HomeMy WebLinkAboutEtiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center
ADDENDUM
TO THE
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE AND ANNEXATION
(State Clearinghouse #2009091089)
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial
Commerce Center
Master Case No. 22-089
Design Review No. 22-046
Tentative Parcel Map No. 20630 (TPM 22-020)
Prepared For:
City of Fontana
Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Contact: Candida Neal
Prepared By:
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Contact: David Ornelas
Project Applicant:
Alere Property Group
April 2023
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Table of Contents
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center i
Table of Contents
Section Number/Title Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Overview.................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Format and Content of this EIR Addendum ........................................................................................... 1-4
1.4 Review and Consideration of this EIR Addendum ................................................................................. 1-5
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Location ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Existing Condition of Project Site ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses .............................................................................. 2-1
2.4 Existing General Plan and Zoning .......................................................................................................... 2-2
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Project Components .............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Project Technical Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Summary of Requested Actions........................................................................................................... 3-13
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources....................................................................................................... 4-4
4.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................. 4-5
4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................ 4-15
4.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................... 4-19
4.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................................. 4-22
4.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................. 4-26
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................................. 4-31
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................... 4-33
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................................. 4-41
4.11 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................................... 4-46
4.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................... 4-47
4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 4-48
4.14 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................................... 4-51
4.15 Public Services...................................................................................................................................... 4-52
4.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................ 4-55
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Table of Contents
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center ii
4.17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................................... 4-56
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 4-60
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................................... 4-62
4.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................ 4-65
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................................... 4-65
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 5-1
List of Figures
Figure Number/Title Page
Figure 2-1 Regional Map ..................................................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................................... 2-4
Figure 2-3 USGS Topographic Map ..................................................................................................................... 2-5
Figure 2-4 Aerial Photograph .............................................................................................................................. 2-6
Figure 2-5 Site Photographs – Views 1 – 4 ......................................................................................................... 2-7
Figure 2-6 Site Photographs – Views 5 – 9 ......................................................................................................... 2-8
Figure 2-7 Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Land Use Plan ..................................................................... 2-9
Figure 3-1 Conceptual Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-2 Conceptual Architectural Elevations ................................................................................................. 3-4
Figure 3-3 Conceptual Material Board ............................................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3-4 Conceptual Landscape Plan ............................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-5 Tentative Parcel Map......................................................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3-6 Conceptual Utility Plan ...................................................................................................................... 3-9
Figure 3-7 Proposed Grading Plan .................................................................................................................... 3-12
List of Tables
Table Number/Title Page
Table 3-1 Construction Schedule..................................................................................................................... 3-10
Table 3-2 Construction Equipment Fleet ........................................................................................................ 3-10
Table 3-3 Summary of Project Approvals/Permits .......................................................................................... 3-13
Table 4-1 Project Construction Emissions Summary......................................................................................... 4-7
Table 4-2 Project Operational Emissions Summary .......................................................................................... 4-8
Table 4-3 Project Construction Localized Emissions Summary ....................................................................... 4-12
Table 4-4 Project Operational Localized Emissions Summary ........................................................................ 4-13
Table 4-5 Summary of Construction Health Risks ........................................................................................... 4-14
Table 4-6 Summary of Project-Related Diesel Emissions Health Risks ........................................................... 4-14
Table 4-7 Annual Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................... 4-32
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Table of Contents
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center iii
List of Appendices
Appendix Document/Reference Title
A SWIP SP PEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B Air Quality Impact Analysis
C Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment
D Habitat Assessment
E Cultural Resources Study
F Energy Analysis
G Geotechnical Investigation
H Paleontological Resources Assessment
I Greenhouse Gas Analysis
J Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
K Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
L Hydrology Report
M Noise Impact Analysis
N Trip Generation Study
O VMT Screening Evaluation
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
Acronym Definition
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center iv
AB Assembly Bill
AB 32 Assembly Bill 32
AB 2185 Assembly Bill 2185
ACMs Asbestos-Containing Materials
ACOE Army Corps of Engineers
ADT average daily trips
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Alden Alden Environmental
AM Morning
APN Assessor Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
AQIA Air Quality Impact Analysis
amsl above mean sea level
BFSA Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
BMP Best Management Practice
CalGreen California Building Standards Code
CalTrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAGN California gnatcatcher
CBC California Building Code
CBSC California Building Standards Code
CCR California code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
cfs Cubic Feet per Second
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
cy Cubic Yards
dB decibel
dBA Leq decibel A-weighted equivalent sound level
DOC California Department of Conservation
DRP Design Review Project
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
e.g. “Exempli gratia” meaning “for example”
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EV Electric Vehicle
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
Acronym Definition
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center v
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agent
FWC Fontana Water Company
GHG Greenhouse Gas(es)
gpd gallons per day
HMBEP Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
I-10 Interstate 10
I-15 Interstate 15
Ibid “in the same place”
I-L Light Industrial
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
in/sec Inches per Second
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
i.e. “Is est” meaning “that is”
JND Jurupa North Research and Development District
kBTU/yr kilo-British thermal units per year
kWh kilowatt hours
LBP Lead-Based Paint
Lbs pounds
LOS Level of Service
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MRZ-3 Mineral Resource Zone 3
MTCO2eq/year Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents per Year
No. Number
NOx Nitrogen Oxide
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
ONT Ontario International Airport
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
PM Evening
PM Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Particulate Matter (2.5 microns in diameter)
PM10 Particulate Matter (10 microns in diameter)
POC Point of Connection
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
REC Recognized Environmental Conditions
ROG Reactive Organic Gas(es)
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
Acronym Definition
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center vi
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SANBAG San Bernardino Associated Governments
SB Senate Bill
SB 18 Senate Bill 18
SB 32 Senate Bill 32
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SBKR San Bernardino kangaroo rat
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SCG Southern California Geotechnical
SCH State Clearinghouse
s.f. Square Feet
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SP Specific Plan
Sq. ft. Square Foot
SWIP Southwest Industrial Park
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TPM Tentative Parcel Map
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
UST Underground Storage Tanks
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VEC Vapor Encroachment Condition
VMT Vehicles Miles Traveled
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
Waterstone Waterstone Environmental, Inc.
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WS Water of the State
WUS Water of the United States
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Introduction
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Overview
The City of Fontana (hereinafter “City”) received applications from Alere Property Group (hereinafter “Project
Applicant”) to redevelop an approximately 5.0-gross-acre (4.5-net-acre) property located at the northeast corner
of Etiwanda Avenue and Marlay Avenue intersection (Project Site) with a 100,750 square-foot (sq. ft.) industrial
commerce center building, inclusive of a combined 5,000 square feet (s.f.) of ground floor office and mezzanine
office space, and associated site improvements. The Project Site comprises Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0238-
142-09 and 10 and currently operates as a truck stop (Cowboys Truck Stop) and fast-food restaurant with drive-
thru (Cowboy Burgers & BBQ). The Project involves clearing the Project Site of existing structures and ornamental
landscaping to construct and operate the proposed industrial commerce center building. Site improvements
associated with the Project include, but are not limited to, parking and loading areas, public utility connections,
landscaping, and exterior lighting.
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a statewide environmental law contained in Public Resources
Code Sections 21000-21177, applies to most public agency decisions to carry out, authorize, or approve actions
that have the potential to adversely affect the environment. CEQA requires that public agencies inform their
decision-makers of the environmental consequences of their discretionary actions and to consider alternatives
and mitigation measures (MMs) that could avoid or reduce the discretionary actions’ significant, adverse
environmental effects. CEQA also gives other public agencies and the public an opportunity to participate in the
environmental review process.
1.2.1 Prior CEQA Compliance
The Project Site is located within the Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan (SP) area. The City adopted
the original SWIP SP in 1983. The SWIP SP was comprehensively updated in 2012, which included the addition of
1,318 acres to the SWIP SP area (bringing the total SP area to 3,111 acres). The SWIP SP establishes the overall
vision and development plan for the SP area and acts as a bridge between the City’s General Plan and individual
development proposals. The SWIP SP combines development standards and guidelines, capital improvement
programs, and financing methods, which are tailored to meet the needs of the SWIP SP area, into a single,
comprehensive plan.
Potential environmental impacts associated with buildout of the SWIP SP were evaluated by the SWIP SP Update
and Annexation Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). The SWIP SP PEIR was prepared as a PEIR pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a PEIR is “…an EIR which may
be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related…”. The Fontana
City Council certified the PEIR on May 8, 2012 (State Clearinghouse [SCH] Number [No.] 2009091089; hereinafter
“SWIP SP PEIR”).
In certifying the SWIP SP PEIR, the City Council found that the SWIP SP PEIR adequately addressed the potential
environmental impacts associated with planned buildout of the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR identified the
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Introduction
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 1-2
following seven (7) significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (identified as Impacts 4.1-1, 4.2-1, 4.2-2,
4.2-4, 4.7-3, 4.8-5, and 4.9-1) that would result from implementation of the SWIP SP:
➢ Aesthetics: The SWIP SP PEIR found that buildout of the SWIP SP would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts to scenic vistas, because the long-term buildout of industrial, commercial, and office
uses would result in a significant alteration in views of the Jurupa Mountains to the south and the San
Gabriel/San Bernardino Mountains to the north.
➢ Air Quality: The SWIP SP PEIR found that development within the SWIP SP would generate short-term
construction-related emissions of dust (particulate matter [PM]) and vehicle/equipment exhaust that
could exceed South Coast Air Quality Management (SCAQMD) thresholds which would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact. Additionally, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded long-term operations within
the SWIP SP area would generate emissions that would exceed SCAQMD daily thresholds for reactive
organic gases (ROGs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5), resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Furthermore, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that
because emissions associated with buildout of the SWIP SP would exceed SCAQMD thresholds, the
emissions from the SWIP SP would result in a conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would result in significant
and unavoidable short-term and long-term air quality impacts.
➢ Noise: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that buildout of the SWIP SP would result in significant and
unavoidable mobile-source (traffic-related) noise impacts.
➢ Public Services: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that implementation of the SWIP SP would generate
additional demand for parks and recreational facilities. However, no development impact fees for parks
and recreation facilities would be collected as part of the development of the SWIP SP because the SWIP
would only include non-residential land uses. Therefore, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that a significant
and unavoidable impact would occur.
➢ Transportation and Traffic: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the SWIP SP’s addition of traffic would
result in deficient operations at 9 roadway segments and 19 intersections within the study area under the
Existing with Approved Project scenario and would contribute to deficient operations at 10 roadway
segments and 19 intersections under the Forecast Year 2030 with Project scenario. Because the City of
Fontana could not assure the installation of all needed traffic improvements, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded
that impacts to these facilities would be significant and unavoidable.
In conjunction with certifying the SWIP SP PEIR, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, which stated that the benefits of the SWIP SP outweighed the significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts summarized above.
1.2.2 CEQA Rules and Requirements for an Addendum
The CEQA Guidelines allow for the updating and re-use of a previously approved/certified CEQA document when
a subsequent project is within the scope of the analysis of the earlier approved CEQA document and when some
changes or additions to the original CEQA document are necessary but none of the following conditions are met:
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Introduction
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 1-3
a. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due
to the involvement of environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which
will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
c. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with
the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of
the following:
1. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous
EIR;
3. MMs or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline
to adopt the MM or alternatives; or
4. MMs or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the MM or alternative. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15162)
If none of the circumstances listed above occur and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to
update a previously approved/certified CEQA document, an Addendum may be prepared (See CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164).
1.2.3 Finding for the Project
The City, serving as the CEQA Lead Agency for the Project (See CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050–15051),
determined in its independent judgment that the Project does not meet any of the circumstances from CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 and that an Addendum to the previously-certified SWIP SP PEIR is the appropriate CEQA
compliance document for the Project. The City’s finding is based on the following facts:
a. As demonstrated in detail in Section 4.0 of this document, the Project would not require major revisions
to the previously-certified SWIP SP PEIR because implementation of the Project would neither result in
any significant impacts to the physical environment that were not already disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR
nor result in substantial increases in the severity of the environmental impacts previously disclosed in the
SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Subsequent to the certification of the SWIP SP PEIR, no substantial changes in the circumstances under
which the Project would be undertaken have occurred that would require major revisions to the SWIP SP
PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects.
c. There is no evidence in the public record that new information of substantial importance has become
available that is applicable to the Project and/or Project Site, was not known and could not have been
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Introduction
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 1-4
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified, and would
alter the conclusions of the SWIP SP PEIR.
1.3 Format and Content of this EIR Addendum
The following components comprise the EIR Addendum in its totality:
a. This Introduction (Section 1.0), the Environmental Setting (Section 2.0), and the Project Description
(Section 3.0).
b. The environmental impact analysis (Section 4.0), which concludes that implementation of the Project
would neither result in any new, significant environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed in
the SWIP SP PEIR nor substantially increase the severity of the significant environmental impacts beyond
the levels disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
c. Fourteen (14) technical reports and other documentation that evaluate the Project, which are attached
as EIR Addendum Technical Appendices B-O.
Appendix B Air Quality Impact Analysis
Appendix C Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment
Appendix D Habitat Assessment
Appendix E Cultural Resources Study
Appendix F Energy Analysis
Appendix G Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix H Paleontological Resources Assessment
Appendix I Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix J Phase I and Limited II Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix K Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix L Preliminary Hydrology Calculations
Appendix M Noise Impact Analysis
Appendix N Trip Generation
Appendix O VMT Screening Evaluation
d. The Draft and Final SWIP SP PEIR, accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP),
Technical Appendices to the SWIP SP PEIR, Findings and Statement of Facts, Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and City Council Resolution No. 2012-035, as well as all associated staff reports,
memoranda, public comments and other materials relating to the originally approved project and SWIP
SP PEIR, which are all herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and
are available for review at City of Fontana Planning Division; 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Introduction
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 1-5
1.4 Review and Consideration of this EIR Addendum
The City of Fontana Planning Department directed and supervised the preparation of this EIR Addendum.
Although prepared with assistance of the consulting firm T&B Planning, Inc., the content contained within, and
the conclusions drawn by this EIR Addendum reflect the sole independent judgment of the City.
This EIR Addendum will be forwarded, along with the previously certified SWIP SP PEIR, to the Fontana Planning
Commission for review as part of their deliberations concerning the Project. A public hearing will be held before
the Planning Commission to evaluate the merits of the Project and the adequacy of this EIR Addendum. Public
comments will be heard at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will take
action to approve, conditionally approve, or deny approval of the Project. If no appeal is filed, then the decision
of the Planning Commission would be final. However, if the Planning Commission’s decision is appealed, the
Fontana City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the Project. As part of their review of the Project, if
appealed, the City Council would review and consider the report of the Director of Planning Department, the
minutes of the Planning Commission, the Project’s staff report, and any comments made by members of the
public. At the conclusion of the public hearing for the appeal, the City Council would sustain, modify, reject, or
overrule the decision of the Planning Commission, based on its own independent judgment.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Setting
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 2-1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Project Location
The Project Site is at the northeast corner of the Etiwanda Avenue and Marlay Avenue intersection in the City of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The Project Site is in the southwest portion of the City and is
approximately 1.7 roadway miles south of the Etiwanda Avenue on/off-ramps to Interstate 10 (I-10) and
approximately 1.6 roadway miles east of the Jurupa Street on/off-ramps to Interstate 15 (I-15). The Project’s
location is illustrated in Figure 2-1, Regional Map, Figure 2-2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 2-3, USGS Topographic Map.
2.2 Existing Condition of Project Site
The conditions on the Project Site are generally the same the conditions that existed when the SWIP SP PEIR was
certified in 2012. The Project Site is developed and operates as a truck stop (which generally occupies the northern
portion of the property) and fast-food restaurant with drive-thru (which generally occupies the southern portion
of the property); see Figure 2-4 through Figure 2-6. The Project Site is heavily disturbed, mostly paved with
asphalt, with a 5-foot-deep storm water detention basin on the western portion of the property. Pole-mounted
light fixtures are present on the southern portion of the Project Site within the existing parking lot for the fast-
food restaurant. Ornamental landscaping is provided along the Project Site’s frontage with Marlay Avenue and
along the perimeter of the on-site restaurant. Railroad tracks and a utility easement abut the Project Site on the
west. A railroad spur passes through the northwest corner of the Project Site to connect the property immediately
north of the Project Site to the railroad.
2.3 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
Existing land uses surrounding the Project Site include the following:
North: TST, Inc., an aluminum supplier, is immediately north of the Project Site. Properties farther north of the
Project Site, on the opposite side of Clark Street, consist of industrial uses (warehouse and distribution
uses).
South: Marlay Avenue abuts the Project Site on the south. Streetlights and power poles with overhead
transmission lines are located within the Marlay Avenue public right-of-way abutting the Project Site. The
properties south of Marlay Avenue, are developed with industrial uses (plastic manufacturer [Vpet USA,
LLC] and a distribution center warehouse for an air conditioning supply business [AC Pro]).
East: United Parcel Service (UPS) Mail Innovations (mailing service) is immediately east of the Project Site.
Properties farther east of the Project Site, consist of industrial uses (warehousing and distribution uses).
West: Railroad tracks, a utility easement, and Etiwanda Avenue are located immediately west of the Project Site.
The property on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue is located within the City of Ontario and is developed
with a distribution center warehouse occupied by two logistics companies.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Setting
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 2-2
2.4 Existing General Plan and Zoning
The Fontana General Plan and SWIP SP are the land use planning documents that will guide development of the
Project Site. The Fontana General Plan Land Use Map identifies the Project Site as being within the SWIP SP area
and designates the Project Site for “General Industrial (I-G)” land uses. The SWIP SP establishes the specific zoning
regulations, including development standards and design guidelines, for each of its nine (9) development districts.
The Project Site is located within the Jurupa South Industrial District (JSD) (refer to Figure 2-7, Southwest Industrial
Park Specific Plan Land Use Plan). The JSD occupies 536.6 acres in the southwest portion of the SWIP SP area. At
the time the SWIP SP was approved, the JSD area was largely developed, with 7,241,326 s.f. of industrial building
area. The SWIP SP provides for additional industrial development (industrial and manufacturing, warehousing,
flex-tech land uses) in the JSD area, with a maximum of 2,249,874 s.f. of new building area planned (for a total of
9,671,200,434 s.f. within the JSD area).
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Project Description
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 3-1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project evaluated by this EIR Addendum consists of two discretionary proposals: a Design Review Project (City
Case No. DRP 22-046) and a Tentative Parcel Map No. 20630 (City Case No. TPM 22-020). The proposed
discretionary actions are collectively referred to as Master Case No. 22-089 (MCN No. 22-089). The application
materials for the Project are herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and
copies are available for review at the City of Fontana Planning Department located at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana,
California, 92335. The individual components of the Project are discussed below.
3.1 Project Components
3.1.1 Design Review Project No. 22-046 (DRP 22-046)
DRP 22-046 provides for the redevelopment of the Project Site in conformance with the property’s I-G General
Plan land use designation and SWIP SP JSD zoning designation. DRP 22-046 complies with applicable design
standards from Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article V (Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability
Standards). DRP 22-046 provides the following.
A. Conceptual Site Plan
As illustrated on Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan, the proposed building is generally rectangular-shaped with a
north-south orientation and provides 100,750 square feet (s.f.) building floor area, consisting of approximately
95,750 s.f. of warehouse floor space with 5,000 s.f. of supporting office floor space (including mezzanine). A gate-
secured truck court with sixteen (16) loading docks would be provided on the east side of the building; four (4)
trailer parking spaces would be split between the north and east sides of the building. The building’s trash
enclosures would be located inside the secured truck court and would not be visible from the public streets that
abut the Project Site. The site plan provides 57 automobile parking spaces along the southeast and south side of
the building, including accessible parking spaces, electric vehicle charging spaces, and “Clean Air” parking spaces
provided in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen). A 12-foot-tall solid concrete
screen wall is provided at the entrance to the truck court to screen the loading docks and trailer parking spaces
from view of the Marlay Avenue public right-of-way. Additionally, 8-foot-tall metal fencing is provided along the
portions of the northern, western, eastern property line boundaries that abut the truck court for site security.
Access to/from the Project Site is provided from one private driveway connecting to Marlay Avenue, located at
the southeast corner of the Site. This driveway would allow both passenger vehicle and truck traffic and would
allow right-in/right-out (RIRO) access. An additional driveway to Marlay Avenue is provided on the southwest
portion of the Project Site; however, this driveway is restricted to emergency vehicle access only.
B. Conceptual Architecture Plan
The proposed building would feature a varied roofline for visual interest and to reduce the perceived bulk and
scale of the building; the building height would vary between 46 feet and 6 inches and 49 feet and 6 inches above
the finished floor elevation. The building would be constructed with painted concrete tilt-up panels and low-
reflective, blue-glazed glass. The exterior color palette for the proposed building is comprised of various neutral
colors, including shades of white and gray with accents of black and wood-like tile siding. Additionally, articulated
building elements, mullions, and aluminum canopies would be included as decorative elements. The proposed
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Project Description
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 3-2
architectural elevations for the warehouse building are illustrated on Figure 3-2, Conceptual Architectural
Elevations, and the proposed materials are illustrated on Figure 3-3, Conceptual Material Board.
