HomeMy WebLinkAboutSierra Business Center Final EIR (3-21-2023)Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2022030544
Sierra Business Center
City of Fontana, California
Lead Agency
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92355
CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Project Applicant
Shea Properties and Acacia Real Estate Group, Inc.
Lead Agency Discretionary Permits
Shea Project:
Design Review Project (DRP 21-034)
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 21-018)
General Plan Amendment (GPA 21-004)
Zone Change Application (ZCA 21-006)
Acacia Project:
Design Review Project (DRP 21-039)
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 21-022)
General Plan Amendment (GPA 21-005)
Zone Change Application (ZCA 21-007)
March 21, 2023
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Name and Number Page
F.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... F-1
F.2 Responses to DEIR Comments ........................................................................................ F-1
F.2.2 CEQA Requirements ...................................................................................................... F-2
F.2.3 Responses to DEIR Comments ........................................................................................ F-3
A California Department of Fish and Wildlife ..................................................................... F-4
B Blum Collins & Ho, LLP .................................................................................................. F-30
C Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice............................................. F-77
D West Valley Water District ............................................................................................. F-84
F.3 Additions, Corrections, and Revisions to the DEIR ......................................................... F-86
F.4 No Recirculation of DEIR Required ............................................................................... F-93
Changed Pages of the Draft EIR
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-1
F.0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
F.1 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA
Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.).
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of:
a. The Draft EIR (DEIR) or a revision of the draft;
b. Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary;
c. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR;
d. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process; and
e. Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
In accordance with the above-listed requirements, this FEIR for the Sierra Avenue Business Center Project
(hereafter, the “Project”) and associated discretionary and administrative actions, consists of the following:
a. Comment letters and responses to public comment; and
b. The circulated Sierra Avenue Business Center Project DEIR and Technical Appendices, SCH No.
2022030544, with additions shown as underlined text and deletions shown as stricken text (refer to
Subsection F.3, Additions, Corrections, and Revisions to the DEIR, for a summary of the changes to
the EIR since the DEIR was circulated for public review).
This FEIR document was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the
independent judgment of the CEQA Lead Agency (City of Bakersfield).
F.2 RESPONSES TO DEIR COMMENTS
The City of Fontana received four comment letters in response to the DEIR. A list of the agencies,
organizations, and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR is presented in Table F-1, Organizations,
Persons, and Public Agencies that Commented on the DEIR. Blum Collins & Ho, LLP subsequently withdrew
their comment letter; nevertheless, their comments and the City’s responses thereto are included in the FEIR
for informed decision-making.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-2
Table F-1 Organizations, Persons, and Public Agencies that Commented on the DEIR
Comment
Letter Commenting Party Date
A California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1/3/2023
B* Blum Collins & Ho, LLP 1/3/2023
C Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice 1/3/2023
D West Valley Water District 12/1/2022
* Comment letter was withdrawn on January 17, 2023.
F.2.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires the Lead Agency (City of Fontana) to evaluate comments received
from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and to provide written responses with good
faith and reasoned analysis to comments that relate to significant environmental issues.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines the parameters for public agencies and interested parties to submit
comments and the Lead Agency’s responsibility for responding to specific comments. Per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15204(a), comments should be related to:
[T]he sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the
environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or
mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or
mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant
environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR
is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible…CEQA does not require a lead agency to
conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or
suggested by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to
significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by
reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises that, “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their
comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or
expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064,
an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Additionally, CEQA
Guidelines Section 15204(d) notes that, “[e]ach responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its
comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility;” but, pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e), “[t]his section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to
comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as
recommended by this section [CEQA Guidelines Section 15204].”
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), the level of detail contained in the response may correspond to the
level of detail provided in the comment: “A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-3
contain or specifically refer to readily available information or does not explain the relevance of evidence
submitted with the comment.”
F.2.3 RESPONSES TO DEIR COMMENTS
Copies of the comment letters referenced in Table F-1 are provided on the following pages, followed by
responses to each individual comment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires recirculation of a DEIR
when “significant” new information is added to an EIR, meaning the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the
public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way
to avoid such an effect, including a feasible project alternative, that the applicant declines to implement.
“Significant” new information requiring recirculation includes (1) a new significant environmental impact; (2)
a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; (3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation
measure that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the applicant
declines to adopt it; or (4) a fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory DEIR (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088.5; see also, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California [1993] 6
Cal. 4th 1112). None of the responses to the comment letters submitted to the City required the addition of
significant new information to the DEIR or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088.5. Instead, these responses to comments supplement the DEIR’s analysis of the same potentially
significant impacts already disclosed therein. Therefore, recirculation is not required.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-4
Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter A
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region 3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220 Ontario, CA 91764 www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
January 3, 2023 Salvador Quintanilla City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 Subject: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Sierra Business Center Project SCH #: 2022030544 Dear Salvador Quintanilla, The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received the proposed Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of Fontana (City) for the Sierra Business Center Project pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA guidelines.1 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources, and holds those resources in trust by statue for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.
A-1
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-5
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 2 CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. ((Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.)) Likewise. To the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Project Location
The proposed Project consists of two adjacent Project sites: The Shea and Acacia Project site. Both Project sites are located on the east side of Sierra Avenue between Casa Grande Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road in the City of Fontana, San Bernadino County, California. Specifically, the Shea Project, approximately 11.1 acres, is located within Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) (APNs) 0239-151-09 and 0239-151-39. The Acacia Project site, approximately 19.0 acres, is located within APNs 0239-151-19, 0239-151-25, 0239-151-26, and 0239-151-36
Project Description
The Shea Project involves the development of one commerce center building and the Acacia Project involves the development of two commerce center buildings. Both Projects will also contain surface parking, landscaping, lighting, and signage. Both Project sites are generally surrounded by undeveloped land to the north and developed land to the south. The Shea Project’s commerce center building will be used primarily for the storage and office space. There will be 168 parking stalls, a screened truck yard, trailer storage, 34 docking positions, and 18 trailer stalls. The Acacia Project’s commerce building will be used for storage and distribution. This site will include 277 parking stalls, a screened truck yard, a trailer storage area with 35 docks doors and 60 trailer stalls.
COMMENTS AND REQUESTS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. The comments and recommendations are also offered to enable CDFW to adequately review and comment on the proposed Project. CDFW requested additions are identified in bold within the proposed mitigation measures.
A-2
A-1(CONT.)
A-3
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-6
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 3 Parry’s Spineflower
As noted in the DEIR, Parry’s spineflower is a special status plant (pg 4.4-11). The DEIR also states the “combined Shea and Acacia Project impacts to Parry’s spineflower would be a cumulatively considerable significant impact and mitigation would be required” (pg 4.4-13). CDFW agrees that Parry’s spineflower plants will be significantly impacted based on the size and extent of the population on the Project site (CNDDB data).
While CDFW appreciates the inclusion of Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.4-1, to mitigate for
the loss of 1,396 Parry’s spineflower plants, CDFW suggests adding the below language in Minimization Measure 4.4 – 1 to increase the amount of mitigation acreage required for Parry’s spineflower and to ensure the conservation lands are protected in perpetuity through a conservation easement, rather than a deed restriction, which does not provide permanent protection. Based on the cumulative project impacts to sensitive plants on 25.53 acres (pg 4.4-17) CDFW recommends the permanent conservation of 51.06 acres (a 2:1 mitigation ratio) of occupied Parry’s spineflower habitat. A 1:1 mitigation may be appropriate where a new population of plants could be successfully established to offset the loss. However, establishing new, viable, and self-sustaining plant populations may not be feasible, and should be considered experimental without proven and repeated success. In lieu of establishing new populations to avoid the net loss of individuals, CDFW suggests implementing a minimum 2:1 ratio of mitigation. Additionally, CDFW suggests the MND provide a more specific mitigation location than simply “Inland Empire” (pg 4.4-21). The identification of potential conservation areas will ensure the feasibility of implementing any such conservation has been addressed. Finally, CDFW recommends performing either (i) both 4.4-1-1 and 4.4-1-2 together or (ii) 4.4-1-3 independently to ensure any mitigation preformed is protected permanently.
Additionally, CDFW is concerned about Parry’s spineflower and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (LAPM) being included in the same mitigation measure. CDFW recommends the following edits to MM 4.4-1 and the inclusion of measure 4.4-2 to evaluate and fully mitigate impacts to Parry’s spineflower and LAPM separately.
MM 4.4-1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that would authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to mitigate for the loss of 1,396 Parry’s spineflower plants and habitat for the Los Angeles pocket mouse through one or a combination of the following methods through the combination of either (i) 1 and 2 or (ii) 3 individually. 1. The applicant shall acquire and preserve in perpetuity an off-site property of 51.06 acres containing at least 1,396 2,792 Parry’s spineflower plants. The property shall be located in the Inland Empire and proof of acquisition and perpetual preservation shall be provided to the City of Fontana. Preserved habitat shall be protected with a deed restriction or conservation easement recorded in favor of the local jurisdiction or a local conservation entity.
A-4
A-5
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-7
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 4 2. The applicant shall retain a qualified restoration ecologist with experience developing mitigation plans for sensitive plant species to
prepare a Parry’s Spineflower Mitigation Plan (Plan) in consultation with the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Gardens or other qualified entity that has experience with Parry’s spineflower. The Plan shall include, at a minimum: (1) collection/salvage methods for Parry’s spineflower seed and topsoil from the Acacia Project Site; (2) details regarding the transfer, with or without temporary storage, of the collected/salvaged seed and topsoil; (3) a time schedule for salvage and seeding at a recipient site; (4) identification of an available and suitable location in the City of Fontana or nearby area in the range of the Parry’s spineflower with suitable sandy soil that will function as the recipient site for the collected/salvaged seed and soil; (5) detailed site preparation and introduction techniques for the recipient site; (6) a description of supplemental irrigation at the recipient site, if needed; (7) success criteria based on fast and profuse germination, healthy growth rates, adaptive phenotypic plasticity (ability to sustain in the face of environmental variables at the recipient site), and resistance to and high competitive ability, ensuring long term survival of at least 1,277 plants in a self-sustaining environment; and (8) a detailed monitoring program, commensurate with the success criteria. The Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Fontana and implementation of the Plan shall be a condition of the grading permit. The recipient site from (4.4-1-1) shall be protected with a deed restriction or conservation easement recorded in favor of the local jurisdiction or a local conservation entity. Monitoring and maintenance of the recipient site by a qualified biologist shall be required for 5 years or until the success criteria goals of the Plan have been met. 3. The applicant shall pay fees into a mitigation bank or in lieu fund established in whole or in part for the purpose of preserving Parry’s spineflower plants, to mitigate for the loss of 1,396 plants at a 2:1 mitigation ratio. Proof of fee payment shall be provided to the City of Fontana.
Los Angeles Pocket Mouse While CDFW appreciates the inclusion of sensitive animal species, we request that MM 4.4-2 be split into two measures. Due to the nature of these sensitive species, the Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (LAPM) and sensitive reptiles should not be combined. CDFW recommends a measure for Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (LAPM) and a separate measure for sensitive reptiles. As mentioned in the DEIR, the LAPM is a Species of Special concern and is present on the Shea and Acacia Project sites. Due to their presence on the project sites, “potential
A-6
A-5(CONT.)
A-7
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-8
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 5 injury or mortality to individual mice could occur, and habitat loss would occur on both [sites] during construction […] the impacts may cause a substantial adverse effect on this species […] and mitigation would be required (pg 4.4-15). According to the 2021 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Report, part of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, “[Scientists] recorded [their] lowest occupancy estimates to date in the [trapped core areas]” (pg 12). While trapping in 2021 did not occur in the Jurupa mountains or the Santa Ana River in 2021, CDFW considers this finding an indication of LAPM’s population decline in the Inland Empire’s counties and recommends the Applicant implement a relocation/translocation plan and the permanent conservation of 76.59 acres (a 3:1 mitigation ratio) of LAPM habitat. CDFW requests that MM 4.4-2 be revised to include the following: MM 4.4-2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that would authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to retain the services of a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys (trapping), implement a CDFW-approved relocation/translocation plan for LAPM, and subsequently monitor grubbing, clearing, and mass grading activities for sensitive animal species including Los Angeles pocket mouse, coast horned lizard and coastal whiptail. The biologist(s) shall be required to trap potentially occupied areas within the project site during appropriate season/weather conditions prior to be present during grubbing, clearing, and mass grading activities and if these species are observed present, the biologist(s) shall direct or implement the CDFW-approved relocation/translocation plan to move any encountered LAPM these animals out of harm’s way to the extent practicable, to a location of suitable
habitat outside of the project’s impact footprint, or other location approved by CDFW in the relocation/translocation plan. The grubbing, clearing, and mass grading contractor(s) shall be required via a note on the grading plans to follow the instructions of the monitoring biologist. In addition, appropriate permanent mitigation shall be provided by the Applicant within 6 months of initiating project activities, in coordination with CDFW, to offset the loss of occupied LAPM habitat. The Applicant shall compensate for project impacts to LAPM by restoring and/or enhancing and maintaining 76.59 acres of LAPM habitat at a CDFW approved location. Habitat shall be preserved in perpetuity via conveyance of a conservation easement to a CDFW-approved entity.
A-8
A-7(CONT.)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-9
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 6 Special Status Reptiles Both the BTR and DEIR state “potential injury or mortality to individual coast horned lizard [and coastal whiptail] could occur, and habitat loss would occur over both [project sites] (Appendix C1 pg 18 and DEIR pg 4.4-14). Compensatory mitigation is proposed in Appendix C1 as well as the DEIR (Appendix C1 pg 18 and DEIR pg 4.4-14). As mentioned in the above LAPM section, CDFW requests that MM 4.4-2 be split into two to account for both species of special concern. CDFW suggests adding the following language pertaining to reptiles. MM 4.4-5 Applicant shall minimize impacts to non-listed, special status reptiles and amphibians within the Project area. The Designated Biologist(s) shall conduct pre-construction surveys prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities within areas containing suitable habitat, including burrows, sand fields, and rock piles. If any special status reptiles are detected, the Designated Biologist(s) shall provide the animal sufficient time to leave on its own accord. If any state-listed reptile species is identified and has the potential to be impacted by the Project, Permittee shall halt all Project activities that could result in impacts and contact CDFW immediately. If full avoidance cannot be accomplished, Permittee shall postpone the Project until appropriate CESA authorization is obtained. Nesting Birds Nesting birds of special concern found on the project sites include Bell’s sage sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli), Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), and the California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) (Appendix C1 BTR pg 12). The DEIR states all three birds “would be expected to fly away from construction activity and, therefore, not be injured or killed by construction” (pg 4.4-14). Considering the timing of nesting season varies and depends on factors such as the bird species, weather, conditions, and long-term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc) therefore CDFW strongly recommends pre-construction surveys be completed before any construction activity. As described in the DEIR, “[Both] Projects have the potential to contribute to a cumulatively-considerable impact to nesting birds” (pg 4.4-18). Due to their presence, CDFW requests the following language be updated in measure 4.4-4. MM 4.4-4. In order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, the initial clearing, grubbing, and grading of land shall occur outside of the nesting season (i.e., outside of the period February 1 through September 15). If Before any ground-disturbing activities must occur during the nesting season, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be
A-9
A-10
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-10
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 7 conducted by a qualified Designated biologist 3 days prior to the ground-disturbing activities. If birds are found to be nesting inside or within 250 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the impact area, construction shall be postponed at the discretion of a qualified Designated biologist, until it is determined that the nest is no longer active. 1. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures. 2. Surveys shall be conducted by the Designated Biologist at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. If a nest is suspected, but not confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall establish a disturbance-free buffer until additional surveys can be completed, or until the location can be inferred based on observations. If a nest is observed, but thought to be inactive, the Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest for one hour (four hours for raptors during the non-breeding season) prior to approaching the nest to determine status. The Designated Biologist shall use their best professional judgement regarding the monitoring period and whether approaching the nest is appropriate. 3. When an active nest is confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall immediately establish a conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest based on their best professional judgement and experience. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. If the Designated Biologist determines that such project activities may be causing an adverse reaction, the Designated Biologist shall adjust the buffer accordingly or
A-10(CONT.)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-11
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 8 implement alternative avoidance and minimization measures, such as redirecting or rescheduling construction or erecting sound barriers. Burrowing Owl While CDFW appreciates the burrowing owl survey due to the “low possibility” they are present on the Project Site (Table 3, pg 13), CDFW suggests additional pre-construction burrowing owl surveys before Project commencement. The DEIR mentions a lack of burrowing owl presence in the Project site, despite the presence of California ground squirrel burrows. (pg 91) CDFW considers the presence of California ground squirrels to be a strong indication of burrowing owl habitat. CDFW suggests adding the following mitigation measure in case burrowing owls are present on the Project site: MM 4.4-6 Applicant shall ensure that impacts to burrowing owls are avoided through the implementation of preconstruction surveys and ongoing monitoring. 1. Pre-Construction Survey for Burrowing Owls. Applicant shall have a Designated biologist perform a survey for burrowing owls at least 30 days prior to construction activities. 2. Burrowing Owls Observed During Construction. If burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during Project construction, Applicant shall avoid burrowing owl habitat and the Designated biologist shall implement any appropriate avoidance and minimization measures. 3. Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. If burrowing owls are detected on the Project site, a Burrowing owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to relocation of owls. Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites and details on adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. As compensation for the scenario of loss of burrowing owl nesting and foraging habitat, the Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall identify mitigation including acquisition and funding the permanent protection for the loss of burrowing owl habitat consistent with the 2012 Staff Report.
A-11
A-10(CONT.)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-12
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 9 MITIGATION
When considering mitigation, it is important that the land conserved for mitigation has the same or better resource value than the resource value being impacted. Mitigation lands should be enhanced and managed in perpetuity to mitigate for the impact and loss of habitat. If the mitigation land would require restoration, it would be important to consider the time it will take for the sites to fully establish, whether there will be a temporary loss of function and value, and whether some types of biological resources cannot be restored or recreated within a reasonable period (e.g., 1-3 years).
CDFW recommended mitigation, including the permanent conservation of lands, for several species presumed present that would be potentially significantly impacted by the Project. If mitigation lands identified will meet species requirements for some or all of the species requiring mitigation, the mitigation may be co-located on a single property (i.e., separate mitigation parcels for each requirement may not be necessary)
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be found at the following link: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/CNDDB_FieldSurveyForm.pdf. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: CNDDB@wildlife.ca.gov. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/plants_and_animals.asp.
FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.).
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the City of Fontana’s Sierra business center Project (SCH No. 2022030544). CDFW recommends that the city address the comments and concerns identified in this letter in the forthcoming revised DEIR or FEIR. If you should have any questions pertaining to the comments provided in
A-12
A-15
A-13
A-14
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-13
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 10 this letter, please contact Chelsea Price at (760) 507-5051 or at Chelsea.price@wildlife.ca.gov.
Sincerely, Kim Freeburn Environmental Program Manager Attachment: Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for CDFW-proposed Mitigation Measures ec: Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento HCPB CEQA Coordinator Habitat Conservation Planning Branch Chelsea Price, Environmental Scientist, CDFW Inland Deserts Region Chelsea.Price@wildlife.ca.gov
A-15(CONT.)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-14
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 11 ATTACHMENT 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) PURPOSE OF THE MMRP
The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures must be implemented within the time periods indicated in the table below.
TABLE OF MITIGATION MEASURES
The following items are identified for each mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure, Implementation Schedule, and Responsible Party. The Mitigation Measure column summarizes the mitigation requirements. The Implementation Schedule column shows the date or phase when each mitigation measure will be implemented. The Responsible Party column identifies the person or agency that is primarily responsible for implementing the mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Responsible Party
MM 4.4-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that would authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to mitigate for the loss of 1,396 Parry’s spineflower plants and habitat for the Los Angeles pocket mouse through one or a combination of the following methods through the combination of either (i) 1 and 2 or (ii) 3 individually. 1. The applicant shall acquire and preserve in perpetuity an off-site property of 51.06 acres containing at least 1,396 2,792 Parry’s spineflower plants. The property shall be located in the Inland Empire and proof of acquisition and perpetual preservation shall be provided to the City of Fontana. Preserved habitat shall be protected with a deed restriction or conservation easement recorded in favor of the local
Before commencing ground- or vegetation-disturbing activities/ Throughout project duration
Project Proponent
A-16
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-15
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 12 jurisdiction or a local conservation entity. 2. The applicant shall retain a qualified restoration ecologist with experience developing mitigation plans for sensitive plant species to prepare a Parry’s Spineflower Mitigation Plan (Plan) in consultation with the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Gardens or other qualified entity that has experience
with Parry’s spineflower. The Plan shall include, at a minimum: (1) collection/salvage methods for Parry’s spineflower seed and topsoil from the Acacia Project Site; (2) details regarding the transfer, with or without temporary storage, of the collected/salvaged seed and topsoil; (3) a time schedule for salvage and seeding at a recipient site; (4) identification of an available and suitable location in the City of Fontana or nearby area in the range of the Parry’s spineflower with suitable sandy soil that will function as the recipient site for the collected/salvaged seed and soil; (5) detailed site preparation and introduction techniques for the recipient site; (6) a description of supplemental irrigation at the recipient site, if needed; (7) success criteria based on fast and profuse germination, healthy growth rates, adaptive phenotypic plasticity (ability to sustain in the face of environmental variables at the recipient site), and resistance to and high competitive ability, ensuring long term survival of at least 1,277 plants in a self-sustaining environment; and (8) a detailed monitoring program, commensurate with the success criteria. The Plan shall be submitted to
A-16(CONT.)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-16
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 13 and approved by the City of Fontana and implementation of the Plan shall be a condition of the grading permit. The recipient site from (4.4-1-1) shall be protected with a deed restriction or conservation easement recorded in favor of the local jurisdiction or a local conservation entity. Monitoring and maintenance of the recipient site by a qualified biologist shall be required for 5 years or until the success criteria goals of the Plan have been met. 3. The applicant shall pay fees into a mitigation bank or in lieu fund established in whole or in part for the purpose of preserving Parry’s spineflower plants, to mitigate for the loss of 1,396 plants at a 2:1 mitigation ratio. Proof of fee payment shall be provided to the City of Fontana.
MM 4.4-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that would authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to retain the services of a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys (trapping), implement a CDFW-approved relocation/translocation plan for LAPM, and subsequently monitor grubbing, clearing, and mass grading activities for sensitive animal species including Los Angeles pocket mouse, coast horned lizard and coastal whiptail. The biologist(s) shall be required to trap potentially occupied areas within the project site during appropriate season/weather conditions prior to be present during grubbing, clearing, and mass grading activities and if these species are observed present, the biologist(s) shall direct or implement the CDFW-approved relocation/translocation plan to move any encountered LAPM these animals out of
Before commencing ground- or vegetation-disturbing activities/ Throughout project duration
Project Proponent
A-16(CONT.)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-17
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 14
harm’s way to the extent practicable, to a location of suitable habitat outside of the project’s impact footprint, or other location approved by CDFW in the relocation/translocation plan. The grubbing, clearing, and mass grading contractor(s) shall be required via a note on the grading plans to follow the instructions of the monitoring biologist.
In addition, appropriate permanent mitigation shall be provided by the Applicant within 6 months of initiating project activities, in coordination with CDFW, to offset the loss of occupied LAPM habitat.
The Applicant shall compensate for project impacts to LAPM by restoring and/or enhancing and maintaining 76.59 acres of LAPM habitat at a CDFW approved location. Habitat shall be preserved in perpetuity via conveyance of a conservation easement to a CDFW-approved entity
MM 4.4-4: In order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, the initial clearing, grubbing, and grading of land shall occur outside of the nesting season (i.e., outside of the period February 1 through September 15). If Before any ground-disturbing activities must occur during the nesting season, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified Designated biologist 3 days prior to the ground-disturbing activities. If birds are found to be nesting inside or within 250 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the impact area, construction shall be postponed at the discretion of a qualified Designated biologist, until it is determined that the nest is no longer active.
A-16(CONT.)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-18
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 15 1. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures. 2. Surveys shall be conducted by the Designated Biologist at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. If a nest is suspected, but not confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall establish a disturbance-free buffer until additional surveys can be completed, or until the location can be inferred based on observations. If a nest is observed, but thought to be inactive, the Designated
A-16(CONT.)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-19
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 16 Biologist shall monitor the nest for one hour (four hours for raptors during the non-breeding season) prior to approaching the nest to determine status. The Designated Biologist shall use their best professional judgement regarding the monitoring period and whether approaching the nest is appropriate. 3. When an active nest is confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall immediately establish a conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest based on their best professional judgement and experience. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. If the Designated Biologist determines that such project activities may be causing an adverse reaction, the Designated Biologist shall adjust the buffer accordingly or implement alternative avoidance and minimization measures, such as redirecting or rescheduling construction or erecting sound barriers.
MM 4.4-5: Applicant shall minimize impacts to non-listed, special status reptiles and amphibians within the Project area. The Designated Biologist(s) shall conduct pre-construction surveys prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities within areas containing suitable habitat, including burrows, sand fields,
Before commencing ground- or vegetation-disturbing activities/ Throughout project duration
Project Proponent
A-16(CONT.)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-20
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 17 and rock piles. If any special status reptiles are detected, the Designated Biologist(s) shall provide the animal sufficient time to leave on its own accord. If any state-listed reptile species is identified and has the potential to be impacted by the Project, Permittee shall halt all Project activities that could result in impacts and contact CDFW immediately. If full avoidance cannot be accomplished, Permittee shall postpone the Project until appropriate CESA authorization is obtained.
MM 4.4-6: Applicant shall ensure that impacts to burrowing owls are avoided through the implementation of preconstruction surveys and ongoing monitoring.
1. Pre-Construction Survey for Burrowing Owls. Applicant shall have a Designated biologist perform a survey for burrowing owls at least 30 days prior to construction activities.
2. Burrowing Owls Observed During Construction. If burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during Project construction, Applicant shall avoid burrowing owl habitat and the Designated biologist shall implement any appropriate avoidance and minimization measures.
3. Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. If burrowing owls are detected on the Project site, a Burrowing owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to relocation of owls. Burrowing Owl Mitigation and
Before commencing ground- or vegetation-disturbing activities/ Throughout project duration
Project Proponent
A-16(CONT.)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-21
Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla City on Fontana January 3, 2023 Page 18 Monitoring Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites and details on adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. As compensation for the scenario of loss of burrowing owl nesting and foraging habitat, the Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall identify mitigation including acquisition and funding the permanent protection for the loss of burrowing owl habitat consistent with the 2012 Staff Report.
A-16(CONT.)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-22
RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER A:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
A-1 This introductory comment introduces the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as a
potential Responsible Agency and potential Trustee Agency for the proposed Project under CEQA if
CDFW is required to issue permits or approvals pertaining to the Project’s activities. The City of
Fontana appreciates CDFW’s comments and, as demonstrated in the following responses, has
incorporated many of CDFW’s recommendations into the Final EIR’s mitigation measures.
Further the City notes that neither the Shea Project nor the Acacia Project require a streambed alteration
agreement and no threatened or endangered species protected under the California Endangered Species
Act (CESA) are present on the Project Sites that would require the CDFW’s approval of an incidental
take permit. The plant and wildlife species that are confirmed to be present on the Sites or that could
potentially migrate onto the Sites before the Projects’ construction are on watch lists or are Species of
Special Concern, which CDFW does not list as threatened or endangered. Therefore, no CDFW permit
or approval is required as part of the Projects’ implementation.
