
criteria were used. The FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts
based on the potential for adverse community reaction. For residential uses, the daytime noise
threshold is 80 dBA Leq for an eight-hour period (FTA 2018).
The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is a single-family residence located approximately
305 feet east of the project site along Slover Avenue. Over the course of a typical construction day,
construction equipment could be located as close as 310 feet to this residential property, but would
typically be located at an average distance farther away due to the nature of construction and the
size of the project site. Therefore, it is assumed that over the course of a typical construction day the
construction equipment would operate at an average distance of 620 feet from the single-family
residence east of the project site.
Construction noise is typically loudest during activities that involve excavation and moving soil, such
as site preparation and grading. A potential high-intensity construction includes a dozer, grader, and
front-end loader working during grading to excavate and move soil. At a distance of 620 feet, a dozer,
grader, and front-end loader would generate a noise level of 62 dBA Leq (RCNM calculations are
included in Appendix G). In addition, the project would incorporate Mitigation Measures 4.7-1a and
4.7-1b from the 2011 SWIP SP EIR. Due to attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance.
Construction noise for sensitive receivers located at a farther distance from the nearest sensitive
receiver, such as the residences to the west, would be lower than the noise levels at the nearest
residence east of the project site. Therefore, construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA
construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq-for residential uses, and impacts would be less than
significant.
On-site Operational Noise
The proposed project would include on-site operational noise sources, including heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, loading and warehouse equipment including forklifts, truck
deliveries, and trash hauling services. Each of these on-site noise sources is discussed below.
Stationary Noise
The primary on-site operational noise source from the project would be HVAC units. The project
includes the addition of light industrial use with office space on an existing undeveloped site. Specific
planning data for the future HVAC systems are not available at this stage of project design; however,
this analysis assumes the use of a typical HVAC system for commercial or multi-family residential sites,
which has a sound power level of 85 dBA. The unit used in this analysis is a 16.7-ton Carrier 38AUD25
split system condenser (see Appendix G for manufacturer’s specifications). The project was assumed
to contain 16 HVAC units based upon one ton of HVAC per 600 sf of building space, as shown in
Table 10. Based on the size of the project, it is assumed that 16 rooftop-mounted HVAC units
distributed across the proposed building would be needed, producing a combined noise level at off-
site receivers that is equivalent to all units being located at the center of the project site, which is
measured at approximately 620 feet from the nearest off-site residential receiver east of the project
site, and 700 feet from the off-site sensitive receivers west of the project site. See Appendix G for the
manufacturer’s noise data and HVAC noise calculations.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 51
Table 10 Modeled HVAC
Use/Description
Building
Square Footage Model
Estimated
HVAC Tons
Estimated
HVAC Units
Sound Power
Level per Unit
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse
155,400 38AUD25 251 15 85
Office Space 5,000 38AUD25 16.7 1 85
See Appendix G for sample HVAC specification sheets.
Per FMC Section 30-469, project impacts would be significant if exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA
Leq in exterior areas. As discussed above, rooftop equipment would be located approximately 700 feet
from the nearest residential property east of the project site, which are zoned commercial, and
approximately 620 feet from the residential properties west of the project site, which are zoned light
industrial. Combined noise levels of 16 HVAC units generated by rooftop HVACs would be
approximately 43 dBA Leq at 620 feet and 42 Leq at 700 feet, which would not exceed exterior daytime
and nighttime noise standards of 65 dBA Leq. Therefore, impacts related to HVAC equipment noise
would be less than significant.
Traffic Noise
The Trip Generation Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. estimated the project would add
284 vehicle trips per day. Existing traffic counts for Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue were obtained
from City of Fontana Department of Engineering and Mapping Traffic Volume Map (City of Fontana
2014). Existing traffic counts combined with project ADT are shown in Table 11. The project would
not make substantial alterations to roadway alignments or substantially change the vehicle
classifications mix on local roadways. Therefore, the primary factor affecting off-site noise levels
would be increased traffic volumes.
Table 11 Existing and Proposed ADT Volume
Street1 Segment Existing ADT1 Project ADT2 Existing With Project ADT
Slover Avenue Eastbound from
Etiwanda Avenue to
Cherry Avenue
10,500 284 10,784
Slover Avenue Westbound from
Cherry Avenue to
Etiwanda Avenue
10,500 284 10,784
Slover Avenue Eastbound from
Cherry Avenue to
Beech Avenue
8,800 284 9,084
Slover Avenue Westbound from
Beech Avenue to
Cherry Avenue
8,800 284 9,084
Cherry Avenue Northbound from
Jurupa Avenue to
Cherry Avenue
8,700 284 8,984
Cherry Avenue Southbound from
Cherry Avenue to
Jurupa Avenue
8,700 284 8,984
1 Existing traffic counts for Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue were obtained from City of Fontana Department of Engineering and
Mapping Traffic Volume Map (City of Fontana 2014).
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
52
2 Project ADT obtained from Traffic Study (See Appendix B for Trip Generation Assessment).
In order for a barely perceptible noise increase of at least 3 dBA to occur, the project would need to
result in a doubling of traffic on the affected road segment. The addition of 284 trips on Slover Avenue
and Cherry Avenue would result in a percentage increase in traffic of two percent and three percent,
respectively. This would result in a noise level increase of approximately less than 1 dBA on Slover
Avenue and Cherry Avenue. This increase would be below the barely perceptible noise increase of 3
dBA. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Other Noise Sources
The project would include the operation of four electric forklifts to move deliveries to and from trucks.
To evaluate project impacts related to forklift operation, this analysis utilizes a reference noise level
of 91 dBA LW (sound power level), which equates to 56 Leq at 50 feet assuming a directivity factor of 1
(Spectrum Acoustic Consultants 2015).3 To evaluate project impacts related to truck deliveries, this
analysis utilizes a reference noise level of 68 dBA Lmax at 30 feet from the source (Salter 2017).
Most of the forklift activity would occur indoors, and the building structure would attenuate noise
levels at nearby properties. However, conservatively assuming that all forklift activity occurs
outdoors, operation of the four forklifts would generate a noise level of approximately 62 dBA Leq at
50 feet. Assuming a standard distance attenuation of 6 dBA per doubling of distance and averaging
the distance of forklift activity at the center of the outdoor area, forklift noise levels would be
approximately 54 dBA Leq at the industrial property to the west, 53 dBA Leq at the industrial property
to the south, 52 dBA Leq at the industrial property to the northwest, 46 dBA Leq at the nearest
residence to the east of the project site along Slover Avenue, and 39 dBA Leq at the residence to the
west along Slover Avenue.