C. Conceptual Landscape Plan
All of the existing plant materials on the Project Site, tropical-themed ornamental landscaping along the frontage
with Marlay Avenue and surrounding the perimeter on the on-site restaurant building, would be removed during
Project construction. Proposed landscaping would be ornamental in nature and would feature drought-tolerant
trees, shrubs, and accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers. As shown on Figure 3-4, Conceptual
Landscape Plan, trees, shrubs, and groundcover are proposed along the Project Site’s frontage with Marlay
Avenue. Landscaping also would occur at building entries and in and around automobile parking areas. The truck
court would be devoid of plant materials to avoid inference with truck movements. Prior to building permit
issuance, the Project Applicant would be required to submit final planting and irrigation plans to the City of
Fontana for review and approval. The plans are required to comply with the “Landscape and Water Conservation
Ordinance” from Chapter 28, Article IV, Section 28-91 through 28-119 of the Fontana Municipal Code, which
establishes requirements for landscape design, automatic irrigation system design, and water-use efficiency.
3.1.2 Tentative Parcel Map No. 20630 (TPM 22-020)
The proposed tentative parcel map would consolidate the Project Site’s two existing parcels – APNs 0238-142-09,
and -10 into one parcel consisting of approximately 5.0-gross-acres (4.5-net-acres), as shown on Figure 3-5,
Tentative Parcel Map.
3.2 Project Technical Characteristics
3.2.1 Public Road Improvements
The Project provides for the construction of a new curb and gutter and a 12-foot-wide parkway (including
landscaping and a sidewalk) along the north side of Marlay Avenue abutting the Project Site. Under existing
conditions, Marlay Avenue is developed to its ultimate full travel way (pavement) width; no further improvements
are needed to the travel way.
3.2.2 Utility Improvements
The Project’s proposed utility plan is depicted on Figure 3-6, Conceptual Utility Plan and a description of the
Project’s proposed utility plan is provided below.
Water Infrastructure
The Fontana Water Company (FWC) provides water service to the Project Site under existing conditions. As part
of Project construction, all existing points of connections (POCs) would be abandoned and removed and four (4)
new POCs would be constructed. The Project would include the installation of three (3) POCs along the southern
boundary of the Project Site that abuts Marlay Avenue consisting of one fire flow water line, one domestic water
line, and one reclaimed water line (for on-site landscaping). The Project would also include the installation of one
POC for fire flow within the northwest corner of the Project Site. The proposed domestic and fire flow POCs
located along Marlay Avenue would connect to the existing 10-inch-diameter water main beneath the roadway
and the proposed irrigation POC would connect to the existing 36-inch reclaimed water main beneath
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Project Description
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 3-8
the roadway. The proposed fire flow connection at the northwest corner of the Project Site would connect to an
existing 10-inch water main within the utility easement that abuts the Project Site and Etiwanda Avenue.
Additionally, the Project would provide new public fire hydrants along Marlay Avenue and would provide fire
hydrants on-site. All proposed water facilities and connections would be designed and constructed in accordance
with FWC standards.
Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
The City provides wastewater collection and conveyance services to the Project Site via an existing 33-inch-
diameter sewer line beneath Marlay Avenue. The Project would retain and re-use the existing sewer POC for the
Project Site.
Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure
The existing stormwater detention basin on the Project Site would be demolished as part of the Project and
replaced with an on-site storm drain system that consists of a network of catch basins, private storm drain pipes,
one hydrodynamic separator and one underground infiltration system. On-site “first flush” stormwater runoff
flows (i.e., typically the first ¾-inch of initial surface runoff after a rainstorm, which contains the highest proportion
of waterborne pollution) would be collected by the proposed network of catch basins and routed through a
hydrodynamic separator before flowing into the underground infiltration system, which is located within the truck
yard on the eastern portion of the Project Site. The hydrodynamic separator is a stormwater treatment device
that separates floatables (e.g., trash, debris, and oil) and settleable particles, like sediment, from stormwater
runoff. The stormwater that flows into the underground infiltration system basin would ultimately percolate into
the ground. This system stores stormwater runoff until it gradually exfiltrates into the underlying soil that contains
several layers of filtering media atop native soils. Pollutant removal occurs through the infiltration of runoff and
the absorption of pollutants into the soil. This practice has high pollutant removal efficiency. Stormwater runoff
captured after the first flush would bypass the underground infiltration basin and would be routed through the
Project Site and, then discharged to an existing storm drain line beneath Marlay Avenue. A flow discharge device
would be installed to ensure that stormwater runoff flows discharged into the existing storm drain line beneath
Marlay Avenue do not exceed existing peak 100-year flow rates. Under the peak storm conditions, the discharge
control device could cause the temporary detention (i.e., ponding) of runoff in the Project’s truck court at a
maximum depth of approximately 0.5-feet.
Under existing conditions, stormwater runoff from abutting property to the east is conveyed through the Project
Site by a storm drain pipe that traverses diagonally across the southeast corner of the Project Site and connects
to a catch basin within Marlay Avenue. The Project would re-align this existing storm drain line on-site – while
retaining the existing POC with the catch basin within Marlay Avenue – to accommodate the proposed building
footprint.
Dry Utilities
The Project would entail the relocation of one existing above-ground transmission line pole, one telephone
pedestal, and one existing streetlight along Marlay Avenue and the undergrounding of the associated above-
ground electric distribution lines. The undergrounding of the power poles would be performed in coordination
with Southern California Edison (SCE). The Project would connect to the existing fiber optic line along Marlay
Avenue. The Project does not propose the use of natural gas; therefore, the Project would not connect to the
existing natural gas line along Marlay Avenue.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Project Description
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 3-10
3.2.3 Construction Characteristics
The Project Applicant anticipates that Project construction will span a period of approximately 12 months. The
expected duration of each stage of construction is summarized in Table 3-1, Construction Schedule. The
composition of the construction equipment fleet that the Project Applicant intends to use to construct the
warehouse facility is summarized in Table 3-2, Construction Equipment Fleet. Project construction activities and
equipment would be required to comply with the applicable sustainability standards established by Fontana
Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article V (Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards).
Table 3-1 Construction Schedule
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Days
Demolition 07/04/2023 08/01/2023 20
Site Preparation 08/02/2023 08/09/2023 5
Grading 08/10/2023 08/21/2023 8
Building Construction 08/22/2023 07/09/2024 230
Paving 06/14/2024 07/09/2024 18
Architectural Coating 05/21/2024 07/09/2024 36
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 4-3)
Table 3-2 Construction Equipment Fleet
Construction Activity Equipment Amount Hours Per Day
Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8
Excavators 3 8
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Crawler Tractors 4 8
Grading
Graders 1 8
Excavators 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Crawler Tractors 3 8
Building Construction
Cranes 1 8
Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 1 8
Welders 1 8
Crawler Tractors 3 8
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 8
Pavers 1 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Crawler Tractors 1 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 4-4)
The Project’s proposed grading activities would result in physical disturbance to the entire Project Site, with the
exception of the railroad easement segment that traverses the northwest corner of the Project Site. In addition,
the Project would require minor off-site grading within the City of Fontana utility and the railroad easement that
abuts the Project Site on the west; however, the Project would not alter the existing utility improvements or
railroad tracks within the respective easements.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Project Description
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 3-11
Prior to the start of grading, all existing vegetation, and debris, including structures, footings, foundations, rubble,
trees, and root systems would be removed from the Project Site. Earthwork activities associated with Project
construction would result in approximately 10,225 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 10,225 cubic yards of fill; the
Project’s grading is anticipated to balance with no import or export of soil required. When grading is complete,
the property would be in a generally flat condition, with the highest point of the Project Site located at the
northwestern corner of the Project Site (approximately 886 feet above mean sea level [amsl]) and the lowest point
located at the southeastern corner of the Project Site approximately 880 feet amsl); the Project Site would have
a slight downward slope from west to east. Underground utilities would be installed to a depth of approximately
ten (10) feet below grade. The Project grading concept is illustrated on Figure 3-7, Proposed Grading Plan.
3.2.4 Operational Characteristics
The Project would operate as an indoor storage facility; no outdoor materials storage is proposed for the Project
Site. The user of the Project is not known at this time, but the Project Applicant anticipates that the proposed
building will be occupied by warehouse distribution operators, with the potential for up to 25 percent of the
building’s floor area to be used for high-cube cold/refrigerated storage uses. All goods and cargo housed in the
proposed building would be transported to the Project Site via tractor-trailer; the Project would not receive service
from the existing railroad tracks that are located adjacent to the Project Site. Hazardous materials storage is not
expected to occur within the building or on the Project Site; however, small quantities of hazardous chemicals
and/or materials – including but not limited to aerosols, cleaners, fertilizers, lubricants, paints or stains, fuels,
propane, oils, and solvents – could be utilized during routine Project operations and maintenance.
The Project is designed such that business operations would be conducted within the enclosed building, except
for traffic movement, parking, and the loading and unloading of truck trailers at designated loading bays. As a
practical matter, dock doors on warehouse buildings are not occupied by a truck at all times of the day. There are
typically many more dock door positions on warehouse buildings than are needed for receiving and shipping
volumes. The dock doors that are in use at any given time are usually selected based on interior building operation
efficiencies. In other words, trucks ideally dock in the position closest to where the goods carried by the truck are
stored inside the warehouse. As a result, many dock door positions are frequently inactive throughout the day.
Pursuant to State law, on-road diesel-fueled trucks are required to comply with various air quality and greenhouse
gas emission standards, including but not limited to the type of fuel used, engine model year stipulations,
aerodynamic features, and idling time restrictions. Compliance with State law is mandatory. In addition, Project
operational activities and equipment would be required to comply with the applicable sustainability standards
established by Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article V (Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability
Standards).
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Project Description
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 3-13
3.3 Summary of Requested Actions
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 in Table 3-3, Summary of Project Approvals/Permits. This EIR
Addendum covers all federal, State, local government and quasi-government approvals which may be needed to
construct or implement the Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed in Table 3-3, or elsewhere in this EIR
Addendum (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124[d]).
Table 3-3 Summary of Project Approvals/Permits
Public Agency Approvals and Decisions
City of Fontana
Project – City of Fontana Discretionary Approvals
City of Fontana Planning Commission • DRP 22-046
• TPM 20630 (Case No. TPM 22-020)
• EIR Addendum along with the appropriate CEQA Findings
Subsequent City of Fontana Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals
City of Fontana Implementing Approvals • Final Maps, parcel mergers, or parcel consolidations, as may be
appropriate
• Precise site plan(s) and landscaping/irrigation plan(s), as may
be appropriate
• Grading Permits
• Building Permits
• Encroachment/Construction Permits
• Road Improvement Plans
• Public right-of way dedications
• Sewer and storm drain infrastructure
• Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
Fontana Water Company • Water infrastructure connections
• Removal of existing water meters
Southern California Edison • Undergrounding existing power lines
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board • Construction Activity General Construction Permit
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit
• WQMP
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The scope of the City’s environmental review of the Project is governed by CEQA (See Public Resources Code
Section 21166) and the CEQA Guidelines (See CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168). The environmental
review evaluates the environmental effects associated with implementation of the Project and compares this with
the information and environmental effects that were expected from buildout of the SWIP SP and as disclosed in
the SWIP SP PEIR. This Addendum also reviews new information, if any, of substantial importance that was not
known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable due diligence at the time the SWIP SP PEIR
was certified. This evaluation includes a determination as to whether the Project would result in any new
significant impacts or a substantial increase to a previously identified significant impact.
Because the CEQA Guidelines do not stipulate the format or content of an Addendum, the topical areas identified
in the City of Fontana’s Initial Study form (as set forth in the City’s 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act, adopted April 23, 2019) were used as guidance for this Addendum. This
analysis provides the City with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the Project, any changes
in circumstances, or any new information that has become available since the certification of the SWIP SP PEIR
would require additional environmental review (i.e., preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR).
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was adopted in conjunction with certification of the
SWIP SP PEIR. The MMRP specified MMs that would apply to development activities within the SWIP SP area to
minimize the environmental effects of the SWIP SP implementation. The previously adopted MMs applicable to
the Project will be imposed as conditions of approval and are listed in Appendix A, attached hereto.
On the basis of this evaluation:
I find that the significant effects that would result from the Project have been addressed in an earlier certified EIR
(Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update and Annexation Program EIR, State Clearinghouse Number
2009091089) and that none of the determinations set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 can be established and, thus, an Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park
Specific Plan Update and Annexation Program EIR shall be prepared.
Signature: Date:
Candida Neal, Contract Planner
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-2
4.1 Aesthetics
Would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR identified scenic vistas adjacent to the southeastern portion of the SWIP
SP area in the form of uninterrupted, panoramic views of the San Gabriel/San Bernardino Mountains to the north
and Jurupa Mountains to the south, as well as scenic vistas in the form of isolated windrows viewed across large
open spaces and along several roadways within the southern portion of the SWIP SP. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded
that although the SWIP SP includes various design features to minimize impacts to scenic vistas and would comply
with existing local requirements related to scenic vistas, implementation of the SWIP SP would result in significant
and unavoidable direct and cumulatively considerable impacts to scenic vistas and there were no feasible MMs
that would reduce the impacts to a level below significance. The City of Fontana adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for this impact in conjunction with certification of the SWIP SP PEIR.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is in the southwestern portion of the SWIP SP area, which is an area identified
within the SWIP SP PEIR as being generally devoid of scenic vistas and visual resources of high value. The Project
Site does not provide scenic vistas of contiguous, undisturbed windrows and does not provide prominent views
of local scenic resources. Implementation of the Project would not substantially change views of the San
Bernardino and Jurupa Mountains looking east across the Project Site from Etiwanda Avenue as views of these
features are already completely obstructed by the building and trees located on-site and by off-site development
(existing structures to the east and south of the Project Site). Similarly, the Project would not substantially change
views of the San Gabriel/San Bernardino Mountains from Marlay Avenue because these features are completely
obscured by the building and trees located on the Project Site. With construction of the Project, views of the San
Gabriel/San Bernardino Mountains and Jurupa Mountains would remain obstructed from public viewpoints
abutting the Project Site. The type and character of development that would occur on the Project Site is similar to
what was anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR and the obstruction/loss of views of the San Gabriel/San Bernardino
Mountains and Jurupa Mountains from public viewpoints within the SWIP SP area was previously anticipated and
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe
significant impacts to scenic vistas than the significant and unavoidable direct and cumulatively considerable
impacts previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the SWIP SP area does not contain any geologic
formations or historic structures that could be characterized as scenic resources. Further, the SWIP SP PEIR
concludes that compliance with City of Fontana Municipal Code Article III - Preservation of Heritage, Significant
and Specimen Trees would minimize impacts to mature trees within the SWIP SP. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded
that impacts to scenic resources would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: According to the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), there are no State-
designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the Project Site (CalTrans, 2022). Furthermore, the Project Site does
not contain any scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-3
Accordingly, the Project would have no impact on any scenic resources, including scenic resources within a state
scenic highway corridor. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant
impacts to scenic resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings? (Public Views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that construction activities within the SWIP SP area that
occur near residentially zoned property would result in temporary significant impacts to the visual
quality/character of the SWIP SP area. However, the SWIP SP PEIR included a mitigation measure (MM [MM 4.1-
3a]) that would require development projects located within or near residentially zoned property to incorporate
practices during construction to minimize visual impact. With application of the identified mitigation, the SWIP
SP PEIR concluded that impacts to visual quality/character during construction would be less than significant. The
SWIP SP PEIR concluded that long-term impacts to visual quality/character would be less than significant with
mandatory adherence to the land use and development regulations established in the SWIP SP.
Analysis of Project: Project-related changes to local visual character would be less than significant during near-
term construction activities because construction activity is common in the City (and in the SWIP SP area), would
be temporary in nature, and would not substantially degrade the visual character of the surrounding area. The
proposed industrial commerce center building would reflect a contemporary architectural design consisting of
concrete tilt-up panels painted various natural shades of white and gray, black accents, wood-like tile accents,
low-reflective, blue-glazed glass, and decorative architectural elements. The Project Site would be planted with
an attractive selection of plants, including trees, shrubs, and groundcovers, that would improve the visual
condition of the Project Site relative to existing conditions. The City conducted a thorough review of the Project’s
design and determined that the Project would be consistent with the applicable development standards and
design guidelines from the SWIP SP. Accordingly, there are no components of the Project that would degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the Site and surroundings beyond what was evaluated and disclosed in the
SWIP SP PEIR. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts to
visual character and quality than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Note: Because the Project Site is neither zoned for residential land uses nor abuts residentially zoned properties,
the City determined that SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.1-3a is not applicable to the Project and that the Project would not
be required to implement any special construction practices to address adverse aesthetics impacts.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that implementation of the SWIP SP would have the potential
to create new sources of outdoor light and glare in the form of streetlights, exterior lighting, and security lighting,
as well as glare effects caused by reflective surfaces. However, the SWIP SP PEIR determined that light and glare
impacts would be less than significant because development within the SWIP SP area would be required to comply
with the lighting requirements of the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 30 which would minimize the potential for
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-4
light and/or glare effects to occur. Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that light and/or glare impacts from
implementation of the SWIP SP would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: The Project would be required to comply with the SWIP SP design guidelines applicable to
outdoor lighting. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the outdoor lighting standards
contained in the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 30. The Municipal Code lighting standards govern the
placement and design of outdoor lighting fixtures to ensure adequate lighting for public safety while also
minimizing light pollution and glare and precluding public nuisances (e.g., blinking/flashing lights, unusually high
intensity, or bright lighting). Through mandatory compliance with these standards, Project implementation would
result in a less-than-significant impact related to lighting and glare by: 1) ensuring that the Project would be
compatible with the setting of the surrounding area; 2) preventing substantial light or glare from falling on public
streets or property adjoining the Project Site; and 3) preventing “spillover” effects from the Project Site that could
interfere with day or nighttime views in the area. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or
more severe significant impacts related to lighting/glare than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that implementation of the SWIP SP would not convert any
“Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” to non-agricultural use, as there
is no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance located within the SWIP SP
boundaries. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that no impact would occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is mapped by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) as “Urban and
Built-Up Land” (DOC, 2018). Implementation of the Project would, therefore, not result in the conversion of Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. No impact would
occur. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts to
agricultural resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that none of the lands within the SWIP SP area were designated
or zoned for agricultural use, or subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that
no impacts would occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract.
Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with a Williamson Act
contract. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts to
agricultural resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-5
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that there are no areas zoned for forest land, timberland, or
Timberland Production exist within the vicinity of the SWIP SP.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is not zoned for forest land or timberland and there are no parcels in the
Project Site vicinity that are zoned for forest land or timberland. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with,
or cause the rezoning of, forest land or timberland. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or
more severe significant impacts to forestry resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that the SWIP SP exists within an urbanized area, occupied
primarily by industrial uses, and that no forest land exists within the site vicinity.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is not zoned for forest land nor does any forest land exist in the vicinity of the
SWIP SP. The Project Site, and the surrounding area, is highly urbanized and is used primarily for industrial
purposes (Google Earth Pro, 2022). Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land, nor would
the Project cause any forest land to be converted to non-forest land. Implementation of the Project would not
result in any new or more severe significant impacts to forestry resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP
SP PEIR.
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that there are no active agricultural areas or forest land areas
within the SWIP SP area. Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that no impacts would occur.
Analysis of Project: As discussed under response 4.2(a), above, the Project Site does not include Farmland
(defined as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance) or forest land; therefore,
the Project would not convert Farmland to non-agricultural use of forest land to non-forest use. Implementation
of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts to agricultural/forestry resources
than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.3 Air Quality
An Air Quality Impact Analysis (dated September 21, 2022) (Urban Crossroads, 2022a) and Mobile Health Risk
Assessment (date September 21, 2022) (Urban Crossroads, 2022b) were prepared for the Project by Urban
Crossroads, Inc. (Urban Crossroads) to evaluate potential criteria and hazardous air pollutant emissions that could
result from the Project’s construction and operation. These reports are included as Appendices B and C,
respectively, to this EIR Addendum and their findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-6
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that emissions resulting from buildout of the SWIP SP would
exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would potentially result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet
State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that buildout of the
SWIP SP would conflict with the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin (2007
AQMP). The SWIP SP PEIR included mitigation to minimize the SWIP SP’s air pollutant emissions; however, the
SWIP SP PEIR concluded that air quality impacts related to a conflict with or obstruction of the implementation of
the 2007 AQMP would be significant and unavoidable. The City of Fontana adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for this impact in conjunction with certification of the SWIP SP PEIR.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAQMD is principally
responsible for air pollution control in the SCAB. The SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to reduce air
emissions in the Basin. When the SWIP SP PEIR was certified, the SCAQMD’s 2007 AQMP was the applicable air
quality plan for the SCAB. Since that time, the SCAQMD has adopted the 2016 AQMP which was approved in
March 2017 and is in effect at this time. For purposes of evaluation and to determine whether the Project would
result in any new or more severe significant air quality impacts than disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR, consistency
with both the 2007 AQMP, which was applicable at the time the SWIP SP PEIR was written, and the 2016 AQMP,
which is applicable today, are discussed below.