A-2 CDFW accurately summarizes the Project’s location and description. No comments are made that
raise any environmental issues.
A-3 CDFW introduces their recommended revisions to the DEIR’s biological mitigation measures. Refer
to Responses A-4 through A-11 for responses to these recommendations.
A-4 CDFW acknowledges Parry’s spineflower as a special status plant that is present on the Project Sites
and agrees with the DEIR’s conclusion that the Acacia Project will significantly impact Parry’s
spineflower. CDFW recommends changes to the DEIR’s mitigation measures for this impact. The
City of Fontana accepts the recommended changes in part and in particular the recommendation to
separate the mitigation for Parry’s spineflower from the mitigation for wildlife species and the
recommendation to increase the mitigation ratio from 1:1 to 2:1.
The City declines CDFW’s suggestion of requiring the Project Applicants to preserve 51.06 acres off-
site for the benefit of Perry’s spineflower as unnecessary to insure successful mitigation of the impact
because, according to professional biologist experts at Alden Environmental, approximately one square
foot of area is sufficient for each Parry’s spineflower, which grows to between 1 and 6 inches.1 The
EIR’s proposed mitigation for impacts is appropriately based on the number of individuals to be
impacted and not on the total acreage across which the individuals are spread. Refer to Response A-5
for City-accepted wording changes to Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1 addressing Parry’s spineflower.
A-5 CDFW recommends revisions to Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1. For the reasons given in Response
A-4, the following revisions have been made to MM 4.4-1 in the Final EIR.
1 Alden Environmental, 2023. Personal Communication between Greg Mason Principal Biologist of Alden Environmental and Tracy Zinn of T&B Planning, Inc. January 13, 2023.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-23
MM 4.4-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that would
authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to mitigate for the loss
of Parry’s spineflower plants and habitat for the Los Angeles pocket mouse
through one or a combination of the following methods.
1. The applicant shall acquire and preserve in perpetuity or ensure that a new
permanent conservation easement is placed over an off-site property
containing at least 1,396 2,792 Parry’s spineflower plants. The property shall
be located in the Inland Empire and City of Fontana. If no properties are
feasibly available in Fontana, property within a 10-mile radius of the Project
Site will be acceptable. If no properties are feasibly available within a 10-
mile radius, any property within San Bernardino County or Riverside County
will be acceptable. pProof of attempts to identify properties for this purpose
in Fontana and in a 10-mile radius of the Project Site, and proof of
acquisition and perpetual preservation of the selected property having at least
2,792 Parry’s spineflower shall be provided to the City of Fontana. Preserved
habitat shall be protected with a deed restriction or conservation easement
recorded in favor of the local jurisdiction or a local conservation entity.
2. The applicant shall retain a qualified restoration ecologist with experience
developing mitigation plans for sensitive plant species to prepare a Parry’s
Spineflower Mitigation Plan (Plan) in consultation with the Rancho Santa Ana
Botanic Gardens or other qualified entity that has experience with Parry’s
spineflower. The Plan shall include, at a minimum: (1) collection/salvage
methods for Parry’s spineflower seed and topsoil from the Acacia Project Site;
(2) details regarding the transfer, with or without temporary storage, of the
collected/salvaged seed and topsoil; (3) a time schedule for salvage and
seeding at a recipient site; (4) identification of an available and suitable
location in the City of Fontana or nearby area in the range of the Parry’s
spineflower with suitable sandy soil that will function as the recipient site for
the collected/salvaged seed and soil; (5) detailed site preparation and
introduction techniques for the recipient site; (6) a description of supplemental
irrigation at the recipient site, if needed; (7) success criteria based on fast and
profuse germination, healthy growth rates, adaptive phenotypic plasticity
(ability to sustain in the face of environmental variables at the recipient site),
and resistance to and high competitive ability, ensuring long-term survival of
at least 1,277 plants in a self-sustaining environment; and (8) a detailed
monitoring program, commensurate with the success criteria. The Plan shall
be submitted to and approved by the City of Fontana and implementation of
the Plan shall be a condition of the grading permit. The recipient site shall be
protected with a deed restriction or conservation easement recorded in favor
of the local jurisdiction or a local conservation entity. Monitoring and
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-24
maintenance of the recipient site by a qualified biologist shall be required for
5 years or until the success criteria goals of the Plan have been met.
3. The applicant shall pay fees into a mitigation bank or in lieu fund established
in whole or in part for the purpose of preserving Parry’s spineflower plants, to
mitigate for the loss of 1,396 plants at a 2:1 mitigation ratio. Proof of fee
payment shall be provided to the City of Fontana.
A-6 CDFW recommends that Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-2 addressing potential impacts to the Los
Angeles Pocket Mouse (LAPM) and sensitive reptiles be split into two measures. The expert
professional biologists at Alden Environmental that authored the Projects’ biological technical reports
have advised that the mitigation methods in MM 4.4.-2 will reduce potential impacts to these Species
of Concern to below a level of significance as explained in Responses A-7, A-8, and A-9.2
A-7 CDFW acknowledges that LAPM is present on the Project site and is a Species of Special Concern.
CDFW provides information showing that the LAPM population is declining in western Riverside
County. The City notes that LAPM is not a listed threatened or endangered species and thus no permit
or approval is required from CDFW for impacts to the species. Also, the Shea and Acacia Project Sites
are located in San Bernardino County, not Riverside County (the location of the mapping information
cited by CDFW). The City further notes that "Species of Special Concern" is an administrative
designation and carries no formal legal status. According to CDFW, the intent of designating Species
of Special Concern is to: (1) focus attention on animals at conservation risk by the Department, other
State, local and Federal governmental entities, regulators, land managers, planners, consulting
biologists, and others; (2) stimulate research on poorly known species; and (3) achieve conservation
and recovery of these animals before they meet California Endangered Species Act criteria for listing
as threatened or endangered.
A-8 CDFW recommends revisions to Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-4 that include requiring the Project
Applicants to preserve 76.59 acres off-site for the benefit of LAPM and relocate LAPM under a CDFW
approved translocation plan.
As the CEQA Lead Agency for the Shea and Acacia Projects, the City has determined, based on the
professional opinions of biological experts at Alden Environmental, that CDFW’s suggestion of
requiring the Project Applicants to preserve 76.59 acres off-site for the benefit of LAPM and relocate
LAPM under a CDFW approved translocation plan is unnecessary to assure successful mitigation of
impacts to the species. This is particularly the case given that CDFW has not listed the species as
either threatened or engendered3 and that there are no established standards for mitigating impacts to
Species of Special Concern.
Nonetheless, City has strengthened Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 as shown in Response A-8.
2 Ibid.
3 CDFW Website, 2023. Species of Special Concern. Accessed January 12, 2023. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/SSC
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-25
MM 4.2-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that would
authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to retain the services of
a qualified biologist (“Dedicated Biologist”) to conduct trapping of Los
Angeles pocket mouse for a minimum of five (5) days before ground
disturbance commences and move any captured mice to a location of suitable
habitat outside of the project’s impact footprint. The Dedicated Biologist also
shall monitor grubbing, clearing, and mass grading activities for sensitive
animal species including Los Angeles pocket mouse, coast horned lizard and
coastal whiptail. The Dedicated bBiologist shall be required to be present
during grubbing, clearing, and mass grading activities and if these species are
observed, the Dedicated bBiologist shall have the authority to pause or redirect
construction equipment away from observed species and direct or move these
animals out of harm’s way to the extent practicable, to a location of suitable
habitat outside of the project’s impact footprint. If approved by CDFW, the
Dedicated Biologist shall set traps for Los Angeles pocket mouse at night
during the initial five days of grading and move any captured mice to a
location of suitable habitat outside of the project’s impact footprint the next
morning before grading activities resume. The grubbing, clearing, and mass
grading contractor(s) shall be required via a note on the grading plans to follow
the instructions of the monitoring Dedicated bBiologist.
A-9 CDFW recommends, separate from the mitigation measure for LAPM, a mitigation measure specific
to coast horned lizards and coastal whiptail, . However, as explained in Response A-8, mitigation for
these Species of Special Concern is adequately addressed by Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-2, and as
such, no separation of the mitigation measure is necessary. Further, the City notes that CDFW states
in Comment A-12 that if mitigation lands will meet specified requirements for some or all of the species
requiring mitigation then co-location of species to satisfy mitigation requirements is acceptable. This
is the approach the City too recommends.
Biological experts at Aden Environmental have advised that CDFW’s suggestion that construction
activities cease while providing “sufficient time” for species that are neither listed as threatened nor
endangered to “leave [the construction site] on their own accord” is not necessary to reduce the
potential impact to less than significant.4 As will be required by MM 4.4-2, a Dedicated Biologist will
observe all grubbing, clearing, and mass grading activities, direct construction equipment away from
observed Species of Special Concern, and direct or move detected animals out of harm’s way. This
method will mitigate potential impacts to less than significant because most individuals will either
quickly move off the Project Site on their own accord or be shielded from harm by the Dedicated
Biologist. Loss of the habitat is less than significant because the Project Site is too isolated from large
habitat blocks to provide for longevity of the species on the Project Site. The Project site is surrounded
4 Alden Environmental, 2023. Written communication from Greg Mason of Alden Environmental to Tracy Zinn of T&B
Planning. January 13, 2023.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-26
by residential development to the east, Sierra Avenue and land under construction to the west,
residential development and land planned for development to the north, and commerce center
development and land planned for development to the south.
CDFW also states that CDFW should be contacted if any listed threatened or endangered species
(which were not detected on the Project site during 2022 field surveys) are encountered during Project-
related construction activities. Although no threatened or endangered species were observed during
biological field surveys of the Project Sites conducted in 2022, MM 4.4-6 is added to the Final EIR as
follows:
MM 4.4-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that would
authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to retain the services
of a qualified biologist (“Dedicated Biologist”) to monitor all construction
activities that entail native vegetation removal. The Dedicated Biologist shall
be required to contact CDFW if any threatened or endangered species are
identified on the construction site during monitoring of the construction
activities and direct construction activities away from threatened and
endangered species until California Endangered Species Act authorization
is obtained from CDFW.
A-10 CDFW presents information that is contained in the DEIR regarding the potential for nesting migratory
birds to be present on the Project Sites at the commencement of Project construction, and recommends
revisions and additions to strengthen Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-4. In response to CDFW request,
the following revisions have been made in the Final EIR
MM 4.4-4: In order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game
Code, the initial clearing, grubbing, and grading of land shall is recommended
to but not required to occur outside of the nesting season (i.e., outside of the
period February 1 through September 15). If Prior to any ground-disturbing
activities must occur during the nesting season, a pre-construction nesting
bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified Dedicated bBiologist 3 days prior
to the ground-disturbing activities. If birds are found to be nesting inside or
within 250 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the impact area, construction shall be
postponed at the discretion of a qualified biologist, until it is determined that
the nest is no longer active.
1. The applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist)
experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special
concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey
methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding
and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and
identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-27
appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring
the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures.
2. Surveys shall be conducted by the Designated Biologist at the
appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather
conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of project
activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees,
shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey
duration shall take into consideration the size of the project site;
density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants;
survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the
data collected is complete and accurate. If a nest is suspected, but not
confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall establish a disturbance-
free buffer until additional surveys can be completed, or until the
location can be inferred based on observations. If a nest is observed,
but thought to be inactive, the Designated Biologist shall monitor the
nest for one hour (four hours for raptors during the non-breeding
season) prior to approaching the nest to determine status. The
Designated Biologist shall use their best professional judgement
regarding the monitoring period and whether approaching the nest
is appropriate.
3. When an active nest is confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall
immediately establish a conservative avoidance buffer surrounding
the nest based on their best professional judgement and experience.
The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project
activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities
(e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment
usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. If the Designated
Biologist determines that such project activities may be causing an
adverse reaction, the Designated Biologist shall adjust the buffer
accordingly or implement alternative avoidance and minimization
measures, such as redirecting or rescheduling construction or
erecting sound barriers.
A-11 CDFW acknowledges that focused surveys conducted on the Project Site in 2022 for the burrowing
owl were negative but requests pre-construction surveys due the presence of ground squirrels.
Professional biological experts at Alden Environmental disagree with the CDFW’s suggestion that the
presence of ground squirrels is a strong indicator of burrowing owl habitat.5 Ground squirrels are
present all over southern California, yet burrowing owls are not, and Alden Environmental has
confirmed that no signs/evidence of the burrowing owl was observed during the 2022 field surveys,
5 5 Alden Environmental, 2023. Personal Communication between Greg Mason Principal Biologist of Alden Environmental
and Tracy Zinn of T&B Planning, Inc. January 13, 2023.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-28
and burrowing owl has a low potential to occur (see DEIR p. 4.4-6). Nonetheless, and out of an
abundance of caution, Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-5 has been added to the Final EIR at CDFW’s
request.
MM 4.4-5 Implementation of preconstruction surveys prior to ground disturbance and
ongoing monitoring during grubbing, clearing, and grading activities for
burrowing owl are required as follows:
1. Pre-Construction Survey for Burrowing Owls: The applicant shall
retain a Designated biologist to perform a survey for burrowing owls
at least 30 days prior to construction activities. If the results are
negative, construction may commence with no restrictions other than
a requirement for ongoing monitoring as provided for in (2) below.
2. Burrowing Owls Observed During Construction: If burrowing owls
are observed within the Project site during Project grubbing,
clearing, or grading, burrowing owl habitat shall be avoided and the
Designated biologist shall implement any appropriate avoidance and
minimization measures.
3. Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. If burrowing owls
are detected on the Project site, a Burrowing owl Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and
approval prior to relocation of owls. The Burrowing Owl Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan shall include the number and location of
occupied burrow sites and details on adjacent or nearby suitable
habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is
available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation of
artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) shall also
be included in the Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
As compensation for the scenario of loss of burrowing owl nesting
and foraging habitat, the Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall identify mitigation including acquisition and funding the
permanent protection for the loss of burrowing owl habitat consistent
with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report.
A-12 CDFW provides general information about mitigation sites implying reference to Mitigation Measure
MM 4.4-1. This information is acknowledged.
A-13 CDFW provides information about the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and requests
that information about special status species and natural communities on the Project Site be submitted
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-29
for inclusion in the CNDDB. The City informed the Project Applicants to report this information. The
CDFW also has access to this information from the DEIR Subsection 4.4, Biological Resources.
A-14 CDFW provides a reminder that CDFW filing fees are required when the Final EIR’s Notice of
Determination (NOD) is posted with the County Clerk. These fees will be paid should the Final EIR
be certified and a NOD be posted.
A-15 This concluding paragraph provides contact information for CDFW. This information is noted.
A-16 CDFW summarizes their suggested mitigation measure revisions in a table format. For a response to
each suggestion, refer to Responses A-5 through A-11.
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-30
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter B
BLUM COLLINS & HO, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW AON CENTER 707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 4880 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 (213) 572-0400
January 3, 2023
Salvador Quintanilla,Senior Planner VIA EMAIL TO:Community Development Department squintanilla@fontana.orgCityofFontana8353SierraAvenue,Fontana,CA 92335
Subject:Comments on Sierra Business Center EIR (SCH NO.2022030544)
Dear Mr.Quintanilla,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for the
proposed Sierra Business Center Project.Please acceptand consider these comments on behalf of
Golden State EnvironmentalJustice Alliance (GSEJA).Also,Golden StateEnvironmentalJustice
Alliance formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent
environmental documents,public notices,public hearings,and notices of determination for this
project.Send all communicationsto Golden State Environmental JusticeAlliance P.O.Box 79222
Corona,CA 92877.
1.0 Summary
The proposed project (Sierra Business Center)is composed of two separate and independent
Projects,the Sierra Industrial Facility (the Shea Project”)and the North Fontana Industrial
Complex (the Acacia Project”).The Shea Project Site is located on the east side of Sierra Avenue
approximately 700 feet north of Casa Grande Avenue,and encompasses two parcels,including
Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs):0239‐151‐09 and ‐38.The Shea Project provides for the
development of an approximately 11.1-acre development site with a single industrial commerce
center buildingwith a maximum of 199,999 square feet(s.f.),including 19,900 s.f.of office space.
The Shea Project is expected to operate 24 hours per day,7 days per week.
The Acacia Project Site is located east of Sierra Avenue and south of Duncan Canyon Road,and
encompasses four parcels,including Assessor ParcelNumbers (APNs):0239‐151‐19,‐25,‐26,and
‐36.The Acacia Project provides for the development of the approximately19.0‐acre development
site with two industrial commerce center buildings with a total of 385,043 s.f.of building area;
B-1
B-2
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-31
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page
2 Building 1 is 296,297 s.f. and Building 2 is 88,746 s.f. The Acacia Project is expected to operate
24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
The following discretionary actions are necessary to implement the proposed Shea development:
1. General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21-004 proposes to amend the City’s General Plan
Land Use Map to change the land use designation for the Shea Project Site from Multi-
Family High Density Residential (R-MFH) to Light Industrial (I-L).
2. Zone Change (ZC) No. 21-006 proposes to amend the City’s Zoning District Map to
change the zoning classification of the Shea Project Site from Multi-Family High Density
Residential (R-5) to “M-1” Light Industrial.
3. Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 21-018 proposes to consolidate the two existing parcels
on the Shea Project Site into one parcel for the development of one commerce center
building.
4. Design Review Project (DRP) No. 21-034 proposes a development plan for the Shea
Project Site that provides for the construction and operation of one commerce center
building. The proposed commerce center would include a maximum of 199,999 square
feet (s.f.) of building floor area, including up to 19,900 s.f. of office space at full buildout.
Proposed improvements also include but are not limited to the installation of drive aisles,
landscaping, utility infrastructure, exterior lighting, walls/fencing, and signage.
The following discretionary actions are necessary to implement the proposed Acacia development:
5. General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21-005 proposes to amend the City’s General Plan
Land Use Map to change the land use designations for the Acacia Project Site from Multi-
Family High Density Residential (R-MFH) and General Commercial (GC) to Light
Industrial (I-L).
6. Zone Change (ZC) No. 21-007 proposes to amend the City’s Zoning District Map to
change the zoning classification of the Acacia Project Site from Multi-Family High
Density Residential (R-5) to “M-1” Light Industrial.
7. Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 21-022 proposes to consolidate the four existing parcels
on the Acacia Project Site into two parcels for the development of two commerce center
buildings.
8. Design Review Project (DRP) No. 21-039 proposes a development plan for the Project
Site that provides for the construction and operation of two commerce center buildings.
The buildings are designated “Building 1,” and “Building 2” for reference purposes. The
proposed commerce center would include a maximum of 385,043 s.f. of total building
floor area at full buildout. Building 1 would be a maximum of 296,297 s.f. including up to
8,000 s.f. of office space and up to an 8,000 s.f. mezzanine. Building 2 would be a
maximum of 88,746 s.f., including up to 2,500 s.f. of office space and up to a 2,500 s.f.
mezzanine. Proposed improvements also include but are not limited to the installation of
B-2(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-32
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page 3 drive aisles,landscaping,utility infrastructure,exterior lighting,walls/fencing,and
signage.
4.3 Air Quality,4.6 Energy and 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Please refer to attachments from SWAPE for a complete technical commentary and analysis.
The EIR does not include for analysis relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential
impacts,including cumulative impacts from the proposed project.This is especially significant as
the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution.According to CalEnviroScreen 4.01,
CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic
vulnerability,the proposed project s census tract (6071002704)ranks worse than 94%of the rest
of the state in overall pollution burden.The proposed project’s census tract and surrounding
community,including residences adjacent to the north,east,west,and south,and Kordyak
Elementary School (north),Fitzgerald Elementary School (east),and Kucera Middle School to the
east,bears the impact of multiplesources ofpollution and is morepolluted than averageonseveral
pollution indicators measured by CalEnviroScreen.For example,the project census tract ranks in
the 95th percentile for ozone burden,the 94th percentile for PM 2.5 burden,the 90th percentile for
diesel particulate matter burden,and the 70th percentile for traffic impacts.All of these
environmental factors are typically attributed to heavy truck activity in the area.Ozone can cause
lung irritation,inflammation,and worsening of existing chronic health conditions,even at low
levels of exposure2.The very small particles of diesel PM can reach deep into the lung,where
they can contribute to a range of health problems.These include irritation to the eyes,throat and
nose,heart and lung disease,and lung cancer3.
The census tract ranks in the 96th percentile for contaminated drinking water and 97th percentile
for groundwater threats.Poor communities and people in rural areas are exposed to contaminants
in their drinking water more often than people in other parts of the state4.People who live near
contaminated groundwater may be exposed to chemicals moving from the soil into the air inside
their homes5.
The census tractalso ranks in the 94thpercentile for solid wastefacility impacts and 85thpercentile
for hazardous waste facility impacts.Solid waste facilities can expose people to hazardous
1 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 2 OEHHA Ozone https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/air-quality-ozone 3 OEHHA DieselParticulate Matter https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/diesel-particulate-matter 4 OEHHA Contaminated Drinking Water https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/drinking-water 5 OEHHA GroundwaterThreatshttps://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/groundwater-threats
B-3
B-2(CONT.)
B-4A
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-33
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page
4 chemicals, release toxic gases into the air (even after these facilites are closed), and chemicals can
leach into soil around the facility and pose a health risk to nearby populations6. Hazardous waste
generators and facilities contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil near waste generators
and facilities can harm the environment as well as people7.
The census tract also bears more impacts from cleanup sites than 88% of the state. Chemicals in
the buildings, soil, or water at cleanup sites can move into nearby communities through the air or
movement of water8.
Further, the census tract is a diverse community including 46% Hispanic, 14% African-American
and 13% Asian-American residents, whom are especially vulnerable to the impacts of
pollution. The community has a high rate of low educational attainment, meaning 49% of the
census tract over age 25 has not attained a high school diploma, which is an indication that they
may lack health insurance or access to medical care. Medical care is vital for this census tract as
it ranks in the 83rd percentile for incidence of cardiovascular disease and 49th percentile for
incidence of asthma. The community also has a high rate of linguistic isolation, meaning 40% of
the census tract speaks little to no English and faces further inequities as a result.
Additionally, the proposed project’s census tract (6071002704) and the census tract adjacent to the
project site (6071002301 (south)) are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities9. This
indicates that cumulative impacts of development and environmental impacts in the City are
disproportionately impacting these communities. The EIR does not discuss that the project site
and surrounding area are disadvantaged communities and does not utilize this information in its
analysis. The EIR concludes that the proposed project will have significant and unavoidable
cumulatively considerable impacts to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and
Transportation, and has not considered these impacts in relation to the SB 535 status of the project
census tract and surrounding area. The negative environmental, health, and quality of life impacts
of the warehousing and logistics industry in Fontana have become distinctly inequitable. The
severity of significant and unavoidable impacts particularly on these Disadvantaged Communities
must be included for analysis as part of a revised EIR.
6 OEHHA Solid Waste Facilities https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/solid-waste-sites-and-facilities 7 OEHHA Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/hazardous-waste-generators-and-facilities 8 OEHHA Cleanup Sites https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/cleanup-sites 9 OEHHA SB 535 Census Tracts https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
B-4A(CONT.)
B-4B
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-34
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page
5
California s Building Energy Code Compliance Software (CBECC) is the State’s only approved
energy compliance modeling software for non-residential buildings in compliance with Title 2410.
CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The CalEEMod-based modeling in the EIR and
appendices does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under-
reports the project s significant Energy impacts and fuel consumption to the public and decision
makers. Since the EIR did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance
with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made. A revised EIR with modeling using the
approved software (CBECC) must be circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze
the project s significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the EIR utilizes CalEEMod as a
source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not the approved software.
4.11 Land Use and Planning
The project faces two significant inconsistencies with statutory requirements. The first is
inconsistency with State Housing Element Law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6586311, a
jurisdiction shall ensure that its housing element sites inventory “can accommodate, at all times
throughout the planning period, its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need allocated
pursuant to Section 65584” and “at no time…shall a city, county, or city and county by
administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action permit or cause its inventory of sites
identified in the housing element to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of the
regional housing need for lower and moderate-income households.” Further, this Section states
the following:
“No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other
action, reduce, or require or permit the reduction of, the residential density for any parcel to, or
allow development of any parcel at, a lower residential density, as defined in paragraphs (1) and
(2) of subdivision (g), unless the city, county, or city and county makes written findings supported
by substantial evidence of both of the following:
(A) The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element.
(B) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements
of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. The finding shall include a quantification of the remaining unmet need
10 California Energy Commission 2022 Energy Code Compliance Software https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency-1 11 Government Code Section 65863 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65863
B-5
B-6
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-35
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page
6
for the jurisdiction s share of the regional housing need at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the housing element to accommodate that need by income level.”
The City’s HCD Certified Housing Element12 identifies all areas of the project site with existing
residential land use designations as part of its identified sites inventory to accommodate its RHNA
allocation. The EIR has not provided any analysis to demonstrate that the remaining sites
identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Government Code
Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction s share of the regional housing need pursuant
to Government Code Section 65584 through the end of the 2021-2029 planning period. The EIR
has not demonstrated that the City’s Housing Element can accommodate at all times throughout
the planning period its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need. The EIR must be
revised to include a finding of significance because it has not demonstrated that the City can
continue to accommodate its RHNA following the potential approval of the proposed project. This
is vital as the proposed project sites are listed in the City’s Housing Element Identified Sites
Inventory as follows:
Shea
APN 023915138 (Site #4)
Size: 10.46 Acres
Density: 50 du/acre
Very/Low income units: 366
Above Moderate income units: 157
Total units: 523
APN 023915109 (Site #65)
Size: 1.01 Acres
Density: 50 du/acre
Very/Low income units: 10
Above Moderate income units: 39
Total units: 49
Total Shea property Very Low/Low income unit capacity in Housing Element: 376
Total Shea property unit capacity in Housing Element: 572
Acacia
APN 023915125 (Site #21)
12 Fontana 6th Cycle (2021-2029) HCD Certified Housing Element https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/37230/Certified-Housing-Element?bidId=
B-6(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-36
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page
7 Size: 2.42 Acres
Density: 50 du/acre
Very/Low income units: 85
Above Moderate income units: 36
Total units: 121
APN 023915126 (Site #22)
Size: 2.42 Acres
Density: 50 du/acre
Very/Low income units: 85
Above Moderate income units: 36
Total units: 121
APN 023915136 (Site #5)
Size: 10.06 Acres
Density: 50 du/acre
Very/Low income units: 351
Above Moderate income units: 151
Total units: 502
Total Acacia property Very Low/Low income unit capacity in Housing Element: 521
Total Acacia property unit capacity in Housing Element: 744
Sierra Business Center total Very Low/Low income unit capacity in Housing Element: 897
Sierra Business Center total unit capacity in Housing Element: 1,316
The project’s second significant inconsistency with statutory requirements involves major
conflicts with the HCA/SB 330. The Housing Crisis Act (HCA) of 2019/Senate Bill (SB) 33013
require replacement housing sites when land designated for housing development is changed to a
non-housing use to ensure no net loss of housing capacity. Government Code Section
66300(b)(1)(A) requires that agencies shall not change the general plan land use designation,
specific plan land use designation, or zoning to a less intensive use below what was allowed under
the land use designation and zoning ordinances in effect on January 1, 2018.” Under Government
Code Section 66300(b)(1)(A), a less intensive use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to
height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, or new or
increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage
13 Housing Crisis Act of 2019/SB 330 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB330
B-6(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-37
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page
8 limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of housing. Pursuant to SB 330, replacement
capacity for any displaced residential units must be provided at the time of project approval.
