HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Environmental Impact Report for Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse (DEIR)Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2021120059
Cypress and Slover Warehouse
Project
City of Fontana, California
Lead Agency
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Project Applicant
Duke Realty Limited Partnership
Lead Agency Discretionary Permits
Design Review Project (DRP 21-013)
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 21-007)
May 2023
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Name and Number Page
S.0 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... S-1
S.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ S-1
S.2 Project Overview .................................................................................................................... S-2
S.2.1 Location and Setting .................................................................................................. S-2
S.2.2 Project Summary ....................................................................................................... S-2
S.2.3 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................... S-2
S.3 EIR Process ............................................................................................................................ S-3
S.4 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ................................................................... S-4
S.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ...................................................................................... S-4
S.5.1 No Project Alternative ............................................................................................... S-4
S.5.2 Boyle Avenue Preservation and Reduced Building Area Alternative ........................ S-5
S.5.3 Modified Building Operations Alternative ................................................................ S-5
S.6 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Conclusions ............................................... S-6
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purposes of CEQA and this EIR ............................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Summary of the Project Evaluated by this EIR ...................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Prior CEQA Review ............................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Legal Authority ...................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Responsible and Trustee Agencies ......................................................................................... 1-3
1.6 EIR Scope, Format, and Content ............................................................................................ 1-4
1.6.1 EIR Scope................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.6.2 EIR Format and Content ........................................................................................... 1-5
1.6.3 Incorporation by Reference ....................................................................................... 1-8
2.0 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Regional Setting and Location ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Local Setting and Location .................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Planning Context .................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4.1 City of Fontana General Plan ................................................................................... 2-2
2.4.2 Zoning ........................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.4.3 Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan .................................... 2-6
2.4.4 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy ................ 2-6
2.5 Existing Physical Site Conditions .......................................................................................... 2-6
2.5.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................... 2-6
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Section Name and Number Page
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page i
2.5.2 Aesthetics and Topographic ...................................................................................... 2-7
2.5.3 Air Quality and Climate ............................................................................................. 2-7
2.5.4 Cultural Resources & Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................... 2-9
2.5.5 Geology ...................................................................................................................... 2-9
2.5.6 Hydrology .................................................................................................................. 2-9
2.5.7 Noise ........................................................................................................................ 2-10
2.5.8 Transportation ......................................................................................................... 2-10
2.5.9 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................... 2-11
2.5.10 Vegetation Communities .......................................................................................... 2-11
2.5.11 Wildlife ..................................................................................................................... 2-11
2.5.12 Rare and Unique Resources .................................................................................... 2-12
3.0 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Project Location ..................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Statement of Objectives ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Project Components ............................................................................................................... 3-5
3.3.1 Design Review Project No. 20-025 (DRP 20-025) .................................................... 3-5
3.3.2 Tentative Parcel Map No. 20456 (TPM 20456) ...................................................... 3-11
3.4 Project Improvements .......................................................................................................... 3-11
3.4.1 Public Roadway Improvements ............................................................................... 3-11
3.4.2 Utility Improvements ............................................................................................... 3-11
3.5 Construction Characteristics ................................................................................................ 3-14
3.5.1 Proposed Physical Disturbance .............................................................................. 3-14
3.5.2 Construction Schedule ............................................................................................. 3-16
3.5.3 Construction Equipment .......................................................................................... 3-16
3.6 Operational Characteristics .................................................................................................. 3-17
3.7 Summary of Requested Actions ........................................................................................... 3-18
4.0 Environmental Analysis ................................................................................................... 4-1
4.0.1 Summary of EIR Scope .............................................................................................. 4-1
4.0.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis ........................................................................ 4-1
4.0.3 Analysis Format ......................................................................................................... 4-6
4.1 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 4.1-1
4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 4.1-15
4.1.3 Methodology for Calculating Project-Related Air Quality Impacts ..................... 4.1-20
4.1.4 Basis for Determining Significance ...................................................................... 4.1-23
4.1.5 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 4.1-25
4.1.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 4.1-31
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Section Name and Number Page
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page ii
4.1.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ........................................................... 4.1-32
4.1.8 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 4.1-33
4.2 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 4.2-1
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................. 4.2-2
4.2.3 Methodology for Evaluating Biological Resources Impacts .................................. 4.2-6
4.2.4 Basis for Determining Significance ........................................................................ 4.2-6
4.2.5 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................... 4.2-7
4.2.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 4.2-10
4.2.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ........................................................... 4.2-11
4.2.8 Applicable Regulations, Design Requirements, and Mitigation ........................... 4.2-11
4.2.9 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation .............................................................. 4.2-12
4.3 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 4.3-1
4.3.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 4.3-1
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................. 4.3-4
4.3.3 Methodology for Evaluating Cultural Resources Impacts ................................... 4.3-10
4.3.4 Basis for Determining Significance ...................................................................... 4.3-10
4.3.5 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 4.3-11
4.3.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 4.3-12
4.3.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ........................................................... 4.3-13
4.3.8 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 4.3-13
4.3.9 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation .............................................................. 4.3-15
4.4 Energy ................................................................................................................................. 4.4-1
4.4.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 4.4-1
4.4.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................. 4.4-1
4.4.3 Methodology for Calculating Project Energy Demands ........................................ 4.4-4
4.4.4 Basis for Determining Significance ........................................................................ 4.4-4
4.4.5 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................... 4.4-5
4.4.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................................... 4.4-9
4.4.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................................. 4.4-9
4.4.8 Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 4.4-9
4.5 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 4.5-1
4.5.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................. 4.5-4
4.5.3 Methodology for Evaluating Geology & Soils Impacts .......................................... 4.5-9
4.5.4 Basis for Determining Significance ........................................................................ 4.5-9
4.5.5 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 4.5-10
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Section Name and Number Page
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page iii
4.5.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 4.5-14
4.5.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ........................................................... 4.5-15
4.5.8 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 4.5-15
4.5.9 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation .............................................................. 4.5-16
4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................. 4.6-1
4.6.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 4.6-1
4.6.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................. 4.6-7
4.6.3 Methodology for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................... 4.6-16
4.6.4 Basis for Determining Significance ...................................................................... 4.6-17
4.6.5 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 4.6-20
4.6.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 4.6-22
4.6.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ........................................................... 4.6-22
4.6.8 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 4.6-22
4.6.9 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation .............................................................. 4.6-23
4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 4.7-1
4.7.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................. 4.7-4
4.7.3 Methodology for Evaluating Hazards & Hazardous Materials Impacts .............. 4.7-11
4.7.4 Basis for Determining Significance ...................................................................... 4.7-11
4.7.5 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 4.7-12
4.7.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 4.7-16
4.7.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ........................................................... 4.7-17
4.7.8 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 4.7-18
4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................. 4.8-1
4.8.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 4.8-1
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................. 4.8-4
4.8.3 Methodology for Evaluating Hydrology & Water Quality Impacts ....................... 4.8-8
4.8.4 Basis for Determining Significance ........................................................................ 4.8-8
4.8.5 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................... 4.8-9
4.8.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 4.8-16
4.8.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ........................................................... 4.8-17
4.8.8 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 4.8-18
4.9 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.1 Noise Fundamentals ............................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.2 Existing Noise Conditions ....................................................................................... 4.9-3
4.9.3 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................. 4.9-4
4.9.4 Methodology for Calculating Project-Related Noise Impacts ................................ 4.9-9
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Section Name and Number Page
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page iv
4.9.5 Basis for Determining Significance ...................................................................... 4.9-13
4.9.6 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 4.9-15
4.9.7 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 4.9-22
4.9.8 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ........................................................... 4.9-23
4.9.9 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 4.9-23
4.10 Transportation ................................................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.10.1 Existing Transportation Setting ............................................................................ 4.10-1
4.10.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 4.10-2
4.10.3 VMT Evaluation Criteria and Methodology ......................................................... 4.10-4
4.10.4 Basis for Determining Significance ...................................................................... 4.10-5
4.10.5 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 4.10-5
4.10.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................... 4.10-12
4.10.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ......................................................... 4.10-12
4.10.8 Mitigation ........................................................................................................... 4.10-13
4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 4.11-1
4.11.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 4.11-2
4.11.3 Methodology for Evaluating Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts ........................ 4.11-6
4.11.4 Basis for Determining Significance ...................................................................... 4.11-6
4.11.5 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 4.11-6
4.11.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 4.11-8
4.11.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ........................................................... 4.11-8
4.11.8 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 4.11-8
4.11.9 Significant of Impacts After Mitigation ................................................................ 4.11-8
5.0 Other CEQA Considerations ........................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the
Project is Implemented ........................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Caused
by the Project Should it be Implemented ............................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Project ................................................................................ 5-3
5.4 Effects Found not to be Significant During the EIR Preparation Process .............................. 5-4
5.4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... 5-4
5.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .......................................................................... 5-7
5.4.3 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................. 5-8
5.4.4 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................... 5-11
5.4.5 Population and Housing .......................................................................................... 5-11
5.4.6 Public Services ......................................................................................................... 5-12
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Section Name and Number Page
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page v
5.4.7 Recreation ................................................................................................................ 5-15
5.4.8 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................... 5-15
5.4.9 Wildfire .................................................................................................................... 5-19
6.0 Alternatives .................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Alternatives Under Consideration .......................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.1 No Project Alternative ............................................................................................... 6-2
6.1.2 Boyle Avenue Preservation and Reduced Building Area Alternative ........................ 6-2
6.1.3 Modified Building Operations Alternative ................................................................ 6-2
6.2 Alternatives Considered and Rejected ................................................................................... 6-3
6.2.1 Alternatives Sites ....................................................................................................... 6-3
6.3 Alternative Analysis ............................................................................................................... 6-4
6.3.1 No Project Alternative ............................................................................................... 6-4
6.3.2 Boyle Avenue Preservation and Reduced Building Area Alternative ........................ 6-7
6.3.3 Modified Building Operations Alternative .............................................................. 6-11
6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................................. 6-14
7.0 References .................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Persons Contributing to EIR Preparation ............................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Documents Appended to this EIR .......................................................................................... 7-1
7.3 Documents Incorporated by Reference .................................................................................. 7-2
7.4 Documents and Websites Consulted ...................................................................................... 7-2
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page i
FIGURES
Figure Number and Title Page
Figure 2-1 Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2-2 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations ................................................................ 2-4
Figure 2-3 Existing Zoning Classifications ....................................................................................... 2-5
Figure 2-4 Existing On-Site Land Uses ............................................................................................. 2-8
Figure 3-1 Regional Map ................................................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-3 USGS Topographic Map .................................................................................................. 3-4
Figure 3-4 Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 3-6
Figure 3-5 Conceptual Building Elevations ...................................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-6 Conceptual Landscape Plan ............................................................................................. 3-9
Figure 3-7 Proposed Walls and Fencing .......................................................................................... 3-10
Figure 3-8 Tentative Parcel Map No. 20456 ................................................................................... 3-12
Figure 3-9 Conceptual Utility Plan .................................................................................................. 3-13
Figure 3-10 Conceptual Grading Plan ............................................................................................... 3-15
Figure 4.0-1 Cumulative Development Location Map ......................................................................... 4-5
Figure 4.1-1 SCAB Ozone Trend ...................................................................................................... 4.1-8
Figure 4.1-2 SCAB PM10 Trend (Federal Standard) ......................................................................... 4.1-9
Figure 4.1-3 SCAB PM10 Trend (State Standard) ............................................................................. 4.1-9
Figure 4.1-4 SCAB PM2.5 Trend (Federal Standard) ....................................................................... 4.1-10
Figure 4.1-5 SCAB PM2.5 Trend (State Standard) ........................................................................... 4.1-10
Figure 4.1-6 SCAB CO Trend ......................................................................................................... 4.1-11
Figure 4.1-7 SCAB NO2 Trend (Federal Standard) ......................................................................... 4.1-12
Figure 4.1-8 SCAB NO2 Trend (State Standard) ............................................................................. 4.1-12
Figure 4.1-9 DPM and Diesel Vehicle Miles Trend ........................................................................ 4.1-13
Figure 4.8-1 Santa Ana River Watershed Map .................................................................................. 4.8-2
Figure 4.8-2 Existing Conditions Hydrology Map ............................................................................ 4.8-3
Figure 4.8-3 Proposed Post-Development Hydrology Map ............................................................ 4.8-13
Figure 4.9-1 Noise Measurement Locations ...................................................................................... 4.9-5
Figure 4.9-2 Noise Receiver Locations ........................................................................................... 4.9-11
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number and Title Page
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................................... S-7
Table 1-1 Summary of NOP Comments and Scoping Meeting Comments ..................................... 1-5
Table 1-2 Location of CEQA Required Topics ................................................................................ 1-6
Table 3-1 Construction Duration .................................................................................................... 3-16
Table 3-2 Construction Equipment Assumptions........................................................................... 3-16
Table 3-3 Project-Related Approvals/Permits ................................................................................ 3-19
Table 4.0-1 Cumulative Development Land Use Summary ............................................................... 4-3
Table 4.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................................................... 4.1-5
Table 4.1-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB .................................................. 4.1-7
Table 4.1-3 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary 2018-2020 ....................................... 4.1-14
Table 4.1-4 Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds ...................................................... 4.1-24
Table 4.1-5 Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions Thresholds ............................... 4.1-25
Table 4.1-6 Maximum Daily Localized Operational Emissions Thresholds ................................. 4.1-25
Table 4.1-7 Peak Construction Emissions Summary ..................................................................... 4.1-27
Table 4.1-8 Peak Operational Emissions Summary ....................................................................... 4.1-27
Table 4.1-9 Localized Construction-Source Emissions Summary ................................................. 4.1-28
Table 4.1-10 Localized Operations-Source Emissions Summary .................................................... 4.1-29
Table 4.6-1 GWP and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs ........................................................ 4.6-2
Table 4.6-2 Summary of Projected Global Warming Impact, 2070-2099 ....................................... 4.6-5
Table 4.6-3 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures Towards 2020 Target ................................. 4.6-12
Table 4.6-4 Project GHG Emissions .............................................................................................. 4.6-20
Table 4.9-1 Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for
General Assessment ...................................................................................................... 4.9-7
Table 4.9-2 Reference Construction Noise Levels ......................................................................... 4.9-10
Table 4.9-3 Reference Stationary Noise Levels ............................................................................. 4.9-12
Table 4.9-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................ 4.9-13
Table 4.9-5 Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary ........................................................ 4.9-16
Table 4.9-6 Nighttime Concrete Pouring Noise Level Summary .................................................. 4.9-17
Table 4.9-7 Daytime Project Operational (Stationary) Noise Level Summary .............................. 4.9-17
Table 4.9-8 Nighttime Project Operational (Stationary) Noise Level Summary ........................... 4.9-18
Table 4.9-9 Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases .................................................. 4.9-18
Table 4.9-10 Nighttime Operational Noise Level Increases ............................................................ 4.9-19
Table 4.9-11 E+P Traffic Noise Levels ............................................................................................ 4.9-20
Table 4.9-12 Opening Year Traffic Noise Levels ............................................................................ 4.9-20
Table 4.9-13 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ................................................................. 4.9-21
Table 5-1 SCAG’s Connect SoCal Goal Consistency Analysis ....................................................... 5-9
Table 6-1 Alternatives to the Project – Comparison of Environmental Impacts ........................... 6-16
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page i
EIR Technical Appendices (bound separately)
Appendix A: Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project Notice of Preparation (NOP), and Written Comments.
Appendix B: Urban Crossroads, 2022a. Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Air Quality Impact
Analysis. March 8, 2022.
Appendix C: Urban Crossroads, 2022b. Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Mobile Source Diesel
Health Risk Assessment. January 6, 2022.
Appendix D: Alden, 2022. Slover-Cypress Biological Resources. January 13, 2022.
Appendix E: BFSA, 2022a. Cultural Resources Study for the Cypress/Slover Industrial Center Project.
January 27, 2022.
Appendix F: Urban Crossroads, 2022c. Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Energy Analysis.
March 8, 2022.
Appendix G: SCG, 2021. Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Warehouse. August 10, 2021.
Appendix H: BFSA, 2022b. Paleontological Assessment for the Cypress and Slover Avenue Project. January
27, 2022.
Appendix I: Urban Crossroads, 2022d. Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Greenhouse Gas
Analysis. March 8, 2022.
Appendix J: Apex, 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update 2021, Cypress Avenue and Slover
Avenue, Fontana, California. August 31, 2021.
Appendix K: Huitt-Zollars, 2021a. Preliminary Drainage Report for Cypress at Slover Industrial.
September 13, 2021.
Appendix L: Huitt-Zollars, 2021b. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Cypress at Slover
Industrial. September 13, 2021.
Appendix M: Urban Crossroads, 2022e. Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact
Analysis. December 4, 2022.
Appendix N: Urban Crossroads, 2022f. Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic Study.
December 5, 2022.
Cypress and Slover Industrial Building
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym Definition
§ Section
AB Assembly Bill
AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
AB 1493 Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACMs Asbestos Containing Materials
ACWM Asbestos Containing Waste Materials
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AERMOD Air Quality Dispersion Modeling
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
A-P Act Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
APS Alternative Planning Strategy
APSA Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act
APN Assessor Parcel Number
AQIA Air Quality Impact Analysis
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BACM Best Available Control Measure
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BAU Business as Usual
BMPs Best Management Practices
c.y. cubic yards
CA California
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention
CalEEMod™ California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code
Cal Pub Res. Code §42911 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
Cypress and Slover Industrial Building
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page iii
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBSC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCAA California Clear Air Act
CCCC California Climate Change Center
CDC California Department of Conservation
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Cfs cubic feet per second
CH4 Methane
CIWQS California Integrated Water Quality System
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
COG Council of Governments
COHb carboxyhemoglobin
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CSU California State University
CTR California Toxics Rule
CUPAs California Unified Program Agencies
CWA Clean Water Act
dB Decibel
dBA A-weighted Decibels
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DIF Development Impact Fee
DMV Department of Motor Vehicles
DOSH Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Cypress and Slover Industrial Building
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page iv
DOE Determination of Eligibility
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DRP Design Review Project
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR Department of Water Resources
E+P Existing plus Project Conditions
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EDR Environmental Data Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC Emission Factor Model
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESA Environmental Site Assessments
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFPD Fontana Fire Protection District
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FIRM Food Insurance Rate Map
FPD Fontana Police Department
FTA Federal Transit Association
FUSD Fontana Unified School District
FWC Fontana Water Company
Gg gigagrams
GBV Ground-Based Vibration
GBN Ground-Based Noise
GCC Global Climate Change
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GHGA Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report
GPU General Plan Update
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
GSPs Groundwater Sustainability Plans
GWP Global Warming Potential
Cypress and Slover Industrial Building
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page v
H2O Water Vapor
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HDT Heavy Duty Trucks
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
HMBEP Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan
HMIS Hazardous Materials Inventory Statements
HMMP Hazardous Materials Management Plan
HMTA Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
HMTAUSA Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HSC Health and Safety Code
HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law
HWTS Hazardous Waste Tracking System
I Interstate
IEPR Integrated Energy Policy Report
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Authority
In. inches
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
ISO Independent System Operator
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
I-G General Industrial
I-L Light Industrial
I-10 Interstate 10
I-15 Interstate 15
I-215 Interstate 215
LCD Liquid Crystal Display
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LOS Level of Service
LRAs Local Responsibility Areas
LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds
Lw sound power levels
M-1 Light Industrial Zone
M-2 General Industrial Zone
MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Cypress and Slover Industrial Building
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page vi
MCN Master Case No.
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMTs million metric tons
MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
NDC nationally determined contributions
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NF3 Nitrogen Trifluoride
NHL National Historic Landmarks
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NLR No Longer Regulated
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NO Nitric Oxide
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
N2 Nitrogen
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NPS Non-point source
NPS National Park Service
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NVIA Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
O2 Oxygen
O3 Ozone
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
ONT Ontario International Airport
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Assessment
Cypress and Slover Industrial Building
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page vii
Pb Lead
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PM Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter (2.5 microns or smaller)
PM10 Fine Particulate Matter (10 microns or smaller)
PRC Public Resources Code
PROWAG Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized Environmental conditions
REMEL Reference Mean Emission Level
ROGs Reactive Organic Gasses
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SF/s.f. square foot or square feet
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SAWPA Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SBTAM San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model
SB Senate Bill
SB 350 Senate Bill 350, Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015
SCE Southern California Edison
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Sothern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD Southern Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCH California State Clearinghouse (Office of Planning and Research)
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SGMA Sustainable groundwater management act
SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officers
SHRC State Historical Resources Commission
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
Cypress and Slover Industrial Building
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page viii
SO4 Sulfates
SOX Sulfur Oxides
SRA Source Receptor Area
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWQMP Storm Water Quality Management Plan
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TEA-21 Transportation Equality Act for 21st Century
TPM Tentative Parcel Map
TRUs Transportation Refrigeration Units
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USTs Underground storage tanks
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
WDR Water discharge requirements
WMI Watershed Management Initiative
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WRI World Resources Institute
WS Waters of the State
WUS Waters of the U.S.
YBP Years before present
ZORI Zones of Required Investigation
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-1
S.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as codified in Public Resources Code Section 21000, et
seq. requires that before a public agency makes a decision to approve a project that could have one or more
adverse effects on the physical environment, the agency must inform itself about the project’s potential
environmental impacts, give the public an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues, and take
feasible measures to avoid or reduce potential harm to the physical environment.
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR), having California State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2021120059, was
prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Article 9, Sections 15120-15132 to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts associated with planning, constructing, and operating the proposed Nevada & Palmetto
Commerce Center project (hereinafter, the “Project” or “proposed Project”). This EIR does not recommend
approval or denial of the proposed Project; rather, this EIR is a source of factual information regarding potential
environmental impacts that may result from implementation of the Project. The Draft EIR will be available
for public review for a minimum period of 45 days. After consideration of public comment, the City of Fontana
will consider certifying the Final EIR and adopting required findings.