The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that buildout of the SWIP SP would conflict with the 2007 AQMP due to the resulting
operational emissions that would impede the region’s ability to meet State and Federal Ambient Air Quality
Standards. The Project would implement the SWIP SP land use plan but would, in fact, generate substantially
fewer net daily traffic trips than the land uses assumed by the SWIP SP PEIR (the Project’s daily traffic is discussed
in further detail in EIR Addendum Subsection 4.17). Thus, the Project would result in less air pollution from vehicle
tailpipe emissions relative to the levels anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR, although the emissions reductions
provided by the Project would not be sufficient to avoid the significant and unavoidable conflict with the 2007
AQMP that was disclosed in the SWIP EIR. Further, the Project will be required to comply with much stricter air
quality regulations than those that existed in 2012, including regulations applicable to truck and other vehicle
emissions, that are much more protective of the environment and that would incrementally reduce emissions
from the Project when compared to the emissions that the SWIP SP PEIR assumed would occur from build out of
the SWIP SP area (including 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 PEIR, and would instead result in less severe air quality impacts.
The Project is consistent with the SWIP SP, which was approved by the City of Fontana in 2012, is reflected on the
City of Fontana’s General Plan Land Use Map, and was accounted for by the growth projections utilized by
SCAQMD during preparation of the 2016 AQMP. Thus, the Project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP,
which relies on adopted local General Plans for growth (and emissions) projections. Furthermore, the Project
would not increase the severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay
the timely attainment of the air quality standards established in the 2016 AQMP (as discussed under Responses
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-7
4.3(b) and (c), below). Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the 2016 AQMP. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe
significant impacts to related to air quality than the significant and unavoidable impacts previously disclosed in
the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that implementation of the SWIP SP would result in
cumulatively considerable net increases of criteria pollutants, including ozone precursors, for which the SCAB is
in non-attainment of applicable federal and/or state ambient air quality standards. The SWIP SP PEIR included
mitigation to minimize the SWIP SP’s air pollutant emissions; however, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that
cumulative air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The City of Fontana adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for this impact in conjunction with certification of the SWIP SP PEIR.
Analysis of Project: The Project Applicant would redevelop the Project Site 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 PEIR. Further, as stated above, regulations enacted since 2012 would generally reduce the Project’s
emissions when compared to the emissions assumed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Notwithstanding, an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA, Appendix B) was prepared to quantify air pollutant
emission associated with construction and operation of the Project. The Project’s maximum construction-related
criteria pollutant emissions and operational criteria pollutant emissions are summarized in Table 4-1, Project
Construction Emissions Summary, and Table 4-2, Project Operational Emissions Summary, respectively. The
methodology used to calculate the air pollutant emissions associated with the Project is described in detail in the
Project’s AQIA (see Appendix B to this EIR Addendum). It should be noted that although the Project would be
required to comply with all applicable MMs from the SWIP SP PEIR that were required to reduce air pollution, the
analysis below does not take credit for any emission reductions that would result from the implementation of the
SWIP SP PEIR MMs and, therefore, presents a “worst case” scenario of Project-related air pollution. Thus, the
actual construction and operational emissions associated with the Project is expected to be less than the
quantities disclosed in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2.
Table 4-1 Project Construction Emissions Summary
Year Emissions (lbs/day)1
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2023 0.78 15.80 31.60 0.05 6.01 2.85
2024 15.20 20.10 34.00 0.05 1.33 0.52
Winter
2023 0.70 11.90 20.70 0.03 0.81 0.29
2024 0.69 11.80 20.40 0.03 0.81 0.29
Maximum Daily Emissions 15.20 20.10 34.00 0.05 6.01 2.85
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 4-5)
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-8
Table 4-2 Project Operational Emissions Summary
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 1.73 3.76 24.98 0.07 2.22 0.45
Area Source 3.14 0.04 4.39 0.00 0.00 0.01
Energy Source 0.06 1.05 0.88 0.01 0.08 0.08
TRU Source 0.72 0.81 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.03
On-Site Equipment Source 0.12 0.38 16.44 0.00 0.03 0.03
Project Maximum Daily Emissions 5.77 6.03 46.78 0.08 2.36 0.60
Existing 2.94 32.73 49.05 0.31 6.91 1.80
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 2.83 -26.70 -2.27 -0.23 -4.55 -1.20
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Mobile Source 1.64 4.02 20.23 0.06 2.22 0.45
Area Source 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Source 0.06 1.05 0.88 0.01 0.08 0.08
TRU Source 0.72 0.81 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.03
On-Site Equipment Source 0.12 0.38 16.44 0.00 0.03 0.03
Project Maximum Daily Emissions 4.96 6.25 37.64 0.07 2.36 0.59
Existing 2.77 34.33 42.49 0.31 6.91 1.80
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 2.19 -28.08 -4.85 -0.24 -4.55 -1.21
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 4-8)
As shown in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2, Project-related construction and operational activities would not exceed the
SCAQMD significance threshold for any criterial pollutant. It should be noted that Table 4-2 identifies negative
values for Project-related pollution of several criteria pollutants; criteria pollutant levels with negative values
represent where the Project would reduce existing air pollution levels. This is the result of the Project
discontinuing the existing use of the Project Site – a truck strop and fast-food restaurant, both of which were in
operation at the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified – which generates a substantial amount of passenger vehicle
and heavy truck traffic on a daily basis.
The SCAQMD considers any project-specific criteria pollutant emissions that exceed applicable SCAQMD
significance thresholds also to be cumulatively considerable. Conversely, if a project’s emissions do not exceed
the SCAQMD regional thresholds, then SCAQMD considers that project’s air pollutant emissions to not be
cumulatively considerable because criteria pollutant emissions that fall below the significance threshold would
not adversely affect SCAQMD’s ability to meet regional air quality standards within the SCAB. Thus, because
Project construction and operation would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, implementation of the
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, including any
pollutants for which the SCAB does not attain applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards.
Furthermore, it bears noting that the Project operations would generate substantially fewer net daily traffic trips
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-9
than the land uses assumed by the SWIP SP PEIR (the Project’s daily traffic is discussed in further detail in EIR
Addendum Subsection 4.17). Thus, the Project would reduce vehicle tailpipe air pollution emissions within the
SWIP SP area relative to the levels disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR, although the emissions reductions provided by
the Project would not be sufficient to avoid the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact that was disclosed
in the SWIP EIR. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts to
related to air quality than the significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative considerable impacts previously
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: Although the Project would not contribute cumulatively considerable volumes of criteria pollutant
emissions, the Project would be required to comply with applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to reduce
cumulative air pollutant emissions across the SWIP SP area, as presented below in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) for the SWIP SP PEIR (attached hereto as Appendix A).
MM 4.2-1a All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operation condition so as to reduce
emissions. The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being
properly serviced and maintained as per the manufacturer’s specification. Maintenance records
shall be available at the construction site for City verification.
The following additional MMs, as determined applicable by the City Engineer, shall be included as
conditions of the Grading Permit issuance:
• Provide temporary traffic controls such as flag person, during all phases of construction to
maintain smooth traffic flow.
• Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and
off-site.
• Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.
• Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site
construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.
• Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization, and ensure that all vehicles and equipment will
be properly tuned and maintained according to manufactures’ specifications.
• Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil
import/export). If the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks
cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOX and
PM emissions requirements.
• During project construction, all internal combustion engines/construction equipment
operating on the Project Site shall meet EPA-Certified Tier 3 emissions standards, or higher
according to the following:
o January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014: All off-road diesel-powered construction
equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards. In addition,
all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any
emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that
are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for
a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-10
o Post-January 1, 2015: All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than
50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emissions standards, where available. In addition, all
construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any
emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that
are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for
a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
o A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or
SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable
unit of equipment.
MM 4.2-1b Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, all Applicants shall submit construction plans to the
City of Fontana denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction
contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be
utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors
shall also conform to any construction MMs imposed by the SCAQMD as well as City Planning
Staff.
MM 4.2-1c All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Specifically, the following MMs shall be implemented, as feasible:
• Use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required under AQMD Rule
1113.
• Construct or build with materials that do not require painting.
• Require the use of pre-painted construction materials.
MM 4.2-1d Projects that result in the construction of more than 19 single-family residential units, 40
multifamily residential units, or 45,000 square feet of retail/commercial/industrial space shall be
required to apply paints either by hand or high volume, low pressure (HVLP) spray. These MMs
may reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) associated with the application of paints and
coatings by an estimated 60 to 75 percent. Alternatively, the contractor may specify the use of
low volatility paints and coatings. Several of currently available primers have VOC contents of less
than 0.85 pounds per gallon (e.g., dulux professional exterior primer 100 percent acrylic). Top
coats can be less than 0.07 pounds per gallon (8 grams per liter) (e.g., lifemaster 2000-series). This
latter measure would reduce these VOC emissions by more than 70 percent. Larger projects
should incorporate both the use of HVLP or hand application and the requirement for low
volatility coatings.
MM 4.2-1e All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108.
MM 4.2-1f Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans for future development
projects within the project area, future developments shall include a dust control plan as part of
the construction contract standard specifications. The dust control plan shall include MMs to
meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such MMs may include, but are not limited
to, the following:
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-11
• Phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts.
• Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts.
• All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the
surrounding areas.
• Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding
areas.
• Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut.
• Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions, and as often as needed
on windy days or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and minimize
the release of visible emissions from the construction site.
• Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize
soil or temporarily plant with vegetation.
• Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites.
• Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by
construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing
Project Sites.
• Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight-fitting tarp.
• Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
• Provide for permanent sealing of all graded areas, as applicable, at the earliest practicable
time after soil disturbance.
• Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment.
• Use electric equipment whenever practicable.
• Shut off engines when not in use.
MM 4.2-2c All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling
for prolonged periods pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485,
which limits idle times to not more than five minutes.
MM 4.2-2d The City shall require that both industrial and commercial uses designate preferential parking for
vanpools.
MM 4.2-2e The proposed commercial and industrial areas shall incorporate food service.
MM 4.2-2f All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post
both bus and MetroLink schedules in conspicuous areas.
MM 4.2-2g All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be requested to
configure their operating schedules around the MetroLink schedule to the extent reasonably
feasible.
MM 4.2-2j All residential, commercial, and industrial structures shall be required to incorporate light colored
roofing materials.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-12
Note: The City determined that the following SWIP SP PEIR MMs do not apply to the Project or have been satisfied
as part of the City’s review of the Project’s proposed entitlement applications: MMs 4.2-2a and 4.2-2b do not
apply to the Project based on the location of the Project Site within the SWIP SP area; MMs 4.2-2h and 4.2-2i do
not apply to the Project because the Project does not proposed residential and commercial buildings; and MMs
4.2-2k and 4.2-2l were satisfied by the AQIA (see Appendix B) and Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (HRA)
(see Appendix C) prepared for the Project.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that construction and operation of the SWIP SP would not
expose any sensitive receptors to substantial, localized pollutant concentrations. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded
that air quality impacts related to localized pollutant concentrations would be less than significant and no
mitigation was required.
Analysis of Project: The Project would redevelop the Project Site with land uses planned by the SWIP SP;
therefore, the types of air pollutant emissions generated by the Project already were anticipated by the SWIP SP
PEIR. Further, as noted previously, the Project is anticipated to substantially reduce vehicle traffic to/from the
Project Site below the levels assumed by the SWIP SP PEIR and regulations enacted since the SWIP SP PEIR was
certified in 2012, both of which would generally reduce the Project’s emissions when compared to the emissions
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR. Notwithstanding, an AQIA and HRA were performed to quantify localized air
pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation of the Project. The methodologies used to
calculate the localized criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the Project is described in detail in the AQIA
and HRA (see Appendices B and C, respectively)
Localized air pollutant emissions from Project construction are summarized in Table 4-3, Project Construction
Localized Emissions Summary. The data presented in Table 4-3 confirms the Project would not exceed the
SCAQMD significance thresholds for localized air pollutant emissions during construction. Therefore, Project
construction would expose sensitive receptors near the Project Site to less-than-significant localized criteria
pollutant concentrations.
Table 4-3 Project Construction Localized Emissions Summary
Construction
Activity Year Scenario Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 2023
Summer 11.90 18.20 3.25 0.65
Winter n/a n/a n/a n/a
Maximum Daily Emissions 11.90 18.20 3.25 0.65
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 118 667 196 98
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Site
Preparation 2023
Summer 15.70 30.00 5.76 2.79
Winter n/a n/a n/a n/a
Maximum Daily Emissions 15.70 30.00 5.76 2.79
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,359 217 112
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-13
Table 4-3 Project Construction Localized Emissions Summary
Construction
Activity Year Scenario Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Grading 2023
Summer 11.00 19.00 2.35 1.03
Winter n/a n/a n/a n/a
Maximum Daily Emissions 11.00 19.00 2.35 1.03
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 187 1,101 209 107
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 4-11)
Localized air pollutant emissions from Project operation are summarized in Table 4-4, Project Operational
Localized Emissions Summary. The data presented in Table 4-4 confirms the Project would not exceed the
SCAQMD significance thresholds for localized air pollutant emissions during operation. Therefore, Project
operation would expose sensitive receptors near the Project Site to less-than-significant localized criteria pollutant
concentrations.
Table 4-4 Project Operational Localized Emissions Summary
Scenario Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Summer 2.88 24.78 0.16 0.16
Winter 2.88 20.80 0.16 0.15
Maximum Daily Emissions 2.88 24.78 0.16 0.16
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 286 2,105 55 29
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 4-13)
Additionally, an HRA was prepared to evaluate the potential for localized diesel emissions associated with Project
(i.e., truck trips) to result in carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risk impacts to nearby residential and
worker near the Project Site. The methodology used to calculate Project-related localized diesel emissions is
described in detail in the Project’s HRA (see Appendix C). The results of the mobile source health risk analysis are
summarized Table 4-5, Summary of Construction Health Risks and Table 4-6, Summary of Project-Related Diesel
Emissions Health Risks which show that the Project’s construction and operation would result in less-than-
significant health risks (carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic) to sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity. It should
be noted that there are no schools located within 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) of the Project Site. The nearest school to
the Project Site is Chaparral Elementary School, located approximately 6,490 feet northeast. Because proximity
to toxic emissions is the primary factor for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risk impacts and because
approximately 80 percent of pollutant concentrations is expected to drop-off at approximately 1,000 from the
source, the Project would not result in substantial adverse impacts to any schools or school child in the vicinity of
the Project (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 2).
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-14
Table 4-5 Summary of Construction Health Risks
Time Period Location
Maximum Lifetime
Cancer Risk
(Risk per Million)
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per Million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold
1.02 Year
Exposure
Maximum Exposed
Sensitive Receptor 0.02 10 NO
Time Period Location Maximum Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds Significance
Threshold
Annual
Average
Maximum Exposed
Sensitive Receptor ≤0.01 1.0 NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, Table ES-1)
Table 4-6 Summary of Project-Related Diesel Emissions Health Risks
Time Period Location
Maximum
Lifetime Cancer
Risk
(Risk per Million)
Significance
Threshold
(Risk per
Million)
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold
30 Year
Exposure Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor 0.02 10 NO
25 Year
Exposure Maximum Exposed Worker Receptor 0.17 10 NO
Time Period Location Maximum
Hazard Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold
Annual
Average Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor ≤0.01 1.0 NO
Annual
Average Maximum Exposed Worker Receptor ≤0.01 1.0 NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, Table ES-2)
Lastly, the AQIA concluded that the Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to cause or
contribute to the formation of a CO “hot spot” (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 46-47).
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors near the Project Site to
substantial pollutant concentrations during construction and operation. Implementation of the Project would not
result in any new or more severe significant impacts to related to air quality than previously disclosed in the SWIP
SP PEIR
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting substantial number of
people?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would not expose a
substantial number of people to objectionable odors.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-15
Analysis of Project: Project construction activities could produce odors resulting from construction equipment
exhaust, application of asphalt, and/or the application of architectural coatings; however, standard construction
practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. Furthermore, any odors emitted
during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the
completion of the respective phase of construction. In addition, construction activities on the Project Site would
be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would
create a public nuisance. Accordingly, the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people during construction.
During long-term operation, the proposed Project would include warehousing land uses, which are not typically
associated with objectionable odors. The temporary outdoor storage of refuse associated with the proposed
Project’s long-term operational use could be a potential source of odor; however, Project-generated refuse is
required to be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid
waste regulations, thereby precluding any substantial odor effects. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be
required to comply with Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-261, Odors, and SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits
the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance, during long-term operation. As such,
long-term operation of the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people.
The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during either
construction or long-term operation; impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of the Project would
not result in any new or more severe significant impacts to related to objectional odors than previously disclosed
in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.4 Biological Resources
A Habitat Assessment (dated September 21, 2022) (Alden, 2022) was prepared for the Project by Alden
Environmental (Alden). The Habitat Assessment evaluates the existing biological resources on the Project Site and
evaluates the potential impacts to these resources that may occur as a result of Project implementation. The
Habitat Assessment is included as Appendix D to this EIR Addendum, and its findings are incorporated into the
analysis herein.
Would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that implementation of the SWIP SP had the potential to
result in direct and/or indirect impacts to sensitive species, including the Delhi Sands flower loving fly, burrowing
owl, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, western pocket mouse, western mastiff bat, western yellow bat, and
San Diego desert woodrat. The SWIP SP PEIR also determined that portions of the SWIP SP area contain habitat
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, California gnatcatcher, and sensitive pocket mice. Lastly, the SWIP SP PEIR
determined that construction activities within the SWIP SP area could disturb/destroy active raptor and/or
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-16
migratory bird nests, which would be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The SWIP SP PEIR
included MMs 4.3-1a through 4.3-1h to reduce potential impacts to sensitive species and migratory birds
(including the burrowing owl) to a level below significance.
Analysis of Project: Alden observed that the Project Site is completely developed and does not support any native
or sensitive vegetation communities (Alden, 2022, p. 3). Due to the developed condition of the Project Site and
the amount of human activity that occurs on-site daily, Alden concluded the Project Site has a low likelihood of
supporting any of the sensitive species identified in the SWIP SP PEIR as potentially occurring within the SWIP SP
area (ibid.). Alden did not observe any bird nests on-site; however, the Project Site contains vegetation (i.e., trees)
that have the potential to support bird nests, as well as bats(ibid.). The loss of habitat for birds – including nesting
habitat – and bats was disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR. The Project would not result in any new or more severe
impacts to nesting birds or bats than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR. The Project would be required to
comply with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.3-1b, which requires pre-construction nesting bird surveys when construction
activities are proposed to commence during the avian nesting season and establishes a protocol to avoid and
minimize physical effects to occupied nests. The Project also would be required to comply with SWIP SP PEIR MM
4.3-1c, which requires pre-construction surveys for bats and implementation of a program to minimize impacts to
bats (should any bats be observed on-site). Mandatory compliance with applicable MMs from the SWIP SP PEIR
would ensure the Project complies with the applicable requirements of the SWIP SP PEIR to minimize impacts to
bird and bat species. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts
to sensitive wildlife species than the significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impacts previously
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to reduce
impacts related to sensitive plant and animal species continue to apply to the Project, as presented below and in
the MMRP for the SWIP SP PEIR (attached hereto as Appendix A).
MM 4.3-1b Any future land disturbance for site-specific developments within the Project Site shall be
conducted outside of the State-identified bird nesting season (February 15 through September
1). If construction during the nesting season must occur, the site shall be evaluated by a City-
approved biologist prior to ground disturbance to determine if nesting birds exist on-site. If any
nests are discovered, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest,
depending on the species and type of construction activity. Only construction activities approved
by the biologist shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated.
MM 4.3-1c Prior to any ground disturbance, trees scheduled for removal shall be evaluated by a City-
approved biologist for roosting bats. If a roost is present the biologist will develop a plan to
minimize impacts to the bats to the greatest extent feasible.
Note: The City determined that the following SWIP SP PEIR MMs do not apply to the Project or have been satisfied
as part of the City’s review of the Project’s proposed entitlement applications: MMs 4.3-1a, 4.3-1d, 4.3-1e, 4.3-1f,
4.3-1g, 4.3-1h do not apply due to the Project Site’s condition as fully developed/disturbed and the lack of natural
or sensitive habitat on-site; MM 4.3-3a does not apply to the Project due to the lack of natural drainage courses
or wetlands on the Project Site.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-17
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would not result in the
loss of riparian habitat but could result in the loss or degradation of Designated Critical Habitats of two Federally-
listed species: the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) and the California gnatcatcher (CAGN). The SWIP SP PEIR
applied mitigation (i.e., MMs 4.3-1a through 4.3-1h) to future development projects within the SWIP SP area to
reduce potential impacts to sensitive natural communities to less than significant.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is completely developed, as it was in 2012 when the SWIP SP PEIR was
certified. The Project Site does not have any riparian/riverine communities, vernal pools, or potential waters of
United States (WUS) or waters of the State (WS) and the Project Site does not support any aquatic features
necessary for the development of these resources (Alden, 2022, p. 3). Accordingly, the Project would not result
in significant impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Implementation of the Project
would not result in a new or more severe significant impacts to riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities
than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Note: The City determined that the Project would not be subject to MMs 4.3-1a through 4.3-1h, except for MMs
4.3-1b and 4.3-1c as described in the preceding subsection, due to the lack of riparian habitat or potentially
sensitive natural communities on the Project Site.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that there is a potential for streambeds, wetlands, and/or
riparian areas to occur within the SWIP SP area, and that impacts to these water features and vegetation may
require compliance with permit requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The SWIP SP PEIR included MM
4.3-3a requiring jurisdictional delineations be performed for future development proposals that could potentially
affect jurisdictional drainages or wetlands. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MM
4.3-3a would reduce potential impacts to streambeds, wetlands, and/or riparian to a level below significance.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is completely developed/disturbed, as it was in 2012 when the SWIP SP PEIR
was certified. The Project Site does not have any streambeds, wetlands, and/or riparian habitat (Alden, 2022, p.