Due to the required land use changes to implement the proposed project, the site would not be used
for the development of residential units and replacement sites must be proposed and analyzed as
part of the project. The EIR does not act in conformance with these laws and has not identified
replacement sites for housing. Approval of the EIR and the proposed project will result in a net
loss of housing. Specifically, the existing General Plan and Zoning designations permit the
development of up to 1,316 residential dwelling units and that unit capacity is relied upon in the
City s 2021-2029 Housing Element. The lost capacity of 1,316 dwelling units is a significant
environmental impact in violation of the HCA/SB 330. The EIR must be revised to include a
finding of significance due to this inconsistency.
Due to the land use changes required for project implementation and its proposed exclusively
industrial development, the site would not be used for the development of residential dwelling
units and replacement sites must be proposed and analyzed as part of the project. The EIR does
not act in conformance with these laws and has not identified replacement sites for housing.
Approval of the EIR and the proposed project will result in a net loss of housing capacity of 1,316
dwelling units. This is a significant environmental impact in violation of the HCA/SB 330 and
State Housing Element Law. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance due to
this inconsistency. Additionally, deferring the identification of replacement sites to a later date is
project piecemealing in violation of CEQA. The EIR does not accurately or adequately describe
the project, meaning the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct
physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment” (CEQA § 15378). The whole of the action must statutorily and legally include
identified replacement sites to accommodate the lost capacity of 1,316 dwelling units (including
897 Very Low/Low income units). The City must also amend its Housing Element to remove the
proposed project sites from the land inventory, include the replacement sites, and forward to HCD
for review and certification.
The EIR relies upon the City’s new Ordinance No. 190614 adopted on October 25, 2022.
Ordinance No. 1906 created Article XV: No Net Loss Program within Chapter 30 of the Municipal
Code. The No Net Loss Program (NNL) creates a “bank” of residential units that compose the
lost housing unit capacity created by projects with residential designations that develop projects
below the Housing Element projections. These units are distributed to developers that request
Density Bonuses as part of their other, unrelated housing projects. First, Ordnance No. 1906 is
14 Fontana Ordinance No. 1906 https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=1184255
B-6(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-38
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page
9 nonsensical and illegal. As stated above, SB 330 requires replacement capacity for any displaced
residential units must be provided at the time of project approval. Creating a “bank” of lost
capacity units for future use is in direct violation of this requirement. Next, developers of density
bonus housing projects are statutorily entitled to certain quantities of additional housing units
above the base density. This is not depended upon those density bonus units being available in the
City’s “NNL bank.” Further, the “bank” does not identify a list of sites that meet HCD’s site
inventory criteria15 to replace those lost by the proposed project and the City is not able to
accommodate its RHNA at any time during the planning period. This is a significant and
unavoidable environmental impact and a finding of significance must be made in a revised EIR.
Table 4.10-1 SCAG RTP/SCS Goal Consistency Analysis provides a misleading and erroneous
consistency analysis with SCAG’s 2020-2045 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. Due to errors in
modeling, modeling without supporting evidence (as noted throughout this comment letter and
attachments), and the EIR’s conclusion the project will result in significant and unavoidable
cumulatively considerable impacts to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and
Planning (AQMP Inconsistency), and Transportation, the proposed project is directly inconsistent
with Goal 5 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality, Goal 6 to support healthy
and equitable communities, and Goal 7 to adapt to a changing climate. The EIR must be revised
to include a finding of significance due to these direct inconsistencies with SCAG’s 2020-2045
Connect SoCal RTP/SCS.
The EIR erroneously concludes that the project “would be consistent with all applicable General
Plan goals and policies related to environmental effects.” The EIR does not provide any substantial
or meaningful evidence to support these claims. Table 4.11-1 Shea and Acacia Project
Consistency with the General Plan also does not consider the proposed project’s required land use
changes and associated significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable impacts to Air
Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning (AQMP Inconsistency), and
Transportation in its discussion and analysis. A revised EIR must be prepared to provide a
consistency analysis with all Fontana General Plan objectives, goals, policies, and actions,
including but not limited to the following:
1. EJ Goal 2: The City of Fontana incorporates health considerations into the development review process.
2. Policy: Support including Healthy Fontana development analysis in relevant development project reviews.
15 HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf
B-7
B-6(CONT.)
B-8
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-39
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page
10 3. Healthier Fontana Goal 1 Policy 3: Support local and regional initiatives to improve air quality in order to reduce asthma while actively discouraging development that may exacerbate
asthma rates.
4. Housing Element Goal #1: Adequate housing to meet the needs of all residents in Fontana.
5. Housing Element Policy 1.1: Establish a range of rental and for sale housing opportunities in the city.
6. Housing Element Policy 1.2: Maintain an adequate land inventory to accommodate the City s
Regional Housing Needs allocation for the years 2021 to 2029.
7. Housing Element Policy 1.3: Promote the development and access to housing affordable to all income levels in Fontana.
8. Housing Element Policy 1.4: Maintain open discussion and coordination with stakeholders, residents and interested parties regarding housing opportunity in the City.
9. Housing Element Goal #4: Affirmatively further fair housing in Fontana.
10. Housing Element Policy 4.1: Enhance opportunities for affordable housing for all segments of
Fontana s population.
Providing this consistency analysis is vital, particularly in light of the errors in modeling, modeling
without supporting evidence as noted throughout this comment letter, and the EIR’s conclusion
the project will result in significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable impacts to Air
Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning (AQMP Inconsistency), and
Transportation. This is vital as the project’s census tract (6071002704) and the census tract
adjacent to the project site (6071002301 (south)) are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged
Communities16, which is not meaningfully discussed or utilized for analysis in the EIR.
4.14 Population and Housing
The EIR utilizes uncertain language and does not provide any meaningful analysis or supporting
evidence to substantiate the conclusion that there will be no significant impacts to population and
housing. The EIR states that the project’s “labor demand is not expected to draw substantial
numbers of new, unplanned residents to the area,” without considering the required land use
changes necessary to implement the project. The EIR does not provide a calculation of jobs created
by the project during its construction. It also does not provide information regarding the location
of qualified workers to fill the construction and operational jobs. The EIR relies upon the entire
unemployed workforce of the metropolitan Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario region and its
unemployment rate of 5.1% to fill the project’s jobs. Relying upon the entire workforce population
of the metropolitan Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario region will increase the VMT per employee
16 OEHHA SB 535 Census Tracts https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
B-9
B-8(CONT.)
B-10
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-40
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page
11 compared to the 19.41 VMT per employee reported in the EIR. This will also increase GHG
emissions during all phases of construction and operations and the EIR must be revised to account
for longer worker trip distances. For example, the project site is approximately 91 miles from
Coachella, 47 miles from Menifee, and 35 miles from Victorville while the VMT analysis only
assumed a 19.41 mile trip for employees. The revised EIR must also include a construction worker
employment analysis must also be included to adequately and accurately analyze all potentially
significant environmental impacts.
The EIR sources a study from the Commercial Real Estate Development Association (formerly
National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP)) titled Logistics Trends and
Specific Industries that will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space”
that provides an employment factor of 1 employee for every 2,574 sf of unrefrigerated warehouse
space and 1 employee for every 1,910 sf of refrigerated warehouse space; there is no employment
generation factor given for office space. The EIR concludes that all three buildings will
collectively generate 236 employees during the operational phase. However, this is not the most
appropriate or accurate employment generation methodology. Local data is available via SCAG s
Employment Density Study17; it provides the following applicable employment generation rates
for San Bernardino County:
Warehouse: 1 employee per 1,195 square feet Office: 1 employee per 697 square feet Applying these ratios results in the following calculation: Acacia Warehouse: 374,543 sf / 1,195 sf = 314 employees Office: 10,500 sf / 697 sf = 16 employees Total: 330 employees Shea Warehouse: 180,000 sf / 1,195 sf = 151 employees Office: 19,999 sf / 697 sf = 29 employees Total: 180 employees Sierra Business Center total: 510 employees
Utilizing SCAGs Employment Density Study ratios, the proposed project will generate 510
employees. The EIR utilizes uncertain and misleading language which does not provide any
meaningful analysis of the projects population and employment generation. In order to comply
17 SCAG Employment Density Study
http://www.mwcog.org/file.aspx?A=QTTlTR24POOOUIw5mPNzK8F4d8djdJe4LF9Exj6lXOU%3D
B-10(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-41
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page
12
with CEQA s requirements for meaningful disclosure, an EIR must be prepared to provide an
accurate estimate of employees generated by all uses of the proposed project. It must also provide
demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill these
positions.
SCAG’s Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast18 notes that the City will add 18,400
jobs between 2016 - 2045. Utilizing SCAG’s Employment Density Study calculation of 510
employees, the project represents 2.7% of the City s employment growth from 2016 - 2045.
SCAG’s Growth Forecast notes that the City’s population will increase by 75,700 residents
between 2016 - 2045. Utilizing SCAG s Employment Density Study calculation of 510 employees
and Fontana’s household size of 4.10 people19, the project will generate 2,091 residents; this
represents 2.7% of the City s population growth from 2016 - 2045. A single project accounting
for this amount of the projected employment and/or population over 29 years represents a
significant amount of growth. The EIR must be revised to include this information for analysis.
The EIR must also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2016 and
projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the project will exceed SCAG’s employment or
population growth forecast for the City. For example, the 3,736,156 sf of warehousing proposed
by the five recent Alere Realty projects (Citrus Commerce Center (3 industrial buildings totaling
1,830,000 sf), 16270 Jurupa Avenue (631,000 sf industrial building), 13032 Slover Avenue
(672,000 sf industrial building), Master Case No. 20-049/Tentative Parcel Map No. 20235 (TPM
No. 20-014), and Design Review No. 20-019 (247,786 sf industrial building)20, and Fontana
Corporate Center (355,370 sf industrial building)), will generate at minimum 3,133 employees
utilizing the SCAG employment ratios and assuming the entire building is a warehouse use (this
estimate is lower than the number actually generated due to potential office areas). Combined
with the proposed project’s 510 employees, these six industrial projects alone will generate 3,643
employees. This represents 19.8% of the City’s job growth and 4.8% of the population growth
over 29 years accounted for by only six industrial projects. This total increases exponentially when
commercial development activity and other industrial projects are added to the calculation. The
EIR must be revised to include this information for analysis and also include a cumulative
development analysis of projects approved since 2016 and projects in the pipeline” to determine
18 SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast adopted September 3, 2020 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 19 Fontana Demographic Information https://www.fontana.org/761/Business-Resources 20 Fontana Planning Commission August 17, 2021 Agenda Packet https://fontana.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=PA&ID=872341&GUID=A694AA6F-F236-4B53-B537-025338533AF9
B-11
B-10(CONT.)
B-12
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-42
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page
13 if the proposed project exceeds the General Plan growth estimates and/or SCAG’s growth
forecasts.
Additionally, Section 7.0 References does not provide a link that is accessible by the public or
decision makers to the Commercial Real Estate Development Association (CREDA) study utilized
for analysis in the EIR. The reference provided is to access a desktop computer download on an
employee’s desktop and is not a web/hyperlink to access the study. The EIR has excluded the
CREDA study from public review, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for
adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)).
Incorporation by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as the CREDA study contributes
directly to analysis of the problem at hand. The EIR must be revised to include the CREDA study
as an attachment for public review in order to provide an accurate environmental analysis and be
an adequate informational document.
4.17 Transportation
The EIR has not adequately analyzed the project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses;
or the project’s potential to result in inadequate emergency access. The EIR has not provided any
exhibits depicting the available truck/trailer turning radius at the intersection of the project
driveways to determine if there is enough space available to accommodate heavy truck
maneuvering. There are also no exhibits depicting emergency vehicle access. Deferring this
environmental analysis required by CEQA to the construction permitting phase is improper
mitigation and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate
informational documents. A revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed project with this
analysis in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.
Further, the VMT analysis has not analyzed the project’s truck/trailer/delivery van activity. An
EIR must be prepared to include all truck/trailer/delivery van activity for quantified VMT analysis.
The operational nature of industrial/warehouse uses involves high rates of truck/trailer/delivery
van VMT due to traveling from large import hubs to regional distribution centers to smaller
industrial parks and then to their final delivery destinations. Once employees arrive at the industrial
buildings for work, they will conduct their jobs by driving truck/trailer/delivery vans across the
region as part of the daily operations as a parcel hub facility, which will drastically increase
project-generated VMT. The project’s truck/trailer and delivery van activity is unable to utilize
public transit or active transportation and it is misleading to the public and decision makers to
exclude this activity from VMT analysis. An EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT
analysis that includes all truck/trailer and delivery van activity.
B-13
B-12(CONT.)
B-14
B-15
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-43
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page
14 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Impacts
The EIR relies upon erroneous Energy modeling to determine that the project will meet
sustainability requirements. As noted above, the EIR did not model the project’s energy
consumption in compliance with Title 24 modeling software. Further, the EIR states here that “this
commitment of resources would not be substantial and would be consistent with regional and local
growth forecasts and development goals for the area.” The EIR does not discuss the project’s
significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Land Use (inconsistency with AQMP) and Transportation impacts or the project’s required
changes in land use designations (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change). The EIR must be
revised to include a finding of significance due to the project’s significant and unavoidable
cumulatively considerable Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use (inconsistency with
AQMP) and Transportation impacts and direct contribution to climate change.
The EIR does not adequately discuss or and analyze the commitment of resources is not consistent
with regional and local growth forecasts. As noted throughout this comment letter, the project
represents a significant amount of growth in the City and in tandem with only five other recent
industrial projects account for a significant amount of the City’s employment growth over 29 years.
The EIR must also include a cumulative analysis discussion here to demonstrate the impact of the
proposed project in a cumulative setting.
5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts
The EIR does not meaningfully discuss or analyze the project’s required land use designation
changes (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) from high density residential to industrial.
This increases the developable nonresidential area of the City without providing any information
or analysis on the buildout conditions of the General Plan. The growth generated by the proposed
project was not anticipated by the General Plan, RTP/SCS, or AQMP. A revised EIR must be
prepared with a finding of significance.
The EIR has not provided an adequate or accurate cumulative analysis discussion here to
demonstrate the impact of the proposed project in a cumulative setting. For example, the 3,736,156
sf of warehousing proposed by the five recent Alere Realty projects (Citrus Commerce Center (3
industrial buildings totaling 1,830,000 sf), 16270 Jurupa Avenue (631,000 sf industrial building),
13032 Slover Avenue (672,000 sf industrial building), Master Case No. 20-049/Tentative Parcel
Map No. 20235 (TPM No. 20-014), and Design Review No. 20-019 (247,786 sf industrial
B-16
B-18
B-17
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-44
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page 15 building)21,and Fontana Corporate Center (355,370 sf industrial building)),will generate at
minimum 3,133 employees utilizing the SCAG employment ratios and assuming the entire
building is a warehouse use (this estimate is lower than the number actually generated due to
potential office areas).Combined with the proposed project’s 510 employees,these six industrial
projects alone will generate 3,643 employees.This represents 19.8%of the City’s job growth and
4.8%of the population growth over 29 years accounted for by only six industrial projects.This
total increases exponentially when commercial development activity and other industrial projects
are added to the calculation.The EIR must be revised to include this information for analysis and
also include a cumulative development analysis of projects approved since 2016 and projects in
the pipeline”to determineif the proposedprojectexceeds the General Plangrowth estimates and/or
SCAG’s growth forecasts.
6.0 Alternatives
The EIR is required to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project which
will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (CEQA §15126.6.)
The alternatives chosen for analysis include the CEQA required “No Project”alternative and only
three others -No Project (existing land use designations),Reduced Project Alternative 1:Shea
Project,and Reduced Project Alternative 2:Acacia Project.The EIR does not evaluate a
reasonable range of alternatives as only three alternatives beyond the required No Project
alternative is analyzed.The EIR does not include an alternative that meets the project objectives
and also eliminates all of the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts.The EIR must be
revised to include analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and foster informed decision
making (CEQA §15126.6).This could include alternatives such as developmentof the site with a
project that reduces all of the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to less than
significant level,or a mixed-use project that provides affordable housing and local-serving
commercial uses that may reduce VMT,GHG emissions,and improve Air Quality.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,GSEJA believes the EIR is flawed and a revised EIR must be prepared
for the proposed project and circulated for public review.Golden State Environmental Justice
Alliance requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental
documents,public notices,public hearings,and notices of determination for this project.Send all
communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O.Box 79222 Corona,CA
92877.
21 Fontana Planning Commission August 17,2021 Agenda Packethttps://fontana.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=PA&ID=872341&GUID=A694AA6F-F236-4B53-B537-025338533AF9
B-19
B-18(CONT.)
B-20
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-45
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Salvador Quintanilla
January 3, 2023
Page 16
Sincerely,
Gary Ho
Blum Collins & Ho, LLP
Attachments:
1.SWAPE Technical Analysis
B-20(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-46
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com December 23, 2022
Gary Ho
Blum Collins LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 4880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on the Sierra Business Center Project (SCH No. 2022030544)
Dear Mr. Ho,
We have reviewed the November 2022 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Sierra
Business Center Project (“Project”) located in the City of Fontana (“City”). The Project proposes the
construction of two developments, the Shea and Acacia Projects. The Shea Project proposes to construct
a 199,999-square-foot (“SF”) commerce center, including 19,900-SF of office space and 186 parking
spaces, while the Acacia Project proposes to construct a 385,043-SF commerce center and 343 parking
spaces, on the 30.1-acre site.
Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health risk, and
greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and
operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. A revised EIR should
be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas
impacts that the project may have on the environment.
Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions
The DEIR’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with California Emissions Estimator Model
(“CalEEMod”) Version 2020.4.0 (p. 4.3-20). 1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on
site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and
typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user
1 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.
B-21
B-22
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-47
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
2
can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are
inputted into the model, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are calculated, and
“output files” are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in
calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as
well as provide justification for the values selected.
When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Impact Analysis (“AQ
Analysis”) as Appendix B.1 to the DEIR, we found that several model inputs are not consistent with
information disclosed in the DEIR. As a result, the Project’s operational emissions may be
underestimated. A revised EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that
adequately evaluates the impacts that operation of the Project will have on local and regional air
quality.
Failure to Substantiate Potential Cold Storage Requirements
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “14283 North Fontana Industrial Complex
(Acacia) Construction,” “14283-03 Sierra Business Center (Acacia) Operation,” “14283 North Fontana
Industrial Complex (Shea) Construction,” and “14283-03 Sierra Business Center (Shea) Operation”
models include a portion of refrigerated warehouse space in their respective models. Specifically, the
Acacia and Shea models include 29,630-SF and 20,300-SF of refrigerated warehouse space, respectively
(see excerpt below) (Appendix B.1, pp. 146, 174, 202, 218, 234, 250, 268, 298, 328, 344, 360, 378;
Appendix G, pp. 84, 119, 144, 182). Acacia Model
Shea Model
As demonstrated above, the Acacia model includes only 29,630-SF of refrigerated warehouse space, and
the Shea model includes only 20,300-SF refrigerated warehouse space. However, these assumptions are
unsupported, as the DEIR and associated documents fail to provide an explanation or adequate source
as to how the division between refrigerated and unrefrigerated land uses in the respective models are
calculated. As such, in order to conduct the most conservative analysis, the Shea and Acacia models
should have accounted for the potential cold storage requirements for the entirety of both commerce
centers.
B-22(CONT.)
B-23
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-48
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
3
Furthermore, the DEIR indicates that the future tenants of the proposed warehouse are currently
unknown. Specifically, the DEIR states:
“The future occupants of the buildings are not known at the time of writing this EIR” (p. 3-16).
Thus, the future tenants of the proposed commerce centers may require additional cold storage.
Therefore, as refrigerated warehouse space is the most energy-intensive, the Project should have
included all of the proposed commerce centers as cold storage in order to conduct the most
conservative analysis.
Regarding the energy needs of the proposed Project, the DEIR states:
"Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1879, the Project would be required to obtain 100 percent of its
electricity demand for non-refrigerated space from rooftop solar panels, thus the air quality
analysis assumes that the Project would only draw from the electrical grid to satisfy the energy
needs of the refrigerated portion of the proposed building" (pp. 222).
As demonstrated above, the Project only draws energy from the grid for refrigerated land uses. Thus, by
potentially underestimating the amount of refrigerated land use, the DEIR may underestimate the
Project's energy use and GHG emissions associated with additional energy that may need to be pulled
from the grid.
This inadequacy presents an issue, as refrigerated warehouses release more criteria air pollutant and
GHG emissions when compared to unrefrigerated warehouses for three reasons. First, warehouses
equipped with cold storage, such as refrigerators and freezers, are known to consume more energy
when compared to warehouses without cold storage.2 Second, warehouses equipped with cold storage
typically require refrigerated trucks, which are known to idle for much longer when compared to
unrefrigerated hauling trucks.3 Lastly, according to a July 2014 Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results
and Usage presentation prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”),
hauling trucks that require refrigeration result in greater truck trip rates when compared to non-
refrigerated hauling trucks.4 Furthermore, as is discussed by SCAQMD, “CEQA requires the use of
‘conservative analysis’ to afford ‘fullest possible protection of the environment.’”5 As such, the models
should have included all warehouse buildings as refrigerated in order account for the additional
emissions that refrigeration requirements may generate.
2 “Warehouses.” Business Energy Advisor, available at: https://ouc.bizenergyadvisor.com/article/warehouses.
3 “Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks.” Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, January 6 p. 8, available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245561735_Estimation_of_Fuel_Use_by_Idling_Commercial_Trucks. 4 “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage” Presentation. SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee, July
2014, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-quality-analysis/finaltrucktripstudymsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 7, 9. 5 “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage” Presentation. SCAQMD Inland Empire Logistics Council,
June 2014, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-quality-analysis/final-ielc_6-19-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
B-23(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-49
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
4
By failing to account for all potential cold storage requirements, the models may underestimate the
Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. A
revised EIR should be prepared to adequately justify the square footage of required refrigerated space,
or account for the possibility of refrigerated warehouse needs by all future tenants.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural Coating Emission Factors
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “14283 North Fontana Industrial Complex
(Acacia) Construction” and “14283 North Fontana Industrial Complex (Shea) Construction” models
include several reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors (see excerpt below)
(Appendix B.1, pp. 147, 175, 269, 299; Appendix G, pp, 85, 120).
As demonstrated above, the nonresidential exterior and interior architectural coating emission factors
are reduced from the default values of 100- to 50-grams per liter (“g/L”). As previously mentioned, the
CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.6 According to the “User
Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Based on SCAQMD Rule 1113” (Appendix B.1, pp. 147, 175, 269, 299; Appendix G, pp. 85, 120).
Furthermore, the DEIR states:
“The SCAQMD enforces rules related to air pollutant emissions in the SCAB. Rules with
applicability to the Project include, but are not limited to, those listed below. […]
o SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings): Requires all buildings within the SCAQMD
to adhere to the VOC limits for architectural coatings” (p. 4.3-18, 4.3-19).
However, these reductions remain unsubstantiated, as we cannot verify the accuracy of the revised
architectural coating emission factors based on SCAQMD Rule 1113 alone. The SCAQMD Rule 1113 Table
of Standards provides the required VOC limits (grams of VOC per liter of coating) for 57 different coating
categories.7 The VOC limits for each coating varies from a minimum value of 50 g/L to a maximum value
of 730 g/L. As such, we cannot verify that SCAQMD Rule 1113 substantiates reductions to the default
coating values without more information regarding what category of coating will be used. As the DEIR
and associated documents fail to explicitly require the use of a specific type of coating, we are unable to
verify the revised emission factors assumed in the model.
These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural coating emission
factors to calculate the Project’s reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound (“ROG”/“VOC”)
6 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
7 SCAQMD Rule 1113 Advisory Notice.” SCAQMD, February 2016, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf?sfvrsn=24, p. 1113-14, Table of Standards 1.
B-23(CONT.)
B-24
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-50
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
5
emissions.8 By including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural coating emission
factors, the models may underestimate the Project’s construction-related ROG/VOC emissions and
should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Incorrect Architectural Coating Construction Phase Length
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “14283 North Fontana Industrial Complex
(Acacia) Construction” model includes a manual change to the default architectural coating construction
phase length (see excerpt below) (Appendix B.1, pp. 148; Appendix G, pp. 86).
As a result of this change, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below)
(Appendix B.1, pp. 153; Appendix G, pp. 92):
As demonstrated above, the architectural coating phase is increased by 50%, from the default value of
20 to 30 days. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model
defaults be justified.9 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the
justification provided for this change is:
“Assumed 30 days for architectural coating” (Appendix B.1, pp. 146; Appendix G, pp. 84).
Furthermore, regarding the Project’s anticipated total construction duration, the DEIR states:
“The Acacia Project would employ construction workers in various trades over the estimated 13-
month construction phase” (p. 4.14-5).
Furthermore, the DEIR provides the following construction schedule (p. 3-23, Table 3-3):
8 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 35, 40.
9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
B-24(CONT.)
B-25
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-51
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
6
As demonstrated above, the architectural coating phase length included in the DEIR’s construction
schedule is 20 days. As such, the model is inconsistent with the information provided in the DEIR.
This inconsistency presents an issue, as the construction emissions generated during the architectural
coating phase are improperly spread out over a longer period of time. By disproportionately extending
the architectural coating phase length without proper justification, the model assumes a greater number
of days to complete the construction activities required by the architectural coating phase. As such,
there will be fewer construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted
per day. As a result, the model may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with the
architectural coating phase of construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project
significance.
Incorrect Application of Tier 3 and Tier 4 Interim Emissions Standards
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “14283 North Fontana Industrial Complex
(Acacia) Construction” and “14283 North Fontana Industrial Complex (Shea) Construction” models
include the following construction-related mitigation measures (see excerpt below) (Appendix B.1, pp.
154, 276; Appendix G, pp. 93).
As a result, the model assumes that the Project’s off-road construction equipment fleet would meet Tier
3 and Tier 4 interim emissions standards (see excerpt below) (Appendix B.1, pp. 147, 148, 269, 270;
Appendix G, pp. 85, 86).
B-25(CONT.)
B-26
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-52
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
7
Note: Screenshot does not include all the applicable changes.
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be
justified.10 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification
provided for these changes is:
“Tier 4 will be utilized for equipment under 100 bhp, Tier 3 for equipment over 100 bhp”
(Appendix B.1, pp. 147, 269; Appendix G, pp. 85).
However, the assumption that the Project’s off-road construction equipment fleet would be meet Tier 3
and Tier 4 interim emissions standards remains unsupported for two reasons.
First, the DEIR and associated documents fail to mention or justify the inclusion of Tier 3 and Tier 4
interim emissions standards whatsoever. This is incorrect, as according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project-
specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial
evidence as required by CEQA.” 11
As such, until additional information becomes available that substantiates the above-mentioned
construction-related mitigation measures, we are unable to verify that the inclusion of Tier 3 and Tier 4
interim emissions standards in the model are an accurate reflection of the proposed construction
equipment.