The proposed project would require daily truck deliveries, which would generate noise from idling,
loading and unloading activities, and back-up alarms. The project site is located in an urbanized area
and is adjacent to existing industrial uses. Therefore, loading and truck deliveries are already a
common occurrence in the project vicinity. According to the project site plans, a loading/unloading
area would be developed adjacent to the proposed warehouse on the western side of the building.
Delivery trucks would use this area for loading and unloading activities throughout which temporary
noise would be generated. Assuming a standard distance attenuation of 6 dBA per doubling of
distance and using the conservative assumption that maximum instantaneous noise levels (Lmax)
would be equivalent to average hourly noise levels (Leq), delivery truck noise levels would be
approximately 56 dBA Leq at the industrial property to the west, 54 dBA Leq at the industrial property
to the south, 54 dBA Leq at the industrial property to the northwest, 40 dBA Leq at the nearest
residence to the east along Slover Avenue, and 42 dBA Leq at the nearest residence to the west along
Slover avenue, as measured from the center of the proposed loading/unloading area.
The combined noise levels from HVAC equipment, forklifts, and truck deliveries at the nearest
receiving properties are summarized in Table 12 and compared to the City’s exterior noise threshold
of 65 dBA. As shown therein, noise levels would not exceed the daytime or nighttime hourly exterior
noise level limits established by Section 30-469 land uses at the nearest receiving properties.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
3 This reference noise level is based on the noise level measured for a small general purpose electric forklift maneuvering, contained in
Appendix 18.11 of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report prepared for the proposed Rail Central Development project in
Northamptonshire, England
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 53
Table 12 Hourly Operational Noise Levels
Receiving
Property
HVAC
Equipment
(dBA Leq)
Forklifts
(dBA Leq)
Truck
Loading/
Unloading
(dBA Leq)
Combined
Hourly Noise
Level (dBA
Leq)
Noise Level
Threshold
(dBA Leq)1
Threshold
Exceeded?
Industrial Property
to the West
50 54 56 59 65 No
Industrial Property
to the South
50 53 54 57 65 No
Industrial Property
to the Northwest
54 52 54 58 65 No
Residence to the
East along Slover
Avenue
43 46 40 49 65 No
Residences to the
West along Slover
Avenue
42 39 42 46 65 No
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = average noise level equivalent
1 Threshold Source: FMC Section 30-469
Construction and Operation Vibration
Project construction would not involve activities typically associated with excessive groundborne
vibration such as pile driving or blasting. The City of Fontana has not adopted standards to assess
vibration impacts during construction and operation. However, California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) has developed limits for the assessment of vibrations from transportation
and construction sources. Construction vibration estimates are based on vibration levels reported by
Caltrans and the FTA (Caltrans 2020; FTA 2018). The thresholds of significance used in this analysis to
evaluate vibration impacts are based on these impact criteria.
Project construction may require operation of vibratory equipment such as a large dozer within
approximately 410 feet of off-site residences to the west along Slover Avenue. A dozer would create
approximately 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet (Caltrans 2020). This would equal a vibration level of 0.0041
in/sec PPV at a distance of 410 feet.4 This would be lower than what is considered a distinctly
perceptible impact for humans of 0.24 in./sec. PPV, and the structural damage impact to residential
structures of 0.2 in/sec PPV. Therefore, temporary vibration impacts associated with the dozer (and
other potential equipment) would be less than significant.
The project would not generate significant stationary sources of vibration, such as manufacturing or
heavy equipment operations. No operational vibration impact would occur.
Airport Noise
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public or private
airport. The closest airport is the Ontario Airport, which is approximately 4.9 miles west of the project
site, and the project would not be within identified noise contours of the airport (Mead & Hunt, Inc.
2011). Therefore, no impacts would occur related to exposure of future residents to aircraft noise.
4 PPVEquipment = PPVRef (410/D)n (in/sec), PPVRef = reference PPV at 410 feet, D = distance ,and n = 1.1
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
54
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur related to noise and vibration, and no new
mitigation measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impacts (Less than Significant to the SWIP SP Update EIR)
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 55
14. Population/ Housing
The 2011 EIR determined that population and housing impacts from implementation of the SWIP SP
Update would be less than significant with no mitigation required (Section 8, Effects Found Not To Be
Significant, of the SWIP SP Update SP EIR). The SWIP SP Update would not result in any direct impacts
to existing residential units because there are no residential units on the project site. Each individual
development application would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts related to
displacement. In addition, the construction of replacement housing would not be required (Section
8, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, of the SWIP SP Update EIR).
The proposed project site is entirely located within the boundaries of the SWIP SP Update plan area.
The project site currently consists of undeveloped vacant land and does not contain any existing
housing units. The proposed project would involve construction of a warehouse logistics facility,
which would not result in long-term population growth since the building would not include any
permanent residences. However, the proposed project could potentially increase the number of new
employees in Fontana. Based on applicant provided information, the proposed project would
generate approximately 30 to 50 employees. Although project employees would likely be drawn from
the existing labor pool in the region and may not relocate to the city, this analysis conservatively
assumes that 50 employees would relocate to the city and become new residents.
According to data provided by DOF, the 2022 population of Fontana is 212,809 (DOF 2022). SCAG
forecasts the population of Fontana will increase to approximately 286,700 by the year 2045, which
is an increase of 73,891 persons from the current population (SCAG 2020). The addition of
approximately 50 employees in the project area would constitute less than 0.1 percent of the city’s
total projected population growth through year 2045. Therefore, any potential population growth
associated with the proposed project would not exceed regional population projections, and the
project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth.
Development under the proposed project would not displace existing people or housing from the
project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce new impacts or substantially
increased impacts related to population and housing and would be consistent with the impact analysis
provided in the 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update. Impacts would be less than significant.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur to population and housing, and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less Than Significant (Equal to the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP SP Update)
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
56
15. Public Services
The 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update determined that public services impacts relating to police
protection services, fire protection services, schools, parks, and libraries could be potentially
significant as implementation of the SWIP SP Update would result in an increase in commercial, office,
and industrial development, and thus, would increase the demand for fire and police protection
services and facilities, school facilities, and recreation facilities (Section 4.8, Public Services, Utilities,
and Infrastructure of the SWIP SP Update EIR). With implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8-1a
through 4.8-4a, the SWIP SP Update was found to have less than significant impacts associated with
police services, fire protection services, schools, and libraries. However, the 2011 EIR determined that
the SWIP SP Update would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to parks. As discussed in
Section 16, Recreation, implementation of the SWIP SP Update could lead to a population increase
within the city and an associated increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities. Despite
implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8-5a through 4.8-5g, it was not expected that the payment
of Park Development fees to mitigate potential impacts would be generated directly by the new
commercial, office, and industrial development that would occur under buildout of the SWIP SP
Update, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts (Section 4.8, Public Services, Utilities, and
Infrastructure of the SWIP SP Update EIR). The 2011 EIR included 26 measures to mitigate potential
impacts related to public services. The following are the only applicable measures to the proposed
project.