An Initial Study was not prepared for this Project, however, the City of Fontana in its capacity as Lead Agency
for the Project determined that implementation of the Project clearly has the potential to result in significant
environmental effects and directed that a Project EIR be prepared for the Project as permitted by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15063(a). This EIR addresses the 11 environmental topic areas listed below in detail.
1. Air Quality
2. Biological Resources
3. Cultural Resources
4. Energy
5. Geology and Soils
6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
9. Noise
10. Transportation
11. Tribal Cultural Resources
This EIR’s scope was determined through the independent judgment of the City of Fontana pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15063, and in consideration of public comments received by the City in response to this
EIR’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) and during a EIR scoping meeting held before the public. The NOP and
written comments received by the City in response to the NOP, are attached to this EIR as Technical Appendix
A. As determined by the City and in consideration of public comments received in response to the NOP and
during the EIR scoping meeting, the 11 environmental subject areas listed above have reasonable potential to
be significantly affected by planning, constructing, and/or operating the proposed Project and the potential
effects resulting from the Project are analyzed in detail herein.
Refer to EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, for a full account and analysis of the topic areas listed
above. Topic areas for which the EIR concluded that impacts would clearly not be significant and that do not
warrant detailed analysis in this EIR are addressed in EIR Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations. For each
Cypress and Slover Warehoue Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-2
of the aforementioned subject areas, this EIR describes: 1) the physical conditions that existed at the
approximate time this EIR’s NOP was filed with the California State Clearinghouse (December 3, 2021);
2) discloses the type and magnitude of potential environmental impacts resulting from Project planning,
construction, and operation; and 3) if warranted, recommends feasible mitigation measures that would reduce
or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts that the proposed Project may cause.
A summary of the Project’s significant environmental impacts and the mitigation measures imposed by the
City of Fontana to lessen or avoid those impacts is included in this Executive Summary as Table S-1,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City applies mitigation measures that it determines 1) are
feasible and practical for the Project Applicant to implement, 2) are feasible and practical for the City to
monitor and enforce, 3) are legal for the City to impose, 4) have an essential nexus to the Project’s impacts,
and 4) would result in a benefit to the physical environment. CEQA does not require the Lead Agency to
impose mitigation measures that are duplicative of mandatory regulatory requirements.
S.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
S.2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING
The “Project Site” for purposes of analysis in this EIR consists of approximately 29.8 acres within the City of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The City, which is located in the southwestern portion of San
Bernardino County, is located east of the Cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga, west of the City of Rialto
and the unincorporated community of Bloomington, and north of the City of Jurupa Valley. The Project Site
is located approximately 0.1-mile south of Interstate 10 (I-10), and abuts Cypress Avenue to the east, Slover
Avenue to the south, and Oleander Avenue. The Project Site includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0251-
163-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07, -08, -09, -10, and -13 and 0251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -
20, -23, and -25. The Project Site is located within Section 19, Township 1 South, Range 5 West, San
Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.
S.2.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
For purposes of this EIR, the term “Project” refers to the actions required to implement the proposed Cypress
and Slover Warehouse project, including planning construction, and ongoing operation. The Project includes
the construction and operation of a 623,460 square-foot (s.f.) industrial commerce center building and
associated facilities including but not limited to a loading/unloading area with loading dock doors and trailer
parking spaces, passenger vehicle parking, landscaping, and connections to existing utility infrastructure. The
Project requires the City’s approval of a Design Review Project and a Tentative Parcel Map. Refer to EIR
Section 3.0, Project Description, for a detailed description of the Project.
S.2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The fundamental purpose and goal of the Project is to accomplish the development of a warehouse distribution
building on an approximately 29.8-acre property. The Project would achieve this goal through the following
objectives.
Cypress and Slover Warehoue Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-3
1. To expand economic development in the City of Fontana by re-developing an underutilized property
with an in-demand industrial use within a portion of the City that is planned for long-term industrial
development.
2. To make efficient use of a property in the City of Fontana by maximizing its buildout potential for
employment-generating uses.
3. To attract employment-generating businesses to the City of Fontana to reduce the need for members
of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.
4. To develop an industrial building with loading bays adjacent to City of Fontana truck routes and in
close proximity to the I-10 Freeway that can be used as part of the southern California supply chain
and goods movement network.
5. To attract businesses that can expedite the delivery of goods to consumers and businesses in the City
of Fontana and beyond.
6. To develop a project that has architectural design and operational characteristics that are compatible
with other existing and planned land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site.
7. To redevelop a property that has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities.
S.3 EIR PROCESS
Following preliminary review of the Project’s application materials, the City of Fontana concluded that the
Project and its associated implementing actions have the potential to result in significant environmental effects;
as such, the City proceeded with preparation of this EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d). The
City filed a NOP with the California Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) to indicate that an
EIR would be prepared. The NOP were distributed for a 30-day public review period, which began on
December 3, 2021. The City of Fontana received written comments on the scope of the EIR during those 30
days, which were considered by the City during the preparation of this EIR. The City also held an EIR scoping
meeting open to the interested public agencies and members of the general public on December 16, 2021.
This Draft EIR will be circulated for review and comment by the public and other interested parties, agencies,
and organizations for a 45-day review period. During the 45-day public review period, public notices
announcing availability of the Draft EIR will be mailed to interested parties, an advertisement will be published
in the Fontana Herald News (a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area), and copies of the Draft
EIR and its Technical Appendices will be available for review at the locations indicated in the public notices.
After the close of the 45-day public comment period on the Draft EIR, the City will prepare and publish
responses to written comments it received on the environmental effects of the Project. The Final EIR will be
considered for certification by the City of Fontana Planning Commission. Certification of the Final EIR would
be accompanied by the adoption of written findings and a statement of overriding considerations for any
significant unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. In addition, pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6 and because the Project will include mitigation measures, the County must
adopt a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), which describes the process to ensure the
Cypress and Slover Warehoue Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-4
Project’s construction and operational activities will comply with the mitigation measures identified in the
Final EIR.
S.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(2) requires the Lead Agency to identify any known issues of controversy
in the Executive Summary.
The City has not identified any environmental issues of controversy associated with the Project.
Notwithstanding, as part of the NOP public comment period the Lead Agency has identified several issues of
local concern including, but not limited to, potential impacts related to air pollution (including toxic air
contaminants and greenhouse gas emissions) and tribal cultural resources – and these issues are all addressed
in this EIR. Considering the foregoing, this EIR addresses all environmental issues that are known by the City
and that were identified in the comment letters that the County received in response to the NOP. Written
comments received by the City in response to the NOP are summarized in Section 1.0 of this EIR (refer to
Table 1-1, Summary of NOP and Scoping Meeting Comments).
S.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project or to the location of the
project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the project. A brief description of the alternatives to the Project
considered in this EIR is provided below; a detailed description of each alternative evaluated in this EIR, as
well as an analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative, is provided in EIR
Section 6.0, Alternatives. Also described in Section 6.0 is a list of alternatives that were initially considered
but rejected from detailed consideration.
S.5.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project Alternative considers no development on the Project Site beyond what occurs on the Site under
existing conditions. Under this Alternative, the residential units on the northern and western portions of the
Project Site would be retained while the remaining portions of the Site would be kept vacant for the foreseeable
future. This Alternative was used to compare the environmental effects of the proposed Project with an
alternative that would leave the property in its existing state.
The No Project Alternative would result in no physical environmental impacts to the Project Site beyond those
that have historically occurred on the Project Site. All potentially significant effects of the Project would be
avoided by the selection of this Alternative. Because the No Project Alternative would not re-develop the
Project Site and would not promote local economic development, including through the creation of new jobs
and the expansion of the local tax base, the No Project Alternative would fail to meet all of the Project’s
objectives.
Cypress and Slover Warehoue Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-5
S.5.2 BOYLE AVENUE PRESERVATION AND REDUCED BUILDING AREA ALTERNATIVE
The Boyle Avenue Preservation and Reduced Building Area Alternative considers a proposal where the
segment of Boyle Avenue located east of Oleander Avenue and west of Cypress Avenue is retained, splitting
the Project Site into two halves. Under this Alternative, both the northern and southern halves of the Project
Site would be developed with warehouse distribution/commerce center buildings at floor-to-area ratio (FAR)
of 0.45, as allowed by the City of Fontana General Plan and Zoning and Development Code. This Alternative
was selected to evaluate whether the retention of Boyle Avenue and the development of the Site with two
smaller industrial buildings would result in fewer environmental impacts than the one larger building proposed
by the Project.
The Boyle Avenue Alternative would not reduce – but would likely increase – the Project’s significant and
unavoidable environmental impact from GHG emissions. This Alternative would also increase energy
consumption in comparison to the Project. Upon application of the same mitigation measures as the Project,
the Boyle Avenue Alternative would result in similar, less than significant impacts as the Project to air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise,
transportation, and tribal cultural resources.
The Boyle Avenue Alternative would not meet Project Objective No. 2 because it provides a reduced scale of
development in comparison to the proposed Project and would not maximize employment-generating potential
of development on the Project Site. The Boyle Avenue would meet all other Project objectives because it
provides a similar land use and building design as the Project.
S.5.3 MODIFIED BUILDING OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE
The Modified Building Operations Alternative considers a proposal where proposed building operations are
less intensive than the Project, but all other aspects of the Project (building size, site layout, architecture,
landscaping, etc.) are unchanged. Specifically, the Modified Building Operations Alternative would reduce
the amount of refrigerated warehouse space to half the amount provided by the Project, or approximately 12.5
percent of the total building floor area. This Alternative was selected to evaluate whether modifying a
relatively energy-intensive aspect of the Project’s operations would result in a substantive reduction to any of
the significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project.
The Modified Operations Alternative would reduce – but not avoid – the Project’s significant and unavoidable
environmental impact from GHG emissions. This Alternative would reduce energy consumption in
comparison to the Project. The Modified Operations Alternative would require the same mitigation measures
as the Project for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,
and tribal cultural resources. Upon consideration of all required mitigation measures, the Modified Operations
Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resources.
Because the Modified Operations Alternative provides a similar land use and identical building design and
scale of development as the proposed Project, this Alternative would meet all of the Project’s objectives.
Cypress and Slover Warehoue Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-6
S.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND CONCLUSIONS
Table S-1 provides a summary of the Project’s environmental impacts, as required by CEQA Guidelines
Section 15123(a). Also presented are the mitigation measures recommended by the Lead Agency to further
avoid adverse environmental impacts or to reduce their level of significance. After the application of all
feasible mitigation measures, the Project would result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impact
related to greenhouse gas emissions.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-7
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Air Quality
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less than Significant Impact. The Project would neither contribute to a
delay in the attainment of federal and State air
quality standards in the SCAB nor exceed
local growth projections. Accordingly, the
Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the 2016 AQMP.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact
Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact. Project construction and operational activities
would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD
regional threshold for any criteria pollutant.
Thus, the Project would not contribute
cumulatively considerable volumes of any air
pollutant for which the SCAB does not attain
federal or State air quality standards.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact
Threshold c: Less than Significant Impact.
Implementation of the Project would not: 1)
exceed applicable SCAQMD localized
criteria pollution emissions thresholds during
construction and operation; 2) would not
expose sensitive receptors to toxic air
contaminants (i.e., DPM) that exceed the
applicable SCAQMD carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic risk thresholds; and 3) would not
cause or contribute to the formation of a CO “hot spot.”
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold d: Less than Significant Impact.
The Project would not produce air emissions
that would lead to unusual or substantial
construction-related or operational-related
odors. The Project is required to comply with
SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-8
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Biological Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: No Impact. The Project Site
does not contain or support any special-status
plant or wildlife species. As such,
implementation of the proposed Project
would not have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold b.: No Impact. The Project Site
does not contain riparian and/or other
sensitive natural habitats; therefore, the 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 No Impact
Threshold c: No Impact. No State- or
federally-protected wetlands are located on
the Project Site; therefore, no impact to
wetlands would occur.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold d: Potentially Significant Direct
and Cumulatively-Considerable Impact.
There is no potential for the Project to
interfere with the movement of fish or impede
the use of a native wildlife nursery site.
However, the 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 season and should nesting birds be present.
MM 4.2-1 Vegetation clearing and ground
disturbance shall be prohibited during the migratory
bird nesting season (January 31 through September
1), unless a migratory bird nesting survey is
completed in accordance with the following
requirements:
a) A nesting bird survey shall be conducted on the Project Site and within suitable habitat located within a 500-foot radius of the Project Site by a qualified biologist within three days prior to initiating vegetation clearing or
ground disturbance.
b) If the survey identifies the presence of active
nests, then the nests shall not be disturbed
Project Biologist City of Fontana
Planning Division
Prior to construction Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-9
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
unless the qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either (i) the adult birds have not begun egg-laying and
incubation; or (ii) the juveniles from the
occupied nests are capable of independent
survival.
c) If the biologist is not able to verify any of the
conditions from sub-item “b,” above, then no
disturbance shall occur within a buffer zone
specified by the qualified biologist for each
nest or nesting site. The buffer zone shall be species-appropriate (no less than 100-foot radius around the nest for non-raptors and no more than a 500-foot radius around the nest for raptors) and shall be sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect impacts from
construction activities. The size and location
of buffer zones, if required, shall be based on
consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and shall be subject to review
and approval by the City. The nests and buffer
zones shall be field checked weekly by a
qualified biological monitor. The approved
buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist, with City concurrence, verifies that the nests are no longer occupied and/or juvenile birds
can survive independently from the nests.
Threshold e: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-10
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Threshold f: No Impact. The 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.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Cultural Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: No Impact. No historic
resources, as defined by CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5, are present on the Project
Site; therefore, no historic resources could be
altered or destroyed by construction or
operation of the Project..
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold b: Potentially Significant Direct
and Cumulatively-Considerable Impact. No
known prehistoric resources are present on the
Project Site and the likelihood of uncovering
buried prehistoric resources on the Project
Site is low due to the magnitude of historic
ground disturbance on the Project Site.
Nonetheless, the potential exists for Project-
related construction activities to result in a
potentially direct and cumulatively-
considerable impact to significant subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources should such resources be discovered during Project-related construction activities.
MM 4.3-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,
the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the
City of Fontana that an archaeologist that meets the
latest version of the Secretary of the Interior
Professional Qualifications Standards (hereafter
“Project Archaeologist”) has been retained to
conduct the training and monitoring activities
described in Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 and
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3.
MM 4.3-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant or construction contractor shall provide evidence to the City of Fontana that the construction site supervisors and crew members involved with grading and trenching operations have received training by the Project Archaeologist
to recognize archaeological resources (historic and
prehistoric) should such resources be unearthed
during ground-disturbing construction activities.
The training will include a brief review of the
cultural sensitivity of the area; what resources could
potentially be identified during earthmoving
activities; the requirements of the monitoring
program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of archaeological resources are identified, including who to contact and
Project Applicant
Project Archaeologist
City of Fontana
Planning Division
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Less-than-Significant
Impact after Mitigation
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-11
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new supervisorial construction
personnel involved with grading and trenching
operations that begin work on the Project Site after
the initial training session must take the training
prior to beginning work on-site.
MM 4.3-3 The Project Archaeologist shall conduct
monitoring during all grading, trenching, and
excavation activities. The Project Archaeologist
shall be equipped to salvage artifacts if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. Should the Project Archaeologist determine during construction activities that there are no archaeological resources within the Project’s disturbance area or should the archaeological
sensitivity be reduced to low, archaeological
monitoring activities can be reduced to spot-
checking or may be allowed to cease.
MM 4.3-4 In the event that suspected cultural
resources are discovered during Project
construction activities:
a. Upon discovery of any cultural, tribal cultural, or archaeological resources, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease until the find can be assessed. All cultural, tribal and archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities
shall be evaluated by the qualified
archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If
the resources are Native American in origin,
interested Tribes (as a result of
correspondence with area Tribes) shall
coordinate with the landowner regarding
treatment and curation of these resources.
Typically, the Tribe will request preservation
in place or recovery for educational purposes.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-12
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.
b. Preservation in place shall be the preferred
manner of treatment. If preservation in place
is not feasible, treatment may include
implementation of archaeological data
recovery excavation to remove the resource
along the subsequent laboratory processing
and analysis. All Tribal Cultural Resources
shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic
archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be
offered to the Tribe or a local school or
historical society in the area for educational
purposes.
c. Archaeological and Native American
monitoring and excavation during
construction projects shall be consistent with
current professional standards. All feasible
care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for
archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’
experience as a principal investigator working
with Native American archaeological sites in
southern California. The Qualified
Archaeologist shall ensure that all other
personnel are appropriately trained and
qualified.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-13
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Threshold c: Less-Than-Significant Impact. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during Project grading or other
ground disturbing activities, the Project would
be required to comply with the applicable
provisions of California Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 and California Public
Resources Code Section 5097 et seq.
Mandatory compliance with State law would
ensure that any discovered human remains are
appropriately treated and would preclude the
potential for significant impacts.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact
Energy
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact.
The amount of energy and fuel consumed by
construction and operation of the Project would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Furthermore, the Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or energy delivery systems.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact.
The Project would not cause or result in the
need for additional energy production or
transmission facilities. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct the achievement of energy conservation goals within the State of California identified in State and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Geology & Soils
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to substantial direct or indirect adverse effects related to
liquefaction or fault rupture. The Project Site
is subject to seismic ground shaking
associated with earthquakes; however,
mandatory compliance with local and State
regulatory requirements and building codes
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-14
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
would ensure that the Project minimizes potential hazards related to seismic ground shaking to less-than-significant levels.
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact.
Implementation of the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The Project Applicant would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities and adhere
to a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), and prepare an erosion control plan
to minimize water and wind erosion.
Following completion of development, the
Project’s owner or operator would be required
by law to implement a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) during operation,
which would preclude substantial erosion
impacts in the long-term.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact.
There is no potential for the Project’s
construction or operation to cause, or be
impacted by, on- or off-site landslides or
lateral spreading. Potential hazards
associated with unstable soils would be
precluded through mandatory adherence to the recommendations contained in the Project’s site-specific geotechnical reports during Project construction.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold d: No Impact. The Project Site
contains soils with no susceptibility to
expansion; therefore, the Project would not
create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with the presence of expansive soils. No impact would occur.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-15
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Threshold e: No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed to be installed on the Project Site.
Accordingly, no impact would occur
associated with soil compatibility for
wastewater disposal systems.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold f: Potential Direct and Cumulatively-Considerable Impact. The Project would not impact any known paleontological resource or unique geological
feature. However, the Project Site is
underlain by older alluvium soils with a high
sensitivity for paleontological resources.
Accordingly, construction activities on the
Project Site have the potential to unearth and
adversely impact paleontological resource
that may be buried beneath the ground
surface.
MM 4.5-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence
to the City of Fontana that a qualified paleontologist
(“paleontologist”) has been retained by the Project
Applicant or contractor to conduct monitoring of
excavation activities and has the authority to halt
and redirect earthmoving activities in the event that
suspected paleontological resources are unearthed. MM 4.5-2 The paleontologist shall conduct full-
time monitoring during grading and excavation
operations in undisturbed late Pleistocene old
alluvial fan deposits starting at a depth of 10 feet
below the existing ground surface. The
paleontologist shall be equipped to salvage fossils if
they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and
vertebrates. The paleontologist shall be empowered
to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for
the removal of abundant and large specimens in a
timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the
potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the
subsurface, or if present, are determined upon
exposure and examination by the paleontologist to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil
resources.
MM 4.5-3 Recovered specimens shall be properly
prepared to a point of identification and permanent
preservation, including screen washing sediments to
recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if
necessary. Identification and curation of specimens into the collections of the Division of Geological
Project Applicant Project Paleontologist City of Fontana Planning Division Prior to issuance of grading permit Less-than-Significant after Mitigation
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-16
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Sciences, San Bernardino County Museum, shall be
required for discoveries of significance as
determined by the paleontological monitor.
MM 4.5-4 A final monitoring and mitigation
report of findings and significance shall be
prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if
any, and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the City of Fontana prior
to issuance of the first occupancy permit.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Cumulatively-Considerable
Impact. The Project would exceed the City’s
significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per
year. As such, the Project would generate
substantial, cumulatively-considerable GHG
emissions that may have a significant impact
on the environment.
No feasible mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Significant
Unavoidable
Cumulatively-
Considerable Impact
Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact.
The 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
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Summary of Impacts
Thresholds a and b: Less-than-Significant
Impact. During Project construction and
operation, mandatory compliance with
federal, State, and local regulations would
ensure that the 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
Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact.
The Project Site is located within one-quarter
mile of Jurupa Hills High School; however, the Project would comply with applicable
MM 4.7-1 In the event that any unidentified
subsurface feature, oil, or chemical-stained concrete
is discovered during grading or other ground-disturbing construction activity, all activity in the
N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-17
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
federal, State, and local regulations related to the handling, storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials to ensure that students at
Jurupa Hills High School are not exposed to
substantial hazardous emissions or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste.
vicinity of the unidentified material shall be halted and a qualified hazardous materials professional shall be called to inspect the site and determine if
further assessment is needed. The results of any
testing shall be provided to the City. In the event
that the material is determined not to be hazardous,
no further action is required. In the event that the
material is deemed hazardous, removal/remediation
shall be conducted pursuant to applicable State
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22
hazardous waste criteria or contamination standards for industrial land uses. This work must be carried out by a qualified hazardous materials professional hired by the Project Applicant. Prior to the completion of material removal, the Project Applicant shall submit evidence to the City for
review and approval demonstrating that the
hazardous material has been appropriately
removed/remediated. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City of
Fontana’s Community Development Department.