Second, the DEIR and associated documents fail to explicitly require these standards through formal
mitigation measures. This is incorrect, as according to the Association of Environmental Professionals
(“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
“While not ‘mitigation’, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address
environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the
MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the
design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for
10 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
11 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13, 14.
B-26(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-53
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
8
someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project
that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting
environmental impact” (emphasis added).12
As demonstrated in the excerpt above, measures that are not formally included in the mitigation
monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”) may be eliminated from the Project’s design altogether.
Thus, as the use of construction equipment with Tier 3 and Tier 4 interim emissions standards are not
formally included as mitigation measures, we cannot guarantee that these standards would be
implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. Thus, the model’s assumption that the off-
road construction equipment fleet would adhere to Tier 3 and Tier 4 interim emissions standards is
incorrect. Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact
In an effort to more accurately estimate Project’s construction-related emissions, we prepared updated
CalEEMod models for both the Shea and Acacia Projects using Project-specific information provided by
the DEIR. In our updated models, we omitted the unsubstantiated reductions to the architectural
coating emission factors and excluded the incorrect construction-related mitigation measures.
Furthermore, in our updated model for the Acacia Project, we omitted the unsubstantiated change to
the architectural coating construction phase length.13
Our updated analysis estimates that both the Shea and Acacia Project’s construction-related VOC
emissions exceed the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) threshold of
75 pounds per day (“lbs/day”), as referenced by the DEIR (p. 5.2-24, Table 5.2-7) (see tables below).
SWAPE Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Construction VOC
(lbs/day)
DEIR (Acacia Project) 66.8
SWAPE 189.5
% Increase 184%
SCAQMD Threshold 75
Exceeds? Yes
12 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. 13 See Attachment A for CalEEMod output files.
B-26(CONT.)
B-27
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-54
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
9
SWAPE Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Construction VOC
(lbs/day)
DEIR (Shea Project) 52.6
SWAPE 101.7
% Increase 93%
SCAQMD Threshold 75
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Acacia and Shea Project’s construction-related VOC emissions, as estimated
by SWAPE, increase by approximately 184% and 93%, respectively, and exceed the applicable SCAQMD
significance threshold. Thus, our models demonstrate that the Project would result in a potentially
significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the DEIR. As a result, a
revised EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that
the Project may have on the environment. Disproportionate Health Risk Impacts of Warehouses on Surrounding Communities
Upon review of the DEIR, we have determined that the development of the proposed Project would
result in disproportionate health risk impacts on community members living, working, and going to
school within the immediate area of the Project site. According to the SCAQMD:
“Those living within a half mile of warehouses are more likely to include communities of color,
have health impacts such as higher rates of asthma and heart attacks, and a greater
environmental burden.”14
In particular, the SCAQMD found that more than 2.4 million people live within a half mile radius of at
least one warehouse, and that those areas not only experience increased rates of asthma and heart
attacks, but are also disproportionately Black and Latino communities below the poverty line.15 Another
study similarly indicates that “neighborhoods with lower household income levels and higher
percentages of minorities are expected to have higher probabilities of containing warehousing
facilities.”16 Additionally, a report authored by the Inland Empire-based People’s Collective for
Environmental Justice and University of Redlands states:
14 “South Coast AQMD Governing Board Adopts Warehouse Indirect Source Rule.” SCAQMD, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/news-archive/2021/board-adopts-waisr-may7-2021.pdf?sfvrsn=9.
15 “Southern California warehouse boom a huge source of pollution. Regulators are fighting back.” Los Angeles Times, May 2021, available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-05/air-quality-officials-target-
warehouses-bid-to-curb-health-damaging-truck-pollution. 16 “Location of warehouses and environmental justice: Evidence from four metros in California.” Metro Freight Center of Excellence, January 2018, available at:
https://www.metrans.org/assets/research/MF%201.1g_Location%20of%20warehouses%20and%20environmental%20justice_Final%20Report_021618.pdf, p. 21.
B-27(CONT.)
B-28
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-55
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
10
“As the warehouse and logistics industry continues to grow and net exponential profits at record
rates, more warehouse projects are being approved and constructed in low-income
communities of color and serving as a massive source of pollution by attracting thousands of
polluting truck trips daily. Diesel trucks emit dangerous levels of nitrogen oxide and particulate
matter that cause devastating health impacts including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (COPD), cancer, and premature death. As a result, physicians consider these pollution-
burdened areas ‘diesel death zones.”17
It is evident that the continued development of industrial warehouses within these communities poses a
significant environmental justice challenge. However, the acceleration of warehouse development is
only increasing despite the consequences on public health. The Inland Empire alone is adding 10 to 25
million SF of new industrial space each year.18
Fontana, the setting of the proposed Project, has long borne a disproportionately high pollution burden
compared to the rest of California. When using CalEnviroScreen 4.0, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks
each census tract in the State for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, we found that the Project’s
census tract is in the 79th percentile of most polluted census tracts in the State (see excerpt below).19
17 “Warehouses, Pollution, and Social Disparities: An analytical view of the logistics industry’s impacts on environmental justice communities across Southern California.” People’s Collective for Environmental Justice,
April 2021, available at: https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/warehouse_research_report_4.15.2021.pdf, p. 4.
18 “2020 North America Industrial Big Box Review & Outlook.” CBRE, 2020, available at: https://www.cbre.com/-/media/project/cbre/shared-site/insights/local-responses/industrial-big-box-report-inland-empire/local-response-2020-ibb-inland-empire-overview.pdf, p. 2.
19 “CalEnviroScreen 4.0.” California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), October 2021, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40.
B-28(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-56
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
11
Furthermore, the Data Visualization Tool for Mates V, a monitoring and evaluation study conducted by
SCAQMD, demonstrates that the City already exhibits a heightened residential carcinogenic risk from
exposure to air toxics. Specifically, the location of the Project site is in the 81th percentile of highest
cancer risks in the South Coast Air Basin, with a cancer risk of 476 in one million (see excerpt below).20
Therefore, development of the proposed warehouse would disproportionately contribute to and
exacerbate the health conditions of the residents in Fontana.
In April 2022, the American Lung Association ranked San Bernadino County as the worst for ozone
pollution in the nation.21 The Los Angeles Times also reported that San Bernardino County had 130 bad
air days for ozone pollution in 2020, violating federal health standards on nearly every summer day.22
Downtown Los Angeles, by comparison, had 22 ozone violation days in 2020. This year, the County
continues to face the worst ozone pollution, as it has seen the highest recorded Air Quality Index (“AQI”)
values for ground-level ozone in California.23 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)
20 “Residential Air Toxics Cancer Risk Calculated from Model Data in Grid Cells.” MATES V, 2018, available at:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/79d3b6304912414bb21ebdde80100b23/page/Main-Page/?views=Click-tabs-for-other-data%2CGridded-Cancer-Risk; see also: “MATES V Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study.” SCAQMD, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-studies/health-studies/mates-v.
21 “State of the Air 2022.” American Lung Association, April 2022, available at: https://www.lung.org/research/sota/key-findings/most-polluted-places.
22 “Southern California warehouse boom a huge source of pollution. Regulators are fighting back.” Los Angeles Times, May 2021, available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-05/air-quality-officials-target-warehouses-bid-to-curb-health-damaging-truck-pollution.
23 “High Ozone Days.” American Lung Association, 2022, available at: https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/states/california.
B-28(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-57
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
12
indicates that ozone, the main ingredient in “smog,” can cause several health problems, which includes
aggravating lung diseases and increasing the frequency of asthma attacks. The U.S. EPA states:
“Children are at greatest risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing
and they are more likely to be active outdoors when ozone levels are high, which increases their
exposure. Children are also more likely than adults to have asthma.”24
Furthermore, regarding the increased sensitivity of early-life exposures to inhaled pollutants, the
California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) states:
“Children are often at greater risk from inhaled pollutants, due to the following reasons:
• Children have unique activity patterns and behavior. For example, they crawl and play
on the ground, amidst dirt and dust that may carry a wide variety of toxicants. They
often put their hands, toys, and other items into their mouths, ingesting harmful
substances. Compared to adults, children typically spend more time outdoors and are
more physically active. Time outdoors coupled with faster breathing during exercise
increases children’s relative exposure to air pollution.
• Children are physiologically unique. Relative to body size, children eat, breathe, and
drink more than adults, and their natural biological defenses are less developed. The
protective barrier surrounding the brain is not fully developed, and children’s nasal
passages aren’t as effective at filtering out pollutants. Developing lungs, immune, and
metabolic systems are also at risk.
• Children are particularly susceptible during development. Environmental exposures
during fetal development, the first few years of life, and puberty have the greatest
potential to influence later growth and development.”25
A Stanford-led study also reveals that children exposed to high levels of air pollution are more
susceptible to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in adulthood.26 Thus, given children’s higher
propensity to succumb to the negative health impacts of air pollutants, and as warehouses release more
smog-forming pollution than any other sector, it is necessary to evaluate the specific health risk that
warehouses pose to children in the nearby community.
According to the above-mentioned study by the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and
University of Redlands, there are 640 schools in the South Coast Air Basin that are located within half a
24 “Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.” U.S. EPA, May 2021, available at: https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution.
25 “Children and Air Pollution.” California Air Resources Board (CARB), available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/children-and-air-pollution. 26 “Air pollution puts children at higher risk of disease in adulthood, according to Stanford researchers and others.”
Stanford, February 2021, available at: https://news.stanford.edu/2021/02/22/air-pollution-impacts-childrens-health/.
B-28(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-58
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
13
mile of a large warehouse, most of them in socio-economically disadvantaged areas.27 Regarding the
Shea and Acacia Project sites, the DEIR states:
“At the maximally exposed school child receptor (MEISC), the Kordyak Elementary School
located approximately 3,200 feet north of the Shea Project Site” (p. 4.3-37).
“At the maximally exposed school child receptor (MEISC), the Kordyak Elementary School
located approximately 2,090 feet north of the Acacia Project Site” (p. 4.3-39).
As demonstrated above, an elementary school is located approximately 3,200-feet and 2,090-feet from
the Shea and Acacia Project sites, respectively. This poses a significant threat because, as outlined
above, children are a vulnerable population that are more susceptible to the damaging side effects of air
pollution. As such, the Project would have detrimental short-term and long-term health impacts on local
children if approved.
A revised EIR should be prepared to evaluate the disproportionate impacts of the proposed warehouse
on the community adjacent to the Project, including an analysis of the impact on children and people of
color who live and attend school in the surrounding area. In order to evaluate the cumulative air quality
impact from the several warehouse projects proposed or built in a one-mile radius of the Project site,
the revised EIR should prepare a cumulative health risk assessment (“HRA”) to quantify the adverse
health outcome from the effects of exposure to multiple warehouses in the immediate area in
conjunction with the poor ambient air quality in the Project’s census tract. Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
The DEIR concludes that the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant health risk impact
based on a quantified construction and mobile-source operational health risk assessment (“HRA”),
which is detailed in Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (“HRA Report”) as Appendix B2 to the DEIR.
Specifically, the HRA Report estimates that the maximum cancer risk posed to nearby, existing
residential sensitive receptors associated with construction and operation of the combined Shea and
Acacia Projects would be 2.39 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD significance
threshold of 10 in one million (p. 11, Table ES-9).
27 “Warehouses, Pollution, and Social Disparities: An analytical view of the logistics industry’s impacts on environmental justice communities across Southern California.” People’s Collective for Environmental Justice,
April 2021, available at: https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/warehouse_research_report_4.15.2021.pdf, p. 4.
B-28(CONT.)
B-29
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-59
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
14
However, the DEIR’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent
less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons.
First, the DEIR’s construction HRA is incorrect, as it relies upon emissions estimates from a flawed and
unsubstantiated air model. Specifically, the DEIR states:
“The emissions calculations for the construction HRA component are based on an assumed mix
of construction equipment and hauling activity as presented in the Sierra Business Center
(Comprised of the North Fontana Industrial Complex (Acacia Project) & Sierra Industrial Facility
(Shea Project)) Air Quality Impact Analysis (“technical study”) prepared by Urban Crossroads,
Inc” (Appendix B2, p. 30).
As previously discussed, the DEIR’s air models incorrectly include Tier 3 and Tier 4 Interim emissions
standards and underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions. As a result, the HRA utilizes
an underestimated DPM concentration to calculate the health risk associated with Project construction.
As such, the IS/MND’s construction HRA and the resulting cancer risk should not be relied upon to
determine Project significance.
Second, the construction and operational HRAs utilize incorrect Fraction of Time At Home (“FAH”)
values. Specifically, the HRAs utilize a FAH value of 0.85 for the third trimester (age -0.25 to 0) and infant
(age 0 to 2) receptors, and an FAH value of 0.72 for the child receptors (age 2 to 16) (see excerpt below)
(Appendix B2, p. 27-28, Table 2-6, Table 2-7).
B-29(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-60
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
15
However, the FAH values used for the third trimester, infant, and childhood receptors are incorrect, as
SCAQMD guidance clearly states:
“For Tiers 1, 2, and 3 screening purposes, the FAH is assumed to be 1 for ages third trimester to
16. As a default, children are assumed to attend a daycare or school in close proximity to their
home and no discount should be taken for time spent outside of the area affected by the
facility’s emissions. People older than age 16 are assumed to spend only 73 percent of their time
at home.”28
Per SCAQMD guidance, the HRA Report should have used an FAH of 1 for the third trimester, infant, and
child receptors. Thus, by utilizing incorrect FAH values, the DEIR underestimates the cancer risk posed to
nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction and operation.
Third, further review of the HRA Report demonstrates that the HRAs may fail to include Age Sensitivity
Factors (“ASFs”). Regarding ASFs, OEHHA guidance states:
“Studies have shown that young animals are more sensitive than adult animals to exposure to
many carcinogens (OEHHA, 2009). Therefore, OEHHA developed age sensitivity factors (ASFs) to
take into account the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure (Table
8.3). These factors were developed and described in detail in OEHHA (2009). In the absence of
chemical-specific data, OEHHA recommends a default ASF of 10 for the third trimester to age 2
years, and an ASF of 3 for ages 2 through 15 years to account for potential increased sensitivity
to carcinogens during childhood.”
28 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7.
B-29(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-61
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
16
However, while the HRA Report includes ASFs in their exposure assumption tables, the equation to
produce carcinogenic risk estimates, as shown below, is incorrect and underestimated (p. 29).
Instead, the HRA Report should have used the following equation that includes ASFs:
Thus, by potentially failing to include ASF values in the carcinogenic risk estimate equation, the DEIR’s
HRAs underestimate the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project
construction and operation. As such, a revised EIR should be prepared to include an updated analysis
correctly accounting for ASF values.
Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The DEIR estimates that Acacia Project and combined Shea and Acacia Projects would result in net
annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 4,013.14- and 5,951.89-metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), respectively, both of which exceed the SCAQMD bright-line
significance threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 4.8-24, Table 4.8-5, Table 4.8-6).
B-29(CONT.)
B-30
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-62
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
17
As such, the DEIR concludes that the Project would result in a significant-and-unavoidable GHG impact.
Specifically, the DEIR concludes:
“Acacia Project: Significant Unavoidable Cumulatively-Considerable Impact. As noted above, a
majority of the Acacia Project’s GHG emissions would be produced by mobile sources. Neither
the Acacia Project Applicant nor the City of Fontana can substantively or materially affect
reductions in Acacia Project mobile-source emissions beyond federal and State regulations.
Accordingly, the City finds that the Acacia Project’s GHG emissions are a significant and
unavoidable cumulatively-considerable impact for which no feasible mitigation is available.
“Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: Significant Unavoidable Cumulatively-Considerable
Impact. As noted above, a majority of the cumulative Shea and Acacia Projects’ GHG emissions
would be produced by mobile sources. Neither the Shea Project Applicant, the Acacia Project
Applicant, or the City of Fontana can substantively or materially affect reductions in cumulative
Shea and Acacia Project mobile-source emissions beyond federal and State regulations.
Accordingly, the City finds that the cumulative Shea and Acacia Project’s GHG emissions are a
significant and unavoidable cumulatively-considerable impact for which no feasible mitigation is
available” (p. 4.8-28).
However, while we agree that the Project would result in a significant GHG impact, the DEIR’s assertion
that this impact is significant-and-unavoidable is incorrect. According to CEQA guidelines, an impact can
only be labeled as significant and unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation is considered. Here,
the DEIR claims that no feasible mitigation is available for the Project, and thus fails to implement any
mitigation measures whatsoever. However, this is incorrect. As discussed below, we have identified
numerous feasible mitigation measures the Project should implement.
B-30(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-63
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
18
Mitigation Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions
Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality and GHG
impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we
identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Feasible mitigation
measures can be found in the California Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices
document.29 Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, consideration of the following measures
should be made:
• Requiring off-road construction equipment to be hybrid electric-diesel or zero emission, where
available, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment to be equipped with CARB Tier
IV-compliant engines or better, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents,
purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply
the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction
activities.
• Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10
hours per day.
• Using electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers, and providing electrical hook
ups to the power grid rather than use of diesel-fueled generators to supply their power.
• Designating an area in the construction site where electric-powered construction vehicles and
equipment can charge.
• Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area.
• Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for
particulates or ozone for the project area.
• Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than three minutes.
• Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all
equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission
control tier classifications.
• Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to
identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts.
• Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile
organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
• Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction
employees.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for
construction employees.
• Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles engaged in drayage to or from the project site to be zero-
emission beginning in 2030.
29 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, September 2022, available at: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 8 – 10.
B-31
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-64
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
19
• Requiring all on-site motorized operational equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be
zero-emission with the necessary charging or fueling stations provided.
• Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business
operations.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than three minutes and requiring operators to turn off
engines when not in use.
• Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery
areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the
local air district, and the building manager.
• Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation
capacity that is equal to or greater than the building’s projected energy needs, including all
electrical chargers.
• Designing all project building roofs to accommodate the maximum future coverage of solar
panels and installing the maximum solar power generation capacity feasible.
• Constructing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the number of dock
doors at the project.
• Running conduit to designated locations for future electric truck charging stations.
• Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property
ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space,
constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and
requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at
loading docks.
• Oversizing electrical rooms by 25 percent or providing a secondary electrical room to
accommodate future expansion of electric vehicle charging capability.
• Constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the
number of employee parking spaces (for example, requiring at least 10% of all employee parking
spaces to be equipped with electric vehicle charging stations of at least Level 2 charging
performance)
• Running conduit to an additional proportion of employee parking spaces for a future increase in
the number of electric light-duty charging stations.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air
filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the
project.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air
monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project,
and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not
mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the
affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid
exposure to unhealthy air.
• Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel.
B-31(CONT.)
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-65
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
20
• Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load
management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
• Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages single-
occupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation,
including carpooling, public transit, and biking.
• Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated
parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking.
• Designing to LEED green building certification standards.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
• Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route.
• Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project
area.
• Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel
technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB-approved courses. Also
require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make
records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.
• Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay
program, and requiring tenants who own, operate, or hire trucking carriers with more than 100
trucks to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.
• Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and
Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into
the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and
operation.
Furthermore, as it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon
resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31,
2045, we emphasize the applicability of incorporating solar power system into the Project design. Until
the feasibility of incorporating on-site renewable energy production is considered, the Project should
not be approved.
A revised EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated
air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are
implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The revised EIR should also demonstrate a
commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the
Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become
available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional
information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of
B-32
B-31(CONT.)
B-34
B-33
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-66
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
21
care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants
practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing
results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was
reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or
otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by
third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Attachment A: Updated CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment B: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment C: Paul Rosenfeld CV
B-34(CONT.)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-67
RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER B:
Blum Collins & Ho, LLP
B-1 This introductory paragraph introduces the commentor, Blum Collins & Ho, LLP (BC&H) as
representing Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA). The commentor's client is
acknowledged.
B-2 BC&H provides a summary of the Shea Project and Acacia Project as excerpted from the DEIR. This
information is accurate.
B-3 BC&H refers to a letter from SWAPE as an attachment to their comment letter. Please refer to
Responses B-21 through B-34 for responses to SWAPE’s comments.
B-4A BC&H makes a general assertion that the DEIR does not adequately address environmental justice and
provides demographic information about the Project Site’s census tract from CalEPA’s
CalEnviroScreen 4.0. BC&H is referred to DEIR p. 2-1 where the DEIR discloses that the Project Site
is in the 94th percentile for pollution burden according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0. The pollution burden
of the Project Site’s vicinity was indeed taken into account throughout the analysis presented in the
DEIR and particularly in Subsection 4.3, Air Quality. DEIR pp. 4.3-2 through 4.3-4 provide
information about the human health consequences of criteria air pollutants; DEIR pp. 4.3-5 through
4.3-15 provide information about air quality trends and the improvement of air quality over time as the
result of increased stringency of regulatory requirements at various levels of federal, State, and
regional/local government; DEIR pp. 4.3-15 through 4.3-19 provide a summary of regulatory
requirements influencing air pollution reduction; and DEIR pp. 4.3-32 through 4.3-39 provide analyses
of the proposed Project’s impacts to sensitive receptors, including those as being reported by
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 as within the 94th percentile for pollution burden. There is no information supplied
in this comment that calls into question the adequacy of the DEIR or its conclusions.
B-4B BC&H references the Project Site as being a SB 535 Disadvantaged Community and claims that the
DEIR does not recognize environmental justice concerns. Refer to Response B-4, which explains that
the DEIR does recognize and disclose the pollution burden of the Project Site’s census tract. SB 535
targets disadvantaged communities in California for investment of proceeds from the State’s cap-and-
trade program to improve public health, quality of life and economic opportunity in California’s most
burdened communities at the same time reducing pollution. The environmental effects of the proposed
Project are fully evaluated in the DEIR and feasible mitigation measures are identified for significant
impacts that are within the City of Fontana’s jurisdictional authority to impose and enforce as required
by the State CEQA Statute and Guidelines. Recirculation of the DEIR is not required under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5 for the reasons provided in Final EIR Subsection F.4.
B-5 BC&H states that the California Building Energy Code Compliance (CBECC) software is the State’s
only approved energy compliance software and incorrectly claims that CalEEMod-based modeling
should not have been used to calculate the Project’s potential impacts to energy. The commenter is
correct that CBECC software is approved specifically for Title 24 compliance, which would be
required to be used for any development project at the time of its physical building construction
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-68
(approximately 12-18 months after entitlement). The compliance modeling software that is referenced
by the commenter is used to confirm that a final building design, with detailed information included in
its construction drawings, is Title 24 compliant. The Shea and Acacia Projects’ final designs and
construction drawings are not available at this time and are not typically prepared until after a proposed
development project is approved/entitled.
Accordingly, the DEIR and underlying technical studies correctly use CalEEMod to estimate energy
demand based on average intensity factors for similar land use types based on the Shea and Acacia
Project site plans provided to the City for entitlement. Since the occupants of the Project’s buildings
are unknown at this time, and information about the future building users’ energy use is also not
available at this time, it is appropriate to rely upon the CalEEMod default assumptions which have
been derived by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) based on survey
data. There is no requirement in CEQA to show specific compliance with 2022 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards based on conceptual building designs that are proposed at the entitlement stage
of a project’s approval process. This will be a requirement pursuant to State law prior to issuance of
each building permit and verified by the City’s Building and Safety Department.
B-6 BC&H claims that the Project does not comply with State Housing Element Law and California’s Housing Crisis Act of 2019. To the contrary, the Project Applicants will participate in the City of Fontana’s No Net Loss Density Bonus/ Replacement Program to ensure compliance with Housing Law
and California’s Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330). The City’s No Net Loss Density Bonus/Replacement Program was approved by the Fontana City Council by Ordinance No. 1906 on October 25, 2022, which is cited in Section 7.0, References, of the DEIR.6
B-7 BC&H asserts that the Project is not consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS, which is a regional plan
addressing six counties and 191 cities in Southern California. BC&H gives an opinion that the DEIR
should identify a significant land use impact due to conflicts with SCAG’s RTP/SCS, which identifies
goals related to greenhouse gas emissions reduction, support for healthy and equitable communities,
and adaptation to a changing climate, among other goals and performance measures. DEIR Subsection
4.11, Land Use and Planning, addresses potential conflicts with applicable plans, including the
RTP/SCS. As noted on DEIR pp. 4.11-15 and -16, the Project would not conflict with the broad
regional goals of the RTP/SCS given the Projects’ design features and the DEIR’s mitigation measures
addressing air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Regardless, as concluded on p. 4.11-18, the
DEIR finds that the Project would, however, result in a significant and unavoidable land use and
planning impact due to conflicts with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP), which has specific criterion for addressing projects on an individual level
as opposed to a regional level like the RTP/SCS. With respect to goals promoting greenhouse gas
reduction, climate resiliency, and healthy and equitable communities, these topics are addressed in
DEIR Subsection 4.3, Air Quality, and Subsection 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Those subsections
disclose that the Project would have significant and unavoidable air quality and greenhouse gas
emission impacts. As such, the DEIR provided ample information about the Project’s impacts for
informed decision-making. Last, inconsistency with a goal or policy of an applicable plan is not itself
6 City of Fontana Municipal Code. Ordinance No. 1906. https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=1184255
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-69
an environmental impact. (See Orinda Ass’n v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145.)
In this case, the underlying environmental impacts are already disclosed in Subsections 4.3, Air
Quality, and 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the DEIR.
B-8 BC&H focuses on healthy communities and housing goals and asserts that the DEIR does not provide
evidence to prove that the Project is consistent with each and every General Plan policy. First, Table
4.11-1 on DEIR pp. 4.11-8 through -14 provides a lengthy table demonstrating that the Project would
not conflict with applicable General Plan policies pertaining to the environment. Further, the Projects
must comply with the City of Fontana’s No Net Loss Density Bonus/ Replacement Program pursuant
to City Ordinance No. 1906 to ensure compliance with Housing Law and California’s Housing Crisis
Act of 2019 (SB 330). The City’s No Net Loss Density Bonus/Replacement Program was approved by
the Fontana City Council by Ordinance No. 1906 on October 25, 2022, which is cited in Section 7.0,
References, of the DEIR.
Further, while outside of CEQA, it is well-established that a project does not have to be consistent with
each and every goal or policy in a plan (such as the City’s General Plan) to be found consistent with
the overall intent of the plan. Determination of consistency requires only that the proposed project be
“compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in” the applicable
plan. (Cal. Gov. Code § 66473.5.) The courts have interpreted this provision as requiring that a project
be “in agreement or harmony with the terms of the applicable plan, not in rigid conformity with every
detail” of it. (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco
(2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 678; see also Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154
Cal.App.4th 807.)
B-9 BC&H makes a summary statement that additional General Plan analysis should be conducted. Please
refer to Responses B-4A through B-6 and B-7 for the reasons why additional analysis is not warranted.