Measure 4.8-1g: The City shall maintain an average police and fire response time of 4 to 5
minutes.
Measure 4.8-2a: The City shall maintain an average fire response time of 4 to 5 minutes.
Measure 4.8-3a: Planning and development in the City shall continue to be integrated with the
needs of school districts for new facilities.
Measure 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.
Measure 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 FUSD joint use agreements and/or City-
sponsored facilities using General Fund or other revenue sources.
The proposed project site is entirely located within the boundaries of the SWIP SP Update. The FPD
headquarters is located in Downtown Fontana approximately 4.2 miles to the northeast of the project
site at 17005 Upland Avenue, and the nearest fire station to the project site is San Bernardino County
Fire Station No. 74, which is located approximately 1.2 miles (driving distance) to the southeast at
11500 Live Oak Avenue. The proposed project may incrementally increase demand for police and fire
protection services by constructing a new warehouse logistics facility. The project would generate
additional employees associated with the proposed facility; however, the project would be located in
the existing service areas of the FPD and Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD), and employees would
likely be sourced from the regional labor pool. Were they to relocate to the city, the approximate
50 employees associated with the proposed facility would not be anticipated to substantially increase
demand for police or fire protection services such that construction of new facilities would be
required. In addition, in March 2022, the FPD was contacted with information regarding the proposed
project and the FPD indicated that the proposed project would be adequately served by the FPD
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 57
headquarters (FPD 2022). In March 2022, Rincon attempted to contact the FFPD with information
regarding the proposed project to confirm that the construction of additional fire facilities would not
be necessary but did not receive a response.
The project site is in the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD) which had an enrollment of
35,461 students in the 2020-2021 academic year (Ed-Data 2022). The project site would be served by
Chaparral Elementary (Kindergarten-Grade 5), Southridge Middle School (Grades 6-8), and Henry J.
Kaiser High School (Grades 9-12) (FUSD 2022). The nearest parks to the project site are Shadow Park
and Chaparral Park, located approximately 1.1 and 1.2 miles southwest of the project site,
respectively, and the nearest public library is the Kaiser Branch Library, located approximately 0.7 mile
to the south at 11155 Almond Avenue. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, this
analysis conservatively assumes that the project would add 50 employees that would relocate to the
city and become new residents. The need for new school facilities is typically associated with a
population increase that generates an increase in enrollment large enough to cause new schools to
be constructed. Households in Fontana, on average, generate 0.7 schoolchildren (City of Fontana
2018b). Therefore, the proposed project would be anticipated to result in approximately 35 new
students in the FUSD, which would increase enrollment by less than 0.1 percent. Therefore, the
project would result in a relatively minor increase in students in the city. In addition, implementation
of Mitigation Measure 4.8-3d from the 2011 EIR would require verification that applicable school fees
have been collected by the appropriate school district prior to issuing building permits.
Although potential impacts to public services are anticipated to be low, with implementation of
Mitigation Measures 4.8-1g, 4.8-2a, 4.8-3a, 4.8-3d, and 4.8-4a from the 2011 EIR, the project would
result in less than significant impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, and other public
facilities. In addition, as discussed in Section 16, Recreation, the proposed project would result in less
than significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would
have less of an impact than the SWIP SP Update and would not introduce new impacts or substantially
increased impacts related to public services. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur related to public services and no new
mitigation measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less Than Significant with Mitigation (Less than the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP SP
Update)
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
58
16. Recreation
The 2011 EIR determined that impacts from implementation of the SWIP SP Update would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts to parks and recreational facilities despite implementation of
Mitigation Measures 4.8-5a through 4.8-5g (Section 4.8, Public Services, Utilities, and Infrastructure
of the SWIP SP Update EIR). Future commercial, office, and industrial development resulting from
implementation of the SWIP SP Update would create substantial employment opportunities within
the project area that could lead to a population increase within the city and an associated increase in
demand for parks and recreational facilities. Only residential uses within the city require collection of
Park Development fees. Therefore, the payment of Park Development fees to mitigate potential
impacts would not be generated directly by the new commercial, office, and industrial development
that would occur under buildout of the SWIP SP Update, resulting in significant and unavoidable
impacts related to future parks and recreational facilities (Section 4.8, Public Services, Utilities, and
Infrastructure of the SWIP SP Update EIR). The 2011 EIR included seven measures to mitigate potential
impacts related to recreational resources. However, these mitigation measures are programmatic in
nature and are not applicable to the proposed project.
The proposed project site is entirely located within the boundaries of the SWIP SP Update area. The
City owns and operates 34 public parks with a total of 1,195 acres of land for public use (City of
Fontana 2018a). The City’s General Plan establishes a park standard goal of providing five acres of
parkland per 1,000 residents. Based on the 2022 population of 212,809 residents (DOF 2022) and
estimated parkland described in the General Plan, the City currently possesses approximately
5.6 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The proposed project would generate approximately
50 employees. Although project employees would likely be drawn from the existing labor pool in the
region and may not relocate to the city, this analysis conservatively assumes that all 50 employees
would relocate to the city and would become new residents. The addition of 50 residents would not
substantially affect parkland-to-resident ratios, and acres of parkland per 1,000 residents would
remain at approximately 5.6. Therefore, the City would still meet its goal of five acres of parkland per
1,000 residents.
The City currently collects three acres of parkland or in-lieu fees from new residential subdivisions for
every 1,000 residents in accordance with California Government Code Section 66477 (Quimby Act).
Additional sources for the City to obtain parkland include general fund revenues, developer impact
fees, State and federal grants, user group contributions, school district joint use contributions, and
concessions (City of Fontana 2018b).
The nearest park to the project site is Shadow Park, located approximately one mile to the southwest.
Due to the distance from the project site, it is unlikely that project employees would utilize this park.
Because the project would not appreciably decrease parkland-to-resident ratios and would not
include the construction of any new residences, the project would not create substantial new demand
on or cause substantial deterioration of parks such that new park facilities would be required.