3). Accordingly, the Project would not result in significant impacts to State or federally protected wetlands.
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts to State or federally
protected wetlands than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Note: The City determined that the Project would not be subject to SWIP SP MM 4.3-3a due to the lack of potential
streambeds, wetlands, and/or riparian habitat on the Project Site.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-18
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that because the SWIP SP is surrounded by urban
development (paved roads, industrial, commercial and residential development, and the I-10 freeway) no
migratory corridors exist within or near the SWIP SP area that would be affected by the development of the SWIP
SP. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: Under existing conditions, the Project Site has no wildlife habitat value due to its
developed/disturbed condition and lack of native vegetation (Alden, 2022, p. 4). Moreover, no local or regional
wildlife corridors are present within or adjacent to the Project Site (ibid.). As such, implementation of the Project
would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts to wildlife movement corridors than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that implementation of the SWIP SP could involve the
removal of heritage, significant, or specimen trees. However, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that all development
within the SWIP SP would be subject to compliance with Chapter 28 Article III of the City’s Municipal Code (which
establishes regulations for the protection and preservation of heritage trees, significant trees, and specimen trees
on public and private property). Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that mandatory compliance with
Chapter 28 Article III of the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that impacts associated with tree removals would
be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: The trees present on the Project Site are ornamental palms and are not classified as heritage,
significant, or specimen trees as defined by Chapter 28 Article III of the Fontana Municipal Code. Notwithstanding,
the Project Applicant would be subject to mandatory compliance with Chapter 28 Article III of the Municipal Code
during the grading and building permit review processes and would be required to demonstrate compliance to
the City. Accordingly, the implementation of the Project would not conflict with the City’s Tree Preservation
Ordinance. There are no other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources that are applicable to
the Project. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts due to
a conflict with a local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP
SP PEIR.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that buildout of the SWIP SP would not conflict with an
adopted habitat conservation plan because there were no adopted/approved habitat conservation plans
applicable to the SWIP SP area at the time that the SWIP SP PEIR was prepared. A recovery plan was released in
1997 for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly that included the SWIP SP area; however, an assessment of the recovery
of Delhi Sands flower-loving fly in 2008 indicated that much of the Jurupa Recovery Unit may no longer provide
conservation value for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. Regardless, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that compliance
with the MMs included in the EIR would reduce potential impacts to the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly to a level
below significance.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-19
Analysis of Project: There are no habitat conservation plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans that are
applicable to the Project Site (CDFW, 2019). As disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR, a recovery plan for the Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly was released in 1997 that included the SWIP SP area. However, based on soil data published by
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Project’s
Biological Resources Assessment, the Project Site does not contain Delhi series soils, which are a requirement for
the species (USDA, 2022; Alden, 2022, p. 3). Because there is no potential for the Project Site to support the Delhi
Sands flower-loving fly, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the provisions of the recovery plan
for the species. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of an applicable habitat
conservation plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Implementation of the
Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to conflicts with an adopted habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation plan or other approved habitat conservation plan than
previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.5 Cultural Resources
A Cultural Resources Study (dated October 24, 2022) (BFSA, 2022a) was prepared for the Project by Brian F. Smith
and Associates (BFSA) to identify potential archaeological and historical that may be affected by the Project. This
report includes the findings from an archaeological pedestrian survey; a cultural records search and sacred lands
search and an inventory of all recorded archaeological and historical resources located on the Project Site and
within a one-mile radius of the Project Site. This report is included as Appendix E to this EIR Addendum, and its
findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
Would the Project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR identified nine (9) historical resources in the SWIP SP area, none of which
were identified as significant historical resources under CEQA. Additionally, the SWIP SP PEIR determined that
the SWIP SP area has low sensitivity for historical resources. The SWIP SP PEIR included MMs that require future
development projects within the SWIP SP area to perform a pre-construction historical resources survey (and
implement a mitigation program if important resources are present) and to implement safeguards during grading
to protect/preserve historical resources that may be uncovered during grading activities (MMs 4.4-1a and 4.4-1b).
With application of the required MMs, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that impacts to historic resources would be
less-than-significant.
Analysis of Project: In conformance with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4-1a, a historic resources assessment was conducted
for the Project by BFSA. BFSA did not find any evidence of any important historic events or individuals associated
with the Project Site (BFSA, 2022a, p. 25). Moreover, BFSA did not observe any other historic artifacts on the
Project Site (ibid.). The railroad spur within the western portion of the Project Site was constructed sometime
between 1948 and 1953. Although the railroad spur is historic in age, the railroad spur does not constitute a
significant cultural resource as defined by CEQA (ibid.). While BFSA did not observe any significant historical
resources on the Project Site, the Project Site has been impacted by previous development which may have
obscured resources. BFSA recommended the implementation of a historic artifact recovery program during
grading in the event that buried historic artifacts are uncovered. As a standard practice for all development
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-20
projects in Fontana, the City would require the Project Applicant to comply with conditions of approval that
establish protocols for consultation, monitoring, and resource recovery programs during construction. The City’s
standard conditions of approval would satisfy BFSA’s recommendations and would be consistent with the
requirement of SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4-1b. With application of the City’s standard conditions of approval and SWIP
SP PEIR MM 4.4-1b, the potential for Project construction activities to adversely impact important, previously
unknown/buried historic resources would be less than significant. This determination is consistent with the
conclusion from the SWIP SP PEIR, which assumed that the Project Site would be fully developed. The Project
would not result in a new or more severe significant impact to historical resources than previously disclosed in
the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to reduce
impacts to cultural resources continue to apply to the Project as listed below and in the MMRP for the SWIP SP
PEIR (attached hereto as Appendix A).
MM 4.4-1b If any historical resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer shall retain a
qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take appropriate MMs to protect
or preserve them for study.
Note: The City determined that MM 4.4-1a was satisfied by the Cultural Resources Study (Appendix E) that was
prepared for the Project.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that no archaeological resources or Native American sites
exist within the SWIP SP area, and that the likelihood of encountering potentially significant prehistoric
archaeological resources within the SWIP SP area is considered low. The City of Fontana consulted with the
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians as part of the Senate Bill 18 (SB 18)
Native American tribal consultation process for the SWIP SP. The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians identified the
site as being located within the tribe’s Tribal Traditional Use Area. The SWIP SP PEIR included MMs to minimize
impacts related to Native American resources and previously undiscovered archaeological resources that could
be encountered during ground disturbing activities (MMs 4.4-2a through 4.4-2c). Following implementation of
mitigation, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would result in less-than-significant
impacts to prehistoric archaeological resources.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site was surveyed by BFSA for prehistoric archaeological resources in accordance
with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4-2a. No prehistoric archaeological artifacts were observed within the Project Site (BFSA,
2022a, p. 25). BFSA conducted an archaeological record search at the South Central Coastal Information Center
(SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton). According to the records search and literature
review conducted by BFSA with the SCCIC, there is a low potential for prehistoric sites to be located within the
boundaries of the Project Site due to the extensive nature of past ground disturbances and the lack of natural
resources associated with prehistoric sites. Additionally, no prehistoric sites are recorded within one mile of the
Project Site (BFSA, 2022a, p. 19). Accordingly, the Project would result in no impacts to any known prehistoric
archeological resources. However, as a standard practice for all development projects in Fontana, the City would
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-21
require the Project Applicant to comply with conditions of approval that establish protocols for consultation,
monitoring, and resource recovery to protect inadvertent discoveries of buried/masked prehistoric archaeological
resources. The City’s standard conditions of approval are consistent with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4-2b, which requires
the Project Applicant to retain a qualified archaeological monitor during grading activities and implement a
mitigation recovery program, and SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4-2c, which requires the Project Applicant to consider the
requests of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and Morongo Band of Mission Indians concerning procedures for
the treatment of any Native American cultural resources. Compliance with the City’s standard conditions of
approval, which would ensure compliance with mitigation measures from the SWIP SP PEIR, would ensure the
Project’s potential impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. The SWIP SP PEIR assumed
that the Project Site would be fully developed. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts to archaeological resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to reduce
impacts to cultural resources continue to apply to the Project as listed below and in the MMRP for the SWIP SP
PEIR (attached hereto as Appendix A).
MM 4.4-2b If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the
developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take
appropriate MMs to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist,
the City of Fontana shall:
• Enact interim MMs to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification
without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new
developments, using their special qualities at a theme or focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the area’s archaeological heritage.
• Propose MMs and recommend conditions of approval (if a local government action) to
eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources,
following appropriate CEQA guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation,
and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the
completed report, with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological
Information Center for permanent archiving.
MM 4.4-2c Where consistent with applicable local, State and federal law and deemed appropriate by the City,
future site-specific development projects shall consider the following requests by the Soboba
Band of Luiseño Indians and Morongo Band of Mission Indians:
• In the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction for future
development, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified
archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work
on the overall project may continue during this period;
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-22
• Initiate consultation between the appropriate Native American tribal entity (as determined
by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards) and the City/project
applicant;
• Transfer cultural resources investigations to the appropriate Native American entity (as
determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards) as soon as
possible;
• Utilize a Native American Monitor from the appropriate Native American entity (as
determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards) where
deemed appropriate or required by the City, during initial ground disturbing activities, cultural
resource surveys, and/or cultural resource excavations.
Note: The City of Fontana determined that MM 4.4-1a was satisfied by the Cultural Resources Study (Appendix E)
prepared for the Project.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR did not identify any cemeteries or archaeological sites that may contain
human remains within the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that with mandatory compliance with the
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5-7055 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources
Code, the SWIP SP would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to disturbance of human remains.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site does not contain a known cemetery. While not anticipated, in the unlikely
event that human remains are discovered during Project grading or other ground-disturbing activities, the Project
would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
as well as Public Resources Code Section 5097 et. seq. Mandatory compliance with these provisions of California
state law would require that human remains, if unearthed during construction activities, to be appropriately
treated thereby ensuring that Project impacts would be less than significant. The SWIP SP PEIR assumed that the
Project Site would be fully developed. Implementation of the Project would not result in new or more severe
significant impacts related to the potential discovery of human remains than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP
PEIR.
4.6 Energy
An Energy Analysis (dated September 21, 2022) (Urban Crossroads, 2022c) was prepared for the Project by Urban
Crossroads to quantify anticipated energy usage associated with the construction and operation of the Project,
determine if the usage amounts are efficient, typical, or wasteful for the land use type, and identify any potential
methods of avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. This report is
included as Appendix F to this EIR Addendum, and its findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
Would the Project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-23
SWIP SP PIER Finding: Although the SWIP SP PEIR did not specifically address this question, the SWIP SP PEIR
disclosed that future development within the SWIP SP area would result in an irretrievable commitment of
nonrenewable resources such as energy supplies used for construction and operation of planned land uses in the
SWIP SP area and concluded that energy consumption within the SWIP SP area would not be wasteful or
unjustifiable.
Analysis of Project: The Project would implement the SWIP SP land use plan and the Project’s proposed land use
and development intensity is consistent with the development regulations contained within the SWIP. Therefore,
the development proposed by the Project – and its energy use – is within the scope of the Project that was
evaluated in the SWIP SP PEIR. Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.2-
5 to minimize the amount of energy consumed during operation.
Project construction would represent a “single-event” electric energy and fuel demand and would not require on-
going or permanent commitment of energy or diesel fuel resources for this purpose. In summary, the Project’s
construction process is estimated to consume approximately 46,453-kWh of electricity, approximately 52,509
gallons of fuel (diesel and gasoline) (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 36). The amount of energy anticipated to be
consumed during the Project’s construction is typical for a construction project at the Project’s scale (ibid.).
Further, the Project’s energy demand can be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy
delivery systems and Project construction equipment would conform to applicable California Air Resources Board
(CARB) emissions standards which act to promote equipment fuel efficiencies (ibid.). As supported by the
foregoing analysis, Project construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or
otherwise unnecessary.
During Project operation, energy would be consumed by building operations and maintenance (electricity and
natural gas [for analysis purposes]) and by vehicles traveling to/from the Project Site (diesel fuel and gasoline).
The Project’s building operations and maintenance energy demands are estimated to be 3,476,446 kBTU/year of
natural gas and 1,149,341 kWh/year of electricity (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 38). The Project’s anticipated
operations are not inherently energy intensive, and the Project’s anticipated energy demands are comparable to,
or less than, other warehouse project of similar scale and configuration. Additionally, the Project is required by
law to comply with the California building Standards Code (CalGreen), which will minimize the Project’s demand
for energy, including energy produced from non-renewable resources. These regulations have become more
protective of the environment since the certification of the SWIP SP PEIR, and as a result the Project’s energy use
will generally be less than was assumed in the SWIP SP PEIR. The Project’s anticipated annual fuel demand is
calculated to be 512,122 gallons (diesel and gasoline). The trips generated by the Project and the miles traveled
by those trips (vehicle miles traveled [VMT]) are consistent with other warehouse uses in the Inland Empire of
similar scale and configuration. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, pp. 37-38) Also, it bears noting that the Project is
expected to result in a reduction in daily vehicle trips to/from the Site relative to what was assumed by the SWIP
SP PEIR; therefore, implementation of the Project is anticipated to result in lower gasoline and diesel fuel
consumption compared to the levels expected by the scale of development anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR (refer
to EIR Addendum Subsection 4.17 for more information regarding the Project’s traffic). The Project is not
anticipated to result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips or VMT or associated excess and wasteful vehicle
energy consumption (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 38).
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-24
Based on the information presented above, implementation of the Project would not result in a significant
environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during
Project construction and operation. Implementation of the Project would not result in new or more severe
significant impacts related to energy resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to maximize
energy efficiency continue to apply to the Project as listed below and included in the MMRP for the SWIP SP PEIR
(attached hereto as Appendix A).
MM 4.2-5a Prior to the issuance of building permits, future development projects shall demonstrate the
incorporation of project design features that achieve a minimum of 28.5 percent reduction in GHG
emissions from business as usual conditions. Future projects shall include, but not be limited to,
the following list of potential design features.
Energy Efficiency
• Design buildings to be energy efficient and exceed Title 24 requirements by at least 5 percent.
• Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Site and design building to take
advantage of daylight.
• Use trees, landscaping and sun screens on west and south exterior building walls to reduce
energy use.
• Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements.
• Provide information on energy management services for large energy users.
• Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control
systems (e.g., minimum of Energy Star rated equipment).
• Implement design features to increase the efficiency of the building envelope (i.e., the barrier
between conditioned and unconditioned spaces).
• Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting.
• Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
Renewable Energy
• Install solar panels on carports and over parking areas. Ensure buildings are designed to have
“solar ready” roofs.
• Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications.
• Water Conservation and Efficiency
• Create water-efficient landscapes with a preference for a xeriscape landscape palette.
• Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation
controls.
• Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances (e.g., EPA
WaterSense labeled products).
• Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to nonvegetated surfaces)
and control runoff.
• Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-25
• 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 MMs
that are appropriate to the specific project.
• Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives.
Solid Waste MMs
• Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil,
vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard).
• Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate
recycling containers located in public areas.
• Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
• Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles.
• Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces
for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting
areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for coordinating
rides).
• Create local “light vehicle” networks, such as neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) systems.
• Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero-
emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative
fueling stations).
• Promote “least polluting” ways to connect people and goods to their destinations.
• Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large
developments.
• Incorporate bicycle-friendly intersections into street design.
• For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to
promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide facilities that
encourage bicycle commuting (e.g., locked bicycle storage or covered or indoor bicycle
parking).
• Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and other
destination points.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: Although the SWIP SP PEIR did not specifically address this question, the SWIP SP PEIR
disclosed that all future development within the SWIP SP area would be required to comply with Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulation (of which Part 6 establishes the State’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards),
development standards and design requirements related to sustainability and energy conservation contained in
the City of Fontana Municipal Code, and current and future State legislation, executive orders, and regulatory
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-26
guidance to maximize energy efficiency. Furthermore, the SWIP SP PEIR also acknowledged that it was probable
that new technologies would emerge and be incorporated into future development to reduce energy
consumption. Lastly, the SWIP SP PEIR included a MM (MM 4.2-5a) that would require future development to
incorporate design features that would minimize the consumption of energy.
Analysis of Project: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency, as discussed in detail in the Project’s Energy Analysis (Appendix F), and the Project would be
required to comply with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.2-5 to minimize the amount of energy consumed by the Project.
Implementation of the Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts related to energy
resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.2-5a, as listed above and in the MMRP for
the SWIP SP PEIR, attached hereto as Appendix A, continue to apply to the Project.
4.7 Geology and Soils
A Geotechnical Investigation (dated March 23, 2022) (NorCal, 2022) was prepared for the Project by NorCal
Engineering (NorCal) to evaluate the geotechnical conditions of the subject property, identify any geological
hazards, and provide recommendations for the future development of the Project. Additionally, a Paleontological
Resources Assessment (October 24, 2022) (BFSA, 2022b), was prepared by BFSA to evaluate the potential for the
Project Site to contain significant, non-renewable paleontological (fossil) resources. These reports are included
as Appendices G and H, respectively, to this EIR Addendum and their findings are incorporated into the analysis
presented herein.
Would the Project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that there are no Alquist-Priolo earthquake faults located
within the SWIP SP area. The nearest fault to the SWIP SP area is the Cucamonga Fault which traverses through
the northern portion of the City of Fontana approximately 7.0 miles north of the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR
concluded that because no known earthquake faults are known to exist beneath the SWIP SP area, impacts related
to fault rupture would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the Project Site lies outside any Alquist Priolo
Special Studies Zone and there are no known faults on the Project Site; thus, the potential for damage due to fault
rupture is unlikely (NorCal, 2022, p. 4). Accordingly, the Project would not expose people or structures to adverse
effects related to the rupture of an earthquake fault. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new
or more severe significant impacts related to fault rupture than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-27
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that development within the SWIP SP area could be exposed
to strong seismic ground shaking due to the numerous active faults located in the southern California region. The
SWIP SP PEIR concluded that future development’s adherence to standard engineering practices and design
criteria relative to seismic and geologic hazards in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) would
reduce the significance of impacts related to seismic ground shaking to a level below significance.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is in a seismically active area of Southern California and is anticipated to
experience moderate-to-severe ground shaking during the Project’s lifetime. This risk is not considered
substantially different than that of other similar properties in the Southern California area. The Project is required
to adhere to standard engineering practices and design criteria relative to seismic and geologic hazards in
accordance with the CBC, including the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), also known as California Code
of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 (Part 2), and the Fontana Building Code, which is based on the CBSC with local
amendments. The CBSC and Fontana Building Code provide standards that must be met to safeguard life or limb,
health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials,
use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures, and these standards have been
specifically tailored for California earthquake conditions. In addition, NorCal prepared a Geotechnical
Investigation that confirmed the information disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR – the Project Site would experience
ground shaking from moderate to large size earthquakes during the Project’s lifetime – and provides
recommendations to minimize potential hazards at the Project Site related to seismic ground shaking (NorCal,
2022, pp. 7-14). The Project would be required to implement the design recommendation from the Project’s
Geotechnical Investigation pursuant to Chapter 26, Division 4 of the Fontana Municipal Code (this also is a
requirement of the City’s standard conditions of approval). With mandatory compliance with State and local
building standards and the recommendations from the Project’s Geotechnical Investigation, the Project would not
expose people and structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury, or death, involving seismic
ground shaking. The Project would result in new or more severe significant impacts related to seismic ground-
shaking than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that although the potential exists for liquefaction to occur
within the SWIP SP area, future development within the SWIP SP would be subject to site-specific geotechnical
investigations and would comply with existing CBSC standards to minimize any potential ground failure or
liquefaction hazards. Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would not
expose people or structures to potential impacts related to seismic ground failure or liquefaction.
Analysis of Project: According to research conducted by NorCal, the Project Site is not located within a liquefaction
hazard zone (NorCal, 2022, p. 5). Accordingly, the Project would not expose people or structures to substantial
adverse effects, including loss, injury, or death, involving seismically induced liquefaction. Therefore, the Project
would not result in new or more severe significant impacts related to liquefaction than previously disclosed in the
SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-28
iv. Landslides?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that the risk of landslides in the SWIP SP area is low due to the
relatively flat topography of the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that no impact would occur with
regard to landslides.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is flat and has no substantial natural or man-made slopes. Additionally, there
are no natural or man-made slopes in proximity to the Project Site. Therefore, the potential for landslides on- or
off-site is nil. Implementation of the Project would not create a landslide risk to surrounding properties. The SWIP
SP PEIR assumed the Project Site would be fully developed. The Project would not result in new or more severe
significant impacts related to landslide than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that compliance with all requirements set forth in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities (e.g., implementation of BMPs
through preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan [SWPPP]) would preclude potential soil erosion
impacts.
Analysis of Project: The analysis below summarizes the likelihood of the Project to result in substantial soil erosion
during temporary construction activities and/or long-term operation. As demonstrated in the analysis below,
implementation of the Project would not result in substantial effects related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe significant impacts related to
soil erosion than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR, which assumed the Project Site would be fully
developed.
Construction Activities
Project construction would involve demolition, grading, paving, utility installation, building construction, and
landscaping installation, which has the potential to temporarily expose on-site soils that are currently covered by
concrete and could be subject to erosion during rainfall events or high winds.
Pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board requirements, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain
coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit).
The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or
excavation that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. Compliance with the NPDES Permit requires the
Project Applicant to prepare and submit to the City for approval a Project-specific SWPPP. The SWPPP would
identify a combination of erosion control and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or
eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges during
construction. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which establishes
requirements for the control of dust during construction (including wind erosion) (SCAQMD, 2005). With
mandatory compliance to the requirements noted in the Project’s SWPPP, as well as applicable regulatory
requirements, there would be no potential for substantial water and/or wind erosion impacts during Project
construction. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts
related to soil erosion than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-29
Operational Activities
Upon Project build-out, the Project Site would be redeveloped with an industrial commerce center building,
landscaping, and impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the Project Site would be captured and treated
on-site via BMPs (a hydrodynamic separator and infiltration basin) to reduce waterborne pollutants, including
sediment.
The City’s Municipal Storm Water Permit will require the Project Applicant to prepare and implement a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (see City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 5-14 & Chapter 23, Article IX).
The WQMP is required to identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control MMs (i.e.,
BMP) to reduce or eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from stormwater and non-stormwater
discharges. The Preliminary WQMP for the Project is attached hereto as Appendix K. Compliance with the WQMP
would be required as a condition of Project approval and long-term maintenance of on-site water quality features
is required. Because the Project would be required to utilize erosion and sediment control design measures to
preclude substantial, long-term soil erosion and loss of topsoil, substantial soil erosion would not occur.
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to soil
erosion than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the SWIP SP area is not located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that a less-than-
significant impact would occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site’s soils consist of fill and natural soil. As previously discussed under Responses
4.7(a) and (b), the Project Site’s soils are not susceptible to landsliding or liquefication. Therefore, the Project
would not be subjected to these geologic phenomena. NorCal’s soil testing indicated that the on-site soils have a
shrinkage potential on the order of 5 to 10 percent due to excavation and recompaction. Additionally, subsidence
is expected to be 0.2 feet due to earthwork operations. The shrinkage and subsidence hazard can be attenuated
through the removal of near surface soils down to competent materials and replacement with properly compacted
fill, which is included as a recommendation in the Geotechnical Investigation (NorCal, 2022, p. 8). The Project
would be required to implement the design, grading, and construction recommendations within its Geotechnical
Investigation pursuant to Chapter 26, Division 4 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code, which would ensure that
the Project Site’s soils remain stable post-development. (The City will assign a condition of approval to the Project
requiring implementation of the soil preparation and construction recommendations contained within the
Geotechnical Investigation to ensure compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 26, Division 4.) Based on the
foregoing analysis, implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to significant hazards
related to unstable soils. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe
significant impacts related to unstable soils than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-30
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (since renamed as
the California Building Code), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that soils in portions of the SWIP SP area are susceptible to
expansion. However, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that because future development within the SWIP SP would be
subject to site-specific geotechnical investigations and would be required to comply with CBSC standards
addressing expansive soil hazards, impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: According to the Project’s Geotechnical Investigation, the soils on the Project Site have a very
low expansion potential (NorCal, 2022, p. 14). Accordingly, the Project would not create substantial risks to life
and property due to expansive soils. Implementation of the Project would neither result in a new impact related
to expansive soils that was not disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR nor substantially increase the severity of a significant
impact previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR did not identify any significant adverse effects related to septic systems,
because the SWIP SP would be served by sewer facilities and therefore not entail the installation of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Analysis of Project: The Project would connect to the municipal sewer system and does not propose the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Implementation of the Project would not result in any
new impacts or more severe significant impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that the southern portion of the SWIP SP area is underlain by
Pleistocene older fan deposits, which have a high potential to contain important fossil resources. The SWIP SP
PEIR included MMs 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b which require future development projects within the SWIP SP to analyze
potential impacts to paleontological resources on a site-specific basis prior to construction and, then, implement
any recommended mitigation program (if required). The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that with implementation of
mitigation, the SWIP SP would result in less-than-significant impacts to paleontological resources.
Analysis of Project: In accordance with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4-3a, a Paleontological Resources Assessment (see
Appendix O) was prepared for the Project by BFSA. The Paleontological Assessment concluded that the Project
Site underlain with alluvial fan deposits that have a low sensitivity for paleontological resources at the ground
surface but have an increasing sensitivity at depth.
The Project Site is mostly mapped as Holocene and late Pleistocene aged young axial-channel deposits.
Specifically, the northern portion of the Project Site is mapped as late Holocene young alluvial fan sediments and
the southern portion is mapped as Holocene and late Pleistocene young alluvial-valley deposits. The occurrence
of terrestrial vertebrate fossils at shallow depths from Holocene and Pleistocene alluvial fan sediments across the
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-31
Inland Empire is well documented. (BFSA, 2022b, pp. 5-6) Accordingly, BFSA concluded that the strata underlying
the Project Site has the potential to contain important fossil deposits and, thusly, recommended paleontological
monitoring be performed during the Project’s grading, excavation, or utility trenching activities that occur at or
below 5 feet below the existing ground surface (ibid.). The Project’s monitoring program would be required to
comply with the performance standards established by SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.4-3b. With compliance with SWIP SP
PEIR MM 4.4-3b, the Project would reduce the significance of the Project’s potential effects to important
paleontological resources to less-than-significant levels. This conclusion is consistent with the conclusion from
the SWIP SP PEIR, which assumed the Project Site would be fully developed. Implementation of the Project would
not result in any new or more severe significant impacts to paleontological resources than previously disclosed in
the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to reduce impacts to
paleontological resources continue to apply to the Project, as listed below and included in the MMRP for the SWIP
SP PEIR (attached hereto as Appendix A).
MM 4.4-3b Should mitigation monitoring be recommended for a specific project within the Project Site, the
program shall include, but not be limited to, the following MMs:
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained, and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils
with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing
activities.
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, earth-disturbing activities shall
be diverted elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel
make the discovery, the grading contractor shall immediately divert construction and notify
the monitor of the find.
• All recovered fossils shall be prepared, identified, and curated for documentation in the
summary report and transferred to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County
Museum).
• A summary report shall be submitted to City of Fontana. Collected specimens shall be
transferred with copy of report to San Bernardino County Museum.
Note: The City determined that MM 4.4-3a was satisfied by the Project’s Paleontological Resources Assessment
(see Appendix O).
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A Greenhouse Gas Analysis (dated September 21, 2022) (Urban Crossroads, 2022d) was prepared for the Project
by Urban Crossroads to quantify the GHG emissions that would result from Project-related construction and
operational activities. This report is included as Appendix I to this EIR Addendum and its findings are incorporated
into the analysis presented herein.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-32
Would the Project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that implementation of the SWIP SP would result in GHG
emissions equal to 1,147,515.21 MTCO2eq/year absent project design features and mitigation. The SWIP SP PEIR
included mitigation (MM 4.2-5a) that would require the individual development projects within the SWIP SP area
to incorporate sustainable practices related to water usage, energy usage, solid waste generation, and
transportation. The SWIP SP PEIR determined that implementation of the reduction MMs required by MM 4.2-5a
would reduce GHG emission from buildout of the SWIP SP to 774,572.77 MTCO2eq/year (an approximate 32.5
percent reduction relative to the unmitigated emissions). The SWIP SP PEIR determined that because MM 4.2-5
would result in GHG reductions that would exceed the mandate of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, that implementation of
the SWIP SP would not generate GHG emissions that have a significant impact on the environment and, also, that
the SWIP SP would be consistent with applicable plans and policies related GHG emissions reductions.
Analysis of Project: The Project’s annual GHG emissions are summarized in Table 4-7, Annual Project Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. The GHG emissions reported in Table 4-7 are unmitigated and do not account for any mitigation
required by the SWIP SP PEIR. The methodology used to quantify the Project’s annual GHG emission is described
in Appendix I.
Table 4-7 Annual Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 16.74 3.33E-04 0.00E+00 0.01 16.90
Mobile Source 850.00 0.04 0.06 1.45 870.00
Area Source 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.11
Energy Source 409.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 411.00
Water Usage 33.02 0.76 0.01 0.00 57.50
Waste 10.47 1.05 0.00 0.00 36.69
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.51 7.51
TRU Source 143.51
On-Site Equipment 286.15
Total CO2e (All Sources) 1,831.37
Existing 5,916.73
Total Net CO2e (All Sources) -4,085.36
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 4-6)
It bears noting that Table 4-7 identifies a negative value for Project-related GHG emissions. This is the result of
the Project discontinuing the existing uses on the Project Site – a truck strop and fast-food restaurant, both of
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-33
which were in operation at the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified – which generate a substantial amount of GHG
emissions on a daily basis from passenger vehicles and heavy trucks visiting the Site (i.e., tailpipe emissions).
The Project would implement the SWIP SP land use plan and the Project’s proposed land use and development
intensity are consistent with the development regulations contained within the SWIP. Therefore, the GHG
emissions produced by the Project are within the scope of the project that was evaluated in the SWIP SP PEIR. Of
note, the proposed warehouse building would generate fewer daily traffic trips than the land uses assumed by
the SWIP SP PEIR (the Project’s daily traffic is discussed in further detail in EIR Addendum Subsection 4.17);
therefore, the Project would reduce vehicle tailpipe emissions within the SWIP SP area relative to the levels
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR (vehicle tailpipe emissions represent a substantial share of GHG emissions).
Additionally, Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), which was not in effect at the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified, establishes
a more stringent GHG reduction target than the regulation it replaced (i.e., Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)), and the
Project will have to comply with these more stringent GHG reduction targets as well as other regulations that have
been enacted since 2012 that are more protective of the environment and will reduce GHG emissions within the
SWIP area to a greater degree than assumed by the SWIP SP PEIR. Accordingly, the Project’s GHG emissions do
not represent a new, significant air quality impact or an increase in the severity of a significant air quality impact
previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Additionally, the Project’s GHG Analysis demonstrates that the Project would be consistent with and would not
conflict with implementation of the goals and objectives established by applicable GHG emissions reductions
plans, and policies, including AB 32, SB 32, and the CARB Scoping Plan. Refer to Appendix I for a detailed analysis
of the Project’s consistency with the consistency GHG emissions reductions plans and policies.
Lastly, the Project would be required to comply with MM 4.2-5a from the SWIP SP PEIR, which would reduce the
Project’s GHG emissions below the levels listed in Table 4-7 (and further reduce GHG emissions below the levels
anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR).
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project’s GHG emissions would be less than significant and would be further
reduced by after the application of required mitigation from the SWIP SP PEIR. Implementation of the Project
would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to conflicts with goals and objectives
established by applicable GHG emissions reductions plans, and policies than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP
PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.2-5a, as presented previously under
Subsection 4.6, Energy, applies to the Project.
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase II Investigation (Phase I and II ESA) (dated March 31,
2022) (SCS, 2022) was prepared by SCS Engineers (SCS) to determine the presence/absence of hazards and
hazardous materials on the Project Site. This report is included as Appendix J, to this EIR Addendum and its findings
are incorporated in the analysis presented herein.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-34
Would the Project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the land uses proposed by the SWIP SP could entail the
routine transport, use, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that all future
development within the SWIP SP would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations
related to handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste. Additionally, the SWIP SP PEIR
established mitigation that prohibits the siting of facilities that handle hazardous materials near sensitive
receptors (i.e., schools, childcare facilities, and senior centers) and requires businesses that handle hazardous
materials to submit hazardous materials inventories to the San Bernardino County Fire Department (MM 4.5-1a
and 4.5-1c, respectively). The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that mandatory compliance with applicable regulations
and implementation of the MMs included in the SWIP SP PEIR would ensure that the SWIP SP would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials. Impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: As demonstrated in the analysis below, the Project would not result in a hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Project would not
result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts, as compared to the
analysis presented in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Existing Conditions
SCS performed a comprehensive Phase I ESA, including soil testing, to identify potential recognized environmental
conditions (RECs) that may pose potential environmental risks associated with the Project Site. During the Project
Site inspection, the existing fast-food restaurant was operating and approximately 20 trucks were parked
throughout the parking areas. Materials stored at the Project Site included food and cleaning products used for
restaurant operations. With the exception of common janitorial supplies kept at the restaurant and fuel stored
in the fuel tanks of trucks parked at the Project, no hazardous substances or hazardous wastes were observed.
De minimis surficial asphalt staining from trucks and automobiles were observed throughout the parking area.
According to SCS, there was no evidence of stained soil, distressed vegetation, or other signs of contamination on
the Project Site. SCS reviewed San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) files, which contain records related
to two diesel fuel releases from trucks at the parking lot area. SBCFD hazmat teams responded to the incidents.
Following the responses, the cases for both incidents were closed. Based on the available information, including
the volumes of the releases and the case status, the releases of diesel fuel were handled appropriately and do not
represent a recognized REC for the Project Site that could pose a hazard to people or the environment. (SCS, 2022,
p. 22)
The Project Site was primarily used for agricultural purposes from 1938 until 1983. In 1941 a Union Pacific railway
line appears immediately to the west of the Project Site, east of Etiwanda Avenue, terminating slightly north of
the Project Site. The western area of the Project Site was potentially used for operations associated with the
adjacent railway. The existence of past agricultural activities on the Project Site and in adjacent areas indicates a
potential for pesticide and/or heavy metal contamination. It is not uncommon to find trace levels of pesticides in
soils at former agricultural areas in Southern California. However, these trace concentrations are rarely cause for
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-35
environmental concern. SCS concluded that without specific evidence of pesticide storage or mismanagement on
the Project Site, past use for agricultural purposes does not represent a significant environmental concern. (SCS,
2022, pp. 12-13)
SCS performed a limited Phase II ESA to assess the potential for subsurface impacts from past on-site operations
adjacent to the existing railway line. On March 10, 2022, SCS conducted a limited soil subsurface investigation at
the Project Site. Soil samples were collected at depths of 1 and 4 feet below ground surface (bgs) at five (5)
locations near the railroad spur present on, and immediately west of, the Project Site. Samples were analyzed for
total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and arsenic. Gasoline-, diesel-, and oil-range TPH were detected in one or
more soil sample. The concentrations detected did not represent a risk to groundwater or to human health.
Arsenic was detected in soil samples at concentrations up to 12.4 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), generally within
the background range of soils in Southern California. Arsenic concentrations detected are not indicative of the use
of arsenical herbicides and do not represent a significant environmental concern. (SCS, 2022, pp. 22-23)
Although no evidence of hazardous materials/conditions were observed on the Project Site, the Project Applicant
will be required to comply with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.5-2b, which requires the excavation/removal, remediation,
and off-site transport and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local
requirements, should any contamination be discovered on the Project Site during construction. Compliance with
SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.5-2b would ensure that any potentially hazardous materials that may present on the Project
Site under existing conditions would not present a substantial hazard to people or the environment. The Project
would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts, as
compared to the analysis presented in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Construction Activities
Heavy equipment would be used on the Project Site during the Project’s construction, which would be fueled and
maintained by substances such as oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, and other liquid materials that would
be considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, roofing materials,
solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be present on the Project Site during
construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases
or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all
construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated
with the Project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors would be
required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use,
and storage of hazardous construction‐related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), SCAQMD,
Santa Ana RWQCB, and the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District. With mandatory compliance with
applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase.
The Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of previously identified significant
impacts, as compared to the analysis presented in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Operational Activities
The Project would redevelop the Project Site as an industrial commerce center. The future building occupant(s)
for the Project Site are not yet identified; however, the Project is designed to house warehouse distribution and
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-36
light industrial occupants, and it is possible that hazardous materials could be used during a future building users’
daily operation. State and federal Community-Right-to-Know laws allow the public access to information about
the amounts and types of chemicals in use at local businesses. Laws also are in place that require businesses to
plan and prepare for possible chemical emergencies. Any business that occupies a building on the Project Site and
that handles hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20,
Chapter 6.95) will require a permit from the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District – Hazardous Materials
Division to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to comply
with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate
reporting to the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District – Hazardous Materials Division and the State Office
of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the
amount handled by the business. In addition, any business handling at any one time, greater than 500 pounds of
solid, 55 gallons of liquid, or 200 cubic feet of gaseous hazardous material, is required, under Assembly Bill 2185
(AB 2185), to file a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP). A HMBEP is a written set of procedures
and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous
material. The intent of the HMBEP is to satisfy federal and State Community Right-To-Know laws and to provide
detailed information for use by emergency responders. Lastly, the Project would be required to comply with City
of Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-1, which establishes development and performance standards, as well as
reporting and permitting requirements for the use, handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials.
If businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the Project, the business owners and operators would
be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, use,
emission, and disposal of hazardous substances (as described above and as required by SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.5-1c).
With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project is not anticipated to pose a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe impacts related to hazardous
materials than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to reduce
hazards and hazardous materials impacts continue to apply to the Project, as presented below and in the MMRP
for the SWIP SP PEIR, attached hereto as Appendix A.
MM 4.5-1c The City shall require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable
quantity to submit an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the San
Bernardino County Fire Department – Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with the
Fontana Fire Protection District.
MM 4.5-2b Prior to potential remedial evacuation and grading activities within the site (if remediation is
required), impacted areas shall be cleared of all maintenance equipment and materials (e.g.,
solvents, grease, waste-oil), construction materials, miscellaneous stockpiled debris (e.g., scrap
metal, pallets, storage bins, construction parts), above ground storage tanks, surface trash, piping,
excess vegetation and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed off-site and
properly disposed of at an approved disposal facility. Once removed, a visual inspection of the
areas beneath the removed materials shall be performed. Any stained soils observed underneath
the removed materials shall be sampled. In the event concentrations of materials are detected
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-37
above regulatory cleanup levels during demolition or construction activities, the project applicant
shall comply with the following MMs in accordance with Federal, State, and local requirements:
• Excavation and disposal at a permitted, off-site facility;
• On-site remediation, if necessary, or
• Other MMs as deemed appropriate by the County.
MM 4.5-2c Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, a Certified Environmental Professional shall
confirm the presence or absence of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint
(LBPs) prior to structural demolition/renovation activities. Should ACMs or LBPs be present,
demolition materials containing ACMs and/or LBPs shall be removed and disposed of at an
appropriate permitted facility.
MM 4.5-2d In the event any electrical transformers require relocation as a result of future development
associated with the project, the relocation shall be conducted under the purview of the local
electricity purveyor to identify property-handling procedures regarding potential polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
Note: The City determined that the following SWIP SP PEIR MMs do not apply to the Project or have been satisfied
as part of the City’s review of the Project’s proposed entitlement applications: MMs 4.5-1a, 4.5-1b, 4.5-1d were
addressed during City review; MM 4.5-2a was addressed by the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that was
prepared for the Project (Appendix J); MMs 4.5-2e and 4.5-2f are not applicable to the Project due to the Project
Site’s location.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP concluded as follows:
Short-Term Construction Activities
The SWIP SP PEIR determined that existing structures within the SWIP SP area likely contain LBP, ACMs, and/or
other contaminants, and therefore demolition of such buildings would potentially create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment, which presents a potentially significant impact. The SWIP SP PEIR
concluded that compliance with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.5-2c requiring an ACM/LBP survey and any necessary
abatement be conducted prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, as well as compliance with SCAQMD
Rule 1403, would reduce potential impacts associated with demolition to the existing buildings to a less-than-
significant level.
The SWIP SP PEIR also determined that grading and excavation for future development within the SWIP SP area
could expose construction workers and the public to unidentified hazardous substances present in the soil or
groundwater associated with the I-10 freeway, Union Pacific Railroad alignment, and unidentified underground
storage tanks (USTs). The SWIP SP PEIR included MMs to ensure that future development projects evaluate
potential, site-specific hazardous conditions and implement remediation programs, as needed, to ensure that
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-38
development activities within the SWIP SP area would not increase the potential for accident conditions that could
result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment (i.e., MM 4.5-2a, 4.5-2b, 4.5-2d-4.5-2f). The
SWIP SP PEIR concluded that compliance with the required MMs and applicable regulatory requirements would
reduce potential construction-related impacts to a level below significance.
Long-Term Operational Activities
The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the operation of future development associated with the SWIP SP could create
a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that
typical incidents associated with operations of typical commercial and industrial development projects that could
result in accidental release of hazardous materials include leaking storage tanks, spills during transport,
inappropriate storage, inappropriate use, and/or natural disasters. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that compliance
with mandatory regulations and SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.5-1a through 4.5-1d, which prohibit the siting of facilities
that handle hazardous materials near sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, childcare facilities and senior centers) and
the transportation of hazardous materials near sensitive receptors, and requires businesses that handle hazardous
materials to submit hazardous materials inventories to the San Bernardino County Fire Department would ensure
that operational impacts are less than significant.
Analysis of Project: As discussed in the previous response, if hazardous materials are used or stored on the Project
Site under near-term construction or long-term operational activities, the Project would be required to comply
with applicable federal, State, and local regulations and MMs from the SWIP SP PEIR to ensure the safe handling
of hazardous materials. Mandatory compliance with these regulations and MMs would ensure that, if an accident
involving hazardous materials occurs on-site, it would be treated appropriately to avoid a significant hazard to the
public or the environment. With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations and
implementation of the applicable SWIP SP PEIR MMs related to hazardous materials that are discussed herein, the
Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment in the event an accident on-site
results in the release of hazardous materials. The SWIP SP PEIR assumed the Project Site would be fully developed.