B-10 BC&H argues that the estimated number of Project-created jobs cited in the DEIR is too low. Although
the NAIOP study cited in the DEIR is a reputable source of information about job creation for industrial
warehouse uses, like all employment-generating uses, the number of jobs that any private business will
generate is driven not only by the size of the building, but also by the nature of the business, the
economy, and an innumerable number of other factors. That said, the City has determined that, based
on the NAIOP study, the job creation information provided in the DEIR is a realistic and reasonably
likely outcome. Therefore, it is not unduly speculative under CEQA. (Vineyard Area Citizens for
Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412.) Nonetheless, the City
acknowledges that there are a variety of different data sources for job creation estimates including the
SCAG Employment Density Study cited by the commentor, and which was used in the Project’s VMT
analysis (see EIR Technical Appendix K4, Table 1, Employment Estimates). As such, a calculation of
job creation using the SCAG Employment Density Study has been added to Final EIR Subsection 4.14,
Population and Housing. As the estimate of 490 employees was utilized in analytical components of
the EIR to inform the VMT analysis, air quality analysis, and greenhouse gas analysis, no analytical
revisions need to be made in the Final EIR.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-70
Regarding BC&H’s speculative and unsupported argument that there may not be enough housing in
the area to support this number of workers, the commenter is incorrect. Immediately surrounding the
Project site, a new residential development is under construction on the east side of Sierra Avenue just
east of the Project site as stated on DEIR p. 2-2 and shown on Figure 2-1 on DEIR p. 2-3. This is
known as the Arboretum Specific Plan area, which the City’s 2021-2029 General Plan Housing
Element reports has an unbuilt entitled capacity of 2,569 residential units.7 Citywide, and as
documented in the City of Fontana’s 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element Update and presented
on DEIR p. 4.14-3, the City has planned to accommodate 17,477 new units that would be affordable
at a variety of household income levels to meet Fontana’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA).8 Given the number of housing units that exist in Fontana and that are in the planning stages
as documented in the City’s General Plan Housing Element, it is speculative and not reasonably
foreseeable that the Project would cause unplanned population growth or would result in physical
impacts to the environment resulting from unplanned housing growth. The commenter’s mere casual
expression of concern does not constitute evidence of a foreseeable direct or indirect environmental
impact.
B-11 BC&H provides statistical information from SCAG’s Connect SolCal document that is discussed on
DEIR pp. 2-7 and 5-3, showing that Fontana is growing in both jobs and population. The commentor
states that the Project represents less than 3% job capture rate when compared to the City’s projected
amount of growth and suggests that this information be added to the EIR. At the commenter’s request,
this information is added to Final EIR Subsection 5.3, as follows:
According to regional population projections included in SCAG’s Connect SoCal, the City of
Fontana’s population is projected to grow by 75,700 residents between 2016 and 2045
(approximately 0.99 percent annual growth) (SCAG, 2020). Over this same time period,
employment in the City is expected to add 18,400 new jobs (approximately 0.84 percent annual
job growth) (ibid). Economic growth would likely take place as a result of the Project’s
operation as commerce center facilities. Given that the Project would generate approximately
490 employees, the Project would represent approximately 2.6% of the City’s projected job
growth.
B-12 BC&H suggests that the EIR include an exhaustive cumulative analysis of job-generating development
projects that have been approved and planned in Fontana since 2016 to determine if SCAG’s growth
projection will be exceeded. This extent of analysis is not necessary. The DEIR presents the Project as
not being within the growth projection due to the proposed General Plan Amendments required as part
of the Projects’ approvals (DEIR pp. 2-7, 2-8, 3-5, 3-6, 4.11-7). The DEIR concludes that the Project
is not consistent with the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which relies on growth
projections (DEIR pp. 4.3-26 and -27). The Projects’ other effects on the environment from direct and
cumulative perspectives are presented throughout DEIR Section 4.0 and take into consideration that
Fontana and the surrounding jurisdictions are growing in both population and employment. In general,
7 City of Fontana, 2022. General Plan Housing Element Update, p. 3-144. Available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/37230/Certified-Housing-Element?bidId= 8 Ibid. Table B-16.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-71
growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the
ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential
growth significantly affects the environment in some other way. As concluded in DEIR Subsection
4.15, Public Services, and Subsection 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, agencies providing services
to the Project Sites can adequately service the Shea and Acacia Projects. Further, there is no indication
that development of the Projects in their proposed locations would cause environmental effects due to
growth beyond the limits of the Project Sites.
B-13 BC&H notes that an internet hyperlink to a reference source was improperly referenced in EIR Section
7.0. The commentor had opportunity to obtain a copy of this publication by contacting the City. Links
to resources on websites are provided in DEIR Section 7.0 for convenience of access and are not
required by CEQA. The hyperlink has removed from the Final EIR.
B-14 BC&H states that a detailed analysis of truck turning movements and emergency vehicle circulation
was not provided in the DEIR. The commenter is referred to EIR Technical Appendix K5,
Transportation Safety Evaluation, where this information is readily available. Information contained
in an EIR includes summarized technical data. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, “Placement of
highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR should be avoided through
inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR” (14 Cal
Code Regs §15147).
B-15 BC&H points out that the Project’s VMT analysis does not include trucks. The VMT analyses were
properly conducted. The City of Fontana’s VMT analysis guidelines, as established in the City’s Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment,
are consistent with the requirements established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 to evaluate a
project’s transportation impacts using automobile VMT as the metric. Refer to DEIR pp. 4.11-7
through 4.11-9.
B-16 BC&H repeats Comment B-5 and is referred to Response B-5. BC&H also summarizes arguments
made under Comments B-7 through B-11 and focuses on DEIR Subsection 5.2, alleging that because
the Project represents job growth on land that was not previously planned for an employment use, the
EIR should have automatically considered the Project as causing significant irreversible impacts. The
commenter is referred to the preceding DEIR Subsection 5.1, where all of the Project’s significant and
unavoidable impacts are clearly listed. Pertaining to Subsection 5.2, this subsection is meant to discuss
the Project’s consumption of non-renewable resources and whether such consumption is justified (14
Cal Code Regs §15126.2(d)). At the request of the commenter, the text has been revised to note that
the Project is not consistent with growth projections.
Based on the above, Shea Project and Acacia Project construction and operation would
require the commitment of limited, slowly renewable and non-renewable resources. However,
this commitment of resources would not be substantial as demonstrated in EIR Subsection
4.6, Energy. and would be Although both Projects entail General Plan Amendments that
would add previously unplanned job growth to the City of Fontana and that is not consistent
with regional and local growth forecasts and development goals for the area, construction of
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-72
the Projects will comply with CALGreen and have energy-efficient and low water use design
features to ensure that the use of non-renewable resources would be limited to essential
needs. Further, and as discussed in Subsection 4.8.2 (DEIR pp. 4.8-8 through 4.8-19), the
regulatory environment in California is trending toward the mandatory use of renewable
energy for building operations and passenger vehicle and truck power (electric engines). As
such, Tthe loss of suchnon-renewable resources as a result of the Projects would not be highly
accelerated when compared to existing conditions, and such resources would not be used in
an inefficient or wasteful manner.
B-17 BC&H focuses on DEIR Subsection 5.3, alleging that because the Project represents job growth on
land that was not previously planned for an employment use, the EIR should have automatically
considered the Project as being growth inducing in ways that lead to significant environmental effects.
This is an unsupported assumption not supported by any factual evidence. All of the Project’s potential
environmental effects are discussed in EIR Section 4.0, and there is no substantial evidence in NC&H’s
comment to support a finding that the small amount of economic growth stimulated by the Project
would lead to adverse environmental effects beyond what is disclosed in Section 4.0. To the contrary,
economic growth in a community can contribute to environmental sustainability and also
socioeconomic inclusion by reducing the need for local residents to commute outside of the local area
for work. This in turn reduces commute times and distances, improving opportunities for non-
vehicular home to work commuting and reducing motor vehicle related environmental effects. The
commenter’s theory is conclusionary and speculative and lacks any supporting evidence.
B-18 BC&H suggests that the EIR include an exhaustive cumulative analysis of job-generating development
projects that have been approved and planned in Fontana to determine the potential for cumulative
growth inducing effects. The commentor provides no substantial evidence that economic growth
across the City of Fontana, inclusive of the specific projects mentioned in the comment (some of which
are redevelopment projects and not new development on vacant land) would lead to significant
secondary environmental effects that are not already addressed in EIR Section 4.0. The comment only
provides a generalized opinion statement. No environmental subject areas are mentioned in the
comment. The commenter also is referred to Response D-17.
B-19 BC&H suggests adding additional alternatives to DEIR Section 6.0; however, the commenter does not
suggest any other alternatives that the City should have considered that would, as requested by CEQA
meet the fundamental Project’s objectives. Further BC&H does not suggest any alternative project,
nor is there any, that meets the Project’s objectives and that would reduce all of the Project’s significant
and unavoidable impacts to less than significant. For example, a General Plan Amendment (GPA)
would be required for any alternative to meet the Project’s objectives, and only an alternative that does
not entail a GPA (e.g., the “No Project Alternative”) would reduce the significant and unavoidable
impact associated with consistency to the SCAQMD AQMP to less than significant. CEQA Guidelines
§ 15126.6(a) requires an EIR to provide an evaluation of a “reasonable range” of alternatives to a
project, which the DEIR does through its three (3) Project alternatives including the No Project
Alternative as required by CEQA. In summary, the alternatives analysis provided in the DEIR
complies with the requirements of CEQA and no revisions to the DEIR are necessary to respond to
this comment.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-73
B-20 BC&H summarizes their comments and claims that the DEIR should be recirculated. The minor
changes made to the DEIR in response to these and other comments, which are summarized below in
Table F-2, are insignificant modifications and amplifications to an adequate EIR. The revisions do not
result in a new significant impact, but rather, clarify and supplement information already included in
the DEIR. Recirculation is not required as a result of these minor modifications.
B-21 SWAPE incorrectly claims that the DEIR’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas emissions impacts are underestimated. SWAPE also requests preparation of an updated EIR based on the
subsequent comments. This introductory comment is a summary of the detailed comments provided in the body of the comment letter, which are addressed and responded to in the following responses. No additional response is required.
B-22 SWAPE explains what CalEEMod is and how any changes to its input parameters must be justified.
They claim that there are several input parameters that are not disclosed in the DEIR, which the
commentor concludes underestimate the construction and operational emissions. As explained in
Responses B-23 through B-29, the input parameters used to support the conclusions in the DEIR are
correct and no revisions to the modeling are required.
B-23 ` SWAPE states that the Acacia Project air quality model includes only 29,630 s.f. of refrigerated
warehouse space, and the Shea Project air quality model includes only 20,300 s.f. refrigerated
warehouse space, and that these assumptions are unsupported. The City of Fontana will impose a
condition of approval on the Projects that prohibit the buildings from being used for cold storage absent
a new discretionary approval from the City. Therefore, this comment does not raise any environmental
concerns.
B-24 SWAPE states that by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural coating
emission factors, the air quality models may underestimate the Project’s construction-related
ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine significance of the Project’s impacts.
The VOC emission rates assumed in the DEIR and supporting technical analyses were extracted from
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. SCAQMD’s Rule 1113, as
summarized in Table 1 of the Rule,9 identifies the current limit for the Building Envelope as 50 g/l,
which is consistent with the analysis contained in the DEIR and establishes a VOC content limits for
the “building envelope” coating category. This is appropriate to use for the Project because the primary
painting activities would be for the physical interior and exterior structure (walls), which constitute the
“building envelope.” The SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 also serves as substantial evidence because
SCAQMD is the applicable jurisdiction governing air quality in the Project’s region. As such, the
analysis in the DEIR and supporting technical analysis is correct and no changes to the DEIR are
warranted.
B-25 SWAPE claims that changes were made to the CalEEMod defaults and that these changes are not
substantiated or identified in the DEIR. To the contrary, the DEIR and associated Technical Appendix
9 SQAQMD, 2016. Rule 1113. Available at https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/compliance/vocs/architectural-
coatings/tos
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-74
B1 on Page 43 state that “The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a
reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA guidelines.” In this
case, site-specific information was provided by the Project Applicants relative to the Projects’
construction schedules and this is an appropriate approximation of the anticipated duration of
architectural coatings.
B -26 SWAPE gives a CalEEMod model assumption used in the Projects’ analyses, that the offroad
construction equipment fleet would adhere to Tier 3 and Tier 4 interim emissions standards and asserts
that the assumption is incorrect due to there being no guarantee that these standards would be
implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project Sites. This is incorrect. The City of Fontana’s
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards Ordinance No. 1879 (see DEIR p. 4.3-19)
requires that CARB Tier 3 and Tier 4 equipment be used for the construction of all commerce center
projects in the City, which includes the proposed Project. For the purposes of the Project’s air quality
and greenhouse gas emissions analyses, it was assumed that equipment under 100 horsepower will be
Tier 4, and equipment over 100 horsepower will be Tier 3, in compliance with the City’s Ordinance
No. 1879, which requires the highest rated CARB tier of construction equipment available. In reality,
higher rated equipment is typically readily available in construction equipment fleets, as older pieces
of equipment are being replaced with newer and higher rated tier equipment each year, so the analysis
is assumed to overstate, rather than understate, air pollutant emissions from construction equipment.
For these reasons, no revisions are warranted as a result of this comment.
B-27 SWAPE attempts to provide updated modeling of the Project’s construction-related emissions of VOC
emissions based on CalEEMod defaults and not based on the information included in the DEIR.
However, the commenter provides no substantial evidence to support the use of CalEEMod defaults
when, as explained above, there are more accurate and appropriate Project specific inputs available.
Responses B-23 to B-27 above address the CalEEMod assumptions, refute the commenter’s assertions,
and support the fact that the DEIR and supporting technical studies are correct. No changes to the
DEIR or its supporting technical studies are needed.
B-28 SWAPE presents general information about disadvantaged and minority populations being impacted
by commerce centers across the South Coast Air Basin and claims that the Project will
disproportionately impact these populations. The commenter is referred to DEIR Subsection 4.4, pp.
4.3-26 to -39, in which objective information is presented about the Project’s less than significant
human health impacts to sensitive receptors. Acknowledgment of the Project Site’s census tract as
being burdened by pollution is presented on DEIR p. 2-1 and information about the trend of air quality
improvement across the Air Basin is presented on DEIR pp. 4.3-5 to -15. As an information disclosure
document, information about the Project Site’s existing setting, the regulatory environment aimed at
air quality improvement, and the Project’s impacts to sensitive receptors is available in the DEIR to
foster informed decision-making. No revisions are necessary.
B-29 SWAP wrongly claims that the DEIR’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well
as the less-than-significant impact conclusion using significance criteria published by the SCAQMD,
is incorrect. Contrary to the commenter’s assertion that this data was not presented, the DEIR and
underlying Technical Appendix B2 include a construction and operational Health Risk Assessment
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-75
(HRA), including the total combined risk for Project construction and operation combined.
Additionally, the commenter erroneously attempts to add the maximum risk estimates from the
Project’s construction to the Project’s operations without adjusting the combined exposure, which is
correctly presented in Technical Appendix B2 (see pp. 2-3) under the header Construction and
Operational Impacts. Additionally, the analysis in Technical Appendix B2 correctly evaluates risk
based on the fraction of time at home (FAH) based on SCAQMD and OEHHA guidance as discussed
and disclosed in the Technical Appendix B2.
B-30 SWAPE summarizes and agrees with the DEIR’s conclusion that the Project’s greenhouse gas
emissions impact is significant but disagrees that the impact cannot be mitigated to less than significant.
Refer to Response B-31 which addresses the commenter’s suggested additional mitigation measures.
B-31 SWAPE presents a list of 38 suggested measures to further reduce the Project’s criteria air pollutant
and greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the suggestions are duplicative of requirements that are
already mandated for the Project through federal, State, and local regulations, including the City’s
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Ordinance No. 1879 and the 2022 version of CALGreen
that went into effect on January 1, 2023. Further, the commenter should note that the Projects’ air
pollutant emission impacts for construction and operation are less than significant, and mitigation is
not required to reduce less than significant impacts. Pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions, a large
majority of the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions are from mobile sources (vehicle and equipment
tailpipes) and not from area sources or energy sources (from operating and powering the buildings).
After consideration of the 38 suggestions made by the commenter, the City has added the following
mitigation measures to the Final EIR, which the City finds are not duplicative of regulatory
requirements, are feasible, have an essential nexus between the Project’s cumulatively-considerable
greenhouse gas emission impact, and are within the City’s jurisdictional authority and ability to require
and enforce.
MM 4.8-1 No portion of the buildings shall include cold storage space.
MM 4.8-2: Building roofs shall be solar-ready and shall be outfitted with a solar photovoltaic
system that either supplies 100 percent of the building user’s anticipated electricity
demand or is maximally sized given applicable Building Code requirements, clearance
requirements around roof-mounted equipment, Southern California Edison
interconnection regulations, transformer capacity, and other code compliance
constraints. Prior to issuance of a shell building permit, the City of Fontana shall
verify that all or part of the roof structure is designed to support the installation of
solar panels. The roof-mounted solar photovoltaic systems shall be installed within 12
months of issuance of the first occupancy permit.
B-32 SWAPE suggests that the Projects incorporate solar panels. Refer to Response B-31 and added
Mitigation Measure MM 4.8-2.
B-33 SWAPE suggests that the DEIR be revised to include additional mitigation and revised technical
analyses. The commenter is referred to Responses B-5 through B-32.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-76
B-34 SWAPE states they would like to reserve their right to revise or amend their comments. No response
is required. Additional opportunities for public comment will be provided during the Projects’
decision-making process.
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-77
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter C
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
“Bringing People Together to Improve Our Social and Natural Environment”
Mailing Address Physical Address Tel: 951-360-8451 P.O. Box 33124 3840 Sunnyhill Drive, Suite A Fax: 951-360-5950 Jurupa Valley CA 92519 Jurupa Valley CA 92509 www.ccaej.org
January 3, 2023 City of Fontana – Planning Department Salvador Quintanilla – Senior Planner 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 Submitted via email to squintanilla@fontana.org. Re: Sierra Business Center Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2022030544) Dear Mr. Quintanilla, This letter is in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) that has been completed for the proposed Sierra Business Center (“Project”) and made available for public examination and comment. After reviewing the documents provided, we would like to provide the following comments and concerns with what is proposed. Industrial development, such as the proposed Project, can result in high daily volumes of heavy-duty diesel truck traffic and operation of on-site equipment (e.g., forklifts and yard tractors) that emit toxic diesel emissions, and contribute to regional air pollution and global climate change. The Project will expose our communities to elevated levels of air pollution. Residences are located south and west of the Project with the closest residences located directly adjacent to the Project’s eastern boundary. According to the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool Version 4.0 (CalEnviroScreen 4.0), the location of the Project is ranked at the 80th percentile in the tool, including a rank of 94th percentile for pollution burden (Image 1). Thus it is extremely concerning that the Project is being proposed for such a location. Although the City of Fontana recently adopted updated standards meant to better address the ill impacts that warehousing has on the overall community, they are limited to application on projects which are 400,000 square feet or larger. At 1999,999 square feet (Shea Project) and 385,043 square feet (Acacia Project), both of the proposed Project facilities would fall short of needing to meet those requirements and would only be subject to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 2305, also known as the Indirect Source Rule (“ISR”). While both the ISR and the City’s standards are better than nothing, concern remains due to the fact that beyond the homes adjacent the Project site, there are also several other concentrations of sensitive receptors within a mile including Sierra Crest Park (700 feet), Kordyak Elementary School (1,600 feet), Condor Park (1,870 feet), Fitzgerald Elementary School (2,700 feet), Alec Fergusson Park (3,100 feet), Oak Grove Park (4,100 feet), and Kucera Middle School (4,390 feet). As locations where people both congregate and where the people congregating are more likely to be children, the construction of the Project presents a heightened danger as children are impacted far more heavily than adults by the pollution put out by the vehicles serving the Project. Thus, it is imperative that more be done to ensure that impacts to users of these locations are fully mitigated to ensure no harm is done.
C-1
C-2
C-3
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-78
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
“Bringing People Together to Improve Our Social and Natural Environment”
Mailing Address Physical Address Tel: 951-360-8451 P.O. Box 33124 3840 Sunnyhill Drive, Suite A Fax: 951-360-5950 Jurupa Valley CA 92519 Jurupa Valley CA 92509 www.ccaej.org
Our community and children are burdened by multiple sources of air pollution, as parents are constantly changing pillowcases from bloody noses, missing work/school for asthma attacks, and overwhelming medical bills from the impacts of the air quality. There are several particles that are concerning for our community: Ozone and Particulate Matter (PM). Within the PM category there are two sizes PM10, which is the large dust that used to block our views of the mountains, which is made up of dust and particles that you can see. PM2.5 is a microparticle that we cannot see but is able to pass directly into the bloodstream and through the blood-brain barrier, leading to long term impacts such as: heart damage, respiratory illness, hepatic diseases, hematological diseases, neurological disorders, pulmonary diseases, mental health impacts, intellectual delays, and the list goes on. CalEPA has set the threshold for PM2.5 at 12ppb, but as you can see in Image 2, Fontana is many times the healthy threshold.
Maternal exposure to fine and ultrafine PM directly and indirectly yields numerous adverse birth outcomes and impacts on children’s respiratory systems, immune status, brain development, and cardiometabolic health. The biological mechanisms underlying adverse effects include direct placental translocation of ultrafine particles, placental and systemic maternal oxidative stress and inflammation elicited by both fine and ultrafine PM, epigenetic changes, and potential endocrine effects that influence long-term health. Policies to reduce maternal exposure and health consequences in children should be a high priority
Although, PM2.5 levels are regulated, it is recognized that minority and low socioeconomic status groups experience disproportionate exposures. Moreover, PM2.5 levels are not routinely measured or currently regulated. Consequently, preventive strategies that inform neighborhood/regional planning and clinical/nutritional recommendations are needed to mitigate maternal exposure and ultimately protect children’s health. This plan fails to mitigate any of the impacts, as this is a speculative project and fails to consider the community and the true cost in healthcare and shortened life expectancy such a project would have on this community. Since the Project description provided in the NOP does not explicitly state that the proposed industrial land would not be used for cold storage, there is a possibility that trucks and trailers visiting the Project-site would be equipped with Transport Refrigeration Units (“TRUs”). TRUs on trucks and trailers can emit copious quantities of diesel exhaust while operating within the Project-site. Residences and other sensitive receptors (e.g., daycare facilities, senior care facilities, and schools) located near where these TRUs could be operating would be exposed to diesel exhaust emissions that would result in a significant cancer risk impact to the nearby community. If the Project would be used for cold storage, the City must model air pollutant emissions from on-site TRUs in the EIR, as well as include potential cancer risks from on-site TRUs in the Project’s HRA. If the Project will not be used for cold storage, the City and applicant should include one of the following design measures in the EIR:
A Project design measure requiring contractual language in tenant lease agreements that prohibits tenants from operating TRUs within the Project-site; or
Condition requiring a restrictive covenant over the parcel that prohibits the applicant’s use of TRUs on the property unless the applicant seeks and receives an amendment to its conditional use permit allowing such use.
C-4
C-5
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-79
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
“Bringing People Together to Improve Our Social and Natural Environment”
Mailing Address Physical Address Tel: 951-360-8451 P.O. Box 33124 3840 Sunnyhill Drive, Suite A Fax: 951-360-5950 Jurupa Valley CA 92519 Jurupa Valley CA 92509 www.ccaej.org
All of these concerns must be addressed prior to the issuance of a final EIR and the Project approved. Thank you for your time and we are available to answer any questions that there may be about the comments provided in this letter. Sincerely,
Ana Gonzalez Executive Director CCAEJ is a long-standing community based organization with over 40 years of experience advocating for stronger regulations through strategic campaigns and building a base of community power. Most notably, CCAEJ’s founder Penny Newman won a landmark federal case against Stringfellow Construction which resulted in the `Stringfellow Acid Pits’ being declared one of the first Superfund sites in the nation. CCAEJ prioritizes community voices as we continue our grassroots efforts to bring lasting environmental justice to the Inland Valley Region.
C-6
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-80
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE “Bringing People Together to Improve Our Social and Natural Environment”
Mailing Address Physical Address Tel: 951-360-8451 P.O. Box 33124 3840 Sunnyhill Drive, Suite A Fax: 951-360-5950 Jurupa Valley CA 92519 Jurupa Valley CA 92509 www.ccaej.org
Image 1: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 results for Census Tract 6071002704 where the proposed Project would be located.
C-7
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-81
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
“Bringing People Together to Improve Our Social and Natural Environment”
Mailing Address Physical Address Tel: 951-360-8451 P.O. Box 33124 3840 Sunnyhill Drive, Suite A Fax: 951-360-5950 Jurupa Valley CA 92519 Jurupa Valley CA 92509 www.ccaej.org
Image 2. Data from Cal EPA showing that the Fontana community is located in an area which exceeds the 12-ppb standard that is acceptable for sensitive receptors.
C-7(CONT.)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-82
RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER C:
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
C-1 CCAEJ makes an introductory statement. Please refer to Responses C-2 through C-7 for responses to
CCAEJ’s comments.
C-2 CCAEJ expresses general concern about diesel trucks and diesel equipment that emit air pollutants
and expose people to toxic air pollutants and associates the Project Site’s location with the existing
pollution burden of people living in the Site’s census tract. CCAEJ is referred to DEIR p. 2-1 where
the EIR discloses that the Project Site is in the 94th percentile for pollution burden according to
CalEnviroScreen. The pollution burden of the Project Site’s vicinity was taken into account as part of
the EIR’s analyses and particularly in Subsection 4.3, Air Quality. DEIR pp. 4.3-2 through 4.3-4
provides information about the human health consequences of criteria air pollutants, pp. 4.3-5 through
4.3-15 provide information about air quality trends and the improvement of air quality over time; pp.
4.3-15 through 4.3-19 provide a summary of regulatory requirements influencing air pollution
reduction; and pp. 4.3-32 through 4.3-39 provide analyses of the proposed Project’s impacts to
sensitive receptors, including those as being reported by CalEnviroScreen as within the 94th percentile
for pollution burden. The DEIR concludes based on objective modeling conducted by air quality
experts at Urban Crossroads, Inc., that the Project would have a less than significant human health
impact based on the significance criteria used by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is the regulatory agency charged with bringing air quality levels in the
South Coast Air Basin to acceptable levels.
C-3 CCAEJ expresses fear that the Project will not be subject to the City of Fontana’s Ordinance No. 1891,
which the City adopted in April 2022 and that applies to new commerce center development in
Fontana.10 The commenter misunderstands the Ordinance, which is applicable to all commerce center
buildings in the City of Fontana regardless of their size. The only requirements of the Ordinance that
are applicable only to buildings greater than 400,000 s.f. are larger setback requirements (Sec. 9-71(1)
and (7)), a requirement for on-site amenities (Sec. 9-72(10)), and a requirement for solar panels to
100% power all non-refrigerated portions of the building (Sec. 9-73(4)). CCAEJ is referred to
Response B-31, which explains that Mitigation Measure MM 4.8-2 has been added to the Final EIR to
require solar panels on the buildings. As the commenter points out, the Project also will be subject to
the SCAQMD’s Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (ISR). The ISR requires warehouses greater than
100,000 s.f. in size to directly reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) and diesel particulate matter (PM)
emissions, or to otherwise reduce emissions and exposure of these pollutants in nearby communities.
CCAEJ requests that more be done due the Project Site’s location near sensitive receptors but does not
make any specific requests in this comment. Please also refer to Response C-2, above.