Additionally, although there is a possibility that project employees may utilize parks and recreational
facilities within the project area, the demand is expected to be negligible because employees would
likely already be residents of Fontana or would likely utilize the parks and recreational facilities
provided within their own communities. Therefore, the proposed project would have less of an impact
to recreational resources than the SWIP SP Update and would not introduce new impacts or
substantially increased impacts related to recreation.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 59
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur related to recreation and no new mitigation
measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less Than Significant with Mitigation (Less than the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP SP
Update)
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
60
17. Transportation
The 2011 EIR determined that transportation impacts related to air traffic patterns and conflict with
adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would
result in no impact (Section 8, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, of the SWIP SP Update EIR).
Transportation impacts related to increased hazards and emergency access were found to be less
than significant with no mitigation (Section 4.9, Traffic and Circulation, of the SWIP SP Update EIR).
However, impacts related to increased traffic volumes were found to be significant and unavoidable,
since implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1nn could not be assured due to
being unfunded or partially funded (Section 4.9, Traffic and Circulation, of the SWIP SP Update EIR).
The 2011 EIR included 30 measures to mitigate potential impacts related to transportation. The
following are the only applicable measures to the project area.
Measure 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 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.
Measure 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.
The traffic impact assessment (TIA) prepared for the SWIP SP Update found that based on the City’s
level of service (LOS) standards and significant impact criteria, these mitigation measures should be
implemented for significant LOS impacts and to achieve acceptable operations at the deficient
roadway segments for the forecast year 2030 under the SWIP SP Update. For compliance with
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1nn, the Trip Generation Assessment (Appendix B) and Vehicle Miles traveled
(VMT) Screening Evaluation (Appendix H) were prepared in March 2022 to determine the potential
transportation impacts associated with the proposed project.5
As discussed in the Trip Generation Assessment, the proposed project is anticipated to generate fewer
than 50 peak hour trips, so a LOS based traffic analysis is not required for this project based on the
City of Fontana’s Traffic Study Guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project does not contribute
enough trips to significantly impact any of the intersections or segments in the vicinity of the project
5 The VMT Screening Evaluation (Appendix H) and Trip Generation Assessment (Appendix B) prepared for the project assumed a building
square footage of 165,500 sf. However, the project site plan (Figure 3) indicates that the proposed warehouse would be 165,400 sf.
Therefore, CalEEMod modeling for the project assumed construction of a warehouse building totaling 165,400 sf (Appendix C).
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 61
site and traffic associated with the proposed project would not be considered significant at the study
intersections. Consequently, the widening of Cherry Avenue and Slover Avenue under Mitigation
Measure 4.9-1q is not applicable to the proposed project and is not part of the proposed project.
The proposed project site is entirely located within the boundaries of the SWIP SP Update area.
Regional access to the project site is provide by Interstate 10 (I-10), which is approximately 0.2 mile
north of the project site. Local access to the site is provided by Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue.
Regional mass transit service is provided by Omnitrans (City of Fontana 2018b). The project site is
currently served by Omnitrans bus route 82 along Jurupa Avenue, located approximately 0.9 mile
south of the site. Sidewalks are provided along all roadways abutting the project site for pedestrian
access. An existing Class II Bike Lane begins at Valley Boulevard and runs along Cherry Avenue until
Jurupa Avenue. A portion of this Class II Bike Lane runs adjacent to the project site (City of Fontana
2017).
Project Construction
Construction of the project would generate traffic for deliveries of equipment and materials to the
project site and construction worker traffic. Construction-related vehicles would travel to, and access,
the project site via Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue. Construction worker trips were estimated
based on default values provided by the CalEEMod (see Appendix C). The project would generate
128 construction worker trips and 50 vendor trips during the approximate eight-month building
construction phase and would require 15 construction worker trips during the approximate one-
month grading phase. Construction worker and hauling traffic may result in increased traffic in the
vicinity of the project site; however, these impacts would be temporary and minimal.
Construction of the proposed project would not involve any vehicle or equipment staging on Slover
Avenue and Cherry Avenue. Construction vehicles and equipment would be staged on the project
site. Temporary lane closures on Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue may be required during
construction of both proposed driveways; however, access to these roadways would be maintained
throughout the construction period.
To further lessen the potential impact of construction traffic, the project would be required to comply
with all local and State standard conditions pertaining to construction, including work hours, a traffic
control plan, haul route, access, oversized‐vehicle transportation permit, site security, noise, vehicle
emissions, and dust control. Whenever possible, construction-related trips would be restricted to off‐
peak hours. Transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials requiring the use of
oversized vehicles would require the appropriate transportation permit. In addition, pursuant to City
regulations and Mitigation Measure 4.5-6a, since construction work would impact the public right-of-
way, the construction contractor would be required to submit a construction work site traffic control
plan to the City for review and approval prior to the start of any construction work that would impact
the public right-of-way. The plan would be required to demonstrate the location of any roadway,
sidewalk, bike route, bus stop or driveway closures, traffic detours, haul routes, hours of operation,
protective devices, warning signs and access to abutting properties (City of Fontana 2022). Temporary
traffic controls used around the construction area would be required to adhere to the standards set
forth in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and construction activities would be
required to adhere to applicable City ordinances. Therefore, construction would not conflict with any
programs, plans, or ordinances addressing the circulation system.
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
62
Project Operation
The VMT Screening Evaluation (Appendix H) and Trip Generation Assessment (Appendix B) were
prepared for the project in March 2022. Operation of the project would generate new vehicle trips
from employees accessing the site, and according to the Trip Generation Assessment, the proposed
project would be anticipated to generate approximately 284 daily trips, with 27 AM peak hour and 29
PM peak hour trips. Additionally, the City’s traffic study guidelines require that truck intensive uses
translate heavy truck trips to passenger car equivalent (PCE) for the purposes of any operations
analyses. As demonstrated in the Trip Generation Assessment, the project would be anticipated to
generate approximately 455 PCE daily trips, with 34 PCE AM peak hour trips and 38 PCE PM peak hour
trips. Because the proposed warehouse would exceed 100,000 square feet of a non-residential land
use, a Trip Generation Assessment was performed in compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.9-1nn of
the 2011 EIR. Full compliance with this measure requires that the City perform monitoring of traffic
generation and phasing of development within the Specific Plan area to determine the need for the
identified improvements under the 2011 EIR. As discussed above, the proposed project does not
contribute enough trips to significantly impact any of the intersections or segments in the vicinity of
the project site; therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.9-1q is not applicable and no further action
associated with the proposed project is needed for compliance with this measure.
In addition, the General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element; Land Use, Zoning, and
Urban Design Element; and the Fontana 2017 Active Transportation Plan, contain the City’s goals
addressing the circulation system. Project consistency with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies
contained in the Fontana General Plan and Active Transportation Plan is illustrated in Table 13, below.