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe impacts related to hazardous
materials than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to mitigate
hazards and hazardous materials impacts continue to apply to the Project, as listed above. Refer to the MMRP
for the SWIP SP PEIR, attached hereto as Appendix A.
Note: The City determined that the following SWIP SP PEIR MMs do not apply to the Project or have been satisfied
as part of the City’s review of the Project’s proposed entitlement applications: MMs 4.5-1a, 4.5-1b, 4.5-1d were
addressed during City review; MM 4.5-2a was addressed by the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared
for the Project (Appendix J); MMs 4.5-2e and 4.5-2f are not applicable to the Project due to the Project Site’s
location.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-39
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that there are four (4) schools located either inside or within
one-quarter mile of the SWIP SP boundaries and that hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials
or substances would occur within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded
that compliance with standard regulatory requirements and MMs from the SWIP SP PEIR would ensure that
impacts associated with construction and operation of the SWIP SP are less than significant.
Analysis of Project: There are no schools within one-quarter-mile of the Project Site. The closest school to the
Project Site is Chaparral Elementary School, which is located approximately 6,490 feet northeast (1.2 miles) of the
Project Site. As such, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Nonetheless, the
Project would comply with standard regulatory requirements and MMs from the SWIP SP PEIR to ensure safe
handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste (as described in the previous responses). Implementation
of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe significant impacts related to hazardous
materials than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that there are various hazardous material sites listed on federal,
State, and local records databases located within the SWIP SP area. As previously discussed under the analysis for
Items “a” and “b,” above, the SWIP SP PEIR included mitigation that requires future development projects within
the SWIP SP area to conduct site-specific investigations (i.e., Phase I ESAs) and perform remedial activities, as
necessary, prior to construction to correct any identified environmental conditions (SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.5-2a and
4.5-2b, respectively). The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that with the required mitigation, impacts would be reduced
to a level below significance.
Analysis of Project: Government Code Section 65962.5 requires DTSC, the State Department of Health Services,
State Water Resources Control Board, and the State Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to maintain
a list of hazardous materials sites that fall within specific, defined categories. According to the records search
conducted by SCS, the Project Site was identified with one listing under the San Bernardino County Permits
database and two listings under the California Integrated Water Quality System Project System (CIWQS),
respectively. The two CIWQS listings for the Property are from March 17, 2003, and August 23, 2004, and related
to general permits required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for the management
of stormwater during construction activities. The San Bernardino County Permit (#PT0021937) is related to the
storage of bulk CO2 at the facility. These types of listings are not typically associated with releases to the
environment. Although the Project Site is listed on two environmental/hazardous materials databases, none of
the databases where the Project Site is listed fall within the categories regulated by Government Code Section
65962.5. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe significant impacts
related to hazardous materials than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-40
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that the Ontario Airport is located approximately three miles
west of the SWIP SP Area and that the southwestern portion of the SWIP SP area is located within the Ontario
Airport’s “Airport Influence Area.” The SWIP SP PEIR determined that development within the SWIP SP area would
consist of industrial, commercial, and office development and would not result in a safety hazard for people
working in the SWIP SP area. Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that a less-than-significant impact would
occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is located within the “Airport Influence Area” (AIA) for the Ontario Airport.
However, the Project Site is not located in any of the Ontario Airport’s safety or noise impact zones, and the height
of the Project’s buildings would be consistent with the applicable airspace protection zones in the Project area.
(City of Ontario, 2011, Map 2-1) Therefore, development of the Project would neither introduce a hazard to the
Ontario Airport nor would the Ontario Airport pose a hazard to future employees on the Project Site.
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe significant impacts related to
air travel than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that construction activities associated with future development
could temporarily impact traffic on streets that would serve as evacuation routes due to roadway improvements
and extension of construction activities into the rights-of-way. The SWIP SP PEIR included MMs 4.5-6a and 4.5-
6b, which require the implementation of a traffic control plan during construction of future development projects
within the SWIP SP area and, also, require coordination between the City of Fontana Engineering Department and
City of Fontana Police Department to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles during the construction of
future development projects within the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that with implementation of
the recommended mitigation, future construction activities related to the SWIP SP would result in less-than-
significant impacts with regard to emergency access. Additionally, the SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that all future
development would be required to provide sufficient emergency access, as required by the City’s Zoning Code.
Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure the
operational impacts of the SWIP SP would be less than significant with regard to emergency access.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site does not have any emergency facilities nor is it identified as an emergency
evacuation route by any emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans (City of Fontana, 2018). During
construction and at Project build out, adequate emergency vehicle access would be required to be always
maintained. As part of the City’s discretionary review process, the City reviewed the Project’s plans and found
that appropriate emergency ingress and egress is available to and from the site to ensure public safety, and that
the Project would not substantially impede emergency response times in the local area. Furthermore, the Project
would be required to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles is maintained throughout the Project’s
construction activities pursuant to SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.5-6a. Mandatory compliance with SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.5-
6a would ensure the Project’s impacts regarding interference with the City’s emergency response plan and
evacuation routes would be less than significant. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new
impacts or more severe impacts related to emergency response plans than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP
PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-41
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to mitigate
hazards and hazardous materials impacts – as presented below – continue to apply to the Project. Refer to the
MMRP for the SWIP SP PEIR, attached hereto as Appendix A.
MM 4.5-6a Prior to the issuance of grading permits, future developers shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan for
implementation during the construction phase. The Plan may include the following provisions,
among others:
• At least one unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions on surrounding
roadways.
• At any time only a single lane is available, the developer shall provide a temporary traffic
signal, signal carriers (i.e., flagpersons), or other appropriate traffic controls to allow travel in
both directions.
• If construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway segment, the developer
shall provide appropriate signage indicating detours/alternative routes.
MM 4.5-6b Prior to construction, the City of Fontana Engineering Department shall consult with the City of
Fontana Police Department to disclose temporary closures and alternative travel routes, in order
to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction of future projects would
result in temporary lane or roadway closures.
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the SWIP SP is located in an urbanized area, and no
wildlands exist in the vicinity of the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that no impact related to wildland
hazards would occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is in an urbanized area and is not adjacent to wildlands (Google Earth Pro,
2022). Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The Project Site was fully developed at the time the SWIP SP
PEIR was certified and the SWIP SP PEIR assumed the Project Site would be fully developed upon buildout of the
SP area. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe significant impacts
related to wildland fires than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (dated June 30, 2022) (Thienes, 2022a) and Hydrology
Report (dated June 30, 2022) (Thienes, 2022b) were prepared for the Project by Thienes Engineering, Inc.
(Thienes). The purpose of the Preliminary WQMP is to help identify pollutants of concern, establish the BMP for
the Project to minimize the release of pollutants of concern, and establish long term maintenance responsibilities
for the Project’s water quality features. The Hydrology Report identifies drainage patterns and off-site flow
tributary to the Project Site and evaluates post-development runoff conditions. The hydraulic calculations are
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-42
intended to be used to design the Project’s storm drain system. These reports are included as Appendices K and
L, respectively, to this EIR Addendum and their findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
Would the Project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that development of the SWIP SP could adversely affect
water quality through the discharge of various waterborne pollutants. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that future
development projects within the SWIP SP would be required to comply with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce water
pollution from urban runoff. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that with adherence to existing State water quality
requirements, impacts to water quality would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: As demonstrated in the analysis below, the Project would not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project would not result in any significant impacts that were not
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR or increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Construction Activities
Construction of the Project would involve clearing and demolition, grading, paving, utility installation, building
construction, and landscaping activities. Construction activities would result in the generation of potential water
quality pollutants such as silt, debris, and construction chemicals (such as paints and solvents), and other
chemicals with the potential to adversely affect water quality (should these materials come into contact with
water that reaches the groundwater table or flows off-site).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB and Fontana Municipal Code Section 5-14 & Chapter 23,
Article IX, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction
Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development
projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one
(1) acre of total land area. In addition, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the Santa Ana
RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa
Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for
construction-related activities. The SWPPP will specify the BMPs that the Project’s construction contractors would
be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that potential pollutants of concern are
prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject
property. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to sandbag
barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding.
Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities.
Operational Activities
To meet the requirements of the City’s Municipal Storm Water Permit – and in accordance with Fontana Municipal
Code Chapter 23, Article IX – the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a WQMP. A
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-43
WQMP is a site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to minimize the release
of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters, under long-
term conditions via BMPs. Implementation of the WQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the
watershed basin. The Project’s Preliminary WQMP, prepared by Thienes, is included as Appendix K to this EIR
Addendum. As identified in the Preliminary WQMP, the Project is designed to include structural source control
BMPs consisting of catch basins, an underground retention basin system, and hydrodynamic separator, as well as
operational source control BMPs (including but not limited to: activity restrictions, landscape management BMPs,
employee training, catch basin inspection program) to minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat
stormwater runoff flows before they are discharged into the City’s storm drain system (Thienes, 2022a, p. 4-2).
Compliance with the Preliminary WQMP would be required as a condition of approval for the Project. Long-term
maintenance of on-site water quality features also would be required as a condition of approval to ensure the
long-term effectiveness of all on-site water quality features.
Additionally, the NPDES program requires certain land uses, including certain industrial land uses, to prepare a
SWPPP for operational activities and to implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program,
unless an exemption has been granted (Industrial General Permit). Under this currently effective NPDES Industrial
General Permit, the Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and implement a
long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program or receive an exemption. Because the permit is
dependent upon a detailed accounting of all operational activities and procedures, and the Project’s building users
and their operational characteristics are not currently known, details of the operational SWPPP (including BMPs)
or potential exemption to the SWPPP operational activities requirement cannot be determined with certainty at
this time. However, based on the performance requirements of the NPDES Industrial General Permit, the Project’s
mandatory compliance with all applicable water quality regulations would further reduce potential water quality
impacts during long-term operation.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during long-term operation.
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to water
quality than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the majority of the SWIP SP area is developed and
urbanized and, therefore, that implementation of the SWIP SP would not introduce substantial new impervious
surfaces to the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR also disclosed that no groundwater extraction would occur as
part of the SWIP SP. Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would result
in less-than-significant impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater
recharge.
Analysis of Project: The Project would be required to connect to the City of Fontana’s municipal water system;
therefore, no water wells would be constructed on the Project Site and Project operations would not directly draw
groundwater supplies. The Project Site is underlain by the Chino Groundwater Basin (DWR, 2022). Most of the
groundwater recharge in the Chino Groundwater Basin occurs within percolation basins located mostly in the
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-44
northern and western portions of the Basin (and north and west of the City of Fontana) (CBWCD, 2022). The
Project would not physically impact any of the major groundwater recharge facilities in the Basin. The Project
includes design features that would maximize the percolation of on-site storm water runoff into the groundwater
basin, such as the proposed underground infiltration basin and permeable landscape areas. Accordingly, buildout
of the Project with these design features would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede
sustainable groundwater management of the Chino Groundwater Basin. Implementation of the Project would
not result in any new impacts or more severe significant impacts related to groundwater supplies and
management than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that the SWIP SP area is located within an urbanized area that
is served by existing stormwater drainage facilities operated by the City of Fontana and the County of San
Bernardino. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that the drainage infrastructure proposed by the SWIP SP would
adequately serve future development within the SWIP SP area and would minimize impacts related to erosion or
siltation, resulting in less-than-significant impacts regarding erosion or siltation.
Analysis of Project: As previously discussed in Subsection 4.7 (refer to response to Item “b”), implementation of
the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Implementation of the Project would
not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to soil erosion or siltation than previously
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run off in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would not result in a
substantial increase in surface runoff and would result in less-than-significant impacts related to flooding.
Analysis of Project: The Project would implement industrial land uses on the Project Site in accordance with the
SWIP SP land plan; therefore, the site development activities proposed by the Project (and the resulting surface
runoff flows) were planned by the SWIP SP (and its storm drain master plan) and anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR,
which assumed the entire Project Site would be developed. The Hydrology Report calculated that the Project
would reduce the current 100-year storm event flow rates at the Project Site from 7.0 cubic feet per second (cfs)
to 5.3 cfs (Thienes, 2022b, p. 2). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Implementation of the
Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to flooding on- or off-site than
previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-45
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would require the
installation of drainage infrastructure improvements; but that existing and planned stormwater drainage systems
would have adequate capacity to convey surface runoff flows from the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR also
concluded that the SWIP SP would not generate substantial, additional sources of polluted runoff.
Analysis of Project: As discussed above under Response “a,” the Project will be required to comply with a SWPPP
and a site-specific WQMP (refer to Appendix K), which will identify BMPs that are required to ensure that near-
term construction activities and long-term post-development activities would not result in substantial amounts of
polluted runoff. The Project would generate stormwater runoff that neither exceeds existing runoff from the
Project Site nor the capacity of existing and planned master planned storm drain facilities (Thienes, 2022b, p. 2).
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flow?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that although portions of the SWIP SP area would be located
within the 100-year base flood plain, the SWIP SP area is already developed with urbanized uses, and future
development of structures within the SWIP SP area would not occur within an existing floodway or otherwise
impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that the SWIP SP would result in a less-
than-significant impact.
Analysis of Project: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM), the Project Site and surrounding area are not within a 100-year flood zone (FEMA, 2014). The Project Site
is within FEMA Flood Zone X; specifically, within an area of 0.2 percent annual chance flood. Additionally, the
Project Site is fully developed and does not have an existing floodway. Accordingly, the Project would not place
structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that could impede or redirect flood flows, which the same area
that the SWIP SP PEIR assumed would be developed with structures. Implementation of the Project would not
result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to flood flows than previously disclosed in the SWIP
SP PEIR.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the SWIP SP area is not located near a major dam or
within a dam inundation area. Additionally, the SWIP SP PEIR did not identify any significant effects within the
SWIP SP area related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Analysis of Project: The Pacific Ocean is located over 40 miles southwest of the Project Site; consequently, there
is no potential for the Project Site to be impacted by a tsunami as tsunamis typically only reach up to a few miles
inland. The Project Site is not subject to flooding hazards associated with a seiche as the nearest large body of
surface water (Prado Reservoir) is located approximately more than 11 miles southwest of the Project Site. Due
to distance, the Project would not be affected by inundation caused by a seiche. According to the City’s General
Plan EIR no area of the City – including the Project Site – is located within a mapped dam inundation area (City of
Fontana, 2018). Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts
related to inundation than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-46
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that future development within the SWIP SP area would be
required to adhere to State water quality requirements and would not result in substantial adverse water quality
effects. Although the SWIP SP PEIR did not specifically address the potential for the SWIP SP PEIR to conflict with
or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan, the PEIR did address the potential
for the SWIP SP to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge (and concluded that
such impacts would be less than significant).
Analysis of Project: As discussed above under Response “a,” the Project Site is located within the Santa Ana River
Basin, and Project-related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana
RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and WQMP.
Implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control
Plan.
The Project Site is within the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is an adjudicated groundwater basin. Adjudicated
basins, like the Chino Groundwater Basin, are exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA) because such basins already operate under a court-ordered management plan to ensure the long-term
sustainability of the Subbasin. It should be noted that the Project includes an underground retention basin system,
which is anticipated to help recharge the basin. No component of the Project would obstruct with or prevent
implementation of the management plan for the Chino Groundwater Basin. As such, the Project’s construction
and operation would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater management plan.
Based on the foregoing information, implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe
significant impacts related to the implementation of water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater
management plans than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the Project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined the SWIP SP would not divide an established community, as
it would implement a range of industrial, commercial, public, and residential land uses similar to the land uses
that already existed within the SWIP SP boundaries. Additionally, the SWIP SP PEIR determined that existing
development within the SWIP SP area was already divided by the existing local roadway network, and the SWIP
SP would not create additional physical barriers between these land uses. Therefore, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded
impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: The Project would implement the land use plan for the SWIP SP, which planned for the Project
area to be developed with industrial, employment-generating land uses. There are no residences on or within the
immediate vicinity of the Project Site. The Project Site is surrounded by existing non-residential development. As
such, the Project would not divide an established community, nor would the Project prevent or obstruct access to
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-47
an established community. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant
impacts related to physically dividing an established community than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the SWIP SP would not directly conflict with the policy
or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including the City’s
General Plan and Zoning and Development Code. Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that the SWIP SP would
result in a less-than-significant impact.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site would be developed in accordance with the land use plan, regulations, and
development standards contained within the SWIP SP; therefore, the development activities proposed by the
Project were anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. In fact, the Project would implement the vision of the SWIP SP,
making the Project Site more consistent with applicable land use policies, plans and regulations than the existing
uses on the Site. As noted above, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP SP would not
conflict with any land use policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of mitigating or avoiding an
environmental impact. Thus, because the Project is consistent with the SWIP SP and because the SWIP SP was
previously found to not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect, implementation of the Project would not cause a significant environmental
impact due to a land use planning conflict. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts related to conflicts with a land use plan, policy, or regulation than previously disclosed
in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the Project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that according to the City’s General Plan, no known deposits
of precious gemstones, ores, or unique, or rare minerals have been identified within the vicinity of the SWIP SP
area. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is within mineral resource zone 3 (MRZ-3), which is classified as an area where
the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from available data (DOC, 2006). As such, the Project
Site does not contain a “known mineral resource.” Additionally, the Project Site is not zoned for mining and is not
used for mining under existing conditions. The Project, which would develop an area that the SWIP SP PEIR
assumed would be developed with non-mining land uses, would not result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. Implementation of the
Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to mineral resources than
previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-48
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR did not identify any significant environmental effects within the SWIP SP
area related to the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that no impact would occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is not in an area that either the City’s General Plan or the SWIP SP have
identified as being of local importance for mineral resources. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would
not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new
impacts or more severe impacts related to the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery
site than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.13 Noise
A Noise Impact Analysis (dated September 9, 2022) (Urban Crossroads, 2022e) was prepared for the Project by
Urban Crossroads to evaluate Project-related long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts.
This report is included as Appendix M to this EIR Addendum and its findings are incorporated into the analysis
presented herein.
Would the Project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that although the construction of future development and
improvements in the SWIP SP Area would be required to adhere to the hours permitted by the City’s Municipal
Code (between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays), due to
the proximity of residential and institutional uses to the SWIP SP area, such construction could result in temporary,
localized increases in noise levels and vibration that may exceed established standards. As such, the SWIP SP PEIR
included mitigation to minimize potential adverse effects to sensitive receptors (SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.7-1a and
4.7-1b). The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that compliance with the City’s permitted hours of construction and
implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.7-1a and 4.7-1b would ensure construction-related noise levels do not
exceed regulatory standards, and impacts would be less than significant.
The SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development in the SWIP SP area could, potentially, result in a
permanent exposure of sensitive receptors to ambient noise from stationary sources that exceeds established
standards. The SWIP SP PEIR included MM 4.7-2a, which requires industrial facilities in proximity to existing
sensitive receptor land uses to implement design MMs such as noise walls and berms to minimize operational
noise levels. Additionally, the SWIP SP includes design guidelines and development standards that are aimed at
reducing noise impacts, including building orientation, wall placement, lot dimensions, maximum intensity,
outdoor storage, setbacks, buffers, edge conditions, and landscaping that would serve to minimize noise impacts
on sensitive land uses in the vicinity. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that with implementation of the SWIP SP design
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-49
guidelines and development standards and implementation of mitigation, the SWIP SP would result in less-than-
significant stationary source noise impacts.
The SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development in the SWIP SP area could result in a permanent increase
in ambient noise levels from mobile sources (vehicular traffic and rail) in excess of established standards. The
SWIP SP PEIR concluded that future mobile noise source impacts from buildout of the SWIP SP would be significant
and unavoidable.
Analysis of Project: The analysis below summarizes the potential for Project-related activities to generate or
expose sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of applicable standards during temporary construction
activities and/or long-term operation. As demonstrated below and on the following pages, implementation of the
Project would not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant
impacts, as compared to the analysis presented in the SWIP SP PEIR. Refer to the Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix
M) for a detailed discussion of the methodologies and assumptions used to calculate the Project’s construction
and operational noise.