C-4 CCAEJ lists human health consequences from exposure to air pollution and focuses on children as a
sensitive segment of the population. The DEIR provides information on human health effects from
exposure to criteria air pollutants on pp. 4.3-2 through 4.3-4 and presents the Project’s effects to
10 City of Fontana, 2022. Ordinance No. 1891. Available at: Ordinance No. 1891 | Code of Ordinances | Fontana, CA |
Municode Library
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-83
sensitive receptors on pp. 4.3-32 to 4.3-39. As concluded by the DEIR, based on the significance
criteria published by the SCAQMD, the Project would have a less-than-significant effect on human
health.
C-5 CCAEJ asks for clarification about the Project’s intent for cold storage space and suggests mitigation
measures should the buildings be used for cold storage. The City of Fontana will impose a condition
of approval on the Projects that probit the buildings from being used for cold storage. Refer to Response
B-31.
C-6 CCAEJ makes a closing comment and provides contact information. The contact information is noted,
and the City thanks CCAEJ for their comments.
C-7 CCAEJ attaches screen shots from websites showing the location of the Project Site in relation to
pollution burden mapping provided in CalEnviroScreen 4.0, and in maps produced by the CalEPA.
These exhibits are acknowledged. The DEIR acknowledged the pollution burden of the Project Site’s
census tract on DEIR p. 2-1.
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-84
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter D
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Channing Hawkins, Div. 4 President, Board of Directors Gregory Young, Div. 5 Vice President, Board of Directors Angela Garcia, Div. 1 Director Dan Jenkins, Div. 2 Director Kelvin Moore, Div. 3 Director
ESTABLISHED AS A PUBLIC AGENCY IN 1952 WEST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT'S MISSION IS TO PROVIDE OUR CUSTOMERS WITH SAFE, HIGH QUALITY AND RELIABLE WATER SERVICE AT A REASONABLE RATE AND IN A SUSTAINABLE MANNER.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Van M. Jew Acting General Manager
855 W. Base Line Rd., P.O. Box 920 / Rialto, CA 92377-0920 FAX (909) 875-7284 Administration
Ph: (909) 875-1804 / Fax: (909) 875-1849 FAX (909) 875-1361 Engineering
www.wvwd.org FAX (909) 875-1849 Customer Service
December 01, 2022 Salvador Quintanilla City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Ave Fontana, CA 92335 Subject: City of Fontana - Draft EIR for Acacia and Shea Project Site (Sierra Business Center Project) MCN21-099, DRP21-039, TPM21-018, GPA21-005 and ZCA21-007 Dear Mr. Quintanilla, Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject project. We offer the following comments on behalf of the West Valley Water District (WVWD): 1. Both developments are within the WVWD service area and do not have any active water services currently serving the parcels. The applicants will be required to apply for and submit a plan check for the installation of all new water services associated with the development of these two projects. 2. Both projects will be required to abandon the existing 6” Steel CML&C water main in Sierra Ave and extend a new 12” Ductile Iron water main in Sierra Ave to its northern most property line, along with various off-site improvements as required to provide domestic, irrigation and fire water services. 3. All water improvements proposed for installation must be installed by one of the District’s preapproved contractors. All development fees and deposits must be paid prior to construction of any off-site water facilities. 4. The Developer for each project will be required to enter into a Water Infrastructure Installation and Conveyance Agreement for the main line extension in Sierra Ave. 5. The Developers shall adhere to the most recent District's "Standards for Domestic Water Facilities" and "Water Service Rules and Regulations" and any amendments. 6. All plan check requirements, applications and fees can be found on the District’s Engineering web page. Should you or the applicant have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (909) 875-1804 ext 373. WEST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Daniel Guerra Engineering Development Coordinator
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-85
RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER D:
West Valley Water District
D-1 WVWD acknowledges that the Project Sites are within the WVWD service area and that the Project
Applicants will need to apply for and submit a plant check for installation of new water service facilities
to service the site. This information is consistent with the DEIR. DEIR p. 2-12 and Subsection 4.19,
Utilities and Service Systems, disclose that the Project Site is within WVWD’s service area and
WVWD is listed as a Responsible Agency for the Project on DEIR pp. 1-5 and 3-39.
D-2 WVWD describes the water line removals and installations that will be the obligation of the Project.
This information is consistent with the DEIR as presented on DEIR p. 3-21 with exception of the size
of the main line to be abandoned. WVWD describes the line to be abandoned as a 6-inch line instead
of an 8-inch line.
D-3 WVWD provides information about fees and requirements to use WVWD approved contractors. This
information is noted but is not particularly relevant to the DEIR.
D-4 WVWD requests that the Project Applicants enter into a water line installation and conveyance
agreement with WVWD. This information is noted and has been provided to the Project Applicants
but is not particularly relevant to the DEIR.
D-5 WVWD notes that the Projects are required to adhere to WVWD standards and regulations. This
information is noted and has been provided to the Project Applicants but is not particularly relevant to
the DEIR.
D-6 WVWD brings awareness to their website for information about WVWD applications and fees. This
information is noted and has been provided to the Project Applicants but is not particularly relevant to
the DEIR.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-86
F.3 ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, AND REVISIONS TO THE DEIR
Substantive changes made to the text, tables, and/or exhibits of the DEIR in response to public comments are
itemized in Table F-2, Errata Table of Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR. Additions are
shown in Table F-2 as underline text and deletions shown as stricken text. Minor changes to the DEIR (e.g.,
corrections of non-substantive typographical errors) are not listed in Table F-2. No corrections or additions
made to the DEIR are considered substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional
environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Table F-2 Errata Table of Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
Page(s) Section(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
S-55 to S-
58
4.4-21, -22
Executive Summary
4.4, Biological
Resources
Revisions were made to Mitigation Measure 4-4-1 for the Acacia Project at the
recommendation of the CDFW.
MM 4.4-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that
would authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to mitigate for the
loss of Parry’s spineflower plants and habitat for the Los Angeles pocket mouse
through one or a combination of the following methods.
1. The applicant shall acquire and preserve in perpetuity or ensure that a new
permanent conservation easement is placed over an off-site property
containing at least 1,396 2,792 Parry’s spineflower plants. The property
shall be located in the Inland Empire and City of Fontana. If no properties
are feasibly available in Fontana, property within a 10-mile radius of the
Project Site will be acceptable. If no properties are feasibly available
within a 10-mile radius, any property within San Bernardino County or
Riverside County will be acceptable. pProof of attempts to identify
properties for this purpose in Fontana and in a 10-mile radius of the Project
Site, and proof of acquisition and perpetual preservation of the selected
property having at least 2,792 Parry’s spineflower shall be provided to the
City of Fontana. Preserved habitat shall be protected with a deed restriction
or conservation easement recorded in favor of the local jurisdiction or a
local conservation entity.
2. The applicant shall retain a qualified restoration ecologist with experience
developing mitigation plans for sensitive plant species to prepare a Parry’s
Spineflower Mitigation Plan (Plan) in consultation with the Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Gardens or other qualified entity that has experience with
Parry’s spineflower. The Plan shall include, at a minimum: (1)
collection/salvage methods for Parry’s spineflower seed and topsoil from
the Acacia Project Site; (2) details regarding the transfer, with or without
temporary storage, of the collected/ salvaged seed and topsoil; (3) a time
schedule for salvage and seeding at a recipient site; (4) identification of an
available and suitable location in the City of Fontana or nearby area in the
range of the Parry’s spineflower with suitable sandy soil that will function
as the recipient site for the collected/salvaged seed and soil; (5) detailed
site preparation and introduction techniques for the recipient site; (6) a
description of supplemental irrigation at the recipient site, if needed; (7)
success criteria based on fast and profuse germination, healthy growth
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-87
Table F-2 Errata Table of Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
Page(s) Section(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
rates, adaptive phenotypic plasticity (ability to sustain in the face of
environmental variables at the recipient site), and resistance to and high
competitive ability, ensuring long-term survival of at least 1,277 plants in
a self-sustaining environment; and (8) a detailed monitoring program,
commensurate with the success criteria. The Plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the City of Fontana and implementation of the Plan shall be a
condition of the grading permit. The recipient site shall be protected with a
deed restriction or conservation easement recorded in favor of the local
jurisdiction or a local conservation entity. Monitoring and maintenance of
the recipient site by a qualified biologist shall be required for 5 years or
until the success criteria goals of the Plan have been met.
3. The applicant shall pay fees into a mitigation bank or in lieu fund
established in whole or in part for the purpose of preserving Parry’s
spineflower plants, to mitigate for the loss of 1,396 plants at a 2:1
mitigation ratio. Proof of fee payment shall be provided to the City of
Fontana.
S-13, -14
S-59, -60
4.4-22, -23
Executive Summary
4.4, Biological
Resources
Revisions were made to Mitigation Measure 4-4-2 for the Shea and Acacia Projects at
the recommendation of the CDFW.
MM 4.4-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that would
authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to retain the services of
a qualified biologist (“Dedicated Biologist”) to conduct trapping of Los Angeles
pocket mouse for a minimum of five (5) days before ground disturbance
commences and move any captured mice to a location of suitable habitat outside
of the project’s impact footprint. The Dedicated Biologist also shall monitor
grubbing, clearing, and mass grading activities for sensitive animal species
including Los Angeles pocket mouse, coast horned lizard and coastal whiptail.
The Dedicated bBiologist shall be required to be present during grubbing,
clearing, and mass grading activities and if these species are observed, the
Dedicated bBiologist shall have the authority to pause or redirect construction
equipment away from observed species and direct or move these animals out of
harm’s way to the extent practicable, to a location of suitable habitat outside of
the project’s impact footprint. If approved by CDFW, the Dedicated Biologist
shall set traps for Los Angeles pocket mouse at night during the grading phase
and move any captured mice to a location of suitable habitat outside of the
project’s impact footprint the next morning before grading activities resume.
The grubbing, clearing, and mass grading contractor(s) shall be required via a
note on the grading plans to follow the instructions of the monitoring Dedicated
bBiologist.
S-15 to S-
19
S-61 to -64
4.4-23 to -
24
Executive Summary
4.4, Biological
Resources
Revisions were made to Mitigation Measure 4-4-4 for the Shea and Acacia Projects at
the recommendation of the CDFW.
MM 4.4-4 In order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish
and Game Code, the initial clearing, grubbing, and grading of land is
recommended to but not required to occur outside of the nesting season (i.e.,
outside of the period February 1 through September 15). If Prior to any ground-
disturbing activities must occur during the nesting season, a pre-construction
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-88
Table F-2 Errata Table of Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
Page(s) Section(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified Dedicated Bbiologist 3
days prior to the ground-disturbing activities. If birds are found to be nesting
inside or within 250 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the impact area, construction
shall be postponed at the discretion of a qualified biologist, until it is determined
that the nest is no longer active.
1. The applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced
in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern;
conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting
surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating
nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest
success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization
measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and
minimization measures.
2. Surveys shall be conducted by the Designated Biologist at the appropriate
time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3
days prior to the initiation of project activities. Surveys shall encompass all
suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and
structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the
project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey
participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure
the data collected is complete and accurate. If a nest is suspected, but not
confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall establish a disturbance-free buffer
until additional surveys can be completed, or until the location can be
inferred based on observations. If a nest is observed, but thought to be
inactive, the Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest for one hour (four
hours for raptors during the non-breeding season) prior to approaching the
nest to determine status. The Designated Biologist shall use their best
professional judgement regarding the monitoring period and whether
approaching the nest is appropriate.
3. When an active nest is confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall
immediately establish a conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest
based on their best professional judgement and experience. The Designated
Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the
onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or
type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the
efficacy of the buffer. If the Designated Biologist determines that such
project activities may be causing an adverse reaction, the Designated
Biologist shall adjust the buffer accordingly or implement alternative
avoidance and minimization measures, such as redirecting or rescheduling
construction or erecting sound barriers.
S-19 to S-
21
Executive Summary
Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 for the Shea and Acacia Projects was added at the request of
CDFW.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-89
Table F-2 Errata Table of Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
Page(s) Section(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
S-65 to S-
67
4.4-25
4.4, Biological
Resources
MM 4.4-5 Implementation of preconstruction surveys prior to ground
disturbance and ongoing monitoring during grubbing, clearing, and grading
activities for burrowing owl are required as follows:
1. Pre-Construction Survey for Burrowing Owls: The applicant shall retain a
Designated biologist to perform a survey for burrowing owls at least 30 days
prior to construction activities. If the results are negative, construction may
commence with no restrictions other than a requirement for ongoing
monitoring as provided for in (2) below.
2. Burrowing Owls Observed During Construction: If burrowing owls are
observed within the Project site during Project grubbing, clearing, or
grading, burrowing owl habitat shall be avoided and the Designated
biologist shall implement any appropriate avoidance and minimization
measures.
3. Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. If burrowing owls are
detected on the Project site, a Burrowing owl Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to relocation
of owls. The Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include
the number and location of occupied burrow sites and details on adjacent or
nearby suitable habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat
is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation of artificial
burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) shall also be included in
the Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. As compensation for
the scenario of loss of burrowing owl nesting and foraging habitat, the
Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall identify mitigation
including acquisition and funding the permanent protection for the loss of
burrowing owl habitat consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report.
S-14, -15
S-60, -61
4.4-25, -26
Executive Summary
4.4, Biological
Resources
Mitigation Measure 4.4-6 for the Shea and Acacia Projects was added at the request of
CDFW:
MM 4.4-6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that
would authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to retain the
services of a qualified biologist (“Dedicated Biologist”) to monitor all
construction activities that entail native vegetation removal. The Dedicated
Biologist shall be required to contact CDFW if any threatened or endangered
species are identified on the construction site during monitoring of the
construction activities and direct construction activities away from threatened
and endangered species until California Endangered Species Act authorization
is obtained from CDFW.
4.4-27 4.4, Biological
Resources
The conclusion statements for impacts to migratory fish and wildlife species was
supplemented to acknowledge the addition of Mitigation Measure 4.4-5.
Shea Project: Less-than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation. MM 4.4-4 and
MM 4.4-5 assures compliance with the MBTA, which would reduce the Shea
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-90
Table F-2 Errata Table of Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
Page(s) Section(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
Project’s potential impact to migratory nesting birds to below a level of
significance.
Acacia Project: Less-than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation. MM 4.4-4 and
MM 4.4-5 assures compliance with the MBTA, which would reduce the
Acacia Project’s potential impact to migratory nesting birds to below a level
of significance.
Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: Less-than-Significant Impacts with
Mitigation. MM 4.4-4 and MM 4.4-5 assures compliance with the MBTA,
which would reduce the combined Shea Project’s and Acacia Project’s
potential impacts to migratory nesting birds to below a level of significance.
S-34
S-81, -82
4.8-28
Executive Summary
4.8, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
The following mitigation measures have been added to the Final EIR.
MM 4.8-1 No portion of the buildings shall include cold storage space.
MM 4.8-2: Building roofs shall be solar-ready and shall be outfitted with a
solar photovoltaic system that either supplies 100 percent of the
building user’s anticipated electricity demand or is maximally
sized given applicable Building Code requirements, clearance
requirements around roof-mounted equipment, Southern
California Edison interconnection regulations, transformer
capacity, and other code compliance constraints. Prior to issuance
of a shell building permit, the City of Fontana shall verify that all
or part of the roof structure is designed to support the installation
of solar panels. The roof-mounted solar photovoltaic systems shall
be installed within 12 months of issuance of the first occupancy
permit.
4.14-4 to -
6
4.11, Population
and Housing
In response to BC&H’s request to use the SCAG Employment Density Study for
employment estimates, this information has been added to the Final EIR. The text also
has been updated to indicate that the City will apply a condition of approval on the
Projects to prohibit cold storage use.
.
Shea Project
The Shea Project would develop the subject property as a one-building
commerce center facility. The Shea Project would employ construction workers
in various trades over the estimated 13-month construction phase and is
estimated to generate between approximately 81 78 and 167 jobs at buildout.
For purposes of this analysis, employment estimates were calculated using data
and average employment density factors from a Commercial Real Estate
Development Association (formerly National Association of Industrial and
Office Properties (NAIOP)) research study titled “Logistics Trends and Specific
Industries that will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for
Space.” According to data from NAIOP, non-refrigerated warehouses employ
on average one (1) worker for every 2,574 square feet (s.f.) of building area,
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-91
Table F-2 Errata Table of Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
Page(s) Section(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
while refrigerated warehouses employ an average of one (1) worker for every
1,910 s.f. of building area. Development of the Shea Project as analyzed in this
EIR assumes 180,000 s.f. of non-refrigerated building area and 19,999 s.f. of
refrigerated building space, although the City will apply a condition of approval
on the Project prohibiting refrigerated space. Based on these estimated
employment generation rates, the Shea Project is expected to create
approximately 81 78 jobs [(180,000 199,999 s.f. ÷ 2,574 s.f./employee = 70 78
employees) + (19,999 s.f. ÷ 1,910 s.f./employee = 11 employees) = 81 total
employees]. (NAIOP, 2010, p. 15)
Another widely used source of average employment generation is SCAG’s
“Employment Density Study” in which the average number of commerce center
jobs in San Bernardino County is reported as one (1) worker for every 1,195 s.f.
of building space. Based on SCAG’s estimated employment generation rate, the
Shea Project would be expected to create approximately 167 jobs (199,999 s.f.
÷ 1,195 s.f./employee = 167 employees). (SCAG, 2001)
The City’s employment market contained 55,448 jobs in 2017 (SCAG, 2019, p.
24). By the year 2040, the employment market in Fontana is projected to grow
to approximately 70,800 jobs (SCAG, 2016). This projected increase in jobs
would accommodate the Shea Project’s 81 78 to 167 total employees and
collectively the Shea and Acacia Projects’ 228 to 490 employees.
Acacia Project
The Acacia Project would develop the subject property as a two-building
warehousing facility. The Acacia Project would employ construction workers
in various trades over the estimated 13-month construction phase and is
estimated to generate between approximately 155 150 and 322 jobs at buildout.
For purposes of this analysis, employment estimates were calculated using data
and average employment density factors from a Commercial Real Estate
Development Association (formerly NAIOP) research study titled “Logistics
Trends and Specific Industries that will Drive Warehouse and Distribution
Growth and Demand for Space.” According to data from NAIOP, non-
refrigerated warehouses would employ one (1) worker for every 2,574 square
feet (s.f.) of building area, while refrigerated warehouses would employ one (1)
worker for every 1,910 s.f. of building area. Development of the Project would
include 180,000 355,413 s.f. of non-refrigerated building area and 19,999
29,630 s.f. of refrigerated building space although the City will apply a
condition of approval on the Project prohibiting refrigerated space. Based on
these estimated employment generation rates, the Acacia Project is expected to
create approximately 155 150 jobs [(355,413 385,043 s.f. ÷ 2,574 s.f./employee
= 139 150 employees) + (29,630 s.f. ÷ 1,910 s.f./employee = 16 employees) =
155 total employees]. (NAIOP, 2010, p. 15)
Another widely used source of average employment generation is SCAG’s
“Employment Density Study” in which the average number of commerce center
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-92
Table F-2 Errata Table of Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
Page(s) Section(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
jobs in San Bernardino County is reported as one (1) worker for every 1,195 s.f.
of building space. Based on SCAG’s estimated employment generation rate, the
Acacia Project would be expected to create approximately 323 jobs (385,043
s.f. ÷ 1,195 s.f./employee = 323 employees). (SCAG, 2001)
The City’s employment market contained 55,448 jobs in 2017 (SCAG, 2019, p.
24). By the year 2040, the employment market in Fontana is projected to grow
to approximately 70,800 jobs (SCAG, 2016). This projected increase in jobs
would accommodate the Acacia Project’s 150 to 297 total employees and
collectively the Shea and Acacia Projects’ 228 to 490 employees.
S-41, S-89
4.14-8
Executive Summary
4.14, Population
and Housing
The conclusion statement has been updated to reflect the estimated range of employees
to be generated by the Projects.
Threshold a: Population Growth
Shea Project: Less-than-Significant Impact. The estimated 81 78 to 167 jobs
to be generated by the Shea Project are expected to be filled by a labor force
that already resides in the region. Accordingly, the Shea Project would not
induce substantial unplanned population growth.
Acacia Project: Less-than-Significant Impact. The estimated 155 150 to 297
jobs to be generated by the Acacia Project are expected to be filled by a labor
force that already resides in the region. Accordingly, the Shea Acacia Project
would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.
Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: Less-than-Significant Impact. The
estimated 236 228 to 464 jobs to be generated by the Shea Project and Acacia
Project combined are expected to be filled by a labor force that already resides
in the region. Accordingly, the Shea Project would not induce substantial
unplanned population growth.
5-3, -4 5.3, Growth
Inducing Impacts
of the Proposed
Project
In response to a comment made by BC&H, clarification was added to the Final EIR
concerning the Project’s contribution to job growth in the City.
Given that the Project would generate approximately 490 employees, the
Project would represent approximately 2.6% of the City’s projected job
growth.
5-3 5.3, Growth
Inducing Impacts
of the Proposed
Project
In response to a comment made by BC&H, clarification was added to the Final EIR
indicating that the Project’s job growth was previously unplanned.
Based on the above, Shea Project and Acacia Project construction and
operation would require the commitment of limited, slowly renewable and
non-renewable resources. However, this commitment of resources would not
be substantial as demonstrated in EIR Subsection 4.6, Energy. and would be
Although both Projects entail General Plan Amendments that would add
previously unplanned job growth to the City of Fontana and that is not
consistent with regional and local growth forecasts and development goals for
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-93
Table F-2 Errata Table of Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
Page(s) Section(s) Additions, Corrections, and/or Revisions to the DEIR
the area, construction of the Projects will comply with CALGreen and have
energy-efficient and low water use design features to ensure that the use of
non-renewable resources would be limited to essential needs. Further, and as
discussed in Subsection 4.8.2 (DEIR pp. 4.8-8 through 4.8-19), the regulatory
environment in California is trending toward the mandatory use of renewable
energy for building operations and passenger vehicle and truck power (electric
engines). As such, Tthe loss of suchnon-renewable resources as a result of
the Projects would not be highly accelerated when compared to existing
conditions, and such resources would not be used in an inefficient or wasteful
manner. Shea and Acacia Project construction and operation would adhere to
the sustainability requirements of Title 24, Green Building Code, and
CALGreen. Therefore, neither the Shea Project or Acacia Project would result
in the commitment of large quantities of natural resources that would result in
significant irreversible environmental changes.
7-15 7.0, References An incorrect hyperlink to a reference source has been struck from the Final EIR. This
reference source is available for review by contacting the City of Fontana and is not
available online.
NAIOP, 2010. Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that Will Drive
Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space. March 2010.
Accessed April 26, 2022. Available on-line:
file:///C:/Users/kgoddard/Downloads/LogisticsTrendsandIndustries%20(1).pdf
F.4 NO RECIRCULATION OF DEIR REQUIRED
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 describes the conditions under which a DEIR that was circulated for public
review is required to be re-circulated for additional public review and comment. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088.5 states that new information added to a DEIR is not significant unless the DEIR is changed in
a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse effect of the
project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the
project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation
includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented;
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;
3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from the others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s
proponents decline to adopt it; and/or
4. The DEIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-94
Based on the comment letters received by the City of Fontana and the responses thereto (presented in
Subsection F.2, above) and the minor revisions made to the DEIR (presented in Subsection F.3, above), there
were no public comments or changes to the text or analysis presented in the DEIR that resulted in the
identification of any new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of an
environmental effects that were disclosed in the DEIR. The minor revisions to the DEIR merely clarified and
amplified information that was already disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, the DEIR was fundamentally and
basically adequate, and all conclusions within the DEIR were supported by evidence provided within the DEIR
or the administrative record for the proposed Project. Furthermore, public comment letters on the DEIR did
not identify any alternatives to the proposed Project considerably different from those analyzed in the DEIR
that would substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project while still
attaining the Project’s basic objectives. Based on the foregoing, recirculation of the DEIR is not warranted
according to the guidance set forth in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page F-95
Changed Pages of the DEIR
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-13
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR SHEA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
4.4 Biological Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: The Shea Project’s
construction would remove habitat
for the Los Angeles pocket mouse,
the coast horned lizard, and the
coastal whiptail, which could result
in injury or death of individual
species, and which is considered a
significant direct and cumulatively-
considerable impact to these
Special Species of Concern. If
construction activities encroach
onto adjacent off-site undeveloped
parcels, potentially significant
indirect effects also could occur.
MM 4.4-2 Prior to issuance of a grading
permit or any other permit that would
authorize vegetation removal, the applicant
is required to retain the services of a
qualified biologist (“Dedicated Biologist”)
to conduct trapping of Los Angeles pocket
mouse for a minimum of five (5) days
before ground disturbance commences and
move any captured mice to a location of
suitable habitat outside of the project’s
impact footprint. The Dedicated Biologist
also shall monitor grubbing, clearing, and
mass grading activities for sensitive animal
species including Los Angeles pocket
mouse, coast horned lizard and coastal
whiptail. The Dedicated bBiologist shall
be required to be present during grubbing,
clearing, and mass grading activities and if
these species are observed, the Dedicated
bBiologist shall have the authority to pause
or redirect construction equipment away
from observed species and direct or move
these animals out of harm’s way to the
extent practicable, to a location of suitable
habitat outside of the project’s impact
footprint. If approved by CDFW, the
Dedicated Biologist shall set traps for Los
Shea Project
Applicant
City of Fontana Prior to the issuance
of a grubbing permit
or grading permit
Less-than-Significant
Impact
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-14
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR SHEA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
Angeles pocket mouse at night during the
initial five days of grading and move any
captured mice to a location of suitable
habitat outside of the project’s impact
footprint the next morning before grading
activities resume. The grubbing, clearing,
and mass grading contractor(s) shall be
required via a note on the grading plans to
follow the instructions of the monitoring
Dedicated bBiologist.
4.4-3 At the initiation of construction
activities, temporary construction fencing
covered with a tarp or other solid barrier
material shall be placed along the northern
and southern property boundaries where
construction activity would occur adjacent
to undeveloped land to denote the physical
limits of construction activity. The
temporary fencing shall remain in place
until the project’s permanent perimeter wall
or fence is erected. No construction activity
shall be permitted to encroach beyond the
demarked limits of construction.
Shea Project
Applicant
City of Fontana At the initiation of
construction
4.4.6 Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit or any other permit that would
authorize vegetation removal, the applicant
is required to retain the services of a
Shea Project
Applicant
City of Fontana Prior to the issuance
of a grubbing permit
or grading permit
Less-than-Significant
Impact
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-15
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR SHEA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
qualified biologist (“Dedicated Biologist”)
to monitor all construction activities that
entail native vegetation removal. The
Dedicated Biologist shall be required to
contact CDFW if any threatened or
endangered species are identified on the
construction site during monitoring of the
construction activities and direct
construction activities away from
threatened and endangered species until
California Endangered Species Act
authorization is obtained from CDFW.
Threshold b: The Shea Project Site
does not contain riparian and/or
other sensitive natural habitats;
therefore, the Shea Project would
have no impact on riparian or other
sensitive habitats as classified by
the CDFW or USFWS.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold c: No State- or federally-
protected wetlands are located on
the Shea Project Site; therefore, no
impact to wetlands would occur.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No impact.