Table 13 Project Consistency with Fontana Circulation System Plans
Goal Project Consistency
General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element
Goal 1: The City of Fontana has a comprehensive and
balanced transportation system with safety and
multimodal accessibility the top priority of citywide
transportation planning, as well as accommodating freight
movement.
Consistent. The proposed project would include internal
walking paths that connect to existing sidewalks along
Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue and dedicated bicycle
parking to enable multi-modal accessibility to the site.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with Goal 1.
Goal 6: The city has attractive and convenient parking
facilities for both motorized and non-motorized vehicles
that fit the context.
Policy 6.2: Encourage mixed use and commercial
developments that support walking, bicycling, and public
transit use while balancing the needs of motorized traffic
to serve such developments.
Consistent. The proposed project would include vehicle
parking spaces and dedicated bicycle parking spaces
consistent with the requirements of the FMC. Therefore,
the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 6 and
Policy 6.2.
General Plan Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element
Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high
quality of life and economic prosperity.
Policy 2.3: Locate high-quality industrial uses where there
is appropriate access to regional transportation routes.
Consistent. The project is an industrial project on an infill
site in a commercial/industrial area with nearby regional
access to the I-10 freeway. Therefore, the proposed
project would be consistent with Goal 2 and Policy 2.3.
Policy 3.2: Encourage infill on vacant and underutilized
parcels.
Consistent. The project is an infill project that proposes
the construction of a warehouse logistics facility on a
vacant parcel. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with Goal 3 and Policy 3.2.
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 63
Goal Project Consistency
Goal 4: High-quality job-producing industrial uses are
located in proximity to regional transportation routes.
Consistent. The project is an infill project that proposes
the construction of a warehouse logistics facility on a
vacant parcel. The project would generate approximately
50 employees. The project site is located approximately
0.2 mile south of the I-10 freeway, which would provide
regional access. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with Goal 4.
2017 Active Transportation Plan
Goal 1: Increase and improve pedestrian and bicyclist
access to employment centers, schools, transit, recreation
facilities, other community destinations across the City of
Fontana, and facilities in neighboring cities for people of
all ages and abilities.
Consistent. The proposed project would include internal
walking paths that connect to the existing sidewalks
surrounding the project site, as well as dedicated bicycle
parking to enable pedestrian and bicycle access to and
from the site. In addition, the project site is within
bicycling distance of Omnitrans bus stops and within
walking and bicycling distance of existing commercial
uses. Therefore, the project would be consistent with
Goal 1.
Goal 3: Maintain and improve the quality, operation, and
integrity of the pedestrian and bicycle network
infrastructure that allows for convenient and direct
connections throughout Fontana. Increase the number of
high quality support facilities to complement the network,
and create public pedestrian and bicycle environments
that are attractive, functional, and accessible to all people.
Objective 3.A: Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities
and amenities into private and public development
projects.
Consistent. The proposed project would include dedicated
bicycle parking spaces consistent with the requirements of
the FMC. Additionally, the proposed project would include
internal walking paths that connect to existing sidewalks
along Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue. Therefore, the
project would enable pedestrian and bicycle access to and
from the site and would be consistent with Goal 3 and
Objective 3.A.
Source: City of Fontana 2017 and 2018a
As illustrated above, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable goals, objectives,
and policies contained in the Fontana General Plan and Active Transportation Plan. The project would
continue to be served by and would not interfere with existing and planned roadway, pedestrian,
bicycle, and public transit facilities. Therefore, project operation would not conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.
As discussed above, a VMT analysis was not used to address transportation impacts in the 2011 EIR
for the SWIP SP Update. Changes in State law under SB 743 now require the use of VMT instead of
LOS as the metric to evaluate transportation impacts in CEQA documents. However, CEQA Guidelines
Section 15007(c) states: “[i]f a document meets the content requirements in effect when the
document is sent out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any
new content requirements in Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally
approved.” The CEQA Guidelines changes with respect to VMT took effect on July 1, 2020, whereas
the SWIP SP Update EIR was certified in 2012. As such, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections
15007(c), revisions to the SWIP SP Update EIR are not required to conform to the new requirements
established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 regarding VMT. Nonetheless, a VMT screening
analysis is shown below for informational purposes.
The City of Fontana adopted its VMT guidelines in October 2020. The project VMT screening was
conducted using the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool,
which uses screening criteria consistent with the screening thresholds recommended in the City
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
64
Guidelines (Appendix H). Consistent with recommendations in the OPR Technical Advisory, SBCTA has
established four screening criteria for projects that may be presumed to have a less than significant
VMT impact. According to the VMT Screening Evaluation and Trip Generation Assessment, the project
is screened out from a detailed VMT analysis because the project is estimated to generate 284 daily
trips or approximately 455 PCE daily trips, which would not exceed the SBCTA threshold of
500 average daily trips.
The project would be accessible via a driveway on both Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue. Other than
the construction of these two driveways, the project would not alter Slover Avenue or Cherry Avenue
(e.g., no roadway widening required). Project site plans indicate the provisioning of on-site drive aisles
to accommodate vehicular access and circulation throughout the project site. Furthermore, the
proposed light industrial development would not result in uses that would be incompatible with the
existing land uses surrounding the project site, which consist of industrial and commercial uses.
During construction, temporary and occasional lane closures may be required on Slover Avenue and
Cherry Avenue; however, two-way traffic would still be maintained at construction entry points and
along Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue as required by the City of Fontana’s Excavation and Traffic
Control Permit. During project operation, emergency response vehicles would be able to access the
project site via the entrances off Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue. Site circulation plans would be
reviewed by the FFPD during the project application process to ensure adequate on-site lane widths
and configurations for emergency vehicle ingress and egress. The project would be subject to FFPD
review of site plans prior to occupancy to ensure that required fire protection safety features,
including building sprinklers and emergency access, are implemented.
Potential transportation impacts are anticipated to be low, and the project would result in less-than-
significant transportation impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would have less of an impact than
the SWIP SP Update and would not introduce new impacts or substantially increased impacts related
to transportation.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur related to transportation and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less Than Significant with Mitigation (Less than the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP SP
Update)
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 65
18. Tribal Cultural Resources
As Tribal Cultural Resources was added to the CEQA Guidelines as a separate environmental issue
area in December 2018, the 2011 EIR does not include a chapter or section dedicated to analysis of
impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources. However, the 2011 EIR analyzed general impacts to cultural
resources (including archaeological resources that may originate from Native American tribes) in
Section 4.4, Cultural Resources. Future development associated with the implementation of the SWIP
SP Update could impact Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) where excavation and other earthmoving
activities would be required. Failure to properly survey development sites and, if necessary, monitor
earthmoving activities to ensure identification and recovery of TCRs or archaeological artifacts
associated with TCRs could result in a significant impact due to the loss of information related to
prehistoric human activities. The City currently does not have policies directly relating to the
protection of TCRs during development and related earthmoving activities. Therefore, mitigation
measures would be required to avoid or minimize impacts to buried archaeological resources
associated with TCRs. The 2011 EIR includes Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a, which requires contacting
the Native American Heritage Commission if evidence suggests the potential for sacred land
resources, and Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c, which includes consideration of requests by the Soboba
Band of Luiseño Indians and Morongo Band of Mission Indians. These mitigation measures would
ensure that newly discovered TCRs and their related artifact(s) found within the plan area would
reduce significant impacts to a less than significant level (Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the SWIP
SP Update EIR).