MM 4.7-2 Prior to the issuance of any new
occupancy permit for a use/user within the Project’s
warehouse buildings, and to the extent hazardous materials exist on-site and a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP) is required by law, the Project Applicant/Developer or Project Site owner shall provide a copy of its approved
Emergency Response Plan to the Superintendent’s
Office and Facilities Office of the Fontana Unified
School District as well as the Principal of Jurupa
Hills High School outlining how the building user
will prevent or respond to spills or leaks of
hazardous materials related to its facility/facilities
and use of the Project Site. If so requested, the
Project Applicant/Developer or Project Site owner
shall also meet with School District and Fire
Department officials to discuss emergency response procedures as contained in the HMBEP for spills or
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-18
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
leaks at the Project Site in relation to the nearby school facilities. This measure shall be implemented under the supervision of the City of
Fontana’s Planning Division, with input from the
Fontana Unified School District Superintendent as
appropriate. All meetings shall be documented and
documentation shall be provided to the City
Planning Department within 30 days of each
meeting. Failure to abide by these procedures may
be grounds for revocation of any conditional use
permits or other discretionary approvals for specific
warehouse uses on the Project Site.
Threshold d: No Impact. The Project Site is
not located on any list of hazardous materials
sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold e: Less-than-Significant Impact.
The Project is consistent with the restrictions
and requirements of the ONT ALUCP. As
such, the Project would not result in an airport
safety hazard for people residing or working
in the Project area.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold f: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project Site does not contain any
emergency facilities nor does it serve as an
emergency evacuation route. During
construction and long-term operation,
adequate emergency vehicle access is
required to be provided. Accordingly,
implementation of the Project would not
impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or an emergency evacuation plan.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact
Threshold g: No Impact. The Project Site is
not located in close proximity to wildlands or
areas with high fire hazards. Thus, the Project
would not expose people or structures to a
significant wildfire risk.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-19
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Hydrology and Water Quality
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact.
The Project would not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality.
Adherence to a SWPPP and WQMP is
required as part of the Project’s
implementation to address construction- and
operational-related water quality.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact.
The Project would not physically impact any
of the major groundwater recharge facilities in
the Chino Groundwater Basin. The Project
would not substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the Basin.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact.
The Project would be required to comply with
applicable water quality regulatory
requirements to minimize erosion and
siltation. Additionally, the Project would not result in flooding on- or off-site or impede/redirect flood flows. Lastly, the Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold d: No Impact. The Project Site would not be subject to inundation from tsunamis, seiches, or other hazards
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold e: Less-than-Significant Impact.
The Project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-20
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Noise
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact.
The Project would generate short-term
construction and long-term operational noise
but would not generate noise levels that
exceed the standards established by the
Fontana General Plan or Municipal Code.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant
Impact
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact.
The 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: Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be compatible with noise levels from the ONT and operation of the Project would not expose future
employees on the Project Site to excessive
noise levels.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact
Transportation
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with an
applicable program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact. The VMT generated by the Project would not exceed the City’s significance threshold. Further, the Project would not conflict with
the San Bernardino County CMP.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact
Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not introduce any significant transportation safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact
Threshold d: No Impact. Adequate
emergency access would be provided to the
Project Site during construction and long-
term operation. The Project would not result
in inadequate emergency access to the Site or surrounding properties.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page S-21
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Tribal and Cultural Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Significant Direct and
Cumulatively Considerable Impact. The
Project Site does not contain any recorded,
significant tribal cultural resource sites;
therefore, the Project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or
eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources or a local register of historical resources. Nonetheless, Project construction activities have the potential to unearth and adversely impact tribal cultural resources that may be buried at the Project Site.
MMs 4.3-1 through 4.3-4 shall apply (refer to
Subsection 4.3, Cultural Resources).
Refer to MM 4.3-1
through 4.3-4
Refer to MM 4.3-1
through 4.3-4
Refer to MM 4.3-1 through
4.3-4
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is an informational document that represents the independent
judgment of the City of Fontana, acting as the Lead Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), and evaluates the physical environmental effects that could result from constructing and
operating the proposed Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project (hereafter, the “Project”). To implement the
Project, the Project Applicant has requested the City of Fontana’s approval of a Design Review Project (DRP
21-013) and a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 21-007). Other related discretionary and administrative actions that
are required to construct and operate the Project also are described in this EIR.
When the term “Project” is used in this EIR with the initial letter capitalized, the term shall mean all aspects
of the planning, construction, and operation of the proposed Project, including all discretionary and
administrative approvals and permits required for its implementation. When the terms “Project Applicant” or
“Applicant” are used, the terms shall mean Duke Realty Limited Partnership, which is the entity that submitted
applications to the City of Fontana to entitle the Project Site as proposed and as evaluated in this EIR.
1.1 PURPOSES OF CEQA AND THIS EIR
As stated by CEQA Guidelines Section 15002(a), the basic purposes of CEQA are to:
• Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental
effects of proposed development activities involving discretionary government approvals (including
the approval of private development projects);
• Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced;
• Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the
use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be
feasible; and
• Disclose to the public the reasons why the governmental agency approved the project in the manner
the agency chose (if the project involves significant environmental effects).
Following preliminary review of the Project’s application materials, the City of Fontana concluded that the
Project and its associated implementing actions have the potential to result in significant environmental effects;
as such, the City proceeded with preparation of this EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d). The
City determined that a Project EIR, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, would be required.
Accordingly, this document serves as a Project EIR. As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, this
Project EIR shall “…focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development
project,” and “…examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation.” Also, in
conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), the purposes of this EIR are to: (1) disclose
information by informing public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant
environmental effects associated with all phases of the Project, (2) identify possible ways to minimize or avoid
those significant effects, and (3) to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that would feasibly
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 1-2
attain most of the basic Project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental
effects.
1.2 SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT EVALUATED BY THIS EIR
The Project Applicant proposes to develop a 623,460 square foot (s.f.) warehouse distribution building on an
approximately 29.8-acre property (hereinafter the “Project Site”) located at the northwest corner of the Slover
Avenue and Cypress Avenue intersection within the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The
Project also includes the installation of associated site improvements, including drive aisles, parking areas,
landscaping, utility infrastructure, water quality basins, exterior lighting, walls/fencing, and signage.
The Project Applicant has filed applications for the following discretionary actions, which are under
consideration by the City of Fontana:
• Design Review Project No. 21-013 (DRP 21-013) proposes a development plan for the Project Site
that provides for the construction and operation of an industrial warehouse building. The proposed
building would contain a total of 623,460 s.f. of building area, of which a maximum of 25 percent (or
155,865 s.f.) could refrigerated storage space. DRP 21-013 includes a site plan, floor plan, building
elevations, cross-sections, trash enclosure details, wall elevations, conceptual grading plan, utilities
plan, and a conceptual landscape plan, all of which provide the specific details related to developing
the Project.
• Tentative Parcel Map No. 20456 (TPM 21-007) is a proposal to reconfigure the existing 22 parcels
within the Project Site into one parcel. As part of TPM 21-007, existing right-of-way for Boyle Avenue
through the central portion of the Project Site would be vacated. TPM 21-007 also would establish
easements for slope maintenance access along most of the eastern boundary of the Project Site and
easements for sidewalks in the southern portions of the Project Site.
All components of the Project are described in detail in EIR Section 3.0, Project Description.
1.3 PRIOR CEQA REVIEW
The Project Site is located within the geographical limits of the City of Fontana and is covered by the City’s
General Plan Update 2015-2035 (GPU), which provides the fundamental basis for the City’s land use and
development policies. The City’s GPU was the subject of review under CEQA (State Clearinghouse [SCH]
Number 2016021099). The City of Fontana approved the GPU and certified its Final Program EIR on
November 13, 2018. The Program EIR contains information relevant to the Project Site. Thus, the Program
EIR for the City’s GPU is herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and
is available for public review at the City of Fontana, Planning Division, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA
92335.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 1-3
1.4 LEGAL AUTHORITY
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with all criteria, standards, and procedures of CEQA (California
Public Resource Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.).
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21067 and CEQA Guidelines Article 4 and Section 15367, the City
is the Lead Agency under whose authority this EIR has been prepared. “Lead Agency” refers to the public
agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Serving as the Lead Agency
and before taking action to approve the Project, the City has the obligation to: (1) ensure that this EIR has been
completed in accordance with CEQA; (2) review and consider the information contained in this EIR as part of
its decision making process; (3) make a statement that this EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment; (4)
ensure that all significant effects on the environment are eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible;
and, if necessary (5) make written findings for each unavoidable significant environmental effect stating the
reasons why mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in this EIR are infeasible and citing the
specific benefits of the Project that outweigh its unavoidable adverse effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090
through 15093).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15040 through 15043, and upon completion of the CEQA review
process, the City of Fontana will have the legal authority to do any of the following:
• Approve the Project;
• Require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the Project in order to substantially lessen
or avoid significant effects on the environment;
• Deny approval of the Project in order to avoid one or more significant effects on the environment that
would occur if the Project was approved as proposed; or
• Approve the Project even though the Project could cause a significant effect on the environment if the
City makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that: 1) there is no feasible way to lessen
the effect or avoid the significant effect; and 2) expected benefits from the Project will outweigh
significant environmental impacts of the Project.
This EIR fulfills the CEQA environmental review requirements for the proposed Design Review Project (DRP
21-013) and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 21-007), as well as all other governmental discretionary and
administrative actions related to the Project.
1.5 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
The California Public Resource Code Section 21104 requires that all EIRs be reviewed by responsible and
trustee agencies (see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 and Section 15086(a)). As defined by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15381, “the term ‘Responsible Agency’ includes all public agencies other than the Lead
Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project.” A “Trustee Agency” is defined in CEQA
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 1-4
Guidelines Section 15386 as “a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a
project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California.”
For the Project, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is identified as a Trustee
Agency that is responsible for the protection of California’s water resources and water quality. The Santa Ana
RWQCB is responsible for issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
to ensure that during and after Project construction, on-site water flows do not result in siltation, other erosional
actions, or degradation of surface or subsurface water quality. The Fontana Water Company (FWC) is
identified as a Responsible Agency pertaining to approvals required for the installation of new FWC
facilities/connections to service the Project. There are no other Trustee Agencies or Responsible Agencies
identified for the Project. Regardless, this EIR can be used by any Trustee Agency or Responsible Agency,
whether identified in this EIR or not, as part of their decision-making processes in relation to the Project.
1.6 EIR SCOPE, FORMAT, AND CONTENT
1.6.1 EIR SCOPE
The City filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the California Office of Planning and Research (State
Clearinghouse) to indicate that an EIR would be prepared to evaluate the Project’s potential to impact the
environment. The NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse and distributed to potential Responsible
Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on December 3, 2021, for a 30-day public review
period. The NOP was distributed for public review to solicit responses that would help the City identify the
full scope and range of potential environmental concerns associated with the Project so that these issues could
be fully examined in this EIR.
In addition, a publicly-noticed EIR Scoping Meeting was held on December 16, 2021. The EIR Scoping
Meeting provided public agencies, interested parties, and members of the general public an additional
opportunity to learn about the Project, the CEQA review process, and how to submit comments on the scope
and range of environmental concerns to be addressed in this EIR.
The NOP, public review distribution list, and written comments received by the City during the NOP public
review period are provided in Technical Appendix A to this EIR. Substantive issues raised in response to the
NOP and during the Scoping Meeting are summarized below in Table 1-1, Summary of NOP Comments and
Scoping Meeting Comments. The purpose of this table is to present a summary of the environmental topics
that were expressed by public agencies, interested parties, and members of the general public to be of primary
interest. Table 1-1 is not intended to list every comment received by the City during the NOP review period.
Regardless of whether or not an environmental or CEQA-related comment is listed in the table, all relevant
comments received in response to the NOP and during the EIR Scoping Meeting are addressed in this EIR.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 1-5
Table 1-1 Summary of NOP Comments and Scoping Meeting Comments
Environmental
Topic Comment Location(s) in EIR Where
Comment Is Addressed
Air Quality - Request that health risk impacts related to the Project’s
construction be quantified and disclosed in the EIR.
- 4.1, Air Quality
- Request that the health risk impacts related to the Project’s
operation be quantified and disclosed in the EIR.
- Request that emissions from Transport Refrigeration Units
(TRUs) be quantified and disclosed in the EIR
Transportation - Request that a traffic impact analysis be prepared for the Project
and its findings be disclosed in the EIR.
- 4.10, Transportation
Tribal Cultural
Resources
- Recommendation for early consultation with the California
Native American Tribes affiliated with the Project area.
- 4.11, Tribal Cultural
Resources
- Recommendation to consult legal counsel to ensure compliance
with AB 52 and SB 18.
Upon consideration of the Project’s proposal, its geographic location, and all comments received by the City
in response to the NOP and during the EIR Scoping Meeting, this EIR provides a detailed analysis of the
Project’s potential to cause adverse effects under the following topics:
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Noise
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
The topics listed above are evaluated in EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis.
During the course of conducting research of the Project’s potential environmental effects and preparing this
EIR, the City concluded that the Project would clearly result in either (1) no impacts or (2) less-than-significant
impacts under several environmental topic areas, including: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, land
use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service
systems, and wildfire. Potential effects to these topic areas are summarized in EIR Section 5.0, Other CEQA
Considerations.
1.6.2 EIR FORMAT AND CONTENT
This EIR contains all of the information required to be included in an EIR as specified by the CEQA Statute
and Guidelines (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq. and California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Chapter 5). CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specified content. Table 1-2,
Location of CEQA Required Topics, provides a quick reference guide for locating the CEQA-required sections
within this document.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 1-6
Table 1-2 Location of CEQA Required Topics
CEQA REQUIRED TOPIC CEQA GUIDELINES
REFERENCE LOCATION IN THIS EIR
Table of Contents Section 15122 Table of Contents
Summary Section 15123 Section S.0
Project Description Section 15124 Section 3.0
Environmental Setting Section 15125 Section 2.0
Consideration and Discussion of Environmental
Impacts
Section 15126 Section 4.0
Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot
be Avoided if the Project is Implemented
Section 15126.2(c) Section 4.0 & Subsection 5.1
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Which Would be Caused by the Project Should it
be Implemented
Section 15126.2(d) Subsection 5.2
Growth-Inducing Impact of the Project Section 15126.2(e) Subsection 5.3
Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation
Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant
Effects
Section 15126.4 Section 4.0 & Table S-1
Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to
the Project
Section 15126.6 Section 6.0
Effects Not Found to be Significant Section 15128 Subsection 5.4
Organizations and Persons Consulted Section 15129 Section 7.0 & Technical
Appendices
Discussion of Cumulative Impacts Section 15130 Section 4.0
Energy Conservation Section 15126.2(b)
& Appendix F
Subsection 4.4
In summary, the content and format of this EIR is as follows:
• Section S.0, Executive Summary, provides an overview of the EIR and CEQA process and provides
a brief description of the Project, including its objectives, the location and regional setting of the Project
Site, and potential alternatives to the Project as required by CEQA. The Executive Summary provides
a summary of the Project’s impacts, mitigation measures, and conclusions, in a table that forms the
basis of the Project’s MMRP.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 1-7
• Section 1.0, Introduction, provides introductory information about the CEQA process and the
responsibilities of the City of Fontana, serving as the Lead Agency for this EIR, a brief description of
the Project, the purpose of the EIR, and an overview of the EIR format.
• Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, describes the environmental setting, including descriptions of
the Project Site’s physical conditions and surrounding context used as the baseline for analysis in this
EIR.
• Section 3.0, Project Description, includes a detailed Project Description that identifies the precise
location and boundaries of the Project, a map showing the Project’s location in a regional perspective,
a statement of the Project’s objectives, a general description of the Project’s technical, economic, and
environmental characteristics, and a statement describing the intended uses of the EIR, including a list
of agencies expected to use the EIR, and a list of approvals for which the EIR will be used. The Project
Description contains a level of specificity commensurate with the level of detail proposed by the
Project.
• Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, provides an analysis of potential direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts that may occur with implementation of the Project. A determination concerning
the significance of each impact is addressed and mitigation measures are presented when warranted.
The environmental changes identified in Section 4.0 and throughout this EIR are referred to as “effects”
or “impacts” interchangeably. CEQA Guidelines Section 15358 describe the terms “effects” and
“impacts” as being synonymous.
In each subsection of Section 4.0, the existing conditions are disclosed that are pertinent to the subject
area being analyzed, accompanied by a specific analysis of physical impacts that may be caused by
implementing the Project. Impacts are evaluated on a direct, indirect, and cumulative basis. Direct
impacts are those that would occur directly as a result of the Project. Indirect impacts represent
secondary effects that would result from Project implementation. Cumulative effects are defined in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 as “…two or more individual effects which, when considered
together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.”
The analyses in Section 4.0 are based in part upon technical reports that are appended to this EIR.
Information also is drawn from other sources of analytical materials that directly or indirectly relate to
the Project and are cited in Section 7.0, References.
Where the analysis identifies a significant environmental effect, feasible mitigation measures are
recommended. Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must propose and
describe mitigation measures to minimize the significant environmental effects identified in the
EIR. The requirement that EIRs identify mitigation measures realizes CEQA's policy that Lead
Agencies adopt feasible measures when approving a project to reduce or avoid its significant
environmental effects. Per Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.4, mitigation measures must be enforceable through conditions of approval, contracts or other
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 1-8
means that are legally binding. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, incorporating
mitigation measures into conditions of approval is sufficient to demonstrate that the measures are
enforceable. This requirement is designed to ensure that mitigation measures will actually be
implemented, not merely adopted and then ignored. In light of the foregoing, the identified mitigation
measures are analyzed to determine whether they would effectively reduce or avoid any significant
environmental effects. In most cases, implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce an
identified significant environmental effect to below a level of significance. If mitigation measures are
not available or feasible to reduce an identified impact to below a level of significance, the
environmental effect is identified as a significant and unavoidable adverse impact, for which a
Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted by the Lead Agency pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
• Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, includes specific topics that are required by CEQA. These
include a summary of the Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental effects, a discussion of
the significant and irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the Project be
implemented, as well as potential growth-inducing impacts of the Project. Section 5.0 also includes a
discussion of the potential environmental effects that were found not be significant during preparation
of this EIR.
• Section 6.0, Project Alternatives, describes and evaluates alternatives to the Project that could reduce
or avoid the Project’s adverse environmental effects. CEQA does not require an EIR to consider every
conceivable alternative to the Project but rather to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including
a “No Project” alternative, that will foster informed decision making and public participation.
• Section 7.0, References, cites all reference sources used in preparing this EIR and lists the agencies
and persons that were consulted in preparing this EIR. Section 7.0 also lists the persons who authored
or participated in preparing this EIR.
1.6.3 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15147 states that the “information contained in an EIR shall include
summarized…information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by
reviewing agencies and members of the public,” and that the “[p]lacement of highly technical and specialized
analysis and data in the body of an EIR shall be avoided through the inclusion of supporting information and
analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 allows for the
incorporation “by reference all or portions of another document… [and is] most appropriate for including long,
descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background but do not contribute directly to the analysis
of a problem at hand.” The purpose of incorporation by reference is to assist the Lead Agency in limiting the
length of this EIR. Where this EIR incorporates a document by reference, the document is identified in the
body of the EIR, citing the appropriate section(s) of the incorporated document and describing the relationship
between the incorporated part of the referenced document and this EIR.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 1-9
This EIR relies on a number of Project-specific technical appendices that are bound separately as Technical
Appendices. The Technical Appendices are available for review at the City of Fontana, Planning Department,
8353 Sierra Ave, Fontana, California 92335, during the City’s regular business hours or can be requested in
electronic form on the City’s website at https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-Documents or by
contacting the Planning Department. The individual technical studies, reports, and supporting documentation
that comprise the Technical Appendices are as follows:
A: Notice of Preparation and Written Comments on the NOP
B: Air Quality Impact Analysis
C: Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment
D: Biological Resources Report
E: Cultural Resources Study
F: Energy Analysis
G: Geotechnical Investigation
H: Paleontological Assessment
I: Greenhouse Gas Analysis
J: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
K: Preliminary Drainage Report
L: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
M: Noise Analysis
N: Traffic Study
Other reference sources that are incorporated into this EIR by reference are listed in Section 7.0, References,
of this EIR. In most cases, documents or websites not included in the EIR’s Technical Appendices are cited
by a link to the online location where the document/website can be viewed. References relied upon by this
EIR will be available for public review at the City of Fontana, Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Ave, Fontana,
California 92335.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 2-1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 REGIONAL SETTING AND LOCATION
The approximately 29.82-acre Project Site is located within the City of Fontana, which is located in the
southwestern portion of San Bernardino County, California. The City of Fontana is located east of the Cities
of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga, west of the City of Rialto and the unincorporated community of
Bloomington, and north of the City of Jurupa Valley. The Project Site is located approximately 0.1-mile south
of Interstate 10 (I-10), approximately 5.6 miles east of Interstate 15 (I-15), and approximately 6.7 miles west
of Interstate 215 (I-215). The Site’s location in a regional context is shown on Figure 3-1, Regional Map, in
EIR Section 3.0, Project Description.
The Project Site is located in an urbanized area of southern California commonly referred to as the “Inland
Empire.” The Inland Empire is an approximately 28,000 square-mile region comprising western San
Bernardino County, western Riverside County, and the eastern reaches of Los Angeles County. The Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) estimates that San Bernardino County as a whole had a
population in 2020 of 2,250,000. SCAG estimates that the County’s population will increase to 2,815,000 by
2045 (SCAG, 2020b, Demographics and Frowth Forecast Technical Appendix, p. 29).
2.2 LOCAL SETTING AND LOCATION
As illustrated on EIR Figure 3-2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 3-3, USGS Topographic Map, the 29.82-acre Project
Site abuts Cypress Avenue to the east, Slover Avenue to the south, and Oleander Avenue to the west. The
Southern Pacific rail corridor occurs immediately north of the Project Site, beyond which is I-10. The Project
Site includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0251-163-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07, -08, -09, -10, and -
13 and 0251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, and -25. The Project Site is located within
Section 19, Township 1 South, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.
The area immediately surrounding the Project Site contains a variety of uses, including vacant parcels and
parcels developed with industrial, transitional, and conforming and non-conforming residential uses. Being
located near the I-10 corridor and Union Pacific railroad tracks, the census tract containing the Project Site is
in the 97th percentile for pollution burden which, based on the census tract’s demographic characteristics,
results in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) ranking the area within the 71st
percentile of communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution (OEHHA,
2022). Although the City of Fontana General Plan designates the Project Site and areas between the Project
Site and the I-10 Freeway for industrial uses, there are numerous non-conforming residential homes in this
area.