Construction Activities
The Project would generate short-term noise during construction ranging between 31.2 and 40.1 decibels
equivalent sound level (dBA Leq) at sensitive receiver locations nearest the Project Site, which would not exceed
the City’s daytime noise standard of 70 dBA Leq (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 38). The Project would implement
the land uses planned for the Project Site by the SWIP SP land use plan; therefore, the construction activities that
would occur on-site would be similar to those anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR, which disclosed that construction
within the SWIP SP area could expose sensitive receptors to high-noise levels. The Project would be required to
comply with SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.7-1a, which requires the Project’s construction contractor to comply with the
permitted daytime hours of construction as defined in Section 18-63 of the City’s Municipal Code and with defined
performance criteria to minimize noise emissions from the Project Site during construction. Compliance with
applicable mitigation from the SWIP SP PEIR and applicable standards from the City’s Municipal Code would
ensure that the Project’s construction activities. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or
more severe impacts from construction noise than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Operational Activities – On-Site Stationary Noise
The Project would generate long-term stationary noise from routine outdoor activities (e.g., utilization of loading
docks) and the operation stationary mechanical equipment (e.g., building heating/cooling equipment). The long-
term stationary noise from Project operation would range from 34.1 to 36.7 dBA Leq at nearby receiver locations,
which would not exceed the City’s standards for residential uses of 70 dBA Leq (daytime) or 65 dBA Leq (nighttime)
(Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 32). Additionally, the implementation of the Project would not increase existing
ambient noise levels during daytime or nighttime hours at the nearest receiver locations and would not exceed
the significance criteria used by the City. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, pp. 33-34). Accordingly, operation of the
Project would not result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the Project Site in excess of the standards from the City of Fontana’s Noise Ordinance. Implementation
of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts from on-site stationary operational
noise sources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-50
Operational Activities – Off-Site Traffic Noise
The Project would implement the SWIP SP land use plan; therefore, the mobile-source noise emissions (i.e., traffic
noise) produced by the Project were anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. The Project’s proposed land uses would
generate fewer daily traffic trips than the land uses assumed by the SWIP SP PEIR (the Project’s daily traffic is
discussed in further detail in Subsection 4.17); therefore, the Project would reduce mobile-source noise emissions
within the SWIP SP area relative to the levels anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR but the mobile-source noise
reductions afforded by the Project would not be sufficient to avoid the significant and unavoidable mobile-source
noise impact identified in the SWIP SP PEIR. Notwithstanding and based on the foregoing, the Project would not
result in any new or more severe significant impacts from mobile sources than the significant and unavoidable
impacts that were previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. All applicable MMs (MMs) identified in the SWIP SP PEIR to
reduce noise impacts continue to apply to the Project, as listed below and in the MMRP for the SWIP SP PEIR
(attached hereto as Appendix A).
MM 4.7-1a The following MMs shall be implemented when construction is to be conducted within 500 feet
of any sensitive structures or has the potential to disrupt classroom activities or religious
functions.
• The City shall restrict noise intensive construction activities to the days and hours specified
under Section 18-63 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code. These days and hours shall also
apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site.
• All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g.,
intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original
equipment and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust.
• The City shall require that the contractor maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to
minimize noise emissions.
• Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the
sensitive use structures.
• All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance
to the sensitive use structures.
• If construction noise does prove to be detrimental to the learning environment, the City shall
allow for a temporary waiver thereby allowing construction on Weekends and/or holidays in
those areas where this construction is to be performed in excess of 500 feet from any
residential structures.
• The construction contractor shall provide an on-site name and telephone number of a contact
person. Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job
superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for surrounding
owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the City or the job superintendent
receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action,
and report the action taken to the reporting party. In the event that construction noise is
intrusive to an educational process, the construction liaison will revise the construction
schedule to preserve the learning environment.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-51
Note: The City of Fontana determined that the following SWIP SP PEIR MMs do not apply to the Project or have
been satisfied as part of the City’s review of the Project’s proposed entitlement applications: MM 4.7-1b does not
apply to the Project because the Project does not require soil import/export during grading, the Project would
balance; MMs 4.7-2a and 4.7-3b were satisfied by the Noise Analysis (Appendix N) prepared for the Project; MM
4.7-3a does not apply to the Project because the Project is not a noise sensitive land use and due to the location
of the Project Site.
b. Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that construction activities associated with the SWIP SP could
potentially expose sensitive receptors to sporadic, high vibration levels. However, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded
that with implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.7-1a and 4.7-1b (previously described under Threshold “a”), the
SWIP SP would generate less-than-significant ground borne vibration or ground borne noise during construction
activities.
Analysis of Project: During peak Project construction activities, the maximum vibration levels at the nearest
sensitive receptor (located 3,589 feet southeast) would be 0.000 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity
(PPV) (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 42). Based on the CalTrans Transportation and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual threshold of 0.3 PPV in/sec, which the City relies on, Project-related construction activities
would not produce excessive vibration levels. During long-term operation, vibration levels from truck activity on
the Project Site and along the public streets that abut the Project Site is anticipated to be similar to existing
conditions due to the substantial amount of truck activity that already occurs on the Project site. Accordingly,
there is no potential for operation of the Project to expose persons to or generate excessive (i.e., significant)
ground borne vibration or noise. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe
significant impacts related to excessive ground borne vibration or noise levels than previously disclosed in the
SWIP SP PEIR.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that people residing or working within the SWIP SP area
would not be exposed to excessive aircraft noise levels from operations at the Ontario International Airport
(located approximately 11 miles to the west of the SWIP SP area). Therefore, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that a
less-than-significant impact would occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan (ALUCP) for the Ontario International Airport (ONT) but is not located within a noise impact area from ONT
operations. As such, the Project would not expose people residing or working the Project area to excessive air
travel-related noise levels. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant
impacts related to noise from air travel than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.14 Population and Housing
Would the Project:
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-52
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that the SWIP SP would be a growth-inducing project due to
the following factors: development of infrastructure improvements that would provide additional capacity
necessary to support development within the SWIP SP area; the creation of 39,416 new employment positions
that would foster economic expansion and growth within the City of Fontana; and direct growth in the City’s
population due to the potential for future employees (and their families) to relocate to the City of Fontana.
Accordingly, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded the SWIP SP would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related
to growth inducement.
Analysis of Project: The Project does not include a residential component and, therefore, would not directly
induce unplanned population growth within the area. The Project would create additional employment
opportunities and foster economic growth within the City which, could indirectly induce population growth in the
area. However, the Project is merely implementing the approved SWIP SP land plan – which designates the Project
Site for industrial land uses – and development proposed by the Project was anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR.
Accordingly, the Project would not induce unplanned population growth in the SWIP SP area to a greater degree
than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR, but instead implements the predicted development analyzed
therein. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe impacts related to
substantial unplanned population growth than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined the SWIP SP would not result in any direct impacts to existing
residences located within the SWIP SP area that would necessitate construction of replacement housing. The
SWIP SP PEIR concluded impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: There are no dwelling units on the Project Site under existing conditions and no residents
were present at the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified in 2012. Implementation of the Project would not result
in any new impacts or more severe impacts related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people
or housing than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.15 Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire Protection?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development associated with the SWIP SP would
increase the need for fire protection and emergency medical services within the SWIP SP area. However, all future
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-53
development projects located within the SWIP SP area would be required to pay the City’s development impact
fee and the SWIP SP PEIR included MMs 4.8-2a through 4.8-2c that established performance goals for the City to
monitor to ensure that acceptable fire protection resources, service ratios, and response times are met. The SWIP
SP PEIR concluded that with payment of development impact fees and implementation of the required mitigation,
the SWIP SP would result in less-than-significant impacts regarding fire protection services.
Analysis of Project: The Project Applicant would develop the Project Site in accordance with the SWIP SP land use
plan. Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by the SWIP SP and, thus,
the Project’s demand for fire protection services was anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. The Project Applicant
would also be required to pay applicable development impact fees, as specified in the SWIP SP PEIR, to offset its
demand for fire protection services. (The City uses a portion of collected development impact fees to fund fire
protection facilities.) Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe impacts
related to fire protection services than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8-2a through 4.8-2c, which address
impacts to fire protection services, are policy-level actions that fall under the City’s responsibility and do not
require any actions from private development projects. No component of the Project would prevent or obstruct
the City’s implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8-2a through 4.8-2c.
b.Police Protection?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development associated with the SWIP SP would
increase the need for police protection services within the SWIP SP area. However, all future development
projects located within the SWIP SP area would be required to pay the City’s development impact fee and the
SWIP SP PEIR included MMs 4.8-1a through 4.8-1i that established performance goals and identified community
outreach and involvement programs to ensure that acceptable police protection resources, service ratios, and
response times are met. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that with payment of development impact fees and
implementation of the required mitigation, the SWIP SP would result in less-than-significant impacts regarding
police protection services.
Analysis of Project: The Project would develop the Project Site in accordance with the SWIP SP land use plan.
Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by the SWIP SP and, thus, the
Project’s demand for police protection services was anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. The Project Applicant would
also be required to pay applicable development impact fees, as specified in the SWIP SP PEIR, to offset its demand
for police protection services. (The City uses a portion of collected development impact fees to fund police
protection services/facilities.) Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe
impacts related to police protection services than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8-1a through 4.8-1i, which address
impacts to police protection services, are policy-level actions that fall under the City’s responsibility and do not
require any actions from private development projects. No component of the Project would prevent or obstruct
the City’s implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8-1a through 4.8-1i.
c.Schools?
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-54
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development associated with the SWIP SP could
increase the demand for public school services. However, all future development projects located within the SWIP
SP area would be required to pay the applicable school district development impact fee and the SWIP SP PEIR
included MM 4.8-3a through 4.8-3f to ensure that acceptable public-school resources are available. The SWIP SP
PEIR concluded that with payment of development impact fees and implementation of the required mitigation,
the SWIP SP would result in less-than-significant impacts regarding public school services.
Analysis of Project: The Project would develop the Project Site in accordance with the SWIP SP land use plan.
Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by the SWIP SP and, thus, the
Project’s indirect demand for public school services was anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. The Project Applicant
would be required to pay all applicable development impact fees, as required by State law, to offset its demand
for public school services. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe
impacts related to school facilities than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8-3a through 4.8-3f, which address
impacts to public schools, are policy-level actions that fall under the City’s responsibility and do not require actions
from private development projects. No component of the Project would prevent or obstruct the City’s
implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8-3a through 4.8-3f.
d. Parks?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development associated with the SWIP SP could
attract new residents to the City of Fontana that would increase the demand for parks and recreation facilities in
the City. The SWIP SP does not propose any new neighborhood and community park facilities nor does the SWIP
SP propose any development that would directly contribute park development impact fees to the City (i.e.,
residential); therefore, existing recreational facilities within the City would be accessed by new residents indirectly
generated by the SWIP SP without the addition of new revenue sources to offset the potential deterioration of
such facilities. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that future park and recreational facility impacts resulting from future
development associated with the SWIP SP would be significant and unavoidable. The SWIP SP PEIR included MMs
4.8-5a through 4.8-5g to ensure the City achieves park design requirements and parkland standards in other areas
of the City; nevertheless, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable after
mitigation.
Analysis of Project: The Project would develop the Project Site in accordance with the SWIP SP land use plan.
Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by the SWIP SP and, thus, would
not create a demand for public park areas that was not previously anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. (Although it
should be noted that, as a proposed industrial use, the Project is not anticipated to create a substantial demand
for public park facilities.) Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe
impacts related to park facilities than the significant and unavoidable impacts previously disclosed in the SWIP SP
PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8-5a through 4.8-5g, which address
impacts to public parks, are policy-level actions that fall under the City’s responsibility and do not require actions
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-55
from private development projects. No component of the Project would prevent or obstruct the City’s
implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8-5a through 4.8-5g.
e. Other Public Facilities?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that future industrial, commercial, and office development
associated with the SWIP SP would create substantial employment opportunities within the SWIP SP area, which
could, in turn, lead to a population increase within the City and an associated increase in demand for library
facilities. However, the SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development associated with the SWIP SP would
not significantly increase the demand for library services to the extent that would require construction of
additional library facilities. Additionally, library facility impact fees would be imposed on future development
projects within the SWIP SP area that would fund improvements to the library system. The SWIP SP PEIR also
included MM 4.8-4a, which tasked the City with pursuing opportunities to expand library services. The SWIP SP
PEIR concluded that with payment of library facility impact fees and implementation of mitigation, the SWIP SP
would result in less-than-significant impacts to library facilities.
Analysis of Project: The Project Applicant would develop the Project Site in accordance with the SWIP SP land use
plan. Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by the SWIP SP and, thus,
would not create a demand for public library services that was not previously anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR.
The Project Applicant would be required to pay all applicable development impact fees, as specified in the SWIP
SP PEIR, to offset its demand for public library services and ensure that impacts to public library services remain
less than significant. (The City uses a portion of collected development impact fees to fund library facilities.)
Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe impacts related to other public
facilities than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.8-4a, which addresses impacts to other
public services, is a policy-level action that falls under the City’s responsibility and does not require actions from
private development projects. No component of the Project would prevent or obstruct the City’s implementation
of SWIP SP PEIR MM 4.8-4a.
4.16 Recreation
Would the Project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that future development associated with the SWIP SP could
attract new residents to the City of Fontana that would increase the demand for parks and recreation facilities in
the City. The SWIP SP does not propose any new neighborhood and community park facilities nor does the SWIP
SP propose any development that would directly contribute park development impact fees to the City (i.e.,
residential); therefore, existing recreational facilities within the City would be accessed by new residents indirectly
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-56
generated by the SWIP SP without the addition of new revenue sources to offset the potential deterioration of
such facilities. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that future park and recreational facility impacts resulting from future
development associated with the SWIP SP would be significant and unavoidable. The SWIP SP PEIR included MMs
4.8-5a through 4.8-5g (which are policy-level actions that fall under the City’s responsibility, as noted above) to
ensure the City achieves park design requirements and parkland standards in other areas of the City; nevertheless,
the SWIP SP PEIR concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
Analysis of Project: The Project would develop the Project Site in accordance with the SWIP SP land use plan.
Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by the SWIP SP and, thus, the
Project’s indirect demand for parks was anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. As a proposed industrial use, the Project
is not anticipated to create a substantial demand for public park facilities and is not anticipated to include any
action that would increase the availability of park land in the City. Implementation of the Project would not result
in any new impacts or more severe impacts related to recreational facilities than previously disclosed in the SWIP
SP PEIR.
4.17 Transportation
A Trip Generation Assessment (dated November 21, 2022) (Urban Crossroads, 2022f) and VMT Screening
Evaluation (dated November 21, 2022) (Urban Crossroads, 2022g) were prepared for the Project by Urban
Crossroads, Inc. to quantify to quantify the total daily and peak hour traffic expected during Project and to analyze
the Project’s consistency with the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) standards. The Traffic Impact Analysis
included as Appendix N and the VMT Screening Evaluation is included as Appendix O to this EIR Addendum, and
their findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
Would the Project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The Project Site is located within the Jurupa South Industrial District (JSD) of SWIP SP. The
SWIP SP provides for the development 2,249,874 s.f. of new industrial development within the JSD area, which
the SWIP SP PEIR calculated to generate 6,837 new, net daily traffic trips, including 597 net AM peak hour trips
and 637 net PM peak hour trips. (Net traffic represents total traffic volumes after then-existing traffic within the
JSD area was subtracted from traffic volumes that were expected upon buildout of the JSD pursuant to the SWIP
SP.) The traffic projections from the SWIP SP PEIR for the JSD correlates to approximately 3.67 net daily traffic
trips, including 0.32 net AM peak hour trips and 0.34 PM peak hour trips, for every 1,000 s.f. of new industrial
building area in the JSD.
The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that the addition of traffic from the SWIP SP would cause nine (9) roadway segments
and 19 deficient intersections within the study area to operate deficiently (“Existing with Project” traffic analysis
scenario). However, the SWIP SP PEIR determined that upon implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.9-1a through
4.9-1cc, which include a range of new roadway improvements, including roadway widenings, signalizations, and
intersection improvements, the study area intersections and roadway segments would operate at a satisfactory
level of service (LOS). Notwithstanding, because the majority of the recommended improvements were either
unfunded - or only partially funded - at the time the SWIP SP was approved and several of the needed
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-57
improvements are situated outside of the City’s jurisdiction, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded the full implementation
of the needed improvements could not be assured and, therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable
in the short-term.
The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that, under long-term conditions, the addition of trips from the SWIP SP would
contribute to deficient operations at 10 roadway segments and 19 intersections within the study area (“2030 with
Project” traffic analysis scenario). However, the SWIP SP PEIR determined that upon implementation of SWIP SP
PEIR MMs 4.9-1dd through 4.9-1ll, which include a range of new roadway improvements, including roadway
widenings, signalizations, and intersection improvements, the study area intersections and roadway segments
would operate at a satisfactory LOS. Notwithstanding, because the majority of the recommended improvements
were either unfunded - or only partially funded - at the time the SWIP SP was approved and several of the needed
improvements are situated outside of the City of Fontana’s jurisdiction, the SWIP SP PEIR concluded the full
implementation of the needed improvements could not be assured and therefore impacts would be significant
and unavoidable.
In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 743, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) adopted changes to the
CEQA Guidelines in December 2018 related to the evaluation of transportation impacts from development
projects. As of December 2018, when the revised CEQA Guidelines were adopted, automobile delay, as measured
by “level of service” (LOS) and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under
CEQA. Accordingly, the summary of the information disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR, provided above, is included
herein for informational purposes but does not relate to an environmental impact under CEQA.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is occupied by a fast-food restaurant and truck stop under existing conditions.
Based on traffic counts collected at the Project Site, the existing uses on the Site generate 900 two-way vehicle
trips per day (524 passenger cars and 376 trucks), with 57 trips during the morning (AM) peak hour and 58 trips
during the evening (PM) peak hour (Urban Crossroads, 2022f, p. 3).
According to the Project’s Trip Generation Assessment and using trip generation rates from the 11th Edition of the
Institute of Traffic Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, the Project is calculated to generate 426 vehicle trips per
day (386 passenger vehicles and 40 truck trips), with 57 AM peak hour trips and 50 PM peak hour trips (Urban
Crossroads, 2022f, p. 6). For comparison, using the traffic generation factors assumed by the SWIP SP PEIR, the
Project would be expected to generate a net increase of 370 daily vehicle trips, including net increases of 32 AM
peak hour and 34 PM peak hour trips.
When compared to the existing uses on the Project Site, the Project would result in a net reduction of 474 daily
vehicle trips, AM peak hour traffic would remain unchanged but PM peak hour traffic would be reduced by 8
vehicle trips. Because the Project would result in a substantial reduction in total daily and peak hour traffic relative
to the assumptions used in the SWIP SP PEIR, implementation of the Project would neither result in new significant
transportation impacts that were not disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR nor substantially increase the severity of the
significant transportation effects previously identified in the SWIP SP PEIR. Although the Project would generate
substantially less traffic than assumed by the SWIP SP PEIR, the reduction in traffic would not avoid any of the
significant and unavoidable traffic impacts (i.e., level of service [LOS]) identified in the SWIP SP PEIR, although, as
noted previously, LOS impacts are no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-58
The Project would not conflict with applicable goals (and their supporting policies) from the General Plan
addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, including
Community Mobility and Circulation Element Goals 1,2, 3, and 6, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element
Goals 2 and 5, as well as Fontana Active Transportation Plan Goals 1 and 3 (and their supporting objectives,
including objectives related to vehicle miles traveled) (Urban Crossroads, 2022g, p. 8).
Mitigation: In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 743, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) adopted
changes to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018 related to the evaluation of transportation impacts from
development projects. As of December 2018, when the revised CEQA Guidelines were adopted, automobile delay,
as measured by “level of service” (LOS) and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental
effect under CEQA. Accordingly, the following information is disclosed for informational purposes but does not
relate to an environmental impact or mitigation under CEQA. Due to the net reduction in total daily and peak our
traffic generated by the Project and the Project Site’s location (which does not abut any roadway facility identified
in the SWIP SP PEIR as requiring improvement), the City of Fontana Engineering Department determined the
Project was not responsible for directly implementing any of the transportation improvements identified in the
SWIP SP PEIR. Notwithstanding, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant would be required
to pay applicable development impact fees to the City of Fontana, from which the City would reserve a portion to
fund the design and construction roadway improvements that would improve traffic conditions within the City
generally and within the SWIP SP area specifically.
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 or will conflict with an applicable
congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel
demand MMs, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The topic of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was not specifically addressed in the SWIP SP PEIR
as this threshold of significance was not in place at the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified. Notwithstanding,
VMT was assessed as part of the air quality impact analysis included as part of the SWIP SP PEIR. Thus, the SWIP
SP PEIR contained sufficient information that was available to the public about projected VMT resulting from
vehicle trips originating from or terminating within the SWIP SP area that associated effects could be determined
with the exercise of reasonable diligence.
The SWIP SP PEIR determined that because the City has a standard program (Circulation Development Fees) to
fund regional improvements, the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) considers the City exempt
from congestion management plan (CMP) traffic impact analysis and no CMP analysis was required for the SWIP
SP. (Since certification of the SWIP SP PEIR, SANBAG was re-organized as the San Bernardino County
Transportation Authority [SBCTA].)
Analysis of Project: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(c) is clear that “[t]he provisions of [Section 15064.3] shall
apply prospectively as described in [CEQA Guidelines] Section 15007.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15007(c)
specifically states: “[i]f a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for
public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in
Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved.” The CEQA Guidelines changes
with respect to VMT took effect on July 1, 2020, whereas the SWIP SP PEIR was certified in 2012. As such, and in
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-59
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3(c) and 15007(c), revisions to the SWIP SP PEIR are not required
under CEQA in order to conform to the new requirements established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3.
Once a project is approved, CEQA does not require that it be analyzed anew every time another discretionary
action is required to implement the project. Quite the opposite, where an EIR or MND has previously been
prepared for a project, CEQA expressly prohibits agencies from requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR or
MND, except in specified circumstances (Pub. Res. Code Section 21166.). Under CEQA, “Section 21166 comes into
play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original
EIR has long since expired, and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating
a substantial portion of the process.” (Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (“CAAP”) (2014), 227
Cal.App.4th at 796.) There was no CEQA requirement to analyze VMT at the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified;
thus, there is no need to analyze VMT impacts in connection with this EIR Addendum.
Furthermore, the new VMT requirements set forth by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 do not relate to a different
type of impact, but merely a different way of analyzing transportation impacts. The SWIP SP PEIR included a
detailed assessment of potential impacts, including potential impacts to air quality as a result of projected VMT.