The proposed project site is entirely located within the boundaries of the SWIP SP Update area. The
vacant project site has minimal vegetation and was historically used for agriculture.
Development of the proposed project would require the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-2a
and 4.4-2c of the 2011 EIR. Compliance with these mitigation measures would ensure that impacts to
tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not
introduce new impacts or substantially increased impacts related to tribal cultural resources and
would be consistent with the impact analysis provided in the 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update.
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur to tribal cultural resources, and no new
mitigation measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (Equal to the certified EIR for the 2011
SWIP SP Update)
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
66
19. Utilities/Service Systems
The 2011 EIR determined that utilities and service systems impacts from implementation of the SWIP
SP Update related to stormwater drainage would be less than significant with no mitigation
(Section 4.8, Public Services, Utilities, and Infrastructure of the SWIP SP Update EIR). Impacts related
to electricity and natural gas, water, wastewater, and solid waste were found to be potentially
significant as the SWIP SP Update would increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, and water
supplies as well as increase the amount of wastewater and solid waste generated within the city
(Section 4.8, Public Services, Utilities, and Infrastructure of the SWIP SP Update EIR). With
implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8-6a through 4.8-9d, the SWIP SP Update was found to
have less than significant impacts related to electricity and natural gas, water, wastewater, and solid
waste. The 2011 EIR included 16 measures to mitigate potential impacts related to utilities/service
systems. The following are the only applicable measures to the proposed project.
Measure 4.8-6b: The City shall coordinate the installation of utilities so that disruption of
public rights of way and private property is kept to a minimum.
Measure 4.8-7b: The City shall act to conserve water in whatever cost-effective ways are
reasonably available.
Measure 4.8-7c: The City shall manage urban runoff to minimize water supply contamination.
Measure 4.8-8b: The City shall design and operate its local and trunk sewer system in close
collaboration with the IEUA.
The proposed project site is entirely located within the boundaries of the SWIP SP Update area. The
project would require temporary water supply for construction activities, such as dust suppression
and concrete manufacturing, as well as long-term operational supply for indoor potable uses, outdoor
landscaping, and fire suppression. The project site is in an urbanized area that is well-served by
existing utilities infrastructure. New water system connections, valves, and other appurtenances may
be necessary to serve the proposed warehouse logistics facility and landscaping. Such improvements
would be installed during project construction on or immediately adjacent to the project site;
therefore, the construction or relocation of these facilities would not increase the project’s
disturbance area. Improvements to city water treatment facilities or distribution main lines would not
be necessary to serve the project.
The City owns a sanitary sewer system of over 250 miles of sewer lines and six sewage pump stations
(City of Fontana 2018b). The project would require sewer line connections on-site to serve the
proposed warehouse logistics facility. As with water facilities, sewer line connections necessary to
connect the proposed facility to existing facilities would be installed during project construction
within the project’s proposed footprint. As such, infrastructure improvements would not be expected
to result in substantial environmental impacts.
The project would result in an increase in wastewater generation relative to existing site conditions.
While Fontana owns the local sewer infrastructure, wastewater treatment services are supplied by a
regional authority, the Inland Empire Utilities Authority (IEUA), which also delivers recycled water for
non-potable uses (City of Fontana 2018b). The IEUA owns and operates six regional wastewater
treatment facilities, including one in nearby Ontario and one in Rancho Cucamonga. The City of
Fontana is within the service area of two of IEUA’s Regional Plants (RP), RP-1 and RP-4 (City of Fontana
2018b). The treatment capacity of RP-1 is 44 million gallons per day (gpd), and it currently treats
approximately 28 million gpd (IEUA 2022a), or 64 percent of its capacity, with a remaining capacity of
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 67
16 million gpd. The treatment capacity of RP-4 is 14 million gpd, and it typically treats approximately
10 million gpd (IEUA 2022b), or approximately 71 percent of capacity, with a remaining capacity of
4 million gpd. Based on the CalEEMod outputs (see Appendix C), assuming wastewater is 80 percent
of total water supply, the project would generate approximately 65,764 gpd of wastewater, which
would account for less than two percent of the remaining capacities for both RP-1 and RP-4..
Therefore, the IEUA would have adequate capacity to provide wastewater treatment for the proposed
project and the proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater
conveyance or treatment facilities.
The project would increase impervious surfaces over the project site due to construction of the
proposed warehouse logistics facility, which would reduce infiltration potential and increase surface
runoff on the project site. Pursuant to the requirements of the City’s Water Quality Management Plan
Handbook and the County of San Bernardino MS4, the project would be required to capture and treat
runoff from the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. As part of the project’s final design review, the
project proponent would submit a Water Quality Management Report to the City’s Engineering
Department demonstrating adequate stormwater retention using source-control and/or on-site
structural treatment control BMPs, such as infiltration basins and bioretention areas (City of Fontana
2021). Such BMPs would slow the velocity of water, thereby minimizing the potential for exceedances
of stormwater drainage system capacity.
The project would not cause substantial unplanned population growth (see SecIion 14, Population
and Housing), and would not result in wasteful or inefficient use or energy (see Section 6, Energy).
Project operation would result in an increase in electricity consumption on the project site by
414.2 GWh per year. The project’s electricity demand would be served by SCE, which supplied
approximately 83,533 GWh of electricity to its service area in 2020 (CEC 2021a). The project’s
electricity demand would represent less than one percent of electricity provided by SCE. The project
would connect to existing electrical utility lines adjacent to the project site and would not require
additional electricity substations.
According to CalEEMod outputs (Appendix C), estimated natural gas consumption for the project
would be approximately 329.5 million Btu or approximately 0.003 MMthm per year. The project’s
natural gas demand would be served by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), which
provided approximately 5,231 MMthm per year in 2020 (CEC 2021b). The project’s natural gas
consumption would represent less than 0.1 percent of natural gas provided by SoCalGas, indicating
that there are adequate facilities and supplies in the area to serve the project. Therefore, the project
would not require additional natural gas storage/transmission facilities. Likewise, the project site is
an infill project served by existing telecommunications facilities within the city. Will serve letters from
Charter Communications and AT&T were received for the project, indicating that the project would
not require the expansion or construction of new telecommunications infrastructure (Appendix I).