Threshold d: There is no potential
for the Shea Project to interfere
with the movement of fish or
impede the use of a native wildlife
nursery site. However, the Shea
Project has the potential to impact
MM 4.4-4 In order to ensure compliance
with the MBTA and California Fish and
Game Code, the initial clearing, grubbing,
and grading of land shall is recommended
to but not required to occur outside of the
nesting season (i.e., outside of the period
Shea Project
Applicant; Shea
Project Biologist
City of Fontana Prior to the issuance
of a grubbing permit
or grading permit and
within 3 days of
ground-disturbing
activities
Less-than-Significant
Impact
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-16
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR SHEA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
nesting migratory birds protected
by the MBTA and California Fish
and Game Code, should habitat
removal occur during the nesting
season and should nesting birds be
present.
February 1 through September 15). If Prior
to any ground-disturbing activities must
occur during the nesting season, a pre-
construction nesting bird survey shall be
conducted by a qualified Dedicated
Bbiologist 3 days prior to the ground-
disturbing activities. If birds are found to be
nesting inside or within 250 feet (500 feet
for raptors) of the impact area, construction
shall be postponed at the discretion of a
qualified biologist, until it is determined
that the nest is no longer active.
1. The applicant shall designate a
biologist (Designated Biologist)
experienced in: identifying local and
migratory bird species of special
concern; conducting bird surveys
using appropriate survey
methodology; nesting surveying
techniques, recognizing breeding
and nesting behaviors, locating
nests and breeding territories, and
identifying nesting stages and nest
success; determining/establishing
appropriate avoidance and
minimization measures; and
monitoring the efficacy of
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-17
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR SHEA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
implemented avoidance and
minimization measures.
2. Surveys shall be conducted by the
Designated Biologist at the
appropriate time of day/night,
during appropriate weather
conditions, no more than 3 days
prior to the initiation of project
activities. Surveys shall encompass
all suitable areas including trees,
shrubs, bare ground, burrows,
cavities, and structures. Survey
duration shall take into
consideration the size of the project
site; density, and complexity of the
habitat; number of survey
participants; survey techniques
employed; and shall be sufficient to
ensure the data collected is complete
and accurate. If a nest is suspected,
but not confirmed, the Designated
Biologist shall establish a
disturbance-free buffer until
additional surveys can be
completed, or until the location can
be inferred based on observations. If
a nest is observed, but thought to be
inactive, the Designated Biologist
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-18
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR SHEA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
shall monitor the nest for one hour
(four hours for raptors during the
non-breeding season) prior to
approaching the nest to determine
status. The Designated Biologist
shall use their best professional
judgement regarding the monitoring
period and whether approaching the
nest is appropriate.
3. When an active nest is confirmed,
the Designated Biologist shall
immediately establish a
conservative avoidance buffer
surrounding the nest based on their
best professional judgement and
experience. The Designated
Biologist shall monitor the nest at
the onset of project activities, and at
the onset of any changes in such
project activities (e.g., increase in
number or type of equipment,
change in equipment usage, etc.) to
determine the efficacy of the buffer.
If the Designated Biologist
determines that such project
activities may be causing an adverse
reaction, the Designated Biologist
shall adjust the buffer accordingly
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-19
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR SHEA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
or implement alternative avoidance
and minimization measures, such as
redirecting or rescheduling
construction or erecting sound
barriers.
MM 4.4-5 Implementation of
preconstruction surveys prior to ground
disturbance and ongoing monitoring during
grubbing, clearing, and grading activities
for burrowing owl are required as follows:
1. Pre-Construction Survey for
Burrowing Owls: The applicant shall
retain a Designated biologist to
perform a survey for burrowing owls
at least 30 days prior to construction
activities. If the results are negative,
construction may commence with no
restrictions other than a requirement
for ongoing monitoring as provided
for in (2) below.
2. Burrowing Owls Observed During
Construction: If burrowing owls are
observed within the Project site
during Project grubbing, clearing, or
grading, burrowing owl habitat shall
be avoided and the Designated
Shea Project
Applicant; Shea
Project Biologist
City of Fontana Prior to the issuance
of a grubbing permit
or grading permit and
within 30 days of
ground-disturbing
activities
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-20
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR SHEA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
biologist shall implement any
appropriate avoidance and
minimization measures.
3. Burrowing Owl Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan. If burrowing owls
are detected on the Project site, a
Burrowing owl Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to
CDFW for review and approval prior
to relocation of owls. The Burrowing
Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
shall include the number and location
of occupied burrow sites and details
on adjacent or nearby suitable habitat
available to owls for relocation. If no
suitable habitat is available nearby
for relocation, details regarding the
creation of artificial burrows
(numbers, location, and type of
burrows) shall also be included in the
Burrowing Owl Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan. As compensation
for the scenario of loss of burrowing
owl nesting and foraging habitat, the
Burrowing Owl Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall identify
mitigation including acquisition and
funding the permanent protection for
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-21
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR SHEA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
the loss of burrowing owl habitat
consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff
Report.
Threshold e: The Shea Project
would not conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.
Threshold f: The Shea Project
impact area is not located within the
boundaries of any adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or
State habitat conservation plan.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant
Impact. One historic-period
residence is located on the Shea
Project that would be demolished to
construct the Shea Project, but the
structure does not meet the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5
definition of a significant historical
resource. Therefore, no significant
historic resources could be altered
or destroyed by construction or
operation of the Shea Project, and
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-34
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR SHEA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
significance threshold of 3,000
MTCO2e per year. As such, the
Shea Project would have a less than
significant impact on the
environment.
MM 4.8-1 No portion of the buildings shall
include cold storage space.
MM 4.8-2: Building roofs shall be solar-
ready and shall be outfitted with a solar
photovoltaic system that either supplies
100 percent of the building user’s
anticipated electricity demand or is
maximally sized given applicable Building
Code requirements, clearance requirements
around roof-mounted equipment, Southern
California Edison interconnection
regulations, transformer capacity, and
other code compliance constraints. Prior to
issuance of a shell building permit, the City
of Fontana shall verify that all or part of the
roof structure is designed to support the
installation of solar panels. The roof-
mounted solar photovoltaic systems shall
be installed within 12 months of issuance
of the first occupancy permit.
Shea Project
Applicant
Shea Project
Applicant
City of Fontana
Building & Safety
Department
City of Fontana
Building & Safety
Department
Prior to issuance of a
building permit
Prior to issuance of a
shell building permit
and within one year of
the building’s
occupancy.
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant
Impact. The Shea Project would be
consistent with or otherwise would
not conflict with, applicable
regulations, policies, plans, and
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-41
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR SHEA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
Threshold b: The Shea Project’s
construction and operational
activities would not result in a
perceptible groundborne vibration
or noise.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold c: The Shea Project Site
is not located within an area
exposed to high levels of noise from
the ONT Airport. As such, the Shea
Project would not expose people to
excessive noise levels associated
with a public airport or public use
airport.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
4.14 Population and Housing
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant
Impact. The estimated 8178 to 167
jobs to be generated by the Shea
Project are expected to be filled by
a labor force that already resides in
the region. Accordingly, the Shea
Project would not induce
substantial unplanned population
growth.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant
Impact. The Shea Project would
remove one existing occupied
residence. The removal of one
home would not displace
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-55
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
which prohibits the discharge of
odorous emissions that would
create a public nuisance.
4.4 Biological Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: The Acacia Project
would result in the direct removal
of 1,396 individual Parry’s
spineflower plants, which
represents a significant direct and
cumulatively considerable adverse
effect on this California Rare Plant
Rank 1B.1 species. The Acacia
Project’s construction also would
remove habitat for the Los Angeles
pocket mouse, the coast horned
lizard, and the coastal whiptail
which could result in injury or death
of individual species, which is
considered a significant direct and
cumulatively-considerable impact
to these Special Species of
Concern. If construction activities
encroach onto adjacent off-site
undeveloped parcels, potentially
significant indirect effects also
could occur.
4.1-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit or any other permit that would
authorize vegetation removal, the applicant
is required to mitigate for the loss of Parry’s
spineflower plants and habitat for the Los
Angeles pocket mouse through one or a
combination of the following methods.
1. The applicant shall acquire and
preserve in perpetuity or ensure
that a new permanent conservation
easement is placed over an off-site
property containing at least 1,396
2,792 Parry’s spineflower plants.
The property shall be located in
the Inland Empire and City of
Fontana. If no properties are
feasibly available in Fontana,
property within a 10-mile radius
of the Project Site will be
acceptable. If no properties are
feasibly available within a 10-mile
radius, any property within San
Bernardino County or Riverside
Acacia Project
Applicant
City of Fontana Prior to issuance of a
grubbing or grading
permit
Less-than-Significant
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-56
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
County will be acceptable. pProof
of attempts to identify properties
for this purpose in Fontana and in
a 10-mile radius of the Project
Site, and proof of acquisition and
perpetual preservation of the
selected property having at least
2,792 Parry’s spineflower shall be
provided to the City of Fontana.
Preserved habitat shall be
protected with a deed restriction or
conservation easement recorded in
favor of the local jurisdiction or a
local conservation entity.
2. The applicant shall retain a
qualified restoration ecologist
with experience developing
mitigation plans for sensitive plant
species to prepare a Parry’s
Spineflower Mitigation Plan
(Plan) in consultation with the
Rancho Santa Ana Botanic
Gardens or other qualified entity
that has experience with Parry’s
spineflower. The Plan shall
include, at a minimum: (1)
collection/salvage methods for
Parry’s spineflower seed and
topsoil from the Acacia Project
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-57
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
Site; (2) details regarding the
transfer, with or without
temporary storage, of the
collected/salvaged seed and
topsoil; (3) a time schedule for
salvage and seeding at a recipient
site; (4) identification of an
available and suitable location in
the City of Fontana or nearby area
in the range of the Parry’s
spineflower with suitable sandy
soil that will function as the
recipient site for the
collected/salvaged seed and soil;
(5) detailed site preparation and
introduction techniques for the
recipient site; (6) a description of
supplemental irrigation at the
recipient site, if needed; (7)
success criteria based on fast and
profuse germination, healthy
growth rates, adaptive phenotypic
plasticity (ability to sustain in the
face of environmental variables at
the recipient site), and resistance
to and high competitive ability,
ensuring long-term survival of at
least 1,277 plants in a self-
sustaining environment; and (8) a
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-58
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
detailed monitoring program,
commensurate with the success
criteria. The Plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the
City of Fontana and
implementation of the Plan shall
be a condition of the grading
permit. The recipient site shall be
protected with a deed restriction or
conservation easement recorded in
favor of the local jurisdiction or a
local conservation entity.
Monitoring and maintenance of
the recipient site by a qualified
biologist shall be required for 5
years or until the success criteria
goals of the Plan have been met.
3. The applicant shall pay fees into a
mitigation bank or in lieu fund
established in whole or in part for
the purpose of preserving Parry’s
spineflower plants, to mitigate for
the loss of 1,396 plants at a 2:1
mitigation ratio. Proof of fee
payment shall be provided to the
City of Fontana.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-59
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
4.4-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit
or any other permit that would authorize
vegetation removal, the applicant is
required to retain the services of a qualified
biologist (“Dedicated Biologist”) to
conduct trapping of Los Angeles pocket
mouse for a minimum of five (5) days
before ground disturbance commences and
move any captured mice to a location of
suitable habitat outside of the project’s
impact footprint. The Dedicated Biologist
also shall monitor grubbing, clearing, and
mass grading activities for sensitive animal
species including Los Angeles pocket
mouse, coast horned lizard and coastal
whiptail. The Dedicated bBiologist shall be
required to be present during grubbing,
clearing, and mass grading activities and if
these species are observed, the Dedicated
bBiologist shall have the authority to pause
or redirect construction equipment away
from observed species and direct or move
these animals out of harm’s way to the
extent practicable, to a location of suitable
habitat outside of the project’s impact
footprint. If approved by CDFW, the
Dedicated Biologist shall set traps for Los
Angeles pocket mouse at night during the
grading phase and move any captured mice
Acacia Project
Applicant
City of Fontana Prior to the issuance
of a grubbing permit
or grading permit
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-60
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
to a location of suitable habitat outside of
the project’s impact footprint the next
morning before grading activities resume.
The grubbing, clearing, and mass grading
contractor(s) shall be required via a note on
the grading plans to follow the instructions
of the monitoring Dedicated bBiologist.
4.4-3 At the initiation of construction
activities, temporary construction fencing
covered with a tarp or other solid barrier
material shall be placed along the northern
and southern property boundaries where
construction activity would occur adjacent
to undeveloped land to denote the physical
limits of construction activity. The
temporary fencing shall remain in place
until the project’s permanent perimeter wall
or fence is erected. No construction activity
shall be permitted to encroach beyond the
demarked limits of construction.
Shea Project
Applicant
City of Fontana At the initiation of
construction
4.4.6 Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit or any other permit that would
authorize vegetation removal, the applicant
is required to retain the services of a
qualified biologist (“Dedicated Biologist”)
to monitor all construction activities that
entail native vegetation removal. The
Dedicated Biologist shall be required to
Shea Project
Applicant
City of Fontana Prior to the issuance
of a grubbing permit
or grading permit
Less-than-Significant
Impact
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-61
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
contact CDFW if any threatened or
endangered species are identified on the
construction site during monitoring of the
construction activities and direct
construction activities away from
threatened and endangered species until
California Endangered Species Act
authorization is obtained from CDFW.
Threshold b: The Acacia Project
Site does not contain riparian and/or
other sensitive natural habitats;
therefore, the Acacia Project would
have no impact on riparian or other
sensitive habitats as classified by
the CDFW or USFWS.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold c: No State- or federally-
protected wetlands are located on
the Acacia Project Site; therefore,
no impact to wetlands would occur.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No impact.
Threshold d: There is no potential
for the Acacia Project to interfere
with the movement of fish or
impede the use of a native wildlife
nursery site. However, the Acacia
Project has the potential to impact
nesting migratory birds protected
by the MBTA and California Fish
and Game Code, should habitat
removal occur during the nesting
MM 4.4-4 In order to ensure compliance
with the MBTA and California Fish and
Game Code, the initial clearing, grubbing,
and grading of land shall is recommended
to but not required to occur outside of the
nesting season (i.e., outside of the period
February 1 through September 15). If Prior
to any ground-disturbing activities must
occur during the nesting season, a pre-
construction nesting bird survey shall be
Acacia Project
Applicant; Acacia
Project Biologist
City of Fontana Prior to the issuance
of a grubbing permit
or grading permit and
within 3 days of
ground-disturbing
activities
Less-than-Significant
Impact
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-62
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
season and should nesting birds be
present.
conducted by a qualified Dedicated
Bbiologist 3 days prior to the ground-
disturbing activities. If birds are found to be
nesting inside or within 250 feet (500 feet
for raptors) of the impact area, construction
shall be postponed at the discretion of a
qualified biologist, until it is determined
that the nest is no longer active.
1. The applicant shall designate a
biologist (Designated Biologist)
experienced in: identifying local and
migratory bird species of special
concern; conducting bird surveys
using appropriate survey
methodology; nesting surveying
techniques, recognizing breeding
and nesting behaviors, locating
nests and breeding territories, and
identifying nesting stages and nest
success; determining/establishing
appropriate avoidance and
minimization measures; and
monitoring the efficacy of
implemented avoidance and
minimization measures.
2. Surveys shall be conducted by the
Designated Biologist at the
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-63
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
appropriate time of day/night,
during appropriate weather
conditions, no more than 3 days
prior to the initiation of project
activities. Surveys shall encompass
all suitable areas including trees,
shrubs, bare ground, burrows,
cavities, and structures. Survey
duration shall take into
consideration the size of the project
site; density, and complexity of the
habitat; number of survey
participants; survey techniques
employed; and shall be sufficient to
ensure the data collected is complete
and accurate. If a nest is suspected,
but not confirmed, the Designated
Biologist shall establish a
disturbance-free buffer until
additional surveys can be
completed, or until the location can
be inferred based on observations. If
a nest is observed, but thought to be
inactive, the Designated Biologist
shall monitor the nest for one hour
(four hours for raptors during the
non-breeding season) prior to
approaching the nest to determine
status. The Designated Biologist
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-64
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
shall use their best professional
judgement regarding the monitoring
period and whether approaching the
nest is appropriate.
3. When an active nest is confirmed,
the Designated Biologist shall
immediately establish a
conservative avoidance buffer
surrounding the nest based on their
best professional judgement and
experience. The Designated
Biologist shall monitor the nest at
the onset of project activities, and at
the onset of any changes in such
project activities (e.g., increase in
number or type of equipment,
change in equipment usage, etc.) to
determine the efficacy of the buffer.
If the Designated Biologist
determines that such project
activities may be causing an adverse
reaction, the Designated Biologist
shall adjust the buffer accordingly
or implement alternative avoidance
and minimization measures, such as
redirecting or rescheduling
construction or erecting sound
barriers.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-65
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
MM 4.4-5 Implementation of
preconstruction surveys prior to ground
disturbance and ongoing monitoring during
grubbing, clearing, and grading activities
for burrowing owl are required as follows:
1. Pre-Construction Survey for
Burrowing Owls: The applicant
shall retain a Designated biologist
to perform a survey for burrowing
owls at least 30 days prior to
construction activities. If the
results are negative, construction
may commence with no
restrictions other than a
requirement for ongoing
monitoring as provided for in (2)
below.
2. Burrowing Owls Observed During
Construction: If burrowing owls
are observed within the Project site
during Project grubbing, clearing,
or grading, burrowing owl habitat
shall be avoided and the
Designated biologist shall
implement any appropriate
Shea Project
Applicant; Shea
Project Biologist
City of Fontana Prior to the issuance
of a grubbing permit
or grading permit and
within 30 days of
ground-disturbing
activities
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-66
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
avoidance and minimization
measures.
3. Burrowing Owl Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan. If burrowing
owls are detected on the Project
site, a Burrowing owl Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan shall be
submitted to CDFW for review and
approval prior to relocation of
owls. The Burrowing Owl
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
shall include the number and
location of occupied burrow sites
and details on adjacent or nearby
suitable habitat available to owls
for relocation. If no suitable habitat
is available nearby for relocation,
details regarding the creation of
artificial burrows (numbers,
location, and type of burrows) shall
also be included in the Burrowing
Owl Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan. As compensation for the
scenario of loss of burrowing owl
nesting and foraging habitat, the
Burrowing Owl Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall identify
mitigation including acquisition
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-67
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
and funding the permanent
protection for the loss of burrowing
owl habitat consistent with the
2012 CDFW Staff Report.
Threshold e: The Acacia Project
would not conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.
Threshold f: The Acacia Project
impact area is not located within the
boundaries of any adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or
State habitat conservation plan.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: No Impact. No
historic resources, as defined by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5,
are present on the Acacia Project
Site; therefore, no historic resources
could be altered or destroyed by
construction or operation of the
Acacia Project.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold b: Significant Direct and
Cumulatively-Considerable
Impact. No known prehistoric
MM 4.5-1 Upon discovery of any cultural,
tribal cultural, or archaeological resources,
cease construction activities within 60 feet
Acacia Project
Applicant; Acacia
City of Fontana
Building and
Safety Department
If cultural, tribal
cultural, or
archaeological
Less-than-Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-81
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
covering items that are within the
jurisdictional control of the City and
feasible for commerce center developers
and operators to implement. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091 provides that
mitigation measures must be within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the Lead
Agency (i.e., City) in order to be
implemented. No other mitigation
measures are available that are feasible for
the City to enforce, beyond those already
required by regulations including City
Ordinance No. 1897, that have a
proportional nexus to the Shea and Acacia
Projects’ level of impact.
MM 4.8-1 No portion of the buildings shall
include cold storage space.
MM 4.8-2: Building roofs shall be solar-
ready and shall be outfitted with a solar
photovoltaic system that either supplies
100 percent of the building user’s
anticipated electricity demand or is
maximally sized given applicable Building
Code requirements, clearance requirements
around roof-mounted equipment, Southern
California Edison interconnection
regulations, transformer capacity, and
Shea Project
Applicant
Shea Project
Applicant
City of Fontana
Building & Safety
Department
City of Fontana
Building & Safety
Department
Prior to issuance of a
building permit
Prior to issuance of a
shell building permit
and within one year of
the building’s
occupancy.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-82
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
other code compliance constraints. Prior to
issuance of a shell building permit, the City
of Fontana shall verify that all or part of the
roof structure is designed to support the
installation of solar panels. The roof-
mounted solar photovoltaic systems shall
be installed within 12 months of issuance
of the first occupancy permit.
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant
Impact. The Acacia Project would
be consistent with or otherwise
would not conflict with, applicable
regulations, policies, plans, and
policy goals that would further
reduce GHG emissions.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Summary of Impacts
Thresholds a and b: Less-than-
Significant Impact. During Acacia
Project construction and operation,
mandatory compliance to federal,
State, and local regulations would
ensure that the proposed Acacia
Project would not create a
significant hazard to the
environment due to routine
transport, use, disposal, or upset of
hazardous materials.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page S-89
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)
FOR ACACIA PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER
MITIGATION
4.14 Population and Housing
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant
Impact. The estimated 155 150 to
297 jobs to be generated by the
Acacia Project are expected to be
filled by a labor force that already
resides in the region. Accordingly,
the Shea Acacia Project would not
induce substantial unplanned
population growth.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold b: No Impact. No
residences are located on the Acacia
Project Site and no displacements
of housing or people would occur
with the Acacia Project.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
4.15 Public Services
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant
Impact. The Acacia Project would
increase the demand for fire
protection services provided by the
FFPD. Although demand would be
increased, the FFPD’s existing fire
stations have adequate physical
capacity to service the Acacia
Project. Increased demand, unless it
results in some form of a physical
environmental impact, is not an
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 4.4-21
Acacia Project: No Impact. The Acacia Project is not located within the boundaries of any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: No Impact. The Shea and Acacia Projects are not located within
the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
4.4.8 MITIGATION
The following mitigation measures be applicable to the Shea and Acacia Projects.
Mitigation Measures
Applicable to:
Shea
Project
Acacia
Project
MM 4.4-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that
would authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to
mitigate for the loss of Parry’s spineflower plants and habitat for
the Los Angeles pocket mouse through one or a combination of
the following methods.
1. The applicant shall acquire and preserve in perpetuity or
ensure that a new permanent conservation easement is
placed over an off-site property containing at least 1,396
2,792 Parry’s spineflower plants. The property shall be
located in the Inland Empire and City of Fontana. If no
properties are feasibly available in Fontana, property
within a 10-mile radius of the Project Site will be
acceptable. If no properties are feasibly available within a
10-mile radius, any property within San Bernardino
County or Riverside County will be acceptable. pProof of
attempts to identify properties for this purpose in Fontana
and in a 10-mile radius of the Project Site, and proof of
acquisition and perpetual preservation of the selected
property having at least 2,792 Parry’s spineflower shall be
provided to the City of Fontana. Preserved habitat shall be
protected with a deed restriction or conservation easement
recorded in favor of the local jurisdiction or a local
conservation entity.
2. The applicant shall retain a qualified restoration ecologist
with experience developing mitigation plans for sensitive
plant species to prepare a Parry’s Spineflower Mitigation
Plan (Plan) in consultation with the Rancho Santa Ana
No Yes
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 4.4-22
Botanic Gardens or other qualified entity that has
experience with Parry’s spineflower. The Plan shall
include, at a minimum: (1) collection/salvage methods for
Parry’s spineflower seed and topsoil from the Acacia
Project Site; (2) details regarding the transfer, with or
without temporary storage, of the collected/salvaged seed
and topsoil; (3) a time schedule for salvage and seeding at
a recipient site; (4) identification of an available and
suitable location in the City of Fontana or nearby area in
the range of the Parry’s spineflower with suitable sandy
soil that will function as the recipient site for the
collected/salvaged seed and soil; (5) detailed site
preparation and introduction techniques for the recipient
site; (6) a description of supplemental irrigation at the
recipient site, if needed; (7) success criteria based on fast
and profuse germination, healthy growth rates, adaptive
phenotypic plasticity (ability to sustain in the face of
environmental variables at the recipient site), and
resistance to and high competitive ability, ensuring long-
term survival of at least 1,277 plants in a self-sustaining
environment; and (8) a detailed monitoring program,
commensurate with the success criteria. The Plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the City of Fontana and
implementation of the Plan shall be a condition of the
grading permit. The recipient site shall be protected with a
deed restriction or conservation easement recorded in
favor of the local jurisdiction or a local conservation
entity. Monitoring and maintenance of the recipient site by
a qualified biologist shall be required for 5 years or until
the success criteria goals of the Plan have been met.
3. The applicant shall pay fees into a mitigation bank or in
lieu fund established in whole or in part for the purpose of
preserving Parry’s spineflower plants, to mitigate for the
loss of 1,396 plants at a 2:1 mitigation ratio. Proof of fee
payment shall be provided to the City of Fontana.
MM 4.4-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that
would authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to
retain the services of a qualified biologist (“Dedicated Biologist”)
to conduct trapping of Los Angeles pocket mouse for a minimum
of five (5) days before ground disturbance commences and move
any captured mice to a location of suitable habitat outside of the
project’s impact footprint. The Dedicated Biologist also shall
Yes Yes
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 4.4-23
monitor grubbing, clearing, and mass grading activities for
sensitive animal species including Los Angeles pocket mouse,
coast horned lizard and coastal whiptail. The Dedicated
bBiologist shall be required to be present during grubbing,
clearing, and mass grading activities and if these species are
observed, the Dedicated bBiologist shall have the authority to
pause or redirect construction equipment away from observed
species and direct or move these animals out of harm’s way to the
extent practicable, to a location of suitable habitat outside of the
project’s impact footprint. If approved by CDFW, the Dedicated
Biologist shall set traps for Los Angeles pocket mouse at night
during the initial five days of grading and move any captured mice
to a location of suitable habitat outside of the project’s impact
footprint the next morning before grading activities resume. The
grubbing, clearing, and mass grading contractor(s) shall be
required via a note on the grading plans to follow the instructions
of the monitoring Dedicated bBiologist. The Dedicated Biologist
also shall be required to contact CDFW if any threatened or
endangered species are identified on the construction site during
monitoring of the construction activities.
MM 4.4-3 At the initiation of construction activities, temporary construction
fencing covered with a tarp or other solid barrier material shall be
placed along the northern and southern property boundaries where
construction activity would occur adjacent to undeveloped land to
denote the physical limits of construction activity. The temporary
fencing shall remain in place until the project’s permanent
perimeter wall or fence is erected. No construction activity shall
be permitted to encroach beyond the demarked limits of
construction.
Yes Yes
MM 4.4-4 In order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish
and Game Code, the initial clearing, grubbing, and grading of land
shall occur outside of the nesting season (i.e., outside of the period
February 1 through September 15) if feasible. If Prior to any
ground-disturbing activities must occur during the nesting season,
a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a
qualified Dedicated Bbiologist 3 days prior to the ground-
disturbing activities. If birds are found to be nesting inside or
within 250 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the impact area,
construction shall be postponed at the discretion of a qualified
biologist, until it is determined that the nest is no longer active.
Yes Yes
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 4.4-24
1. The applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated
Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory
bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys
using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying
techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors,
locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying
nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing
appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and
monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and
minimization measures.