2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES
Existing land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site are illustrated on Figure 2-1, Surrounding Land
Uses, and are described below.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 2-2
North: To the north of the Project Site is an existing rail line (Southern Pacific) and I-10. Residential land uses
occur to the north of I-10.
West: Land uses to the west of the Project Site include an auto body shop and heavy-truck (tractor) sales lot at
the northeast corner of the Oleander Avenue intersection with Slover Avenue and non-conforming residential
and light industrial uses to the west of Oleander Avenue.
South: Slover Avenue is directly south of the Project Site. South of Slover Avenue is a warehouse distribution
facility, a property used for tractor-trailer parking, and several single-family residences. The Jurupa Hills High
School and vacant, undeveloped land that has been approved for development with two warehouse distribution
facilities are located approximately 0.15 mile to the southwest of the Project Site. A plant nursery and an
under-construction warehouse facility are located southeast of the Project Site (east of Cypress Avenue).
East: Cypress Avenue abuts the Project Site on the east. East of Cypress Avenue is a large, cleared property
that has been approved for development with a warehouse distribution facility.
2.4 PLANNING CONTEXT
2.4.1 CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN
The City of Fontana’s prevailing planning document is its General Plan, dated November 13, 2018. As
depicted on Figure 2-2, Existing General Plan Land Use Designations, the City’s General Plan designates the
portion of the Project Site located south of Boyle Avenue for “Light Industrial (I-L)” land uses, and designates
the portion of the Project Site located north of Boyle Avenue for “General Industrial (I-G)” land uses. The I-L
land use designation allows for employee-intensive uses, including business parks, research and development,
technology centers, corporate and support office uses, clean industry, supporting retail uses, and truck and
equipment sales and related services. Warehouses that are designed in ways that limit off-site impacts also are
permitted in areas designated for I-L land uses. The I-G land use designation allows for uses such as
manufacturing, warehousing, fabrication, assembly, processing, trucking, equipment, and automobile and
truck sales. (Fontana, 2018a, p. 15.25 and 15.26)
2.4.2 ZONING
As shown on Figure 2-3, Existing Zoning Classifications, the City of Fontana Zoning District Map classifies
the portion of the Project Site located south of Boyle Avenue for “Light Industrial (M-1)” land uses, and
classifies the portion of the Project Site located north of Boyle Avenue for “General Industrial (M-2)” land
uses. According to the City of Fontana Municipal Code, the M-1 zoning district is intended to accommodate
employee-intensive uses, such as business parks, research and technology centers, offices, and supporting retail
uses; high cube/warehousing which does not permit heavy manufacturing; processing of raw materials; and
business logistics which generate high volumes of truck traffic. The M-2 zoning district is a general industrial
zoning district that accommodates the manufacture and treatment of goods from raw materials and high cube
warehousing and logistics facilities, and permits other types of industrial uses not suitable for location in the
M-1 District. (Fontana, 2021, Sec. 30-522)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 2-6
2.4.3 ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN
The Ontario International Airport (ONT) Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) identifies land use standards
and design criteria for new development located in the proximity of the airport to ensure compatibility between
the airport and surrounding land uses and to maximize public safety. The Project Site is located within the
Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Ontario International Airport and is subject to compliance with the Ontario
International Airport ALUCP. Within the Project area, the ALUCP does not impose any land use or design
restrictions and buildings are permitted to exceed heights of 200 feet (subject to compliance with local zoning
ordinances). The Project Site is not located within any ONT Safety Zone or Airspace Protection Zone, and is
located outside of areas subject to airport-related noise that exceeds 60 dB CNEL. (Ontario, 2011, Policy Maps
2-1 through 2-5)
2.4.4 SCAG REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN / SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY
SCAG is a regional agency established pursuant to California Government Code Section 6500, also referred
to as the Joint Powers Authority law. SCAG is designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional
Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Project Site
is within SCAG’s regional authority. On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council approved and adopted
the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“Connect SoCal”). Connect
SoCal is the applicable Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the
Project. The goals of Connect SoCal are to: 1) Encourage regional economic prosperity and global
competitiveness; 2) Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods; 3)
Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system; 4) Increase person and
goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system; 5) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve air quality; 6) Support healthy and equitable communities; 7) Adapt to a changing climate and support
an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network; 8) Leverage new transportation
technologies and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel; 9) Encourage development of diverse
housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options; 10) Promote conservation of
natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats. Performance measures and funding strategies also
are included to ensure that the adopted goals are achieved through implementation of the RTP. (SCAG, 2020a)
2.5 EXISTING PHYSICAL SITE CONDITIONS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1), recommends that the physical environmental condition that existed at
the time an EIR’s NOP is released for public review normally be used as the comparative baseline for the EIR
analysis. The NOP for this EIR was released for public review on December 3, 2021, and a description of the
Project Site’s physical environmental condition (“existing conditions”) as of that approximate date is provided
in the following subsections. More information regarding the Project Site’s environmental setting is provided
in the specific subsections of EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis.
2.5.1 LAND USE
As depicted on Figure 2-4, Existing On-Site Land Uses, under existing conditions the Project Site contains a
mixture of residential, light industrial, and vacant land uses. Specifically, the northwest portion of the Project
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 2-7
Site, north of existing Boyle Avenue, contains several existing residential structures, a mobile home, several
sheds, and truck trailer parking areas. The northeastern portion of the Project Site, north of existing Boyle
Avenue, includes light industrial businesses, as well as storage yards for construction equipment and parking
areas for truck trailers, and vacant land. The northeastern portion of the Project Site abutting Cypress Avenue
is vacant and contains a manufactured slope that supports the Cypress Avenue overpass. To the south of
existing Boyle Avenue in the western portion of the Site are several existing residential structures. The
southwest portion of the Project Site is vacant land that appears to have been heavily disturbed as part of past
residential development on the Project Site. (Google Earth, 2021)
2.5.2 AESTHETICS AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES
The Project Site slopes very gradually from north to south and is perceived to be flat; the Site’s high point is
approximately 1,110 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northeast portion of the Project Site and the site’s
low point is approximately 1,078 feet amsl in the southwest corner of the Project Site. Figure 3-3, USGS
Topographic Map, in EIR Section 3.0 depicts the Project Site’s existing topographic conditions. The Project
Site contains a mixture of residential and light industrial developments. The existing residential uses contain a
variety of ornamental landscaping, with areas containing light industrial uses generally consisting of
unvegetated dirt or paved lots with very little landscaping. There are no rock outcroppings or other unique
topographic or aesthetic features present on the property under existing conditions.
2.5.3 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE
The Project Site is located in the 6,745-square-mile South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes portions
of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. The SCAB is bound by
the Pacific Ocean to the west, the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, the San Jacinto Mountains to the north and
east, and San Diego County to the south. The SCAB is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD), the agency charged with bringing air quality in the SCAB into conformity
with federal and State air quality standards. As documented in the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis
(Technical Appendix B1 to this EIR), although the climate of the SCAB is characterized as semi-arid, the air
near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. More than 90% of
the SCAB’s rainfall occurs from November through April. Temperatures during the year range from an average
minimum of 36°F in January to over 100°F in the summer. During the late autumn to early spring rainy season,
the SCAB is subjected to wind flows associated with the traveling storms moving through the region from the
northwest. This period also brings five to ten periods of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed “Santa
Ana[s]” each year. (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, pp. 11-12)
At the regional level, air quality in the SCAB has improved over the past several decades; however, the SCAB
is currently not in attainment of State and/or federal standards established for Ozone (O3; one-hour and eight-
hour), particulate matter (PM10 [State standard only] and PM2.5), and Lead (only in the Los Angeles County
portion of the SCAB). No areas of the SCAB exceeded federal or State standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), or carbon monoxide (CO). (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 2-3)
Refer to EIR Subsections 4.1, Air Quality, and 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for a more detailed discussion
of the existing air quality and climate setting in the Project area.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 2-9
2.5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES & TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Project Site contains nine buildings – all single-family residences – that were constructed more than 40
years ago, as well as several modern structures and outbuildings (BFSA, 2022a, p. 3.0-2).
Forty recorded cultural resources, all classified as “historic” resources, are located within a one-mile radius of
the Project Site; however, none are mapped within the Project Site boundaries (BFSA, 2022a, p. 1.0-17). The
recorded historic resources are primarily comprised of historic residences but, also, include a railroad
alignment, farm/ranch complex, and the Kaiser Fontana Medical Center campus. No prehistoric resources
were identified on the Project Site during a pedestrian survey and, based on archaeological records from the
South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University (CSU), Fullerton, no
prehistoric artifacts have been previously recorded on the Project Site (BFSA, 2022a, pp. vii, 1.0-18)
2.5.5 GEOLOGY
Regionally, the Project Site is located in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, a prominent natural
geomorphic province that extends from the Santa Monica Mountains approximately 900 miles south to the tip
of Baja California, Mexico, and is bounded to the east by the Colorado Desert. The Peninsular Ranges province
is composed of plutonic and metamorphic rock, lesser amounts of Tertiary Volcanic and sedimentary rock,
and Quaternary drainage in-fills and sedimentary veneers. Near the surface, the Project Site is underlain by
Quaternary (Pleistocene to Holocene) younger alluvial fan deposits, which do not have the potential to contain
significant paleontological resources (CDC, 2015; Fontana, 2018b, p. 5.4-8). At depth, the Project Site is
underlain by late to middle Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits, which have high potential for terrestrial
vertebrate fossils (BFSA, 2022b, p. 9).
The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by northwest-trending faults
associated with the San Andreas system. Similar to other properties throughout southern California, the Project
Site is located within a seismically active region and is subject to ground shaking during seismic events;
however, no known active or potentially active faults exist on or near the Project Site nor is the site situated
within an “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone (SGC, 2021, p. 12).
The Project Site is underlain by artificial fill and alluvium. Artificial fill occurs at depths ranging from 2.5 to
8 feet below the site surface, and generally consist of loose to medium dense silty sands with varying fine to
coarse gravel. Native alluvium occurs on site at least up to 25 feet in depth below existing site grades. Native
alluvium consists of medium dense to very dense sands, gravelly sands and silty sands, with occasional medium
dense sandy silts. (SGC, 2021, pp. 8-9)
2.5.6 HYDROLOGY
The Project Site is located within the Santa Ana River Watershed, which drains a 2,840 square-mile area and
is the principal surface flow water body within the region. The Santa Ana River flows over 100 miles and
drains the largest coastal stream system in Southern California. It discharges into the Pacific Ocean at the City
of Huntington Beach. The total stream length of the Santa Ana River and its major tributaries is about 700
miles.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 2-10
Under existing conditions, the Project Site is largely developed/disturbed with single-family homes, vacant
lands, and tractor-trailer parking/storage lots. Runoff from the Project Site, as well as offsite run-on from the
railroad to the north of the Site, currently sheet flows onto Slover Avenue and Boyle Avenue, is collected by
the existing Oleander Avenue storm drain system, and ultimately is discharged through Declez Channel, San
Sevaine Channel, and Prado Basin.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No.
06071C8654H, the Project Site is located in Flood Zone X (unshaded), which includes areas determined to be
outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain (FEMA, 2008).
Refer to EIR Subsection 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a more detailed discussion of the Project Site’s
existing hydrology and water quality setting.
2.5.7 NOISE
Primary sources of noise in the Project Site’s vicinity include transportation-related noise associated with
surface streets and the abutting railroad. Urban Crossroads, Inc. collected 24-hour noise measurements at three
locations in the Project vicinity to determine the baseline for the existing noise environment. Measured
daytime noise levels in the area ranged from 61.0 equivalent level decibels (dBA Leq) to 67.9 dBA Leq and
nighttime noise levels from 56.0 dBA Leq to 64.4 dBA Leq. (Urban Crossroads, 2021d, p. 22)
Refer to EIR Subsection 4.9, Noise, for a more detailed discussion of the Project Site’s existing noise setting.
2.5.8 TRANSPORTATION
The Project Site abuts Slover Avenue to the south and Cypress Avenue to the east, while Oleander Avenue
occurs approximately 180 feet west of the Project Site. Under existing conditions, Boyle Avenue bisects the
Project Site in an east-west orientation. To the north is an existing rail line (Southern Pacific) and I-10.
Existing traffic on nearby roadways consist of both passenger vehicles and trucks passing through the area and
accessing nearby land uses.
The primary regional vehicular travel route to the Project area is I-10, which is located approximately 0.1-mile
north of the Project Site. The Project Site is located approximately 0.6 roadway mile southeast of the Citrus
Avenue on/off ramps at the I-10, and approximately 0.8 mile from the Sierra Avenue on/off ramps. I-10
provides access to I-15 (located approximately 5.6 miles to the west of the Project Site) and I-215 (located
approximately 6.7 miles east of the Project Site). Both I-15 and I-215 provide access to/from SR-60 (located
approximately 3.3 miles to the south of the Project Site).
There are no existing bicycle facilities within the study area; however, Citrus Avenue and Cypress Avenue are
planned Class II bike facilities. There are limited pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks and crosswalks in the
vicinity of the Project Site.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 2-11
Public transit service in the region is provided by Omnitrans, a public transit agency that serves various
jurisdictions within San Bernardino County. There is existing bus service along Citrus Avenue and Slover
Avenue via Omnitrans Route 82 with multiple existing stops along Slover Avenue in close proximity to the
Project Site, including a stop along the Project Site frontage (approximately 300 feet west of Cypress Avenue).
Refer to EIR Subsection 4.10, Transportation, for a more detailed discussion of the Project Site’s existing
transportation setting.
2.5.9 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The Fontana Water Company (FWC) provides water service to the Project area and the City of Fontana
provides wastewater conveyance service to the Project area. Under existing conditions, water mains are
installed beneath Slover Avenue, Cypress Avenue, and Boyle Avenue. Under existing conditions, sewer mains
are installed beneath Cypress Avenue and Slover Avenue. The City of Fontana conveys wastewater flows to
the Inland Empire Utility Agency for treatment at Regional Water Recycling Plants Nos. 1 and/or 4. Solid
waste from the Project Site is expected to be disposed at the Mid-Valley Landfill.
2.5.10 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Non-native grassland is present in the east-central portion of the Project Site, which is composed of non-native
grasses (wild oats [Avena sp.] and ripgut grass [Bromus diandrus]). An olive grove is located in the west-
central portion of the Site and, although not actively cultivated, is a remnant of former agriculture activities on
the Site. Disturbed habitat occurs in the northeastern portion of the Project Site and has been cleared, leveled,
graveled, and is developed with active uses; the area is sparsely vegetated with non-native species. The
remainder of the Project Site is developed, which is a constructed land cover type characterized by residences,
parking areas, pavement, structures, and storage areas. (Alden, 2021, p. 3)
Refer to EIR Subsection 4.2, Biological Resources, for a more detailed discussion of the Project Site’s existing
biological setting.
2.5.11 WILDLIFE
No sensitive animal species were observed or detected on the Project Site and none is anticipated to occur
given its developed/disturbed nature of the Site (Alden, 2021, p. 4). Animals observed were limited to
common, non-sensitive bird species – such as Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), house finch (Carpodacus
mexicanus), Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto), house sparrow (Passer domesticus) – the side-
blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), and small mammals, including feral cat (Felis catus), domestic rabbit
(Oryctolagus cuniculus domesticus), and gopher (Thomomys bottae).
Refer to EIR Subsection 4.2, Biological Resources, for a more detailed discussion of the Project Site’s existing
biological setting.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 2-12
2.5.12 RARE AND UNIQUE RESOURCES
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(c), the environmental setting should place special emphasis
on resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by a project. Based on the existing
conditions of the Project Site and surrounding area described above and discussed in more detail in Section
4.0, Environmental Analysis, the Project Site does not contain any resources that are rare or unique to the
region.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 3-1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section provides all of the information required of an EIR Project Description by CEQA Guidelines
Section 15124, including a description of the Project’s precise location and boundaries; a statement of the
Project’s objectives; a description of the Project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and
a description of the intended uses of this EIR (including a list of the government agencies that are expected to
use this EIR in their decision-making processes); a list of the permits and approvals that are required to
implement the Project; and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements.
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project Site is located in the southern portion of the City of Fontana. As shown on Figure 3-1, Regional
Map, the City of Fontana is located in the southwest portion of San Bernardino County, east of the Cities of
Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga, west of the City of Rialto and the unincorporated community of
Bloomington, and north of the City of Jurupa Valley.
At the local scale, the Project Site is located at the northwest corner of the Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue
intersection (see Figure 3-2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 3-3, USGS Topographic Map). The Project Site is
approximately 0.1-mile south of Interstate 10 (I-10), approximately 5.6 miles east of Interstate 15 (I-15), and
approximately 6.7 miles west of Interstate 215 (I-215). The Project Site includes Assessor Parcel Numbers
(APNs) 0251-163-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07, -08, -09, -10, and -13 and 0251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -
14, -15, -16, -20, -23, and -25. The Project Site is located within Section 19, Township 1 South, Range 5 West,
San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.
3.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the Project are as follows:
1. To expand economic development in the City of Fontana by re-developing an underutilized property
with an in-demand industrial use within a portion of the City that is planned for long-term industrial
development.
2. To make efficient use of a property in the City of Fontana by maximizing its buildout potential for
employment-generating uses.
3. To attract employment-generating businesses to the City of Fontana to reduce the need for members
of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.
4. To develop an industrial building with loading bays adjacent to City of Fontana truck routes and in
close proximity to the I-10 Freeway that can be used as part of the southern California supply chain
and goods movement network.
5. To attract businesses that can expedite the delivery of goods to consumers and businesses in the City
of Fontana and beyond.
6. To develop a project that has architectural design and operational characteristics that are compatible
with other existing and planned land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site.
7. To redevelop a property that has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 3-5
3.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The Project involves the development of an industrial warehouse building on approximately 29.8 acres of land
located in the southern portion of the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Discretionary
approvals requested from the City of Fontana by the Project Applicant include a Design Review Project (DRP
21-013) and a Tentative Parcel Map No. 20456 (TPM 21-007). These two applications are collectively referred
to by the City of Fontana as Master Case No. 21-038 (MCN 21-038). Approval of these applications would
allow for the development of a 623,460 square foot (s.f.) warehouse distribution building. The individual
components of the Project are discussed below.
3.3.1 DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT NO. 21-013 (DRP 21-013)
DRP 21-013 proposes a development plan for the Project Site that provides for the construction and operation
of a single warehouse distribution building. The DRP application materials depict a conceptual layout of the
proposed building and associated physical design features, conceptual architectural design for the building,
and a conceptual landscaping plan. DRP 21-013 complies with applicable design standards from Fontana
Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article V (Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards).
A. Conceptual Site Plan
The proposed site plan for DRP 21-013 is illustrated on Figure 3-4, Conceptual Site Plan. The proposed
building would operate as a cross-dock warehouse (i.e., dock doors on two, opposite sides of the building) that
would include 623,460 s.f. of total building floor area, including 609,460 s.f. of warehouse space and ancillary
office uses comprising a total of 14,000 s.f. (10,000 s.f. on the ground floor and 4,000 s.f. on the mezzanine
level). A total of 45 truck dock doors are proposed along the northern façade of the building, with an additional
38 truck dock doors proposed along the southern façade of the building. Office uses are proposed at the
northwest and southwest corners of the building, which also would serve as the primary entrances into the
building. Bicycle parking racks are provided adjacent to the proposed office locations. A total of 180 truck
trailer parking stalls are proposed, split between the northern and southern portions of the Project Site. A total
of 225 parking spaces for passenger vehicles are provided on the Project Site; most of the spaces are proposed
on the western portion of the Site but a small number of spaces are proposed on the eastern portion of the Site.
The Project provides preferential passenger vehicle parking for carpool/vanpool and clear air vehicles.
Access to the Project would be provided from one driveway connecting to Slover Avenue1 and three driveways
connecting to Oleander Avenue. The proposed driveway connecting to Slover Avenue would be limited to
truck traffic only, with all trucks restricted to right turns when entering or exiting the Project Site. The three
proposed driveways connecting to Oleander Avenue would have no turning movement restrictions (both right
and left turns would be allowed for vehicles entering and exiting the Site); however, truck traffic would be
restricted to the northernmost and southernmost driveways only. Passenger vehicles could utilize all three of
the driveways connecting to Oleander Avenue.
1The Project provides a second driveway to Slover Avenue (west of Cypress Avenue); however, this other driveway is provided for emergency vehicle access only and would not be used by Project traffic.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 3-7
B. Architectural Design
Figure 3-5, Conceptual Building Elevations, depicts the proposed building elevations. The proposed building
would measure a maximum of 48 feet, 6 inches in height, measures from the finished floor elevation to the top
of parapets. The building would be constructed of concrete tilt-up panels and low-reflective glass. The
building’s exterior color palette would be comprised of various shades of white and gray colors, with indigo-
colored paint used as accents; windows would feature blue glazing. Decorative building elements include a
varied roofline, horizontal offsets, mullions, and canopies at office entries.