The project site receives its water service from the San Gabriel Valley Water Company (SGVWC) –
Fontana Water Company (FWC) Division. FWC sources its water supply from surface water diverted
from Lytle Creek, untreated State Water Project surface water from the IEUA and San Bernardino
Valley Municipal Water District, recycled water purchased from IEUA, and groundwater pumped from
FWC-owned and operated wells from the underlying Chino, Rialto-Colton, Lytle, and No Man’s Land
Basins (FWC 2021).
According to the 2020 UWMP, FWC would have an adequate supply of water, with normal
conservation efforts, to meet projected demand through 2045 in average year, single dry year, and
multiple dry year scenarios (FWC 2021). The project would be constructed in accordance with all
applicable CBC standards, including those that mandate water-efficient fixtures and features, and
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
68
would also be mandated to adhere to applicable water conservation measures for landscaping.
According to CalEEMod results (see Appendix C), the project would demand approximately
82,204 gallons of water per day, or approximately 92 AFY. FWC anticipates water demand to increase
by 4,736 to 6,350 AFY between 2025 and 2045. The project’s water demand would account for
approximately 1.4 to 1.9 percent of FWC’s anticipated water demand and therefore would be
accommodated by the water supply available for the city during normal, single dry year, and multiple
dry year conditions through the year 2045.
AB 341 set a statewide goal for a 75 percent reduction in waste disposal by the year 2020 and
established mandatory recycling for commercial businesses. The City is required to comply with this
law and report their progress towards achieving the 75 percent reduction goal to the Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The City contracts with Burrtec Waste Industries
(Burrtec) to provide trash, recycling, and special pickup services for residents. After collection, waste
is conveyed to the Mid-Valley Landfill, located at 2390 Alder Avenue in the City of Rialto. Mid-Valley
is the primary solid waste depository for the area. Burrtec also operates a transfer station in Rancho
Cucamonga (City of Fontana 2018b). The Mid-Valley Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of
is 7,500 tons of solid waste per day. The anticipated life for the landfill at its currently permitted
capacity is April 2045. The last reported remaining capacity at the landfill was approximately 61.2
million cubic yards (CalRecycle 2019). The handling of all debris and waste generated during
construction of the project would be subject to CALGreen requirements and the California Integrated
Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requirements for salvaging, recycling, and reuse of
materials from construction activity on the project site. In accordance with CALGreen requirements,
the project would be required to achieve a minimum of 65 percent diversion rate for construction
waste. For operational waste, AB 939 requires all cities and counties to divert a minimum of 50
percent of all solid waste from landfills. According to the CalEEMod outputs for the project (Appendix
C), the project would generate approximately 151 tons per year of solid waste, or approximately 0.4
tons per day. The project’s anticipated daily solid waste generation would account for less than 0.01
percent of the Mid-Valley Landfill’s permitted throughput. Given this small proportion of permitted
throughput and the existing surplus capacity at the Mid-Valley Landfill, the solid waste generated by
operation of the project would be adequately accommodated by existing landfills. The project would
be required to comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste,
including Chapter 24, Solid Waste and Recycling, of the FMC, which regulates waste collection,
transfer, and disposal in the city.
Although potential impacts are anticipated to be low, with implementation of Mitigation
Measures 4.8-6a, 4.8-6b, 4.8-7a, 4.8-7b, 4.8-7c, and 4.8-8b from the 2011 EIR, the project would result
in less than significant impacts to utilities and service systems. Therefore, the proposed project would
not introduce new impacts or substantially increased impacts related to utilities and service systems
and would be consistent with the impact analysis provided in the 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update.
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe effects would occur related to utilities and service systems and
no new mitigation measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation (Equal to the certified EIR for the 2011 SWIP
SP Update)
Environmental Checklist and Impacts of the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 69
20. Wildfire
This environmental issue area was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental
Checklist Form, at the time of preparation of the 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update, and therefore, was
not assessed as an individual issue area. However, the 2011 EIR stated that climate change could
result in increased occurrences and duration of wildfire events in Section 4.2, Air Quality and Climate
Change, of the SWIP SP Update EIR. The SWIP SP Update area is located in an urbanized area that is
surrounded by development on all sides and is not located adjacent to any wildlands (Section 2,
Description of Proposed Project, of the SWIP SP Update EIR).
The proposed project site is entirely located within the boundaries of the SWIP SP Update area. The
project site is in an urban area of Fontana surrounded by roads and structures, including light
industrial and commercial buildings. Undeveloped wildland areas are not located near the project
site. There are no streams or rivers located on or adjacent to the project site, and the project site and
surrounding areas are relatively flat and not at high risk of downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides. According to the California Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer, the project site is not
located in a FHSZ or VHFHSZ for wildland fires (CALFIRE 2022). The nearest Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) is located approximately 1.2 miles northeast of the project site past Jurupa
Avenue. Similar to the SWIP SP Update, the proposed project would be located in an urbanized area
that is surrounded by development on all sides and is not located adjacent to any wildlands. The
project site is undeveloped but is within an urbanized area served by existing infrastructure including
roads and utilities. The project would be served by Slover Avenue and Cherry Avenue and the existing
utilities in the project area and would not require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure within FHSZs that may exacerbate fire risk. As discussed in Section 15, Public Services,
the project site is in an urbanized area already served by FFPD and would not have a significant impact
on fire response times nor create a substantially greater need for additional fire protection services
above current capacity. The closest fire station to the project site is San Bernardino County Fire Station
No. 74, which is located approximately 1.2 miles to the southeast at 11500 Live Oak Avenue and
would provide emergency and evacuation services in the event of a fire. Furthermore, the building
would be constructed to meet current building code fire safety requirements. While not anticipated,
if temporary construction-related roadway or lane closures are required, the project would comply
with applicable traffic control permit conditions, including development of a traffic control plan, to
maintain traffic flow and emergency access and evacuation, as appropriate. Therefore, the proposed
project would not introduce new impacts or substantially increased impacts related to wildfire and
would be consistent with the impact analysis provided in the 2011 EIR for the SWIP SP Update.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Effects and Mitigation Measures
The construction of the 165,400 sf warehouse logistics facility would not result in new or substantially
more severe effects associated with wildfire hazards, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Conclusion
Less than Significant Impact
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
70
5 Conclusion
As analyzed in this Addendum and summarized in Table 14, potential impacts associated with the
proposed project are consistent with potential impacts characterized and mitigated for in the 2011
EIR for the SWIP SP Update. The proposed project would also be subject to the same mitigation
measures as the SWIP SP for biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, and noise.