2. Surveys shall be conducted by the Designated Biologist at
the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate
weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the
initiation of project activities. Surveys shall encompass all
suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows,
cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into
consideration the size of the project site; density, and
complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants;
survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to
ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. If a nest
is suspected, but not confirmed, the Designated Biologist
shall establish a disturbance-free buffer until additional
surveys can be completed, or until the location can be
inferred based on observations. If a nest is observed, but
thought to be inactive, the Designated Biologist shall
monitor the nest for one hour (four hours for raptors during
the non-breeding season) prior to approaching the nest to
determine status. The Designated Biologist shall use their
best professional judgement regarding the monitoring
period and whether approaching the nest is appropriate.
3. When an active nest is confirmed, the Designated Biologist
shall immediately establish a conservative avoidance buffer
surrounding the nest based on their best professional
judgement and experience. The Designated Biologist shall
monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the
onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase
in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage,
etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. If the
Designated Biologist determines that such project activities
may be causing an adverse reaction, the Designated
Biologist shall adjust the buffer accordingly or implement
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 4.4-25
alternative avoidance and minimization measures, such as
redirecting or rescheduling construction or erecting sound
barriers.
MM 4.4-5 Implementation of preconstruction surveys prior to ground
disturbance and ongoing monitoring during grubbing, clearing,
and grading activities for burrowing owl are required as follows:
1. Pre-Construction Survey for Burrowing Owls: The applicant
shall retain a Designated biologist to perform a survey for
burrowing owls at least 30 days prior to construction
activities. If the results are negative, construction may
commence with no restrictions other than a requirement for
ongoing monitoring as provided for in (2) below.
2. Burrowing Owls Observed During Construction: If
burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during
Project grubbing, clearing, or grading, burrowing owl habitat
shall be avoided and the Designated biologist shall
implement any appropriate avoidance and minimization
measures.
3. Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. If
burrowing owls are detected on the Project site, a Burrowing
owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to
CDFW for review and approval prior to relocation of owls.
The Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall
include the number and location of occupied burrow sites and
details on adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls
for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for
relocation, details regarding the creation of artificial burrows
(numbers, location, and type of burrows) shall also be
included in the Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan. As compensation for the scenario of loss of burrowing
owl nesting and foraging habitat, the Burrowing Owl
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall identify mitigation
including acquisition and funding the permanent protection
for the loss of burrowing owl habitat consistent with the 2012
CDFW Staff Report.
Yes Yes
MM 4.4-6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that
would authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to
retain the services of a qualified biologist (“Dedicated Biologist”)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 4.4-26
to monitor all construction activities that entail native vegetation
removal. The Dedicated Biologist shall be required to contact
CDFW if any threatened or endangered species are identified on
the construction site during monitoring of the construction
activities and direct construction activities away from threatened
and endangered species until California Endangered Species Act
authorization is obtained from CDFW.
4.4.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold a: Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species
Shea Project: Less-than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation. MM 4.4-2 would require that the Shea
Project Site be monitored by a qualified biologist during grubbing, clearing, and mass grading activities
for sensitive animal species including the coast horned lizard, coastal whiptail, and Los Angeles pocket
mouse, and if these animals are detected the biologist would move them out of harm’s way to a location
of suitable habitat outside of the project’s impact footprint. With implementation of MM 4.4-2 and
MM 4.4-3, potential direct and indirect and cumulatively considerable impacts to sensitive wildlife
species would be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Acacia Project: Less-than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation. MM 4.4-1 would require the Acacia
Project proponent to mitigate impacts to Parry’s spineflower and habitat for the Los Angeles pocket
mouse through either off-site acquisition and preservation of occupied habitat; the collection of seed
and topsoil from the Acacia Project Site and transfer of such to a recipient site as part of a Parry’s
Spineflower Mitigation Plan; and/or payment of fees into a mitigation bank or in lieu fund. MM 4.4-2
would require that the Acacia Project Site be monitored by a qualified biologist during grubbing,
clearing, and mass grading activities for sensitive animal species including the coast horned lizard,
coastal whiptail, and Los Angeles pocket mouse, and if these animals are detected the biologist would
move them out of harm’s way to a location of suitable habitat outside of the project’s impact footprint.
With implementation of MM 4.4-1, MM 4.4-2, and MM 4.4-3, direct, potentially indirect, and
cumulatively considerable impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species would be mitigated to less
than significant.
Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: Less-than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation. MM 4.4-1 would
require the Acacia Project proponent to mitigate impacts to Parry’s spineflower and habitat for the Los
Angeles pocket mouse through either off-site acquisition and preservation of occupied habitat; the
collection of seed and topsoil from the Acacia Project Site and transfer of such to a recipient site as
part of a Parry’s Spineflower Mitigation Plan; and/or payment of fees into a mitigation bank or in lieu
fund. MM 4.4-2 would require that the Shea Project Site and the Acacia Project Site be monitored by
a qualified biologist during grubbing, clearing, and mass grading activities for sensitive animal species
including the coast horned lizard, coastal whiptail, and Los Angeles pocket mouse, and if these animals
are detected the biologist would move them out of harm’s way to a location of suitable habitat outside
of the project’s impact footprint. With implementation of MM 4.4-1, MM 4.4-2, and MM 4.4-3, direct,
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 4.4-27
potentially indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species
would be mitigated to less than significant.
Threshold d: Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species
Shea Project: Less-than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation. MM 4.4-4 and MM 4.4-5 assures
compliance with the MBTA, which would reduce the Shea Project’s potential impact to migratory
nesting birds to below a level of significance.
Acacia Project: Less-than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation. MM 4.4-4 and MM 4.4-5 assures
compliance with the MBTA, which would reduce the Acacia Project’s potential impact to migratory
nesting birds to below a level of significance.
Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: Less-than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation. MM 4.4-4 and
MM 4.4-5 assures compliance with the MBTA, which would reduce the combined Shea Project’s and
Acacia Project’s potential impacts to migratory nesting birds to below a level of significance.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 4.8-28
Sites will be diesel-powered. Mobile source GHG emissions are regulated by State and federal fuel standards
and tailpipe emissions standards, and are outside of the control and authority of the City of Fontana, the Shea
and Acacia Project Applicants, and future Shea and Acacia Project occupants. The City of Fontana has been
progressive with adoption of Ordinance No. 1879, with the goal to accelerate air quality pollutant and GHG
emission reductions to the extent practical, covering items that are within the jurisdictional control of the City
and feasible for commerce center developers and operators to implement. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
provides that mitigation measures must be within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Lead Agency (i.e.,
City) in order to be implemented. Two mitigation measures are recommended herein, and nNo other mitigation
measures are available that are feasible for the City to enforce, beyond those already required by regulations
including City Ordinance No. 1897, that have a proportional nexus to the Shea and Acacia Projects’ level of
impact.
MM 4.8-1 No portion of the buildings shall include cold storage space.
MM 4.8-2: Building roofs shall be solar-ready and shall be outfitted with a solar photovoltaic system that
either supplies 100 percent of the building user’s anticipated electricity demand or is the
maximum size feasible given applicable Building Code requirements, clearance requirements
around roof-mounted equipment, Southern California Edison interconnection regulations,
transformer capacity, and other code compliance constraints. Prior to issuance of a shell
building permit, the City of Fontana shall verify that all or part of the roof structure is designed
to support the installation of solar panels. The roof-mounted solar photovoltaic systems shall
be installed within 12 months of issuance of the first occupancy permit.
4.8.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold a:
Acacia Project: Significant Unavoidable Cumulatively-Considerable Impact. As noted above, a
majority of the Acacia Project’s GHG emissions would be produced by mobile sources. Neither the
Acacia Project Applicant nor the City of Fontana can substantively or materially affect reductions in
Acacia Project mobile-source emissions beyond federal and State regulations. Accordingly, the City
finds that the Acacia Project’s GHG emissions are a significant and unavoidable cumulatively-
considerable impact for which no feasible mitigation is available.
Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: Significant Unavoidable Cumulatively-Considerable Impact. As
noted above, a majority of the cumulative Shea and Acacia Projects’ GHG emissions would be
produced by mobile sources. Neither the Shea Project Applicant, the Acacia Project Applicant, or the
City of Fontana can substantively or materially affect reductions in cumulative Shea and Acacia Project
mobile-source emissions beyond federal and State regulations. Accordingly, the City finds that the
cumulative Shea and Acacia Project’s GHG emissions are a significant and unavoidable cumulatively-
considerable impact for which no feasible mitigation is available.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Population and Housing
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 4.14-4
C. City Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Fontana General Plan Housing Element
The current State-approved City of Fontana General Plan Housing Element (2014-2021) was approved and
adopted by the City Council in November 2018. The City is currently updating the General Plan Housing
Element to the 2021-2029 Housing Element, but as of the time of this writing, it is still in draft form and not
yet accepted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (Fontana, 2022). The 6th
Cycle Housing Element was prepared according to State requirements, which stipulate that cities and counties
must include in their general plans a Housing Element that makes adequate provision for housing and housing
growth by providing zoning at appropriate densities and with sufficient infrastructure to meet a “fair share” of
the regional need for affordable housing, as shown in the RHNA, prepared by SCAG. The City of Fontana’s
Housing Element goals are: 1) adequate housing to meet the needs of all residents in Fontana; 2) a high standard
of quality in existing affordable housing stock; 3) housing development that is not affected by government
constraints; and 4) affirmatively further fair housing in Fontana (Fontana, 2022).
4.14.3 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds listed below are derived directly from the City of Fontana’s Local Guidelines for Implementing
the California Environmental Quality Act and address the typical, adverse effects related to population and
housing that could result from development projects. The Project would result in a significant impact
associated with population and housing if the Project or any Project-related component would:
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);
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere;
4.14.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure?
A. Employment Generation
1. Shea Project
The Shea Project would develop the subject property as a one-building commerce center facility. The Shea
Project would employ construction workers in various trades over the estimated 13-month construction phase
and is estimated to generate between approximately 81 78 and 167 jobs at buildout. For purposes of this
analysis, employment estimates were calculated using data and average employment density factors from a
Commercial Real Estate Development Association (formerly National Association of Industrial and Office
Properties (NAIOP)) research study titled “Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that will Drive Warehouse
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Population and Housing
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 4.14-5
and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space.” According to data from NAIOP, non-refrigerated
warehouses employ on average one (1) worker for every 2,574 square feet (s.f.) of building area, while
refrigerated warehouses employ an average of one (1) worker for every 1,910 s.f. of building area.
Development of the Shea Project as analyzed in this EIR assumes 180,000 s.f. of non-refrigerated building
area and 19,999 s.f. of refrigerated building space, although the City will apply a condition of approval on the
Project prohibiting refrigerated space. Based on these estimated employment generation rates, the Shea Project
is expected to create approximately 81 78 jobs [(180,000 199,999 s.f. ÷ 2,574 s.f./employee = 70 78 employees)
+ (19,999 s.f. ÷ 1,910 s.f./employee = 11 employees) = 81 total employees]. (NAIOP, 2010, p. 15)
Another widely used source of average employment generation is SCAG’s “Employment Density Study” in
which the average number of commerce center jobs in San Bernardino County is reported as one (1) worker
for every 1,195 s.f. of building space. Based on SCAG’s estimated employment generation rate, the Shea
Project would be expected to create approximately 167 jobs (199,999 s.f. ÷ 1,195 s.f./employee = 167
employees). (SCAG, 2001)
The City’s employment market contained 55,448 jobs in 2017 (SCAG, 2019, p. 24). By the year 2040, the
employment market in Fontana is projected to grow to approximately 70,800 jobs (SCAG, 2016). This
projected increase in jobs would accommodate the Shea Project’s 81 78 to 167 total employees and collectively
the Shea and Acacia Projects’ 228 to 490 employees.
2. Acacia Project
The Acacia Project would develop the subject property as a two-building warehousing facility. The Acacia
Project would employ construction workers in various trades over the estimated 13-month construction phase
and is estimated to generate between approximately 155 150 and 322 jobs at buildout. For purposes of this
analysis, employment estimates were calculated using data and average employment density factors from a
Commercial Real Estate Development Association (formerly NAIOP) research study titled “Logistics Trends
and Specific Industries that will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space.”
According to data from NAIOP, non-refrigerated warehouses would employ one (1) worker for every 2,574
square feet (s.f.) of building area, while refrigerated warehouses would employ one (1) worker for every 1,910
s.f. of building area. Development of the Project would include 180,000 355,413 s.f. of non-refrigerated
building area and 19,999 29,630 s.f. of refrigerated building space although the City will apply a condition of
approval on the Project prohibiting refrigerated space. Based on these estimated employment generation rates,
the Acacia Project is expected to create approximately 155 150 jobs [(355,413 385,043 s.f. ÷ 2,574
s.f./employee = 139 150 employees) + (29,630 s.f. ÷ 1,910 s.f./employee = 16 employees) = 155 total
employees]. (NAIOP, 2010, p. 15)
Another widely used source of average employment generation is SCAG’s “Employment Density Study” in
which the average number of commerce center jobs in San Bernardino County is reported as one (1) worker
for every 1,195 s.f. of building space. Based on SCAG’s estimated employment generation rate, the Acacia
Project would be expected to create approximately 323 jobs (385,043 s.f. ÷ 1,195 s.f./employee = 323
employees). (SCAG, 2001)
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Population and Housing
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 4.14-6
The City’s employment market contained 55,448 jobs in 2017 (SCAG, 2019, p. 24). By the year 2040, the
employment market in Fontana is projected to grow to approximately 70,800 jobs (SCAG, 2016). This
projected increase in jobs would accommodate the Acacia Project’s 150 to 297 total employees and collectively
the Shea and Acacia Projects’ 228 to 490 employees.
B. Induced Population Growth Analysis
1. Population Growth
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in December 2021, the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
region’s civilian labor force exceeded 2,121,300 persons with 2,012,500 people employed and an
unemployment rate of 5.1% (or 108,800 persons) (BLS, n.d.). Accordingly, the region has an ample supply of
potential employees to fill the 236 jobs anticipated to be generated by the Shea and Acacia Projects. The
Projects’ labor demand is not expected to draw substantial numbers of new, unplanned residents to the area.
Furthermore, based on the most recent available data, approximately 90% of City of Fontana residents
commute outside of the City for work and more housing units are expected to be built within the City over the
next 20+ years (Fontana, 2018a, p. 2.15; SCAG, 2019, p. 21); the Shea Project and Acacia Project would
provide job opportunities closer to home for existing and future residents in the nearby area, which would
subsequently help achieve a better job-to-housing balance. Based on the foregoing, the Shea Project and Acacia
Project are not expected to be a catalyst for any substantial, unplanned population increase.
There are no components of the Shea Project or Acacia Project that would remove obstacles to development
in the local area (and result in indirect unplanned population growth) because the abutting area is already built-
out, planned for development, or currently under construction for new development. Furthermore, the Shea
and Acacia Projects would widen Sierra Avenue along the Project Sites’ frontages in accordance with the
Fontana General Plan (and would not increase the planned capacity of these roadways). Both Projects would
make connections to site-adjacent existing and planned infrastructure and would not construct new
infrastructure or increase the capacity of existing infrastructure. Therefore, none of the Shea Project’s or
Acacia Project’s physical improvements would remove any development obstacles/barriers and that could
result in unplanned growth.
Based on the foregoing analysis, neither the Shea Project, Acacia Project nor any Project-related component
would directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth that would cause a significant
impact to the environment. Impacts would be less-than-significant.
2. Planned Housing Allocation
The RHNA prepared by SCAG projected Fontana’s share of regional housing need for 2021-2029 as 17,477
new housing units, with 5,096 units in the very low-income category, 2,943 units in the low-income category,
3,029 units in the moderate-income category, and 6,409 units in the above moderate-income category. The
City of Fontana is planning to accommodate its share of the projected regional need for housing units, as
documented in the City’s General Plan Housing Element 2021-2029 (6th Cycle Housing Element) (Fontana,
2022).
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Population and Housing
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 4.14-7
Associated with the Shea Project and Acacia Project, both Projects entail General Plan Amendments (GPAs)
and Zone Changes (ZCs) to change the properties’ land use designations and zoning classifications from a
residential to non-residential category. The Shea Project’s proposed GPA No. 21-004 would amend the City’s
General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designations for the Shea Project Site from Multi-Family
High Density Residential (R-MFH) to Light Industrial (I-L). The Acacia Project’s proposed GPA No. 21-005
would amend the City’s General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designations for the Acacia Project
Site from R-MFH and General Commercial (C-G) to I-L. Refer to Figure 3-4, Shea Project Proposed GPA
No. 21-004 and Acacia Project Proposed GPA No. 21-005, in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this EIR.
Similarly, the Shea Project’s proposed ZC No. 21-006 would amend the City’s Zoning District Map to change
the zoning classification of the Shea Project Site from Multi-Family High Density Residential (R-5) to Light
Industrial (M-1). The Acacia Project’s proposed ZC No. 21-007 would amend the City’s Zoning District Map
to change the zoning classifications of the Acacia Project Site from R-5 and General Commercial (C-2) to M-
1. Refer to Figure 3-5, Shea Project Proposed ZC No. 21-006 and Acacia Project Proposed ZC No. 21-007.
in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this EIR.
The Shea Project and Acacia Project are required to comply with California’s Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB
330). Under existing zoning designations, up to 555 housing units could occur on the Shea Project Site and up
to 725 housing units could occur on the residentially-zoned portion of the Acacia Project Site. To comply with
SB 330, the Projects would comply with the City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 30 Article XV “No Net
Loss Density Bonus/Replacement Program,” which was approved by the Fontana City Council via Ordinance
No. 1906 on October 25, 2022.
Threshold b: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
A. Shea Project
The Shea Project Site contains one residence and associated shed under existing conditions, and
implementation of the Shea Project would remove these structures from the Shea Project Site. The removal of
these structures would displace the current occupants of the one residence, which does not constitute the
displacement of substantial numbers of people. The removal of one residence and associated shed from the
Shea Project Site would not substantially affect the supply of readily available housing units in the City.
Therefore, implementation of the Shea Project would not displace a substantial number of existing people or
housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Implementation of the
Shea Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
4.14.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Neither the Shea nor Acacia Project considered individually or together would lead to substantial unplanned
population growth or remove a substantial amount of housing that would require the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere. As such, neither the Shea nor Acacia Project has the potential to contribute
to a cumulatively significant impact associated with the need to construct unplanned housing units. The Shea
and Acacia Projects would supply employment opportunities for between an estimated 236 228 and 464
persons. Although population growth resulting from the employment opportunities offered at the Shea and
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 4.14 Population and Housing
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 4.14-8
Acacia Project Sites are not expected because the Projects’ employees are expected to already live in the local
area, based on the availability of a local workforce, the surrounding area has ample supply of housing (with
additional housing development expected in the City into the future) to accommodate any population growth
in the area that could indirectly occur due to employment-demand generation from the Shea and Acacia
Projects and other developments in the area that will offer new employment opportunities. A residential
development project is currently under construction to the immediate west of the Project Sites on the opposite
side of Sierra Avenue. Citywide, Fontana has additionally planned for new housing to meet its RHNA
allocation of 17,477 new housing units in the 2021-2029 planning period, for households at a range of income
levels (Fontana, 2022). The creation of employment opportunities by the Shea Project and Acacia Project
would benefit the City and the larger Inland Empire region by helping to achieve a better jobs-to-housing
balance, and encouraging residents to work locally instead of commuting outside of the City for work. As
such, the Shea and Acacia Project’s contribution to unplanned housing and population growth would not be
cumulatively considerable.
4.14.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Population Growth
Shea Project: Less-than-Significant Impact. The estimated 81 78 to 167 jobs to be generated by the
Shea Project are expected to be filled by a labor force that already resides in the region. Accordingly,
the Shea Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.
Acacia Project: Less-than-Significant Impact. The estimated 155 150 to 297 jobs to be generated by
the Acacia Project are expected to be filled by a labor force that already resides in the region.
Accordingly, the Shea Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.
Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: Less-than-Significant Impact. The estimated 236 228 to 464 jobs
to be generated by the Shea Project and Acacia Project combined are expected to be filled by a labor
force that already resides in the region. Accordingly, the Shea Acacia Project would not induce
substantial unplanned population growth.
Threshold b: Population and Housing Displacement
Shea Project: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Shea Project would remove one existing occupied
residence. The removal of one home would not displace substantial numbers of people or require the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Acacia Project: No Impact. No residences are located on the Acacia Project Site and no displacements
of housing or people would occur with the Acacia Project.
Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: Less-than-Significant Impact. The combined Shea and Acacia
Projects would remove one occupied residence. The removal of one home would not displace
substantial numbers of people or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 5-3
Acacia Project construction contractors (near term) and occupants (long-term) would ensure that any hazardous
materials used on-site would be safely and appropriately handled to preclude any irreversible damage to the
environment that could result if hazardous materials were released from the Shea or Acacia Project Sites.
As discussed in detail under EIR Subsection 4.5, Energy, the Shea and Acacia Projects would not result in a
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Accordingly, neither the Shea Project or Acacia
Project would result in a significant, irreversible change to the environment related to energy use.
Based on the above, Shea Project and Acacia Project construction and operation would require the commitment
of limited, slowly renewable and non-renewable resources. However, this commitment of resources would not
be substantial as demonstrated in EIR Subsection 4.6, Energy. and would be Although both Projects entail
General Plan Amendments that would add previously unplanned job growth to the City of Fontana and that is
not consistent with regional and local growth forecasts and development goals for the area, construction of the
Projects will comply with CALGreen and have energy-efficient and low water use design features to ensure
that the use of non-renewable resources would be limited to essential needs. Further, and as discussed in
Subsection 4.8.2 (DEIR pp. 4.8-8 through 4.8-19), the regulatory environment in California is trending toward
the mandatory use of renewable energy for building operations and passenger vehicle and truck power (electric
engines). As such, Tthe loss of such non-renewable resources as a result of the Projects would not be highly
accelerated when compared to existing conditions, and such resources would not be used in an inefficient or
wasteful manner. Shea and Acacia Project construction and operation would adhere to the sustainability
requirements of Title 24, Green Building Code, and CALGreen. Therefore, neither the Shea Project or Acacia
Project would result in the commitment of large quantities of natural resources that would result in significant
irreversible environmental changes.
5.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects could be growth
inducing. The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing if it would foster economic or population
growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). New employees and new residential populations represent direct
forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets
and inducing additional economic activity in the area.
A project could indirectly induce growth at the local level by increasing the demand for additional goods and
services associated with an increase in population or employment and thus reducing or removing the barriers
to growth. This typically occurs in suburban or rural environs where population growth results in increased
demand for service and commodity markets responding to the new population of residents or employees.
According to regional population projections included in SCAG’s Connect SoCal, the City of Fontana’s
population is projected to grow by 75,700 residents between 2016 and 2045 (approximately 0.99 percent
annual growth) (SCAG, 2020). Over this same time period, employment in the City is expected to add 18,400
new jobs (approximately 0.84 percent annual job growth) (ibid). Economic growth would likely take place as
a result of the Shea and Acacia Project’s operation as commerce center facilities. Given that the Project would
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 5-4
generate approximately 490 employees, the Project would represent approximately 2.6% of the City’s
projected job growth. The Shea and Acacia Project’s employees (short-term construction and long-term
operational) would purchase goods and services in the region, but any secondary increase in employment
associated with meeting these goods and services demands is expected to be accommodated by existing goods
and service providers and, based on the amount of existing and planned future commercial and retail services
available in areas near the Shea and Acacia Project Sites, would be highly unlikely to result in any
unanticipated, adverse physical impacts to the environment. In addition, the Shea Project and Acacia Project
would create jobs, a majority of which would likely be filled by residents of the housing units either already
built or planned for development within the City Fontana, City of Rialto, and nearby incorporated and
unincorporated areas. Accordingly, because it is anticipated that most of the Shea and Acacia Project’s future
employees would already be living in the City of Fontana or the immediate surrounding Inland Empire area,
the Shea and Acacia Projects’ introduction of new employment opportunities on the Shea and Acacia Project
Sites would not induce substantial growth in the area.
Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance
to the environment. Typically, growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it
fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land
use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as SCAG. Significant growth impacts
also could occur if a project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the
levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. In general, growth induced by a project is
considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public
services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some
other way.
The area surrounding the Shea and Acacia Project Sites consist of planned commercial development and an
existing residential community to the north, planned and existing commerce enter development to the south, a
public utility corridor then a residential community in the City of Rialto to the east, and undeveloped land to
the west on the west side of Sierra Avenue that is planned as a residential community. Development of the
Shea and Acacia Project Sites are not expected to place short-term development pressure on abutting properties
because these areas are already built-out, have approvals for future development, or have proposals for future
development under review by the City of Fontana.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not result in substantial, adverse growth-inducing impacts.
5.4 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT DURING THE INITIAL SCREENING PROCESS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR “…contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons
that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore
not discussed in detail in the EIR.” There were no environmental topic areas that fell into this category. All
possible significant effects of the Shea Project and Acacia project are evaluated in the EIR, Section 4.0.
Sierra Business Center
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Page 7-15
Fontana,
2022d
Fontana, City of, 2022d. City of Fontana No Net Loss Density Bonus/Replacement Program
(per Ordinance No. 1906). October 11, 2022.
FPD, n.d. Fontana Police Department, n.d. About Us. No Date. Accessed May 5, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.fontana.org/2509/About-Us
FTA, 2006 Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May
2006. Accessed April 20, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pd
f
Google
Earth,
2022.
Google Earth, 2022. Google Earth. 2022.
HUD, n.d. United Stated Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d. Housing Discrimination
Under the Fair Housing Act. No date. Accessed April 26, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_act_overview
IAPMO,
2016
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, 2016. 2016 California
Plumbing Code. 2016. Accessed April 20, 2022. Available on-line:
http://epubs.iapmo.org/2016/CPC/#p=48
IEUA, n.d. Inland Empire Utilities Agency, n.d. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4. No date. Accessed
April 26, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.ieua.org/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-4/
MSHCP,
2005
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Conservation Plan, 2005. Volume 2, Plants.
Accessed October 25, 2022. Available on-line:
https://rctlma.org/Portals/0/mshcp/volume2/plants.html#TOC1_38
MSHCP,
2017
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Monitoring
Program. 2017 Rate Plant Survey Report. Available on-line:
https://wrc-rca.org/species/surveys/Rare_Plants/2017_Rare_Plants_Report.pdf
NAHC, n.d. California Native American Heritage Commission, n.d. State Laws and Codes. No date.
Accessed April 20, 2022. Available on-line:
http://nahc.ca.gov/codes/state-laws-and-codes/
NAIOP,
2010
NAIOP, 2010. Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that Will Drive Warehouse and
Distribution Growth and Demand for Space. March 2010. Accessed April 26, 2022. Available
on-line:
file:///C:/Users/kgoddard/Downloads/LogisticsTrendsandIndustries%20(1).pdf
NPS, n.d National Park Service, n.d. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 4308. No date.
Accessed April 20, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/627/files/california%20code%20of%20regulations.doc
NPS, 2021a National Park Service, 2022. The National Historic Preservation Program: Overview. March
3, 2022. Accessed April 20, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nhpa.htm
NPS, 2021b National Park Service, 2021. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
October 20, 2021. Accessed April 20, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nagpra.htm