C. Conceptual Landscape Plan
Figure 3-6, Conceptual Landscape Plan, depicts the Project’s proposed landscape plan. As shown,
landscaping would consist of a combination of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, and groundcover. The
Project Site’s frontage with Slover Avenue would be planted with 24-inch box Brisbane box trees (Tristania
conferta) and 15-gallon Australian willow trees (Geijera parviflora), shrubs, and groundcover. The Project
Site’s entries from Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue would be highlighted with 24-inch crape myrtle trees
(Lagerstroemia I. ‘Watermelon Red’) with enhanced paving treatments consisting of colored concrete with a
grid pattern. Passenger vehicle parking areas would be landscaped with 24-inch box Chinese elm trees (Ulmus
parvifolia) and 15-gallon Australian willow trees, along with shrubs. Landscaping along the eastern and
western sides of the proposed building would include a combination of 15-gallon fern pine (Podocarpus
gacilior) and 15-gallon shoestring acacia trees (Acacia stenophylla), along with shrubs and groundcover. The
southwestern and northwestern building entry at the proposed office space would be landscaped with 24-iunch
crape myrtle trees and 15-gallon fern pine, along with shrubs and groundcover. Landscaping along the northern
and eastern boundary of the Project Site would include 24-inch box Mondell pine trees (Pinus eldarica),
shrubs, and groundcover, with 24-inch box holly oak trees (Quercus ilex) proposed near the southeastern corner
of the property and at the easterly terminus of Boyle Avenue.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Project construction, the Project Applicant would be required to
submit final planting and irrigation plans to the City of Fontana for review and approval. The plans are required
to comply with the “Landscape and Water Conservation Ordinance” from Chapter 28, Article IV, Sections 28-
91 through 28-115 of the Fontana Municipal Code, which establishes requirements for landscape design,
automatic irrigation system design, and water-use efficiency.
D. Walls and Fencing
As shown on Figure 3-7, Proposed Walls and Fencing, concrete screen walls are proposed along portions of
the southern, northern, and eastern sides of the Project Site. The walls would consist of concrete tilt-up panels
which would mostly would measure 14 feet in height, with 5-foot-wide sections provided at approximately 40
foot intervals that would measure up to 14 feet, 6 inches in height. The screen walls would be painted gray
and white. Eight-foot-tall metal sliding gates are proposed at the access from Slover Avenue and at the
entrance into the truck court along the northern side of the building.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 3-11
3.3.2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20456 (TPM 21-007)
TPM 21-007 is proposed to reconfigure the existing 22 parcels within the Project Site into one parcel. As part
of TPM 21-007, the existing right-of-way for the Boyle Avenue segment that bisects the Project Site would be
vacated. TPM 21-007 also would establish easements for maintenance access to the existing slope for the
Cypress Avenue overpass that abuts the Project Site on the east, as well as easements for a public sidewalk
abutting Slover Avenue. TPM 21-007 is illustrated on Figure 3-8.
3.4 PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
3.4.1 PUBLIC ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Slover Avenue is the existing public street that abuts the Project Site to the south. The Project would not alter
the paved vehicle travel way of Slover Avenue, as the street is constructed to its full, planned pavement width
under existing conditions. The Project would result in the closure of the five existing driveways on the Project
Site connecting to Slover Avenue, which would require the installation of new curb and gutter improvements
at the locations where the driveways would be removed, and the construction of the two proposed driveways
shown on Figure 3-4. The Project also would re-locate the existing sidewalk along the Project Site’s frontage
with Slover Avenue. Under existing conditions, the sidewalk along Slover Avenue abuts the curb; the Project
would re-locate the sidewalk to the edge of the right-of-way and would construct a landscaped parkway
between the sidewalk and the existing curb.
Oleander Avenue is the existing public street that abuts the Project Site to the west. As part of the Project, the
eastern half of Oleander Avenue would be widened along the Project Site frontage to: 1) provide a 22-foot-
wide paved vehicle travel way; 2) curb and gutter; and 3) an eight-foot-wide sidewalk. Also, the Project
provides for the construction of an offset cul-de-sac where Oleander Avenue terminates abutting the northwest
corner of the Project Site.
Boyle Avenue bisects the Project Site under existing conditions. As part of the Project, Boyle Avenue would
be demolished between Oleander Avenue and Cypress Avenue and the public right-of-way would be
abandoned.
3.4.2 UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
A. Water Service
The Fontana Water Company (FWC) would provide water service to the Project. As shown on Figure 3-9,
Conceptual Utility Plan, the Project would connect to an existing water main beneath Oleander Avenue. All
connections to existing water mains would be constructed in accordance with FWC standards.
B. Sewer Service
The City of Fontana owns and maintains sewer lines within the City and would provide wastewater conveyance
services to the Project. The Project would connect to an existing sewer main located beneath Slover Avenue
(see Figure 3-9). All connections to existing sewer lines would be constructed in accordance with City
standards.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 3-14
C. Stormwater Drainage
An on-Site storm drain system is proposed to be installed as part of the Project, consisting of a network of
catch basins, underground storm drain pipes, and subsurface infiltration chambers that would collect, treat, and
temporarily store stormwater runoff (as needed), and discharge peak flows from the property. All surface
runoff captured on-Site would be directed through catch basins fitted with filters (Bio Clean or equivalent) to
remove large debris, trash, sediment and oil/grease from runoff before flows are transported to an underground
infiltration/detention basin located beneath the truck court on the south side of the proposed building. Once
the infiltration/detention basin reaches capacity, flows will bypass the basin and discharge to Slover Avenue
via one of two proposed parkway drains. The Project also provides for the installation of a surface channel
along the northern Project Site boundary to capture flows from the abutting railroad tracks that run-on to the
Project Site under existing conditions. The channel would convey all captured flows to the west, where they
would be discharged into Oleander Avenue via a parkway drain. An illustration of the Project’s proposed
stormwater drainage plan is provided on Figure 3-9.
D. Dry Utilities
The Project would result in the removal of all existing power poles along the Project Site’s frontages with
Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue and the overhead electrical transmission lines suspended from these poles
would be relocated underground. The removal of the power poles and the relocation of the transmission lines
would be performed in coordination with Southern California Edison.
3.5 CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS
Project construction activities and equipment would be required to comply with the applicable sustainability
standards established by Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article V (Industrial Commerce Centers
Sustainability Standards).
3.5.1 PROPOSED PHYSICAL DISTURBANCE
Implementation of the Project would result in the full disturbance to all of the 29.82-acre Project Site, with
exception of the existing slopes that abut the Cypress Avenue overpass along the eastern boundary of the
Project Site, which would not be subject to grading or disturbance and would be placed in a slope easement as
part of the Project. With exception of proposed Site-adjacent water, sewer, and storm drain connections and
roadway improvements within Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue, the Project would not result in or require
any physical impacts beyond the Project Site boundary. The proposed water, sewer, and storm drain utility
connections and roadway improvements would occur fully within the developed and fully disturbed rights-of-
ways for Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue.
Figure 3-10, Conceptual Grading Plan, depicts the conceptual grading plan for the Site. Grading of the
property would entail a total of 144,032 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut and 141,421 c.y. of fill, requiring a total export
of approximately 2,611 c.y. The earthwork materials requiring export are assumed to be transported to a
location within 20 miles of the Project Site. As part of the Project’s grading concept, retaining/screening walls
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 3-16
measuring up to six feet in height are proposed near the eastern boundary of the site, with additional
retaining/screening walls measuring up to six feet and three feet in height proposed along the southwestern
boundary of the site adjacent to the existing light industrial development. No manufactured slopes are
proposed as part of Project grading activities.
3.5.2 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
The Project Applicant anticipates that the Project’s construction process will occur over a 10-month timeframe.
Site preparation would occur first, followed by mass-grading and installation of underground infrastructure
and retaining walls. Next, fine grading would occur, surface materials would be poured, and the proposed
building would be erected, connected to the underground utility system, and painted. Lastly, landscaping,
fencing, screen walls, lighting, signage, and other site improvements would be installed. The estimated Project
construction schedule, organized by construction stage, is summarized in Table 3-2, Construction Duration.
Table 3-1 Construction Duration
Construction Activity Days
Site Preparation 20
Grading 45
Building Construction 150
Paving 35
Architectural Coating 70
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-3)
3.5.3 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
The construction equipment fleet that is estimated to be used for Project construction is summarized in Table
3-2, Construction Equipment Assumptions.
Table 3-2 Construction Equipment Assumptions
Construction Activity Equipment Amount Hours Per Day
Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 4 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Grading
Crawler Tractors 2 8
Excavators 2 8
Graders 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Scrapers 2 8
Building Construction
Cranes 1 8
Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8
Welders 1 8
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 3-17
Table 3-2 Construction Equipment Assumptions
Construction Activity Equipment Amount Hours Per Day
Paving
Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 3-4)
Construction workers would travel to the Site by passenger vehicle and materials deliveries would occur by
medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Construction equipment is expected to operate on the Project Site up to eight
hours per day, six days per week. Even though construction activities are permitted to occur between 7:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays pursuant to the Fontana
Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7)), as is typical to a construction site, construction equipment is not in
continual use and some pieces of equipment are used only periodically throughout a typical day of construction.
Thus, eight hours of daily use per piece of equipment is a reasonable assumption.
3.6 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
The Project would operate as an indoor storage facility; no outdoor materials storage is proposed for the Project
Site. The building’s interior floor space could be subdivided with partitions/walls to allow the building to be
occupied by more than one user. The Project is proposed as a speculative development and the user(s) of the
building are not known at this time. The Project is expected to be used by a warehouse distribution/logistics
operator(s) for the storage of consumer goods. For analysis purposes, this EIR assumes that up to 25 percent
of the building could be utilized for cold (refrigerated) storage. Hazardous materials storage is not expected
to occur within the building or on the Project Site; however, small quantities of hazardous chemicals and/or
materials – including but not limited to aerosols, cleaners, fertilizers, lubricants, paints or stains, fuels, propane,
oils, and solvents – could be utilized during routine Project operations and maintenance. Project operational
activities and equipment would be required to comply with the applicable sustainability standards established
by Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article V (Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards).
The Project is designed such that business operations would be conducted within the proposed building, with
the exception of traffic movement, parking, and the loading and unloading of tractor trailers at designated
loading bays. The outdoor cargo handling equipment used during loading and unloading of trailers (e.g., yard
trucks, hostlers, yard goats) is expected to be zero emission. As a practical matter, dock doors on warehouse
buildings are not occupied by a truck at all times of the day. There are typically many more dock door positions
on warehouse buildings than are needed for receiving and shipping volumes. The dock doors that are in use at
any given time are usually selected based on interior building operation efficiencies. In other words, trucks
ideally dock in the position closest to where the goods carried by the truck are stored inside the warehouse. As
a result, many dock door positions are frequently inactive throughout the day. For purposes of evaluation in
this EIR, it is assumed that the buildings would be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week, with
exterior loading and parking areas illuminated at night. Lighting would be subject to compliance with Fontana
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 3-18
Municipal Code Section 30-260, which states that exterior lighting shall be energy-efficient, shielded, or
recessed, and directed downward and away from adjoining properties.
For purposes of analysis in this EIR, employment estimates were calculated using the employment density
factors identified in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Employment Density Study
(October 2001), which identifies a rate of one (1) employee per 1,195 s.f. of building area for industrial
warehouse uses. As such, the Project is estimated to create jobs for approximately 523 employees (623,460
s.f. ÷ 1,195 s.f./employee = 523 employees).
3.7 SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTIONS
The City has primary approval responsibility for the proposed Project. As such, the City serves as the Lead
Agency for this EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. The City’s Planning Commission is the
decision-making authority for the Project and will consider the Project and make a decision to approve, approve
with changes, or deny the Project. The City will consider the information contained in this EIR and the Project’s
Administrative Record in its decision-making processes.
In the event of approval of the Project and certification of the EIR, the City would conduct administrative
reviews and grant ministerial permits and approvals for plans that substantially conform to the plans approved
by the Planning Commission in order to implement Project requirements and conditions of approval. In the
event of substantial modifications to the plans approved by the Planning Commission, the modified plans will
be reviewed and considered before the responsible City hearing body subject to the applicable provisions
outlined in the Fontana Municipal Code.
A list of the actions under City jurisdiction is provided in Table 3-3, Project-Related Approvals/Permits. In
addition, additional discretionary and/or administrative actions may be necessary from other government
agencies to fully implement the Project. Table 3-3 lists the government agencies that are expected to use the
Project’s EIR during their consultation and review of the Project and its implementing actions and provides a
summary of the subsequent actions associated with the Project.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 3-19
Table 3-3 Project-Related Approvals/Permits
Public Agency Approvals and Decisions
City of Fontana
Proposed Project – City of Fontana Discretionary Approvals
Planning Commission • Approve, conditionally approve, or deny:
o Design Review Project No. 21-013, and
o Tentative Parcel Map No. 20456 (TPM 21-007).
• Certify or reject the Project’s EIR along with
appropriate CEQA Findings.
Subsequent City of Fontana Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals
City of Fontana
Subsequent Implementing Approvals • Approve Final Maps, parcel mergers, or parcel
consolidations as may be appropriate.
• Approve precise Site plan(s) and landscaping/irrigation
plan (s), as may be appropriate.
• Approve Conditional or Temporary Use Permits, if
required.
• Issue Grading Permits.
• Issue Building Permits.
• Approve Sewer Infrastructure Plans.
• Issue Encroachment Permits.
• Accept public right-of-way dedications.
• Approve Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).
• Approval of connections to the municipal sewer system.
Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
Fontana Water Company • Approvals for construction of water infrastructure and
connection to water distribution system.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) • Issuance of a Construction Activity General
Construction Permit.
• Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit.
• Approval of WQMP.
Southern California Edison • Approvals for undergrounding electric utility lines.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Analysis
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4-1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.0.1 SUMMARY OF EIR SCOPE
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126-15126.4, this EIR Section includes analyses of potential
direct, indirect, and cumulatively-considerable impacts that could occur from planning, constructing, and/or
operating the proposed Project.
The City of Fontana distributed a NOP for this EIR to public agencies and interested individuals and posted
the NOP on its website to solicit input on the scope of environmental study for the Project. The City of Fontana
also held an EIR Scoping Meeting to solicit input from the general public on the scope of environmental study
for the Project. Taking all known information and public comments into consideration, 11 primary
environmental subject areas are evaluated in detail in this Section 4.0, as listed below. Each Subsection in
Section 4.0 evaluates several specific topics related to the primary environmental subject. The title of each
subsection is not limiting; therefore, refer to each subsection for a full account of the subject matters addressed
therein.
4.1 Air Quality
4.2 Biological Resources
4.3 Cultural Resources
4.4 Energy
4.5 Geology and Soils
4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9 Noise
4.10 Transportation
4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources
After conducting preliminary research and in consideration of all comments received by the City on the scope
of this EIR and documented in the City’s administrative record, the City determined that the Project clearly
has no potential to result in significant impacts to nine (9) environmental subjects: Aesthetics; Agriculture and
Forestry Resources; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Population and Housing; Public Services;
Recreation; Utilities and Service Systems; and Wildfire. These nine subjects are discussed in Section 5.0,
Other CEQA Considerations.
4.0.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS
CEQA requires that an EIR contain an assessment of the cumulative impacts that may be associated with a
project. As noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a), “an EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project
when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” “A cumulative impact consists of an
impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other
projects creating related impacts” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(1)). As defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15355:
‘Cumulative Impacts’ refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together,
are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Analysis
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4-2
(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of
separate projects.
(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts
can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over
a period of time.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) describes two acceptable methods for identifying a study area for purposes
of conducting a cumulative impact analysis. These two approaches include: “1) a list of past, present, and
probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including if necessary, those projects outside
the control of the agency [‘the list of projects approach’], or 2) a summary of projections contained in an
adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been
adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the
cumulative impact [‘the summary of projections approach’].”
The summary of projections approach is used in this EIR, except for the evaluation of cumulative transportation
effects (for purposes of demonstrating General Plan policy compliance) and vehicular-related air quality,
greenhouse gas, and noise impacts, for which the analysis combines the summary of projections approach with
the manual addition of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects (“combined approach”) The City
determined the combined approach to be appropriate because long-range planning documents contain a
sufficient amount of information to enable an analysis of cumulative effect for all subject areas, with the
exception of transportation (and vehicular-related air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise effects), which
requires a greater level of detailed study. With the combined approach, the cumulative impact analyses for the
air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and transportation issue areas overstate the Project’s potential cumulatively
considerable impacts relative to analyses that rely solely on the list of projects approach or solely on the
summary of projections approach; therefore, the combined approach provides a conservative, “worst-case”
analysis for the Project’s cumulative air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and transportation impacts.
The list of projects used to supplement the summary of projections approach includes known approved and
pending development projects in proximity to the Project Site, which includes the fifteen (15) other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects described in Table 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Land Use
Summary, and illustrated on Figure 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Location Map.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Analysis
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4-3
Table 4.0-1 Cumulative Development Land Use Summary
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Analysis
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4-4
Table 4.0-1 Cumulative Development Land Use Summary (cont.)
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2021e, Table 4-4)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Analysis
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4-6
For the cumulative impact analyses that rely on the summary projections approach (i.e., all issue areas with
the exception of transportation and vehicular-related air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise – as described in
the preceding pages), the cumulative study area primarily includes the City of Fontana, unincorporated
community of Bloomington, City of Rialto, and the City of Jurupa Valley. These jurisdictions encompass the
southwestern area of San Bernardino County and northwestern area of Riverside County, and have similar
environmental characteristics as the Project area. The selected study area encompasses the central San
Bernardino Valley, which is largely bounded by prominent topographic landforms, such as the San Gabriel
Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains to the north, the San Jacinto Mountains to the east, the Temescal
Mountains and Santa Ana Mountains to the south, and the Pomona Valley to the west. This study area exhibits
similar characteristics in terms of climate, geology, and hydrology and, therefore, is likely to also have similar
biological, archaeological, and tribal cultural resource characteristics as well. This study area also
encompasses the service areas of the Project Site’s primary public service and utility providers. Areas outside
of this study area either exhibit topographic, climatological, or other environmental circumstances that differ
from those of the Project area, or are simply too far from the proposed Project Site to produce environmental
effects that could be cumulatively-considerable when considered together with the Project’s impacts.
Exceptions include the cumulative air quality analysis, which considers the entire South Coast Air Basin
(SCAB); the greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change analysis, which affects all areas on the
planet; and the analysis of potential cumulative hydrology and water quality effects, which considers other
development projects located within the Santa Ana River Basin watershed.
Environmental impacts associated with buildout of the Project’s cumulative study area were evaluated in
CEQA compliance documents prepared for the respective General Plans of each of the above-named
jurisdictions. The location where each of these CEQA compliance documents is available for review is
provided below. All of the CEQA compliance documents listed below are herein incorporated by reference
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150.
• City of Fontana General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2016021099), available for review at the City of Fontana
Planning Division, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, California 92335;
• San Bernardino Countywide Plan EIR (SCH No. 2017101033), available for review at the County of
San Bernardino Land Use Services Department – Planning Division 385 North Arrowhead Avenue,
1st Floor, San Bernardino, California 92415;
• City of Rialto General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2008071100), available for review at the City of Rialto
Planning Division, 150 S. Palm Avenue, Rialto, California 92376; and
• County of Jurupa Valley General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2016021025), available for review at the City of
Jurupa Valley Planning Department, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, California 92509.
4.0.3 ANALYSIS FORMAT
Subsections 4.1 through 4.11 of this EIR evaluate the 11 environmental subjects warranting detailed analysis
as determined by the City of Fontana in consideration of preliminary research findings, public comments, and
technical study. The format of discussion is standardized as much as possible in each section for ease of
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Analysis
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4-7
review. The environmental setting is discussed first, followed by a discussion of the potential environmental
impacts that would result from implementation of the Project (which is based on specified thresholds of
significance used as criteria to determine whether potential environmental effects are significant).
The thresholds of significance used in this EIR are based on the thresholds approved by the City in their Local
Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (see CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.7). The thresholds are intended to assist the reader of this EIR in understanding how and why
this EIR reaches a conclusion that an impact would or would not occur, is significant, or is less than significant.
Serving as the CEQA Lead Agency for this EIR, the City is responsible for determining whether an adverse
environmental effect identified in this EIR should be classified as significant or less than significant. The
standards of significance used in this EIR are based on the independent judgment of the City, taking into
consideration the City’s Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (April
2019), the City’s General Plan, the Fontana Municipal Code and adopted City policies, the judgment of the
technical experts who prepared this EIR’s Technical Appendices, performance standards adopted,
implemented, and monitored by regulatory agencies, and significance standards recommended by regulatory
agencies.
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a), Project-related effects on the environment are
characterized in this EIR as direct, indirect, cumulatively considerable, short-term, long-term, on-site, and/or
off-site impacts. A summarized “impact statement” is provided in each subsection following the analysis.
Each subsection also includes a discussion or listing of the applicable regulatory criteria (laws, policies,
regulations) that the Project and its implementing actions are required to comply with (if any). If impacts are
identified as significant after mandatory compliance with regulatory criteria, feasible mitigation measures are
presented that would either avoid the impact or reduce the magnitude of the impact. For any impact identified
as significant and unavoidable, the City would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 in order to approve the Project despite its significant impact(s)
to the environment. The statement of overriding considerations would list the specific economic, legal, social,
technological, and other benefits of the Project that outweigh the unavoidable impacts, supported by substantial
evidence in the Project’s administrative record.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-1
4.1 AIR QUALITY
This Subsection is based primarily on two technical studies that were prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. to
evaluate the potential for Project-related construction and operational activities to result in adverse effects on
local and regional air quality. The first report, an air quality impact analysis (AQIA), is titled “Slover Avenue
& Cypress Avenue Warehouse Air Quality Impact Analysis,” dated March 8, 2022, and is included as
Technical Appendix B to this EIR (Urban Crossroads, 2022a). The second report, a mobile source health risk
assessment (HRA), is titled “Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Mobile Source Diesel Health Risk
Assessment,” dated January 6, 2022, and is included as Technical Appendix C to this EIR (Urban Crossroads,
2022b). All references used in this Subsection are listed in EIR Section 7.0, References.
4.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Atmospheric Setting
The Project Site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB, or “Basin”), which is under the jurisdiction
of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB encompasses approximately
6,745 square miles and includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of
Orange County. The SCAB is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west; the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and
the San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, respectively; and the San Diego County line to the south.
B. Regional Climate
The regional climate – temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and the amount of sunshine – has a
substantial influence on air quality. The SCAB’s distinctive climate is determined by its terrain and
geographical location, which comprises a coastal plain connected to broad valleys and low hills bounded by
the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The
SCAB is semi-arid, with average annual temperatures varying from the low-to-middle 60s, measured in
degrees Fahrenheit (F); however, the air near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the
presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of sea air is an important modifier of the SCAB’s climate.