Substantive revisions to the 2011 EIR are not necessary because no new significant impacts or impacts
of substantially greater severity than previously described would occur as a result of the proposed
project. Therefore, the following determinations have been found to be applicable:
▪ No further evaluation of environmental impacts is required for the proposed project;
▪ No Subsequent EIR is necessary per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162; and
▪ This Addendum is the appropriate level of environmental analysis and documentation for the
proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
Table 14 Proposed Project Compared to SWIP SP Update EIR
Issue Proposed Project
Aesthetics =
Agriculture and Forestry Resources =
Air Quality -
Biological Resources =
Cultural Resources =
Energy =
Geology/Soils =
Greenhouse Gas Emissions =
Hazards and Hazardous Materials =
Hydrology and Water Quality =
Land Use/Planning =
Mineral Resources =
Noise -
Population/Housing =
Public Services -
Recreation -
Transportation/Traffic -
Tribal Cultural Resources =
Utilities/Service Systems =
Wildfire (based on Hazards analysis in 2011 EIR) =
Notes:
+ Impacts greater than those of the SWIP SP Update
- Impacts less than those of the SWIP SP Update
= Impacts similar to the SWIP SP Update
References and Preparers
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 71
6 References and Preparers
References
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 1994. Mineral Land Classification of a Part of
Southwestern San Bernardino County: The San Bernardino Valley Area, California.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022 with 2020 Census Benchmark.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2021/
(accessed May 2022).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2022. California Fire Hazard
Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed February 2022).
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. SWIS Facility/Site
Details Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662
(accessed March 2022).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Transportation and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf
California Department of Water Resources. 2015. California Dam Breach Inundation Maps. Last
modified October 8, 2015. Available here:
https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 (accessed March 2022).
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021a. Electricity Consumption by Entity.
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx (accessed March 2022).
______. 2021b. Gas Consumption by Entity. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx (accessed
March 2022).
California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). 2022. Well Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/-117.46551/34.10436/15
(accessed May 2021)
City of Fontana. 2011. Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update and Annexation, Public Review
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. Available here:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/36382/SWIP-Public-Review-Draft-
Program-EIR. (accessed May 2022).
______. 2012. Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan. Adopted June 12, 2012. Available here:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29312/Southwest-Industrial-Specific-
Plan---Combined-Document (accessed March 2022).
______. 2014. Department of Engineering/Mapping – Traffic Volume Map. August 2014. Available
at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/36781/Fontana-Traffic-Count-Map-
Updated?bidId=
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
72
______. 2017. Active Transportation Plan.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/27009/ATP-Final-Report (accessed March
2022).
______. 2018a. General Plan Update 2015-2035. https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-
Update-2015---2035 (accessed February 2022).
______. 2018b. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report. June 8, 2018. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-
Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed February 2022).
______. 2021. Water Quality Management Plan Handbook. August 2021.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/37482/WQMP-Handbook (accessed
March 2022).
______. 2022. Excavation and Traffic Control Permit Application.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/10102/Excavation-and-Traffic-Control-
Permit-Application (accessed February 2022).
Education Data Partnership (Ed-Data). 2022. Fontana Unified. http://www.ed-data.org/district/San-
Bernardino/Fontana-Unified (accessed February 2022).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2016. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Map
06071C8653J. Effective September 2, 2016. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Barbee%20Street%20Fontana%20#sear
chresultsanchor (accessed March 2022).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook.
(FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02). Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook00.
cfm
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
November. Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-
innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-
0123_0.pdf
Fontana Police Department (FPD). 2022. Personal communication with James Burton, Admin
Captain. March 17, 2022.
Fontana Unified School District (FUSD). 2015. Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan. January 1, 2015.
https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/263/Facilities.pdf (accessed
March 2022).
______. 2022. Fontana Unified School District. New School Boundaries 2019-2020.
https://fusd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4faad1b570994ad09e39040551
077c2e (accessed March 2022).
Fontana Water Company (FWC). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021.
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-
2021-Final.pdf (accessed March 2022).
Inland Empire Utilities Authority (IEUA). 2022a. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1.
https://www.ieua.org/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-1/ (accessed March 2022).
References and Preparers
Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update EIR 73
______. 2022b. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4. https://www.ieua.org/regional-water-
recycling-plant-no-4/ (accessed March 2022).
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance
Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-
manual-preparation-health-risk-0
Salter. 2017. Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. – Midpoint at 237 Loading Dock Noise Study.
Sladden Engineering. 2022. Geotechnical Investigation Report. January 6, 2022.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2001. Employment Density Study Summary
Report. October 31, 2001. (accessed February 2022).
______. 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). April 7,
2016.
______. 2020. Demographics and Growth Forecast. September 3, 2020.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-
and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 (accessed February 2022).
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2017. Risk Assessment Procedure for Rules
1401, 1401.1 and 212. Version 8.1. September 1, 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/permitting/rule-1401-risk-assessment/riskassessproc-v8-1.pdf?sfvrsn=12
_____. 2019. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Last modified: April 2019.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-
significance-thresholds.pdf (accessed February 2023).
Spectrum Acoustic Consultants. 2015. Rail Central Development Preliminary Environmental
Information Report - Appendix 18.11: Site operational noise assumptions and calculation
procedures.
http://www.railcentral.com/site/assets/files/2120/appendix_18_11_site_operational_noise
_assumptions_and_calculation_procedures.pdf (accessed April 2022).
United States Census (U.S. Census). 2022. QuickFacts Fontana. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fontanacitycalifornia. (accessed January 2023).
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
2022. Web Soil Survey. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. (accessed January 2022).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022. National Wetland Inventory. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. (accessed January 2022).
List of Preparers
This Addendum was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. under contract to the Dedeaux Properties.
Persons and firms involved in data gathering, analysis, project management, and quality control
include:
City of Fontana
Slover/Cherry Logistics Facility Project
74
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Deanna Hansen, Principal-in-Charge
Susanne Huerta, Project Manager/Supervising Planner
Andrew Pulcheon, Principal Archaeologist
Angie Harbin, Director/Senior Biologist
Brenna Vredeveld, Supervising Biologist
Bill Vosti, Senior Environmental Planner
Jacob Cisneros, Environmental Planner
Cameron Felt, Archaeologist
Tess Hooper, Biologist/Environmental Planner
Rachel Irvine, Environmental Planner
Shannon McAlpine, Environmental Planner
Aaron Rojas, Environmental Planner
Amy Trost, Biologist