As this information was disclosed as part of the SWIP SP PEIR, VMT associated with buildout of the SWIP SP do
not comprise “new information” that was not known or could not have been known at the time the SWIP SP PEIR
was certified. Because VMT impacts were known, the adoption of the requirement to analyze VMT therefore
does not constitute significant new information requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320.
In the case of the proposed Project, there are no changed circumstances that would warrant additional analysis
under Public Resources Code Section 21166. Even if an analysis was conducted, the results of such an analysis
would show that VMT from the Project is less than what would occur under the development assumptions utilized
in the SWIP SP PEIR, based on the Project’s substantial reduction in passenger vehicle and heavy truck traffic
relative to the calculations utilized in the SWIP SP PEIR. As shown in the preceding response, the Project is
calculated to eliminate 474 existing vehicle trips within the SWIP SP area and would result in net daily traffic that
is substantially less than the original traffic generation factors that were assumed in the SWIP SP PEIR. Therefore,
there is substantial evidence that the Project would result in reduced VMT as compared to the project evaluated
by the SWIP SP PEIR.
Regarding the Project’s potential to conflict with the applicable congestion management program (the San
Bernardino County Congestion Management Program), the Project would not contribute substantial traffic, which
is defined as 50 or more peak hour trips, to any San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program facility
and, therefore, would have no potential to result in substantial adverse effects/conflicts to appliable level of
service standards. Implementation of the Project would not result in any impacts that were not previously
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Therefore, and based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not result in any new impacts not already
analyzed in the SWIP SP PEIR, and the Project would not increase the severity of a significant impact as previously
identified and analyzed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-60
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR did not identify any safety hazards related to a design feature or land use
proposed by the SWIP SP.
Analysis of Project: The types of traffic generated during operation of the Project (i.e., passenger cars and trucks)
would be compatible with the type of traffic observed along study area roadways under existing conditions. All
proposed improvements within the public right-of-way would be installed in conformance with City design
standards. If any component of Project construction would occur in the public right-of-way and require the partial
or full closure of a sidewalk and/or travel lane, all work would be required to adhere to the applicable construction
control practices that are specified in the State of California Department of Transportation Construction Manual,
dated January 2021 and published by Caltrans, to minimize potential safety hazards. The City reviewed the
Project’s application materials and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be
introduced within the City public right-of-way through implementation of the Project. Based on the foregoing
information, the Project’s construction and operation would not create or substantially increase safety hazards
due to a design feature or incompatible use. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts
or more severe impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature than previously disclosed in the SWIP
SP PEIR.
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR did not identify substantial adverse impacts related to inadequate
emergency access. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that potential impacts to emergency access caused by
construction activities associated with the SWIP SP would be addressed through the required implementation of
a traffic management plan, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that
the improvements proposed by the SWIP SP would be implemented in a manner that would improve local
circulation and emergency access, and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant without the need for
mitigation.
Analysis of Project: The Project would construct industrial land uses on the Project Site, which would require the
need for emergency access to-and-from the Site. The City reviewed the Project’s design to ensure that adequate
access to-and-from the site would be provided for emergency vehicles. The City also will require the Project to
provide adequate paved access to-and-from the site (via a condition of approval) and will review all future Project
construction drawings to ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained along abutting public streets
during temporary construction activities. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or
more severe impacts related to inadequate emergency access than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-61
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: Although the SWIP SP PEIR did not specifically address this subject, the SWIP SP PEIR
disclosed all recorded historical resources in the SWIP SP area and identified the potential for discovery of historic
and archaeological resources during earth moving construction activity. Mitigation was included in the SWIP SP
PEIR to reduce impacts to historical and archaeological resources to a level below significance.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site – which the SWIP SP PEIR assumed would be fully developed – does not have
any resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in any local register
of historical resources. Accordingly, the Project would not impact a tribal cultural resource is listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: Although the SWIP SP PEIR did not specifically address this subject, the SWIP SP PEIR
contained sufficient information related to the SWIP SP’s cultural setting to conclude that there was the potential
for tribal cultural resources to be located within the SWIP SP area.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is highly disturbed, and no known tribal cultural resources were determined
to occur on the Project Site or in the Project Site’s immediate vicinity (as previously disclosed under Subsection
4.5, Response “b”). Notwithstanding, as a standard practice for all development projects in the City, the City
would require the Project Applicant to comply with conditions of approval that establish protocols for
consultation, monitoring, and resource recovery to protect inadvertent discoveries of buried/masked prehistoric
archaeological resources. The City’s standard conditions of approval would be consistent with SWIP SP PEIR MMs
4.4-1b, 4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c. Mandatory compliance with the City’s standard conditions of approval (which would
ensure implementation of SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.4-1a, 4.4-1b, 4.4-2a, and 4.4-2b) would preclude potential impacts
to tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code 5024.1(c). Implementation of the Project would
not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources than previously
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Mitigation: No new or updated MMs are required. SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.4-2b and 4.4-2c apply to the Project, as
previously listed under Subsection 4.5 of this EIR Addendum and in the MMRP for the SWIP SP PEIR, attached
hereto as Appendix A.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-62
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the Project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, telecommunication facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR disclosed that each future development proposal within the SWIP SP area
will be reviewed by the City staff to confirm that utility/infrastructure improvements would be available to serve
the project or that improvements planned by the SWIP SP would be installed as part of development.
Analysis of Project: The Project would connect to existing utility lines abutting the Project Site. The Project would
involve utility connections to provide electric power and telecommunications services to the Project Site;
connections would be made to existing facilities abutting the Site. The construction of proposed utility
improvements has the potential to result in environmental effects associated with short-term air pollutant
emissions, noise emissions, water quality effects, and traffic movement disruptions that are an inherent part of
the Project’s construction process. However, these impacts already were included in the construction-level impact
analysis provided under the Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Transportation topics of this
Environmental Checklist, and were determined to not result in a substantial adverse effect on the environment
and, also, to be within the scope of the analysis for the SWIP SP PEIR. The Project would not result in a significant
environmental impact related to the construction of utilities that was not previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that the City would have sufficient water supply to meet the
water demands of the SWIP SP in addition to the City’s existing and projected future service obligations.
Analysis of Project: The Project would implement industrial land uses on the Project Site in accordance with the
SWIP SP land plan. Accordingly, the development activities – and water demand – proposed by the Project were
planned by the SWIP SP and, therefore, anticipated by the SWIP SP PEIR. Furthermore, the FWC’s 2020 Urban
Water Management Plan (UWMP), which anticipates buildout of the SWIP SP and its associated water demand,
indicates that the FWC has sufficient water supplies to meet its service demand for normal, single-dry year, and
multiple-dry year conditions through at least the year 2045 (FWC, 2021, pp. 7-6 - 7-8). Accordingly, the Project
would not require new or expanded water entitlements. Implementation of the Project would not result in any
new impacts or more severe impacts related to water supplies than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project,
that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that existing wastewater treatment facilities could
accommodate the SWIP SP’s demand for wastewater treatment services.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-63
Analysis of Project: For purposes of analysis herein, the Project is estimated to produce approximately 10,758
gallons of wastewater per day. Wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed to the Inland Empire
Utilities Agency (IEUA) RP-1 for wastewater treatment. The RP-1 facility has an existing treatment capacity of
approximately 44 million gallons of wastewater per day and treats approximately 28 million gallons of wastewater
per day (gpd) on average (IEUA, 2022). The RP-1 facility has approximately 16 million gallons of excess treatment
capacity under existing conditions (44 million gpd - 28 million gpd = 16 million gpd). The wastewater generated by
the Project would represent less than one percent (0.07 percent) of the excess daily treatment capacity of RP-1;
therefore, it is anticipated that RP-1 has adequate treatment capacity to provide service to the Project. The Project
would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment. Implementation of the Project
would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to wastewater treatment than previously
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid wastes reduction goals?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: Solid waste from the SWIP SP area would be disposed at the Mid-Valley Landfill. The SWIP
SP PEIR determined that the Mid-Valley Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the solid waste disposal
needs of the SWIP SP. The SWIP SP PEIR incorporated mitigation from the City of Fontana General Plan EIR that
pertain to solid waste as MMs 4.8-9a through 4.8-9d to further reduce the amount of solid waste that would be
diverted to the Mid-Valley Landfill. (SWIP SP PEIR MMs 4.8-9a through 4.8-9d are policy-level actions that are the
responsibility of the City that do not require any actions of development projects.)
Analysis of Project: The Project Site would receive landfill services from the Mid-Valley Landfill. The Mid-Valley
Landfill is permitted to receive 7,500 tons of refuse per day and has a total capacity of 101,300,000 cy. According
CalRecycle, the Mid-Valley Landfill has a total remaining capacity of 61,219,377 cy as of June 30, 2019. The Mid-
Valley Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2045 (CalRecycle, 2022a). In July
2022, the peak daily disposal at the Mid-Valley Landfill was approximately 4,918.9 tons, which correlates to an
excess daily disposal capacity of 2,581.1 tons (CalRecycle, 2022b).
The analysis below summarizes the Project’s potential to generate solid waste during construction and/or
operation that would exceed the disposal capacity of local landfill facilities. As demonstrated in the analysis below,
the Project would generate less-than-significant volumes of solid waste and would not result in any new impacts,
or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts, as compared to the analysis presented in the
SWIP SP PEIR.
Construction Impact Analysis
The existing structures would be demolished during Project construction (the demolished asphalt/concrete is
anticipated to be hauled off-site). According to Project Applicant assumptions, the Project’s construction phase
is anticipated to generate 2,800 tons of mixed demotion solid waste. CalGreen requires a minimum of 65 percent
of all solid waste be diverted from landfills (by recycling, reusing, and other waste reduction strategies); therefore,
the Project is estimated to generate approximately 980 tons of demolition waste requiring landfill disposal. The
Project’s demolition phase is estimated to have a duration of approximately 20 days; therefore, the Project is
estimated to generate approximately 49 tons of solid waste per day requiring landfill during demolition.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-64
The Project would generate solid waste requiring disposal during the construction process, primarily consisting of
discarded materials and packaging. Based on the size of the Project and construction waste generation factor of
4.34 pounds per s.f. (lbs/s.f.) for non-residential uses, approximately 219 tons ([4.34 lbs/s.f. x 100,750 s.f.] x 1
ton/2,000 lbs = 219 tons) of solid waste are expected to be generated during the Project’s construction phase
(EPA, 2009, p. 10). CalGreen requires a minimum of 65 percent of all solid waste be diverted from landfills (by
recycling, reusing, and other waste reduction strategies); therefore, the Project is estimated to generate
approximately 77 tons of construction waste requiring landfill disposal.
The Project’s construction phase is estimated to have a duration of approximately 297 days; therefore, the Project
is estimated to generate a peak of approximately 0.26 tons of solid waste per day requiring landfill during
construction. The Project’s daily solid waste generation would utilize less than one-tenth of one percent of the
excess daily disposal capacity at the Mid-Valley Landfill ([0.26 tons/2,581.1 tons] x 100 ≈ 0.01 percent).
Accordingly, the Mid-Valley Landfill would have sufficient daily capacity to accept solid waste generate by the
Project’s construction phase. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe
impacts related to solid waste generation than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Operational Impact Analysis
Based CalRecycle’s daily waste generation rate for industrial uses, which is 1.42 lbs/100 s.f., long-term operation
of the Project would generate approximately 0.72 tons (1.42 lbs/100 s.f. x 100,750 s.f. ≈1,430.7 lbs x 1 ton/2,000
lbs ≈ 0.72 tons) of solid waste per day (CalRecycle, 2022c). CalGreen requires a minimum of 65 percent of all solid
waste be diverted from landfills (by recycling, reusing, and other waste reduction strategies); therefore, the
Project is estimated to generate approximately 0.25 tons per day of waste requiring landfill disposal. The solid
waste generated by the Project would represent less than one percent ([0.25 tons/2,581.1 tons] x 100 ≈ 0.01
percent) of the excess daily capacity at the Mid-Valley Landfill. Accordingly, the Mid-Valley Landfill would have
sufficient daily capacity to accept solid waste generate by the Project’s operation. Implementation of the Project
would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to solid waste generation than previously
disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
e. Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
wastes?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that SWIP SP would be in compliance with all State and local
requirements related to solid waste. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of Project: The Project would be required to comply with Chapter 24 of the City’s Municipal Code, which
would require future tenants of the Project to segregate and place solid waste generated by the Project into
containers for collection. There are no components of the Project that would result in non-compliance with
federal, state, or local statutes or regulations related to solid waste. Implementation of the Project would not
result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to conflicts with federal, State, and local management
and reduction statues than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-65
4.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones would the
project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary
ongoing impact to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR determined that the SWIP SP is located in an urbanized area, and no
wildlands exist in the vicinity of the SWIP SP area. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that no impact related to wildland
hazards would occur.
Analysis of Project: The Project Site is not in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones (Cal Fire, 2008; City of Fontana, 2018); therefore, implementation of the Project would not
exacerbate existing wildfire hazard risks or expose people or the environment to adverse environmental effects
related to wildfires within a state responsibility area or very high fire hazard severity zone. The SWIP SP PEIR
assumed the Project Site would be developed. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts related to wildfire hazards than previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the Project:
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that, following mitigation, the SWIP SP would result in less-
than-significant impacts to sensitive plant and animal species as well as habitats. Additionally, the SWIP SP PEIR
concluded that, with mitigation, the SWIP SP would result in less-than-significant impacts to archaeological,
historical, and paleontological resources, and, therefore, would not eliminate important examples of major
periods of California history or prehistory.
Analysis of Project: As indicated throughout the analysis presented herein, implementation of the Project would
not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 4-66
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, to a greater degree than
previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR.
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR addressed cumulative impacts for each of the environmental topics
evaluated. The SWIP SP PEIR concluded the SWIP SP would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative
impacts regarding the following issues:
• Aesthetics (scenic vistas);
• Air Quality (construction-related and operational emissions);
• Noise (long-term mobile noise and increases to incremental noise levels);
• Recreation (parks/recreation facilities); and
• Transportation/Traffic (roadway segments/intersections performance).
Analysis of Project: As described throughout this analysis, implementation of the Project would not result in new
environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR and would not increase the severity
of environmental impacts disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR. There is also no new information of substantial
importance since the time the SWIP SP PEIR was certified that was not already known and analyzed in the SWIP
SP PEIR. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to result in cumulatively considerable effects to the
environment beyond those previously disclosed in the SWIP SP PEIR (and already disclosed throughout this
analysis), and instead, the Project’s impacts are generally less than the impacts assumed and analyzed in the SWIP
SP PEIR.
c. Have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
SWIP SP PEIR Finding: The SWIP SP PEIR concluded that while changes to the environment that could indirectly
affect human beings would be possible in all of the designated CEQA issue areas, those changes to the
environment that the SWIP SP found could directly affect human beings include:
• Air Quality (construction-related and operational emissions);
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (contaminated soil and groundwater [SWIP SP PEIR concluded impacts
in this issue area would be less than significant with implementation of MMs]);
• Noise (long-term mobile noise and increases to incremental noise levels);
• Recreation (parks/recreation facilities); and
• Transportation/Traffic (roadway segments/intersections performance).
Analysis of Project: Implementation of the Project would not result in environmental effects that would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, beyond those disclosed in the SWIP SP
PEIR, and instead, the Project’s impacts are generally less than the impacts assumed and analyzed in the SWIP SP
PEIR.
5.0 REFERENCES
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 5-1
5.0 REFERENCES
This Addendum was prepared by:
City of Fontana
Associate Planner ............................................................................................................................................ Jon Dille
T&B Planning, Inc.
Principal-in-Charge ............................................................................................................................. Tracy Zinn, AICP
Senior Project Manager.......................................................................................................................... David Ornelas
Environmental Analyst ..................................................................................................................... Christhida Mrosla
Graphics Specialist ................................................................................................................................ Cristina Maxey
The following information sources were used during the preparation of this Addendum:
Cited As Reference
Alden, 2022 Alden Environmental, Inc. (Alden), 2022. 11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Biological Resources.
September 21, 2022. (Appendix D).
BFSA, 2022a Brian F. Smith and Associates, 2022a. A Cultural Resources Study for the 11673 South
Etiwanda Avenue Project. July 18, 2022. (Appendix E).
BFSA, 2022b Brian F. Smith and Associates, 2022b. Paleontological Assessment for the 11673 South
Etiwanda Avenue Project. July 11, 2022. (Appendix H).
CalFire, 2008 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2008. Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
Web. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf. Accessed: September
26, 2022.
CalRecycle,
2022a
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2022a.
Facility/Site Summary Details: Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055). Web. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662.
Accessed: September 26, 2022.
CalRecycle,
2022b
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2022b. Inspection
Detail: Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Web. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteInspection/Details/344472. Accessed:
September 26, 2022.
CalRecycle,
2022c
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2022c. Estimated
Solid Waste Generation Rates. Web. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed:
September 26, 2022.
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 5-2
Cited As Reference
CalTrans, 2022 California Department of Transportation, 2022. Scenic Highways. Web. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8
e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed: September 26, 2022.
CBWM, 2022 Chino Basin Watermaster, 2022. District Map. Web. Available at:
https://www.cbwcd.org/241/District-Maps. Accessed: September 26, 2022.
CDFW, 2019 California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Community Conservation Plans
– April 2019. Web. Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline. Accessed September
26, 2022
City of Fontana,
2018
City of Fontana, 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft
Environmental Impact Report. June 8, 2018. Web. Available at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update. Accessed September 26 2022.
DOC, 2006 Department of Conservation (DOC), 2006. Update Mineral Land Classification for Portland
Cement Concrete-Grade Aggreate. Web. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.
Accessed: September 26, 2022
DOC, 2018 Department of Conservation, 2018. San Bernardino County Important Farmland Finder.
Web. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed: September 26,
2022.
EPA, 2009 Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and
Demolition Materials Amounts. March 2009. Web. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-
09/documents/estimating2003buildingrelatedcanddmaterialsamounts.pdf.
Accessed: September 26, 2022.
FEMA, 2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2014. FEMA Flood Map Service Center -
FIRMETTE Map No. 06071C8642J. Web. Accessed: September 26, 2022.
FWC, 2021 Fontana Water Company (FWC), 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Web.
Available at: https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FWC-2020-
UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf. Accessed: September 26, 2026.
Google Earth
Pro, 2022
Google Earth Pro. Google Earth. Web. Available at: https://www.google.com/earth/
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 5-3
Cited As Reference
IEUA, 2022 Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), 2022. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1. Web.
Available at https://www.ieua.org/facilities/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-1/.
Accessed: September 26, 2022.
NorCal, 2022 NorCal Engineering (NorCal), 2022. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed
Industrial Warehouse Development 11673 South Etiwanda Avenue, Fontana, California.
March 23, 2022.
SCAQMD, 2005 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2005. Rule 402. Web. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf. Accessed:
September 26, 2022.
SCS, 2022 SCS Engineers (SCS), 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase II
Investigation 11673 South Etiwanda Avenue. March 31,2022. (Appendix J).
Thienes, 2022a Thienes Engineering, Inc, 2022a. Storm Water Quality Management Plan for Etiwanda
Industrial Building NEC of Etiwanda Avenue and Marlay Avenue, Fontana, CA 92337. June
30, 2022. (Appendix K)
Thienes, 2022b Thienes Engineering, Inc, 2022b. Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for Etiwanda Industrial
Building 11673 S. Etiwanda Avenue Fontana, CA 92337. June 30, 2022. (Appendix L)
Urban
Crossroads,
2022a
Urban Crossroads, Inc (Urban Crossroads), 2022a. Etiwanda Warehouse (DRP22-000046,
TPM22-000020) Air Quality Impact Analysis. September 21, 2022. (Appendix B)
Urban
Crossroads,
2022b
Urban Crossroads, Inc (Urban Crossroads), 2022b. Etiwanda Warehouse (DRP22-000046,
TPM22-000020) Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment. September 21, 2022. (Appendix
C).
Urban
Crossroads,
2022c
Urban Crossroads, Inc (Urban Crossroads), 2022c. Etiwanda Warehouse (DRP22-000046,
TPM22-000020) Energy Analysis. September 21, 2022. (Appendix F).
Urban
Crossroads,
2022d
Urban Crossroads, Inc (Urban Crossroads), 2022d. Etiwanda Warehouse (DRP22-000046,
TPM22-000020) Greenhouse Gas Analysis. September 6, 2022. (Appendix I).
Urban
Crossroads,
2022e
Urban Crossroads, Inc (Urban Crossroads), 2022e. Etiwanda Warehouse (DRP22-000046,
TPM22-000020) Noise Impact Analysis. September 6, 2022. (Appendix M).
Addendum to the
SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation PEIR Environmental Analysis
11673 S Etiwanda Avenue Industrial Commerce Center 5-4
Cited As Reference
Urban
Crossroads,
2022f
Urban Crossroads, Inc (Urban Crossroads), 2022f. Etiwanda Warehouse (DRP22-000046,
TPM22-000020) Trip Generation Assessment. July 26, 2022. (Appendix N)
Urban
Crossroads,
2022f
Urban Crossroads, Inc (Urban Crossroads), 2022g. Etiwanda Warehouse (DRP22-000046,
TPM22-000020) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Evaluation. August 1, 2022.
(Appendix O)
USDA, 2022 United States Department of Agriculture, 202. Web Soil Survey. Web. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: September
26, 2022.