Humidity restricts visibility in the SCAB and the relative high humidity heightens the conversion of sulfur
dioxide (SO2) to sulfates (SO4). The marine layer provides an environment for that conversion process,
especially during the spring and summer months. Inland areas of the SCAB, including where the Project Site
is located, show more variability in annual minimum/maximum temperatures and lower average humidity than
coastal areas within the SCAB due to decreased marine influence.
More than 90 percent of the SCAB’s rainfall occurs between November and April. The annual average rainfall
within the SCAB varies between approximately nine (9) inches in Riverside to 14 inches in downtown Los
Angeles. Monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Summer rainfall usually consists of widely
scattered thunderstorms near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in the eastern portion of the SCAB.
Due to its generally clear weather, about three-quarters of available sunshine is received in the SCAB; the
remaining one-quarter is absorbed by clouds. The abundant amount of sunshine (and its associated ultraviolet
radiation) is a key factor to the photochemical reactions of air pollutants in the SCAB.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-2
Dominant airflow direction and speed are the driving mechanisms for transport and dispersion of air pollution.
During the late autumn to early spring rainy season, the SCAB is subjected to wind flows associated with
storms moving through the region from the northwest. This period also brings five to 10 periods of strong, dry
offshore winds, locally termed “Santa Anas” each year. During the dry season, which coincides with the
months of maximum photochemical smog concentrations, the wind flow is bimodal, typified by a daytime
onshore sea breeze and a nighttime offshore drainage wind. Summer wind flows are created by the pressure
differences between the relatively cold ocean and the unevenly heated and cooled land surfaces that modify
the general northwesterly wind circulation over southern California. During the nighttime, heavy, cool air
descends mountain slopes and flows through the mountain passes and canyons as it follows the lowering terrain
toward the ocean.
In the SCAB, there are two distinct temperature inversion structures that control the vertical mixing of air
pollution. During the summer, warm high-pressure descending (subsiding) air is undercut by a shallow layer
of cool marine air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent marine subsidence/inversion.
This boundary prevents vertical mixing which effectively acts as an impervious lid to pollutants over the entire
SCAB. The mixing height for the inversion structure is normally situated 1,000 to 1,500 feet above mean sea
level. A second inversion-type forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding
mountains at night followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air. The top of this layer forms a sharp
boundary with the warmer air aloft and creates nocturnal radiation inversions. These inversions occur
primarily in the winter, when nights are longer and onshore flow is weakest. They are typically only a few
hundred feet above mean sea level. These inversions effectively trap pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides and
carbon monoxide, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward. Winter is therefore a period of high levels of primary
pollutants along the coastline.
The discussion above summarizes information from the Project’s AQIA. Refer to Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the
Project’s AQIA (Technical Appendix B) for a detailed description of regional climate and wind patterns.
C. Criteria Pollutants and Associated Human Health Effects
The federal government and State of California have established maximum permissible concentrations for
common air pollutants that may pose a risk to human health or would otherwise degrade air quality and
adversely affect the environment. These regulated air pollutants are referred to as “criteria pollutants.” An
overview of the common criteria air pollutants in the SCAB, their sources, and associated effects to human
health are summarized on the following pages (refer also to Section 2.4 of the Project’s AQIA for a detailed
discussion of criteria pollutants).
• Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-
containing fuels, such as gasoline or wood. CO concentrations tend to be the highest in the winter during
the morning, when there is little to no wind and surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels.
CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines; therefore, motor vehicles operating at slow
speeds are the primary source of CO and the highest ambient CO concentrations in the SCAB are generally
found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. Inhaled CO does not directly affect the
lungs but affects tissues by interfering with oxygen transport and competing with oxygen to combine with
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-3
hemoglobin present in the blood to form carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Therefore, health conditions with
an increased demand for oxygen supply can be adversely affected by exposure to CO. The most common
symptoms associated with CO exposure include headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, fatigue, and muscle
weakness. Individuals most at risk to the effects of CO include fetuses, patients with diseases involving
heart and blood vessels, and patients with chronic oxygen deficiency.
• Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless gas or liquid. SO2 enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a
result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes occurring at chemical
plants and refineries. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfates (SO4). Collectively, these
pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). SO2 is a respiratory irritant to people afflicted with
asthma. After a few minutes’ exposure to low levels of SO2, asthma sufferers can experience breathing
difficulties, including airway constriction and reduction in breathing capacity. Although healthy
individuals do not exhibit similar acute breathing difficulties in response to SO2 exposure at low levels,
animal studies suggest that very high levels of exposure can cause lung edema (fluid accumulation), lung
tissue damage, and sloughing off of cells lining the respiratory tract.
• Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) consist of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and
are formed when nitrogen (N2) combines with oxygen (O2). Their lifespan in the atmosphere ranges from
one to seven days for nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, to 170 years for nitrous oxide. Nitrogen oxides
are typically created during combustion processes, and are major contributors to smog formation and acid
deposition. NO2 is a criteria air pollutant, and may result in numerous adverse health effects; it absorbs
blue light, resulting in a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere, and reduced visibility. Of the nitrogen oxide
compounds, NO2 is the most abundant in the atmosphere. As ambient concentrations of NO2 are related
to traffic density, commuters in heavy traffic may be exposed to higher concentrations of NO2 than those
indicated by regional monitoring stations. Population-based studies suggest that an increase in acute
respiratory illness, including infections and respiratory symptoms in children (not infants), is associated
with long-term exposure to NO2. Short-term exposure to NO2 can result in resistance to air flow and airway
contraction in healthy subjects. Exposure to NO2 can result decreases in lung functions in individuals with
asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (e.g., chronic bronchitis, emphysema), as these
individuals are more susceptible to the effects of NOX than healthy individuals.
• Ozone (O3) is a highly reactive and unstable gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and nitrogen oxides (NOX), both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo slow
photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during
the summer months when direct sunlight, warm temperatures, and light wind conditions are favorable to
the formation of this pollutant. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to ozone at levels typically
observed in southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity,
increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes.
Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with pre-existing lung disease, such as asthma and
chronic pulmonary lung disease, are considered to be the most susceptible sub-groups for ozone effects.
Children who participate in multiple outdoor sports and live in communities with high ozone levels have
been found to have an increased risk for asthma.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-4
• Particulate Matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) are air pollutants
consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols that are 10 microns or
smaller or 2.5 microns or smaller, respectively. These particles are formed in the atmosphere from primary
gaseous emissions that include sulfates formed from SO2 release from power plants and industrial facilities
and nitrates that are formed from NOX release from power plants, automobiles, and other types of
combustion sources. The chemical composition of fine particles is highly dependent on location, time of
year, and weather conditions. The small size of PM10 and PM2.5 allows them to enter the lungs where they
may be deposited, resulting in adverse health effects. Elevated ambient concentrations of fine particulate
matter (PM10 and PM2.5) have been linked to an increase in respiratory infections, number, and severity of
asthma attacks, and increased hospital admissions. Some studies have reported an association between
long-term exposure to air pollution dominated by fine particles and increased mortality, reduction in life-
span, and an increased mortality from lung cancer. Daily fluctuations in PM2.5 concentration levels have
also been related to hospital admissions for acute respiratory conditions in children, to a decrease in
respiratory lung volumes in normal children, and to increased medication use in children and adults with
asthma. Recent studies show lung function growth in children is reduced with long-term exposure to
particulate matter. The elderly, people with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease, and
children, appear to be the most susceptible to the effects of high levels of PM10 and PM2.5.
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Reactive Organic Gasses (ROGs) are a family of
hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms)
that exist in the ambient air. Both VOCs and ROGs are precursors to ozone and contribute to the formation
of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions. Individual VOCs and ROGs have different levels
of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent when
exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, including such common VOCs as
gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Odors generated by VOCs can irritate the eye, nose, and
throat, which can reduce respiratory volume. In addition, studies have shown that the VOCs that cause
odors can stimulate sensory nerves to cause neurochemical changes that might influence health, for
instance, by compromising the immune system.
• Lead (Pb) is a heavy metal that is highly persistent in the environment. Historically, the primary source
of lead in the air was emissions from vehicles burning leaded gasoline. Currently, emissions of lead are
largely limited to stationary sources such as lead smelters. Exposure to low levels of lead can adversely
affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders,
distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased
lead levels are associated with increased blood pressure. Lead poisoning can cause anemia, lethargy,
seizures, and death. Fetuses, infants, and children are more sensitive than others to the adverse effects of
lead exposure.
D. Existing Air Quality
Air quality is evaluated in the context of ambient air quality standards published by the federal and State
governments. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin
of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-5
and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) currently in effect are detailed in Table 4.1-1,
Ambient Air Quality Standards .
Table 4.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-2)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-6
Table 4.1-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards (2 of 2)
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-2)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-7
1. Regional Air Quality
Criteria Pollutants
The SCAQMD monitors levels of various criteria pollutants at 37 permanent monitoring stations and 5 single-
pollutant source Pb air monitoring sites throughout the Basin. The attainment status for criteria pollutants
within the SCAB is summarized in Table 4.1-2, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB.
Table 4.1-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB
Criteria Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation
O3 – 1-hour standard Nonattainment --
O3 – 8-hour standard Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
SO2 Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Pb1 Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Note: See Appendix 2.1 from the Project’s AQIA for a detailed map of State/National Area Designations within the SCAB “-“ = The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked effective June 15, 2005. 1 The Federal nonattainment designation for lead is only applicable towards the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, Table 2-3)
The SCAB has been one of the most unhealthful air basins in the United States and has experienced unhealthful
air quality since World War II. However, as a result of the region’s air pollution control efforts over the last
60+ years, criteria pollutant concentrations in the SCAB have reduced dramatically and are expected to
continue to improve in the future as State regulations become more stringent (Urban Crossroads, 2021a, pp.
28-35). Emissions of O3, NOX, VOC, and CO have been decreasing in the SCAB since 1975 and are projected
to continue to decrease. These decreases result primarily from motor vehicle controls and reductions in
evaporative emissions. Although vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the SCAB continue to increase, NOX and
VOC levels are decreasing because of federal and State mandated controls on motor vehicles and the
replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower-emitting vehicles. NOX emissions from electric utilities
have also decreased due to use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. O3 contour maps show that the number
of days exceeding the 8-hour NAAQS decreased between 1997 and 2007. Of note, due to higher temperatures
and stagnant weather conditions, O3 levels have increased in the past two years within the SCAB; however,
O3 levels in the SCAB have decreased substantially over the last 30 years with the current maximum measured
concentrations being approximately one-third of concentrations experienced in the late 1970s, as illustrated on
Figure 4.1-1, SCAB Ozone Trend.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-8
Figure 4.1-1 SCAB Ozone Trend
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-5)
The most recent PM10 statistics also show an overall improvement within the SCAB as illustrated in Figure
4.1-2, SCAB PM10 Trend (Federal Standard), and Figure 4.1-3, SCAB PM10 Trend (Based on State Standard).
During the period for which data are available, the 24-hour annual average concentration for PM10 decreased
by approximately 46 percent against the federal standard, from 103.7 microgram per cubic meter (µg/m³) in
1988 to 55.5 µg/m³ in 2020 (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 30). The 24-hour annual average for emissions for
PM10 have decreased by approximately 64 percent against the State standards, from 93.9 µg/m³ in 1989 to 33.9
µg/m³ in 2020 (ibid.).
Figure 4.1-4, SCAB PM2.5 Trend (Federal Standard), and Figure 4.1-5, SCAB PM2.5 Trend (State Standard),
shows the most recent 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations in the SCAB from 1999 through 2020. Overall,
the national and State annual average concentrations have decreased by almost 50 percent and 31 percent,
respectively (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 31). It should be noted that the SCAB is currently designated as
nonattainment for the State and federal PM2.5 standards (ibid.).
The most recent CO concentrations in the SCAB are shown in Figure 4.1-6, SCAB CO Trend. CO
concentrations in the SCAB have decreased markedly - a total decrease of more about 80 percent in the peak
8-hour concentration from 1986 to 2012 (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 33). 2012 is the most recent year where
8-hour CO averages and related statistics are available in the SCAB.
0255075100125150175200225250Basin Days Exceeding YEAR
1-Hour Stage 1 Episode1-Hour Health Advisory1979 1-Hour NAAQS1997 8-Hour NAAQS2008 8-Hour NAAQS2015 8-Hour NAAQS
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-9
Figure 4.1-2 SCAB PM10 Trend (Federal Standard)
Data from 2020 CARB, iADAM: Top Four Summary: PM10 24-Hour Averages (1988-2020)
1 Some years have been omitted from the table as insufficient data (or no) data has been reported. Years with reported value of
“0” have also been omitted.
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-6)
Figure 4.1-3 SCAB PM10 Trend (State Standard)
Data from 2020 CARB, iADAM: Top Four Summary: PM10 24-Hour Averages (1988-2020)
1 Some years have been omitted from the table as insufficient data (or no) data has been reported. Years with reported value of
“0” have also been omitted.
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-7)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-10
Figure 4.1-4 SCAB PM2.5 Trend (Federal Standard)
Data from 2020 CARB, iADAM: Top Four Summary: PM2.5 24-Hour Averages (1999-2020)
1 Some years have been omitted from the table as insufficient data (or no) data has been reported. Years with reported value of “0” have also been omitted.
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-8)
Figure 4.1-5 SCAB PM2.5 Trend (State Standard)
Data from 2020 CARB, iADAM: Top Four Summary: PM2.5 24-Hour Averages (1999-2020)
1 Some years have been omitted from the table as insufficient data (or no) data has been reported. Years with reported value of “0” have
also been omitted.
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-9)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-11
Figure 4.1-6 SCAB CO Trend
Data from 2020 CARB, iADAM: Top Four Summary: CO 8-Hour Averages (1999-2012)
1 The most recent year where 8-hour concentration data is available is 2012.
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-10)
The most recent NO2 data for the SCAB is shown in Figure 4.1-7, SCAB 1 NO2 Trend (Federal Standard), and
Figure 4.2-8, SCAB NO2 Trend (State Standard). Over the last 50 years, NO2 values have decreased
significantly; the peak 1-hour national and State averages for 2020 are approximately 80 percent lower than
what they were during 1963 (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 34). The SCAB attained the State 1-hour NO2
standard in 1994, bringing the entire State into attainment. A new State annual average standard of 0.030 parts
per million (ppm) was adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in February 2007. The new
standard is just barely exceeded in the SCAQMD. NO2 is formed from NOX emissions, which also contribute
to O3. As a result, the majority of the future emission control measures would be implemented as part of the
overall O3 control strategy. Many of these control measures would target mobile sources, which account for
more than three-quarters of California’s NOX emissions, and are expected to bring the SCAQMD into
attainment of the State annual average standard.
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
CO (ppm)Year
Maximum 8-hour CO Averages
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-12
Figure 4.1-7 SCAB NO2 Trend (Federal Standard)
Data from 2020 CARB, iADAM: Top Four Summary: CO 1-Hour Averages (1963-2020)
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-11)
Figure 4.1-8 SCAB NO2 Trend (State Standard)
Data from 2020 CARB, iADAM: Top Four Summary: CO 1-Hour Averages (1963-2020)
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-12)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-13
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a classification of air pollutants that have been attributed to carcinogenic
and non-carcinogenic health risks. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the CARB adopted a series of regulations to
reduce the amount of air toxic contaminant emissions resulting from mobile and stationary sources, such as
cars, trucks, stationary sources, and consumer products. As a result of CARB’s regulatory efforts, ambient
concentrations of TACs have declined substantially across the State. To reduce TAC emissions from mobile
sources, CARB has required that all light- and medium-duty vehicles sold in California since 1996 be equipped
with an on-board diagnostic system to alert drivers of potential engine problems (as approximately half of all
tailpipe emissions result from malfunctioning emissions control devices). Also, since 1996, CARB has
required the use of cleaner burning, reformulated gasoline in all light- and medium-duty vehicles. These two
regulations resulted in an over 85 percent reduction in TAC emissions from light- and medium-duty vehicles
in the State between 1990 and 2012 (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 36). The CARB also implemented programs
to retrofit diesel-fueled engines and facilitate the use of diesel fuels with ultra-low sulfur content to minimize
the amount of diesel emissions and their associated TACs. As a result of CARB’s programs, diesel emissions
and their associated TACs fell by approximately 71 percent since 2000 despite an approximately 81 percent
increase in miles traveled by diesel vehicles during that same time period, as shown on Figure 4.1-9, Diesel
Particulate Matter and Diesel Vehicle Miles Traveled Trends. Moreover, the average statewide diesel
particulate matter (DPM) emissions for Heavy Duty Trucks (HDT), in terms of grams of DPM generated per
mile traveled, are projected to dramatically reduce due to regulatory requirements on vehicular emissions
adopted by CARB and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 37).
Figure 4.1-9 DPM and Diesel Vehicle Miles Trend
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Exhbit 2-A)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-14
2. Local Air Quality
Criteria Pollutants
Ambient air pollutant concentrations in the Project area are summarized in Table 4.1-3, Project Area Air
Quality Monitoring Summary. Local air quality data was collected from the SCAQMD air quality monitoring
station located nearest to the Project Site: Central San Bernardino Valley 1 area (SRA 34). Data was collected
for the three most recent years for which data was available (2018-2020).
Table 4.1-3 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary 2018-2020
Pollutant Standard Year
2018 2019 2020
O3
Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.141 0.124 0.151
Maximum Federal 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.111 0.109 0.111
Number of Days Exceeding State 1-Hour Standard > 0.09 ppm 38 41 56
Number of Days Exceeding State/Federal 8-Hour Standard > 0.070 ppm 69 67 89
CO
Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration > 35 ppm 1.9 2.7 1.7
Maximum Federal 8-Hour Concentration > 20 ppm 1.1 1.0 1.2
NO2
Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration > 0.100 ppm 0.063 0.076 0.066
Annual Federal Standard Design Value 0.018 0.017 0.019
PM10
Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) > 150 µg/m3 64 88 61
Annual Federal Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3) 34.1 34.8 35.8
Number of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 150 µg/m3 0 0 0
Number of Days Exceeding State 24-Hour Standard > 50 µg/m3 9 12 6
PM2.5
Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) > 35 µg/m3 29.20 46.50 46.10
Annual Federal Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3) > 12 µg/m3 11.13 10.84 11.95
Number of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 35 µg/m3 0 0 0
ppm = Parts Per Million
µg/m3 = Microgram per Cubic Meter
Data for O3, CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 was obtained from SCAQMD Air Quality Data Tables.
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-4)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-15
Toxic Air Contaminants
As part of preparation of the MATES-V study, the SCAQMD collected toxic air contaminant data at 10 fixed
sites within the SCAB. None of the fixed monitoring sites are located within the vicinity of the Project Site;
however, MATES-V extrapolates the excess cancer risk levels throughout the SCAB using mathematical
modeling for specific geographic grids. MATES-V estimates an excess carcinogenic risk of approximately 465
in one million for the Project area, placing the Project area within the 80th percentile for cancer risk
(SCAQMD, 2022). For comparison, the prior version of SCAQMD’s MATES analysis, MATES-IV, estimated
the Project area was in the 94th percentile for cancer risk with an excess cancer risk of 892 in one million
(ibid.). It also bears noting that based on an analysis performed by Ramboll, air toxics cancer risks have
decreased by 76 percent in Fontana between 1998 and 2018 and are expected to decrease by an additional 20
percent by 2023 (Ramboll, 2021). The trend in the Project area of improving toxic air contaminant risk levels
mirrors the overall trend of improving air quality within the SCAB, as described earlier in this Subsection.
Notwithstanding the improvement in local toxic air contaminant risk levels modeled by SCAQMD and
Ramboll, the census tract containing the Project Site is mapped by OEHHA within the 97th percentile for
pollution burden which, based on the census tract’s demographic characteristics, results in OEHHA ranking
the area within the 71st percentile of communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of
pollution (OEHHA, 2022).
4.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is a brief description of the federal, State, and local environmental laws and related regulations
governing air quality emissions.
A. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Federal Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA; 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air
emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Among other things, this law authorizes the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public
health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants, which include ozone (O3),
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10), PM2.5, and
lead (Pb). (EPA, 2021a)
One of the goals of the CAA was to set and achieve NAAQS in every state by 1975 in order to address the
public health and welfare risks posed by certain widespread air pollutants. The setting of these pollutant
standards was coupled with directing the states to develop state implementation plans (SIPs), applicable to
appropriate industrial sources in the state, in order to achieve these standards. The CAA was amended in 1977
and 1990 primarily to set new goals (dates) for achieving attainment of NAAQS since many areas of the
country had failed to meet the deadlines. (EPA, 2021a)
The sections of the federal CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project Site include Title
I (Non-Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions). Title I provisions address the urban
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-16
air pollution problems of O3 (smog), CO, and PM10. Specifically, it clarifies how areas are designated and re-
designated "attainment." It also allows EPA to define the boundaries of "nonattainment" areas: geographical
areas whose air quality does not meet Federal air quality standards designed to protect public health. (EPA,
2020) Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with the CAA Title II provisions. These standards
are intended to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons, CO, and NOX on a phased-in basis that began in
model year 1994. Automobile manufacturers also are required to reduce vehicle emissions resulting from the
evaporation of gasoline during refueling. These provisions further require the use of cleaner burning gasoline
and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and natural gas. (EPA, 2021b)
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act addresses emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Prior to 1990, CAA
established a risk-based program under which only a few standards were developed. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments revised Section 112 to first require issuance of technology-based standards for major sources
and certain area sources. "Major sources" are defined as a stationary source or group of stationary sources that
emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of a hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or
more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants. An "area source" is any stationary source that is not a major
source. (EPA, 2021a)
For major sources, Section 112 requires that EPA establish emission standards that require the maximum
degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous air pollutants. These emission standards are commonly referred
to as "maximum achievable control technology" or "MACT" standards. Eight years after the technology-based
MACT standards are issued for a source category, EPA is required to review those standards to determine
whether any residual risk exists for that source category and, if necessary, revise the standards to address such
risk. (EPA, 2021a)
2. SmartWay Program
The US EPA’s SmartWay Program is a voluntary public-private program developed in 2004, which 1) provides
a comprehensive and well-recognized system for tracking, documenting and sharing information about fuel
use and freight emissions across supply chains; 2) helps companies identify and select more efficient freight
carriers, transport modes, equipment, and operational strategies to improve supply chain sustainability and
lower costs from goods movement; 3) supports global energy security and offsets environmental risk for
companies and countries; and 4) reduces freight transportation-related emissions by accelerating the use of
advanced fuel-saving technologies (EPA, 2017). This program is supported by major transportation industry
associations, environmental groups, State and local governments, international agencies, and the corporate
community.
B. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. California Clean Air Act (CCAA)
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) establishes numerous requirements for district plans to attain state
ambient air quality standards for criteria air contaminants. The CCAA mandates achievement of the maximum
degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to attain the State’s
ambient air quality standards, the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), by the earliest practical
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-17
date. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) established the CAAQS for all pollutants for which the
federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, established standards for sulfates, visibility, hydrogen
sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS. For districts with
serious air pollution, its attainment plan should include the following: no net increase in emissions from new
and modified stationary sources; and best available retrofit technology for existing sources. (SCAQMD, n.d.)
2. Air Toxic Hot Spots Act
The Air Toxic “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987, commonly known as AB 2588, (Health
& Safety Code Section 44300, et seq.) requires facilities emitting specified quantities of pollutants to conduct
risk assessments describing the health impacts to neighboring communities created by their emissions of
numerous specified hazardous compounds. If the district determines the health impact to be significant,
neighbors must be notified. In addition, state law requires the facility to develop and implement a plan to
reduce the health impacts to below significance, generally within five years. Additional control requirements
for hazardous emissions from specific industries are established by the state and enforced by districts.
(SCAQMD, n.d.)
3. Air Quality Management Planning
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local air districts throughout the State are responsible for
developing clean air plans to demonstrate how and when California will attain air quality standards established
under both the CAA and CCAA. For the areas within California that have not attained air quality standards,
CARB works with local air districts to develop and implement State and local attainment plans. In general,
attainment plans contain a discussion of ambient air quality data and trends; a baseline emissions inventory;
future year projections of emissions, which account for growth projections and already adopted control
measures; a comprehensive control strategy of additional measures needed to reach attainment; an attainment
demonstration, which generally involves complex modeling; and contingency measures. Plans may also
include interim milestones for progress toward attainment. Air quality planning activities undertaken by
CARB also include the development of policies, guidance, and regulations related to State and federal ambient
air quality standards; coordination with local agencies on transportation plans and strategies; and providing
assistance to local districts and transportation agencies. (CARB, 2012)
4. Truck & Bus Regulation
Under the Truck and Bus Regulation, adopted by CARB in 2008, all diesel truck fleets operating in California
are required to adhere to an aggressive schedule for upgrading and replacing heavy-duty truck engines. Older,
more polluting trucks are required to be replaced first, while trucks that already have relatively clean engines
are not required to be replaced until later. Pursuant to the Truck and Bus Regulation, all pre-1994 heavy trucks
(trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,000 pounds) were removed from service on California
roads by 2015. Between 2015 and 2020, pre-2000 heavy trucks were equipped with PM filters and upgraded
or replaced with an engine that meets 2010 emissions standards. The upgrades/replacements occurred on a
rolling basis based on model year. By 2023, all heavy trucks operating on California roads must have engines
that meet 2010 emissions standards. Lighter trucks (those with a gross vehicle weight rating of 14,001 to
26,000 pounds) adhered to a similar schedule, and were all replaced by 2020. (CARB, n.d.)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-18
5. Advanced Clean Truck Regulation
In June, 2020, CARB adopted a new Rule requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and
vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California will be
required to be zero-emission. Manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with
combustion engines would be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual
California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of Class
2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales. CARB reports that
as of 2020, most commercially-available models of zero-emission vans, trucks and buses operate less than 100
miles per day. Commercial availability of electric-powered long-haul trucks is very limited. However, as
technology advances over the next 20 years, zero-emission trucks will become suitable for more applications,
and several truck manufacturers have announced plans to introduce market ready zero-emission trucks in the
future. (CARB, 2021)
6. California Air Resources Board Rules
The CARB enforces rules related to air pollutant emissions in the State of California. Rules with applicability
to the Project include, but are not limited to, those listed below.
• CARB Rule 2485 (13 CCR 2485): Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fuel Commercial
Vehicle Idling, which limits nonessential idling to five minutes or less for commercial trucks.
• CARB Rule 2449 (13 CCR 2449): In-Use Off-Road Diesel Idling Restricts, which limits nonessential
idling to five minutes or less for diesel-powered off-road equipment.
C. Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan
Under existing conditions, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response,
and in conformance with California Health & Safety Code Section 40702 et seq. and the California CAA, the
SCAQMD adopted an AQMP to plan for the improvement of regional air quality. AQMPs are updated
regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions and accommodate growth. Each version of the plan is
an update of the previous plan and has a 20-year horizon with a revised baseline. The SCAQMD’s most recent
iteration of the AQMP was adopted in March 2017 (SCAQMD, 2017a).
2. SCAQMD Rules
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.
• SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance Odors): Prohibits the discharge of air contaminants that cause nuisance or
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public.
• SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust): Requires the implementation of best available dust control measures
(BACMs) during activities capable of generating fugitive dust. Rule 403 also requires activities defined
as “large operations” to notify the SCAQMD by submitting specific forms; a large operation is defined as
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-19
any active operation on property containing 50 or more acres of disturbed surface area; or any earth moving
operation with a daily earth-moving or throughput volume of 3,850 cubic meters (5,000 cubic yards), three
times during the most recent 365-day period.
• SCAQMD Rule 431.2 (Low Sulfur Fuel): Requires the use of diesel fuels that adhere to sulfur content
limits.
• SCAQMD Rule 1108 (Cutback Asphalt): Prohibits the use of asphalt that exceeds a specified percentage
of VOCs.
• SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings): Requires all buildings within the SCAQMD to adhere to
the VOC limits for architectural coatings.
• SCAQMD Rule 1186 (PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations):
Requires the use of street sweepers that meet minimum standards for cleaning capabilities.
• SCAQMD Rule 1301 (General): Provides pre-construction review requirements to ensure that new or
relocated facilities do not interfere with progress in attainment of the NAAQS. Rule 1301 also limits
emission increase of ammonia and ozone depleting compounds from new, modified, or relocated facilities
by requiring the use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
• SCAQMD Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants): Prohibits a person from
discharging into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a
period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any 1 hour that is as dark or darker in shade as
that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines.
• SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule): Requires all operators of warehouses greater than
or equal to 100,000 s.f. of indoor floor space to implement measures that reduce nitrogen oxides and
particulate matter emissions and/or pay a fee to fund programs to improve regional air quality.
3. City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1891
City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1891 amends the City’s Municipal Code to establish sustainability standards
applicable to industrial commerce center development projects that are intended to improve local air and
environmental quality. Standards required by Ordinance No. 1891 that would directly reduce local air
pollution emissions and minimize potential adverse effects from air pollution emissions include but are not
limited to: 1) Restricting diesel truck idling to three minutes or less; 2) Requiring each industrial commerce
center to prepare and implement a Truck Routing Plan that utilizes designated truck routes and avoids routes
that pass sensitive receptors, to the greatest extent possible; 3) Requiring motorized cargo-handling equipment
used at industrial commerce center sites to be zero emission; 4) Requiring buildings with more than 400,000
s.f. of building area to install rooftop solar panels that supply 100 percent of the power need of the non-
refrigerated building space; 5) Requiring the installation of electric plug-ins at all loading dock positions that
would be utilized by trucks fitted with transport refrigeration units (TRUs); 6) Requiring that five (5) percent
of passenger vehicle parking spaces are wired for electric vehicle charging and equipped with a Level 2
charging station and at least 10 percent of passenger vehicle spaces are “EV ready” for future expansion of
charging capabilities; and 7) Prohibiting the use of diesel-powered generators, except in case of emergency or
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-20
for temporary power during construction. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable
measures of Ordinance No. 1891. The City would ensure compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No.
1891 as part of their standard building permit review/approval and site inspection processes.
4.1.3 METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING PROJECT-RELATED AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0, was used to calculate all Project-
related air pollutant emissions (with the exception of localized emissions and diesel particulate matter
emissions from Project operations, refer to Subsection 4.2.3B, below). The CalEEMod is a Statewide land use
emission computer model developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in
collaboration with the California Air Districts, including the SCAQMD, that provides a uniform platform to
quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation of land development
projects.
A. Methodology for Calculating Project Construction Emissions
1. Regional Pollutant Emissions
The Project’s construction period will last approximately 10 months and will include five (5) activity phases:
1) site preparation; 2) grading; 3) building construction; 4) paving; and 5) architectural coating. For purposes
of the air quality analysis, the Project’s construction activities are assumed to occur between August 2022 and
May 2023. This assumption represents a conservative analysis scenario because, should construction occur
later than the dates assumed in the analysis, construction equipment emissions would be the same or, more
likely, lower than presented because emission regulations are becoming more stringent over time and the
retirement of older (higher-polluting) equipment and replacement with newer (less-polluting) pieces of
equipment is constantly happening in response to State regulations or service needs (Urban Crossroads, 2022a,
p. 40). The air quality analysis model utilizes the durations of each construction activity phase and the
construction equipment fleet previously presented in EIR Section 3.0, Project Description. The analysis
assumptions for Project construction are based on information provided by the Project Applicant and the
experience and technical expertise of the Project’s air quality technical expert (Urban Crossroads).
Refer to Section 3.4 of the Project’s AQIA for more detail on the methodology utilized to calculate the Project’s
construction-related regional pollutant emissions.
2. Localized Pollutant Emissions
Project-related localized pollutant emissions were calculated in accordance with the SCAQMD’s Final
Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology using the process described below. The CalEEMod was
utilized to determine the maximum daily on-site emissions that would occur during construction activity. The
SCAQMD’s Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to LSTs was used to determine the maximum Project Site
acreage that would be actively disturbed based on the construction equipment fleet and equipment hours as
estimated in the CalEEMod. The equipment-specific disturbance rates were obtained from the CalEEMod
user’s guide, Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod (October 2017). SCAQMD’s methodology
recommends using look-up tables for projects with a disturbance area of less than or equal to five (5) acres in
size and using dispersion modeling for projects with a disturbance area greater than five (5) acres in size. The
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-21
Project is anticipated to disturb more than five (5) acres per day during peak construction activities; however,
for conservative purposes (to overstate potential impacts), the analysis assumes that all on-Site emissions
associated with the Project would occur within a concentrated five-acre area. This is a conservative assumption
because across a larger area, like the Project Site, emissions would disperse over a wider area and localized
concentrations at any one area would be lower, while emissions across a smaller area would be more
concentrated (i.e., substantial). Accordingly, the SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables were utilized to
determine localized pollutant concentration levels at sensitive receptor locations near the Project Site.
Emission concentrations were modeled at five (5) receptor locations near the Project Site, including existing
residences north of I-10 and west of Oleander Avenue and existing businesses west, south, and southeast of
the Project Site.
The SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology indicates that off-site mobile emissions
from development projects should be excluded from localized emissions analyses. Therefore, for purposes of
calculating the Project’s construction-related localized pollutant emissions, only emissions included in the
CalEEMod on-site emissions outputs were considered.
Refer to Section 3.6 of the Project’s AQIA for more detail on the methodology utilized to calculate Project
construction-related localized pollutant emissions.
B. Methodology for Calculating Project Operational Emissions
1. Regional Pollutant Emissions
The Project’s operational-related regional pollutant emissions analysis quantifies air pollutant emissions from
mobile sources, including TRUs, area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, consumer products, landscape
maintenance equipment), and energy sources.
Mobile source emissions are the product of the number of daily vehicle trips generated by the Project, the
composition of the Project’s vehicle fleet (mix of passenger cars, motorcycles, light-heavy-duty trucks,
medium-heavy-duty trucks, and heavy-heavy duty trucks), and the trip length (number of miles driven) by
Project vehicles. The Project’s average number of daily vehicle trips and vehicle fleet mix were determined
using the methodology described in detail in EIR Subsection 4.10, Transportation. The travel length for
Project-related heavy-duty truck trips is based on figures published by SCAQMD: 14.2 miles for 2- and 3-axle
heavy-duty trucks and 40.0 miles for 4+-axle heavy-duty trucks. The travel length for Project-related
passenger vehicles trips is based on the CalEEMod default of 16.6 miles.
In order to account for the possibility of the Project containing refrigerated (cold) storage space, TRUs have
been modeled for 118 two-way truck trips (or 59 round trips) accessing the Project Site. The TRU calculations
are based on the 2017 Off-road Emissions model, version 1.0.1 (Orion), developed by the CARB. Orion does
not provide emission rates per hour or mile as with the on-road emission model and only provides emission
inventories. Therefore, the emissions inventory was converted into emission rates to accurately calculate
emissions from TRU operation associated with project level details. This was accomplished by converting the
annual horsepower hours to daily operational characteristics and converting the daily emission levels into
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-22
hourly emission rates based on the total emission of each criteria pollutant by equipment type and the average
daily hours of operation.
The Project’s operational analysis assumes the use of two, 200 horsepower yard-tractors (also known as a
terminal tractor, yard goat, yard truck, yard mule, or yard dog) on the Project Site for up to four (4) hours per
day for all 365 days of the year. Each yard tractor was assumed to be electric-powered as required by Fontana
Ordinance No. 1891.
The estimated area source emissions and energy source emissions analyses for the Project rely on default inputs
within CalEEMod. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1891, 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.
Refer to Section 3.5 of the Project’s AQIA for detailed information on the methodology utilized to calculate
regional pollutant emissions during Project operation.
2. Localized Pollutant Emissions
The SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology provides look-up tables for sites with
an area of five (5) acres or less. For projects that exceed five acres, the LST look-up tables can be used as a
screening tool to determine which pollutants require additional detailed analysis. This approach is conservative
as it assumes that all on-site emissions associated with a project would be concentrated within a five-acre area.
For the Project, which would cover an approximately 29.8-acre area, this screening method over-predicts
potential localized impacts because, by assuming that Site operational activities are occurring over a smaller
area, the resulting volumes of air pollutants are more highly concentrated than they would be for activities if
they were spread out over a larger surface area.
The Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology only provides for the evaluation of on-site emissions
sources because the CalEEMod outputs do not separate on-site and off-site mobile source emissions.
Notwithstanding, on-site mobile source emissions are manually added to the LST analysis by estimating
emissions from mobile sources operating on the Project Site. The emissions from on-Site mobile sources are
estimated to be equivalent to five (5) percent of the Project’s one-way vehicle trip length, which far exceeds
the actual maximum distance a passenger car or truck could travel through the Project’s parking lots and, thus,
represents a conservative assumption that overstates the actual localized impact of the Project’s on-site mobile
source emissions.
The operational LST analysis utilizes the same sensitive receptor locations that were utilized in the construction
LST analysis.
Refer to Section 3.8 of the Project’s AQIA for detailed information on the methodology utilized to calculate
the Project’s operational localized pollutant emissions.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-23
3. Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions
Diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from trucks traveling to and from the Project Site were calculated
using emission factors for PM10 generated with the EMission FACtor 2017 model (EMFAC 2017). Refer to
Section 2.2 of the Project’s HRA for a detailed description of the model inputs and equations used in the
estimation of the Project-related DPM emissions.
The potential health risks of Project-related DPM emissions were quantified in accordance with the guidelines
in the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel
Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. Pursuant to SCAQMD’s recommendations, emissions were
modeled using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model
(AERMOD) software program. Refer to Section 2.3 of the Project’s HRA for a detailed description of the
model inputs and equations used in the calculation of average particulate concentrations during operation of
the Project.
Health risks associated with exposure to DPM emissions at a given concentration are defined in terms of the
probability of developing cancer or chronic non-cancer health effects as a result of exposure to DPM emissions
at a given concentration. The cancer and non-cancer risk probabilities are determined through a series of
equations to calculate unit risk factor, cancer potency factor, and chronic daily intake. The evaluation results
in a maximum health risk value, which is merely a calculation of risk and does not necessarily mean that any
individual will contract cancer or other non-cancer health concern as a result of the exposure. The equations
and input factors utilized in the Project analysis were obtained from Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA). Refer to Section 2.4 of the Project’s HRA for a detailed description of the variable
inputs and equations used in the calculations of receptor population health risks associated with Project
operations.
4.1.4 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 to regional and local air
quality that could result from development projects. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact
to air quality if the Project or any Project-related component would:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
b. Result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-24
The Project would result in a significant impact under Threshold “a” if the Project were determined to conflict
with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP. Pursuant to Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3, of the SCAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, a project would conflict with the AQMP if either of the following conditions were to occur:
• The Project would increase the frequency or severity of existing NAAQS and/or CAAQS violations, cause
or contribute to new air quality violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the
interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP; or
• The Project would exceed the 2016 AQMP’s future year buildout assumptions.
For evaluation under Threshold “b,” per SCAQMD’s cumulative impact analysis guidance in their White Paper
on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, implementation of the
Project would result in a cumulatively-considerable impact if the Project’s construction and/or operational
activities exceed one or more of the SCAQMD’s “Regional Thresholds” for criteria pollutant emissions, as
summarized in Table 4.1-4, Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds.
Table 4.1-4 Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds
Pollutant Regional Construction Threshold Regional Operational Thresholds
NOX 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOX 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Pb 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day
lbs/day = Pounds Per Day
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-1)
For evaluation under Threshold “c,” the Project would result in a significant impact if any of the following
were to occur:
• The Project’s localized criteria pollutant emissions would exceed one or more of the “Localized
Thresholds” listed in Table 4.1-5, Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions Thresholds, and
Table 4.1-6, Maximum Daily Localized Operational Emissions Thresholds.
• The Project would cause or contribute to a CO “Hot Spot;” and/or
• The Project’s toxic air contaminant emissions, like DPM, would expose sensitive receptor populations to
an incremental cancer risk of greater than 10 in one million; and/or result in a non-carcinogenic health risk
rating (“Acute Hazard Index”) greater than 1.0.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-25
Table 4.1-5 Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions Thresholds
Construction Phase Pollutant Construction Localized Thresholds
Site Preparation & Grading
NOX 270 lbs/day CO 1,746 lbs/day PM10 19 lbs/day
PM2.5 8 lbs/day
Localized Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Final LST Methodology, July 2008 Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-10)
Table 4.1-6 Maximum Daily Localized Operational Emissions Thresholds
Pollutant Operational Localized Thresholds
NOX 270 lbs/day
CO 1,746 lbs/day
PM10 5 lbs/day PM2.5 2 lbs/day
Localized Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Final LST Methodology, July 2008 Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-13)
For evaluation under Threshold “d,” a significant impact would occur if the Project’s construction and/or
operational activities result in air emissions leading to an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402.
4.1.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
The SCAQMD 2016 AQMP, which is the applicable air quality plan for the Project area, addresses long-term
air quality conditions for the SCAB. The criteria for determining consistency with the 2016 AQMP are
analyzed below.
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity
of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of
air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the NAAQS and CAAQS. Violations of the NAAQS and/or
CAAQS would occur if the emissions resulting from the Project were to exceed the SCAQMD’s localized
emissions thresholds. As a conservative measure, the Project’s regional emissions of VOC, NOX, PM10, and
PM2.5 also are considered in this consistency determination because if the Project’s emissions of any of these
pollutants would exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds, then these emissions could delay the
SCAB’s attainment of federal and/or State ozone or particulate matter standards. As disclosed under the
analysis for Threshold “c,” below, Project-related activities would not exceed SCAQMD localized emissions
thresholds during construction or long-term operation and, thus, would not directly cause new violations of the
NAAQS and/or CAAQS. In addition, as disclosed under the analysis for Threshold “b,” below, operation of
the Project would not result in emissions of any criteria pollutant in excess of the applicable SCAQMD regional
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-26
threshold and, therefore, would not result in a long-term increase in the frequency or severity of existing air
quality violations in the SCAB. Based on the foregoing information, the Project would not conflict with
Consistency Criterion No. 1.
• Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years
of Project build-out phase.
The growth forecasts used in the AQMP to calculate future regional emissions levels are based on land use
planning data provided by lead agencies via their general plan documentation. Development projects that
increase the intensity of use on a specific property beyond the respective general plan’s vision may result in
increased stationary area source emissions and/or vehicle source emissions when compared to the AQMP
assumptions. However, if a project does not exceed the growth projections in the applicable local general plan,
then the project is considered to be consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP. The prevailing
planning document for the Project Site is the City’s General Plan, which designates the Project Site for “Light
Industrial (I-L)” and “General Industrial (I-G)” land uses. The Project is consistent with the General Plan land
use designation for the subject property and, therefore, the Project would be consistent with the growth
assumptions used in the AQMP and would not exceed the AQMP’s long-term emissions projections.
Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 2.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse environmental impact due to
an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, the creation of new violations, the
delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP,
or the exceedance of growth assumptions in the AQMP. As such, impacts would be less-than-significant.
Threshold b: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
As noted earlier in this Subsection, the SCAB has a “non-attainment” designation for ozone (1- and 8-hour)
and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) under existing conditions; thus, any direct emissions of these pollutants
or their precursors that exceed applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds would be considered significant.
A. Construction Emissions Impact Analysis
Peak emissions from Project construction are summarized in Table 4.1-7, Peak Construction Emissions
Summary. Detailed air model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.1 of the Project’s AQIA. As shown in Table
4.1-7, peak construction-related emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. Accordingly, the Project’s construction
activities would not emit substantial concentrations of these pollutants and would not contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation on a cumulatively-considerable basis. Project construction impacts related to
emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would all be less than significant, even without
mitigation.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-27
Table 4.1-7 Peak Construction Emissions Summary
Year Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Summer 2022 3.20 30.51 43.10 0.11 19.16 6.16 2023 56.95 34.86 65.34 0.15 9.91 3.94 Winter 2022 3.10 30.71 39.31 0.10 19.16 6.16 2023 56.85 35.22 61.10 0.14 9.91 3.94
Maximum Daily Emissions 56.95 35.22 65.34 0.15 19.16 6.16 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
CalEEMod construction-source (unmitigated) emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1 of the Project’s AQIA. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-5)
B. Operational Emissions Impact Analysis
The calculated peak operational-source emissions are summarized on Table 4.1-8, Peak Operational Emissions
Summary. The air model outputs for the operational analysis are provided in Appendix 3.2 and 3.3 of the
Project’s AQIA.
Table 4.1-8 Peak Operational Emissions Summary
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Summer Area Source 14.21 1.85E-03 0.20 2.00E-05 7.20E-04 7.20E-04 Energy Source 0.27 2.43 2.04 0.01 0.18 0.18 Mobile Source 5.02 43.76 56.58 0.31 18.06 5.23 TRU Source 0.78 6.40 8.58 1.31E-03 0.15 0.13 On-Site Equipment Source 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 20.28 52.60 67.41 0.33 18.39 5.55 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Winter Area Source 14.21 1.85E-03 0.20 2.00E-05 7.20E-04 7.20E-04 Energy Source 0.27 2.43 2.04 0.01 0.18 0.18 Mobile Source 4.51 46.05 51.24 0.30 18.06 5.23 TRU Source 0.78 6.40 8.58 1.31E-03 0.15 0.13 On-Site Equipment Source 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 19.76 54.89 62.06 0.32 18.39 5.55 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
CalEEMod operational-source emissions are presented in Appendices 3.2 and 3.3 of the Project’s AQIA. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-9) As summarized in Table 4.1-8, Project‐related operational emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5
would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria thresholds. Accordingly, the Project would not emit substantial
concentrations of these pollutants during long‐term operation and would not contribute to an existing or
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-28
projected air quality violation. The Project’s long‐term emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5
would be less than significant.
Threshold c: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
The Project has the potential to result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations during construction and operation. The following analysis addresses the potential for Project-
related activities to exceed applicable LSTs for criteria pollutant emissions; cause or contribute to CO “hot
spots,” and result in cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards to nearby sensitive receptors.
A. Localized Criteria Pollutant Analysis
1. Construction Analysis
Table 4.1-9, Localized Construction-Source Emissions Summary, presents the localized air pollutant
concentrations at the sensitive receptor locations in the vicinity of the Project Site with highest exposure to
Project construction activities. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.1 of the
Project’s AQIA. As shown in Table 4.1-9, localized emissions from Project construction would not exceed
the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4.1-9 Localized Construction-Source Emissions Summary
On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation
2022 27.05 30.31 18.83 6.06
Maximum Daily Emissions 27.05 30.31 18.83 6.06
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,746 19 8
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading
2022 26.51 32.04 14.16 3.51
Maximum Daily Emissions 26.51 32.04 14.16 3.51
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,746 19 8
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
CalEEMod unmitigated localized construction-source emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1 of the Project’s AQIA. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-11)
2. Operational Analysis
Table 4.1-10, Localized Operations-Source Emissions Summary, presents localized air pollutant
concentrations at the sensitive receptor locations in the vicinity of the Project Site with highest exposure to
Project operational activities. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.2 and 3.3 of
the Project’s AQIA. As shown in Table 4.1-10, localized emissions from Project operations would not exceed
the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-29
Table 4.1-10 Localized Operations-Source Emissions Summary
On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Summer 4.94 5.50 1.10 0.45
Winter 5.05 5.23 1.10 0.45
Maximum Daily Emissions 5.05 5.50 1.10 0.45
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,746 5 2
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
CalEEMod localized operational-source emissions are presented in Appendix 3.2 and 3.3 of the Project’s AQIA. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-14)
B. CO Hot Spot Impact Analysis
A CO “hot spot” is an isolated geographic area where localized concentrations of CO exceed the CAAQS one-
hour (20 parts per million) or eight-hour (9 parts per million) standards. A Project-specific CO “hot spot”
analysis was not performed for the Project because CO attainment in the SCAB was thoroughly analyzed as
part of SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment for Carbon Monoxide Plan (1992 CO Plan).
The 2003 AQMP and the 1992 CO Plan found that peak CO concentrations in the SCAB were the byproduct
of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and were not the result of traffic congestion. For
context, the CO “hot spot” analysis performed for the 2003 AQMP recorded a CO concentration of 9.3 parts
per million (8-hour) at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection in Los Angeles County;
however, only a small portion of the recorded CO concentrations (0.7 parts per million) were attributable to
traffic congestion at the intersection. The vast majority of the recorded CO concentrations at the Long Beach
Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection (8.6 parts per million) were attributable to unique local
meteorological conditions that resulted in elevated ambient air concentrations. In comparison, the busiest
intersections in the Project Site vicinity would neither experience peak congestion levels or ambient CO
concentrations comparable to the conditions observed at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway
intersection nor feature atypical meteorological conditions (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 54-57). Further,
data from other air pollution control districts in the State indicate that under existing and future vehicle
emission rates, an individual development project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single
intersection by between 24,000 and 44,000 vehicles per hour in order to generate a significant CO impact; the
Project would generate nowhere near this volume of traffic (ibid.). Based on the relatively low local traffic
congestion levels, low existing ambient CO concentrations, and the lack of any unusual meteorological and/or
topographical conditions in the Project Site vicinity, the Project is not expected to cause or contribute to a CO
“hot spot.” Impacts would be less than significant.
C. Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions Impact Analysis
The following analysis evaluates the potential for implementation of the Project to result in acute and chronic
health hazards – including cancer –at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site. Detailed air
dispersion model outputs and risk calculations are presented in Appendices 2.1 through 2.5 of the Project’s
HRA.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-30
1. Construction Analysis
As part of Project construction, diesel-fueled equipment would operate on-site. Also, diesel-fueled trucks
would travel to/from the Project Site to make deliveries of construction materials and equipment and to haul
debris from the Site. Diesel-fueled trucks produce DPM emissions, which is a toxic air contaminant and is
known to be associated with acute and chronic health hazards – including cancer. The receptor location with
the greatest potential exposure to Project construction-related DPM emissions is an existing residence located
at 10424 Oleander Avenue approximately 94 feet west of the Project Site. At this receiver location, the
maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the Project is 1.86 in one million, which would not exceed
the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 1). Also, the non-cancer
risk health index would be <0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-cancer health risk index
threshold of 1.0 (ibid.). Project construction would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively-
considerable manner to the exposure of receptors near the Project Site to substantial DPM emissions. Impacts
would be less than significant.
2. Operational Analysis
The Project does not include any uses that would generate fixed, stationary point-sources of air pollutant
emissions. Thus, the Project operations would not directly produce toxic air contaminants. However,
operation of the Project would generate/attract diesel-fueled truck traffic. Diesel-fueled trucks produce DPM,
which is a toxic air contaminant associated with carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health hazards. Project-
related DPM health risks are summarized below.
At the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR) for operational emissions, which is a residence located
at 10480 Oleander Avenue approximately 393 feet west of the Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer
risk attributable to Project-related DPM emissions is calculated to be 4.11 in one million, which would not
exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 1). The non-
cancer health risk index at the MEIR is estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-
cancer health risk index threshold of 1.0 (ibid.). All other residential locations in the general vicinity of the
Project Site would be exposed to lower concentrations of Project-related DPM emissions than the MEIR due
to their increased distance from Project-related truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk
than the MEIR identified above. The Project would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively-
considerable manner to the exposure of residential receptors near the Project Site to substantial DPM
emissions. Impacts to residential receptors would be less than significant.
At the maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW), the auto body repair facility located approximately
three feet west of the Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the DPM emissions
from trucks traveling to/from the Project Site is calculated to be 1.08 in one million, which would not exceed
the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 2). The non-cancer
health risk index at the MEIW is estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-cancer
health risk index threshold of 1.0 (ibid.). All other places of business in the general vicinity of the Project Site
would be exposed to lower concentrations of Project-related DPM emissions than the MEIW due to their
increased distance from Project-related truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk than the
MEIW identified above. Impacts to worker receptors would be less than significant.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-31
At the maximally exposed school child receptor (MEISC), the Jurupa Hills High School located approximately
897 feet west of the Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the DPM emissions from
trucks traveling to/from the Project Site is calculated to be 0.18 in one million, which would not exceed the
SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 2). The non-cancer health
risk index at the MEIW is estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-cancer health
risk index threshold of 1.0 (ibid.). All other school campuses in the general vicinity of the Project Site would
be exposed to lower concentrations of Project-related DPM emissions than the MEISC due to their increased
distance from Project-related truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk than the MEISC
identified above. Impacts to school child receptors would be less than significant.
Threshold d: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely
affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction activities on the Project Site, odors could be produced by construction equipment exhaust
or from the application of asphalt and/or architectural coatings. However, standard construction practices
would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. Furthermore, any odors emitted during
construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the completion
of the respective phase of construction. In addition, construction activities on the Project Site would be
required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would
create a public nuisance. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 61) Accordingly, the Project’s construction would not
create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and all impacts would be less than
significant.
During long-term operation, Project would operate as a warehouse distribution facility, which is not typically
associated with the emission of objectionable odors. Temporary outdoor refuse storage could be a potential
source of odor; however, Project-generated refuse is required to be stored in covered containers and removed
at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations, thereby precluding any significant
odor impact. Furthermore, the occupant(s) of the proposed warehouse building would be required to comply
with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public
nuisance, during long-term operation. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 61) As such, long-term operation of the
Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and all impacts would
be less than significant.
4.1.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The area immediately surrounding the Project Site contains a variety of uses, including vacant parcels and
parcels developed (or under construction) with industrial, transitional, and conforming and non-conforming
residential uses. Due to the adjacency of I-10 and Union Pacific railroad tracks, which are generally not
compatible with residential land uses due to air pollution concerns, the City has designated the corridor south
of I-10 and north of Slover Avenue for industrial land uses within the Project Site vicinity.
The census tract containing the Project Site is in the 97th percentile for pollution burden which, based on the
census tract’s demographic characteristics, results in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) ranking the area within the 71st percentile of communities that are disproportionately burdened by
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-32
multiple sources of pollution (OEHHA, 2022). As part of their MATES-V study, SCAQMD estimates the
Project area is located within the 80th percentile for cancer risk within the SCAB (which is an improvement
from the MATES-IV study six years prior that found the Project area to be in the 94th percentile for cancer risk)
(SCAQMD, 2022). Additionally, based on an analysis performed by Ramboll, air toxics cancer risks have
decreased by 76 percent in Fontana between 1998 and 2018 and are expected to decrease by an additional 20
percent by 2023 (Ramboll, 2021). Thus, although air pollutant levels in the Project area remain elevated, the
observed trend is of improving air conditions within the City, generally, and the Project area, specifically.
As discussed under the analysis for Threshold “a,” the Project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP;
therefore, there is no potential for the Project to result in a cumulatively considerable effect on the environment
due to an inconsistency with the 2016 AQMP.
Based on SCAQMD guidance, any exceedance of a regional or localized threshold for criteria pollutants also
is considered to be a cumulatively-considerable effect, while air pollutant emissions that fall below applicable
regional and/or localized thresholds are not considered cumulatively-considerable. As discussed in the
analysis under Thresholds “b” and “c” the Project would not emit any air pollutants during construction or
operation that exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional or localized threshold and, thus, the Project would
result in effects to regional and local air quality that would not be cumulatively considerable. In addition, the
Project will be required to comply with newly enacted City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1891, which goes above
and beyond current state and regional air quality regulations and will serve to further reduce emissions of air
pollutants.
As indicated in the analysis of Threshold “d,” above, there are no Project components that would expose a
substantial number of sensitive receptors to objectionable odors. There are no known sources of offensive
odors in the Project area. Because the Project’s construction and operation would not create substantial and
objectionable odors and because there are no sources of objectionable odors in the areas immediately
surrounding the Project Site, there is no potential for odors from the Project Site to commingle with odors from
nearby development projects and expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial, offensive odors.
Accordingly, implementation of the Project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact related
to odors.
4.1.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less than Significant Impact. The Project would neither contribute to a delay in the attainment
of federal and State air quality standards in the SCAB nor exceed local growth projections. Accordingly, the
Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 AQMP.
Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact. Project construction and operational activities would not exceed
the applicable SCAQMD regional threshold for any criteria pollutant. Thus, the Project would not contribute
cumulatively considerable volumes of any air pollutant for which the SCAB does not attain federal or State air
quality standards.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Air Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.1-33
Threshold c: Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project would not: 1) exceed applicable
SCAQMD localized criteria pollution emissions thresholds during construction and operation; 2) would not
expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (i.e., DPM) that exceed the applicable SCAQMD
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk thresholds; and 3) would not cause or contribute to the formation of a
CO “hot spot.”
Threshold d: Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not produce air emissions that would lead to
unusual or substantial construction-related or operational-related odors. The Project is required to comply with
SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance.
4.1.8 MITIGATION
Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Biological Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.2-1
4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This Subsection evaluates the potential for Project-related activities to impact sensitive biological resources
on or adjacent to the Project Site. The analysis in this Subsection is based, primarily, on information contained
in a report (“Biology Report”) prepared by Alden Environmental, Inc. (hereinafter, “Alden”). This report,
titled “Slover-Cypress Biological Resources” and dated January 13, 2022, is provided as Technical Appendix
D to this EIR (Alden, 2022). All references used in this Subsection are listed in EIR Section 7.0, References.
4.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
The Project Site contains one vegetation community (non-native grassland) and three land cover types
(agriculture, disturbed habitat, and developed) under existing conditions. A summary of the vegetation
community and land cover types on the Project Site is provided below.
• Non-Native Grassland: Non-native grassland is present in the east-central portion of the Project Site,
covering approximately 2.4 acres. This community is comprised of non-native grasses (wild oats [Avena
sp.] and ripgut grass [Bromus diandrus]). Non-native grassland is not a sensitive or natural vegetation
community. (Alden, 2022, p. 3)
• Agriculture: The remnants of a former olive tree grove are located on approximately 1.3 acres in the west-
central portion of the Site. Although this area is vacant and not actively cultivated, it is classified as
agriculture for biological resources evaluation purposes. The agriculture land cover type is not a sensitive
or natural vegetation community. (Alden, 2022, p. 3)
• Disturbed: The Project Site contains approximately 1.1 acres of disturbed area. The disturbed habitat on
the Site has been cleared, leveled, and covered with gravel. The area is sparsely vegetated with non-native
species. The disturbed area on the Project Site is not a sensitive or natural vegetation community. (Alden,
2022, p. 3)
• Developed: The remaining area of the Project Site is classified as “Developed.” The developed areas on
the Project Site are characterized by man-made features such as residences, parking areas, pavement,
structures, and storage areas. The developed area on the Project Site is not a sensitive or natural vegetation
community. (Alden, 2022, p. 3)
B. Special-Status Plant Species
According to the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), no sensitive plant species have been
reported on the Project Site or within the Project Site vicinity. No sensitive plant species were observed on the
Project Site and none is anticipated to occur due the lack of natural vegetation communities and pervasive
disturbances on the Site. Plant species observed on the Project Site consist primarily of non-native and
ornamental species. See Attachment A from the Project’s Biology Report for the full list of plant species
observed on the Project Site. (Alden, 2022, pp. 2, 4)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Biological Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.2-2
C. Special-Status Wildlife Species
No sensitive animal species were observed or detected on the Project site during visits by Alden biologists,
and none is anticipated to occur given the developed/disturbed nature of the Project Site and lack of suitable
habitat areas surrounding the Site. Animals observed were limited to common, non-sensitive bird species such
as Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), raven (Corvus corax), and Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto), small mammals
such as the feral cat (Felis catus), domestic rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus domesticus), and Botta’s pocket
gopher (Thomomys bottae), and reptiles such as the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana). Refer to
Attachment B from the Project’s Biology Report for the full list of wildlife species observed on the Project
Site. (Alden, 2022, p. 4)
According to the CNDDB, one federal endangered species, the Delhi sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas
terminates abdominalis), was reported in the Site vicinity – but not on the Project Site – however; this species
occurs only in association with Delhi sands soils which are not present on Site (Alden, 2022, p. 4).
D. Nesting Birds
The Project Site contains groundcover, shrubs, and trees that could be used for nesting or roosting by a variety
of native and/or migratory birds. While there were no nests observed on the Project Site, birds could build
nests in the ornamental trees on the property perimeter (Alden, 2022, p. 4).
E. Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Resources
The Site was inspected for riparian/riverine and vernal pool resources, as well as any features that have
potential to be considered Waters of the U.S. (WUS) or Waters of the State (WS) under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
respectively; however, the property is essentially flat and there are no drainage features, ponding areas, or
wetland/riparian resources that could be considered a WUS or WS within or adjacent to the Site. (Alden, 2022,
pp. 2, 4)
4.2.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The Project Site is subject to State of California (hereinafter, “State”) and federal regulations that were
developed to protect natural resources, including: state and federally listed plants and animals; aquatic
resources including rivers and creeks, ephemeral streambeds, wetlands, and areas of riparian habitat; other
special-status species which are not listed as threatened or endangered by the State or federal governments;
and other special-status vegetation communities. Provided below is an overview of the federal, State, and
regional laws, regulations, and requirements that are applicable to the property. Provided below is an overview
of the federal, State, and regional laws, regulations, and requirements that are applicable to the Project Site
based on its location and the biological resources observed on the Site by Alden.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Biological Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.2-3
A. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The purpose of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to protect and recover imperiled species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend. It is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and
the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS has primary
responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly marine
wildlife such as whales and anadromous fish such as salmon. Under the ESA, species may be listed as either
endangered or threatened. “Endangered” means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. “Threatened” means a species is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future. All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are eligible for listing as endangered
or threatened. (USFWS, 2017)
The ESA makes it unlawful for a person to take a listed animal without a permit. Take is defined as “to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
Through regulations, the term “harm” is defined as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act
may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by
significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” Listed plants
are not protected from take, although it is illegal to collect or maliciously harm them on federal land. Protection
from commercial trade and the effects of federal actions do apply for plants. (USFWS, 2017)
Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to use their legal authorities to promote the conservation
purposes of the ESA and to consult with the USFWS and NMFS, as appropriate, to ensure that effects of
actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species.
During consultation, the “action” agency receives a “biological opinion” or concurrence letter addressing the
proposed action. In the relatively few cases in which the USFWS or NMFS makes a jeopardy determination,
the agency offers “reasonable and prudent alternatives” about how the proposed action could be modified to
avoid jeopardy. It is extremely rare that a project ends up being withdrawn or terminated because of jeopardy
to a listed species. (USFWS, 2017)
Section 10 of the ESA may be used by landowners including private citizens, corporations, tribes, states, and
counties who want to develop property inhabited by listed species. Landowners may receive a permit to take
such species incidental to otherwise legal activities, provided they have developed an approved habitat
conservation plan (HCP). HCPs include an assessment of the likely impacts on the species from the proposed
action, the steps that the permit holder will take to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts, and the funding
available to carry out the steps. HCPs may benefit not only landowners but also species by securing and
managing important habitat and by addressing economic development with a focus on species conservation.
(USFWS, 2017)
2. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC Section 703-712)
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport,
sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Biological Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.2-4
such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to federal regulations. The migratory bird
species protected by the MBTA are listed in 50 CFR 10.13. The USFWS has statutory authority and
responsibility for enforcing the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712). The MBTA implements Conventions between
the United States and four countries (Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia) for the protection of migratory birds.
(USFWS, 2020a)
B. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) states that all native species of fishes, amphibians, reptiles,
birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, and their habitats, threatened with extinction and those experiencing
a significant decline which, if not halted, would lead to a threatened or endangered designation, will be
protected or preserved. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) works with interested
persons, agencies, and organizations to protect and preserve such sensitive resources and their habitats. CESA
prohibits the take of any species of wildlife designated by the California Fish and Game Commission as
endangered, threatened, or candidate species. CDFW may authorize the take of any such species if certain
conditions are met. (CDFW, n.d.)
Section 2081 subdivision (b) of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) allows CDFW to authorize take
of species listed as endangered, threatened, candidate, or a rare plant, if that take is incidental to otherwise
lawful activities and if certain conditions are met. These authorizations are commonly referred to as incidental
take permits (ITPs). (CDFW, n.d.)
If a species is listed by both the federal ESA and CESA, CFGC Section 2080.1 allows an applicant who has
obtained a federal incidental take statement (federal Section 7 consultation) or a federal incidental take permit
(federal Section 10(a)(1)(B)) to request that the Director of CDFW find the federal documents consistent with
CESA. If the federal documents are found to be consistent with CESA, a consistency determination (CD) is
issued and no further authorization or approval is necessary under CESA. (CDFW, n.d.)
A Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) authorizes incidental take of a species listed as endangered, threatened,
candidate, or a rare plant, if implementation of the agreement is reasonably expected to provide a net
conservation benefit to the species, among other provisions. SHAs are intended to encourage landowners to
voluntarily manage their lands to benefit CESA-listed species. California SHAs are analogous to the federal
safe harbor agreement program and CDFW has the authority to issue a consistency determination based on a
federal safe harbor agreement. (CDFW, n.d.)
2. Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP)
CDFW's Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program takes a broad-based ecosystem
approach to planning for the protection and perpetuation of biological diversity. The NCCP program began in
1991 as a cooperative effort to protect habitats and species. It is broader in its orientation and objectives than
the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts, as these laws are designed to identify and protect
individual species that have already declined in number significantly. (CDFW, n.d.)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Biological Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.2-5
An NCCP identifies and provides for the regional protection of plants, animals, and their habitats, while
allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. Working with landowners, environmental
organizations, and other interested parties, a local agency oversees the numerous activities that compose the
development of an NCCP. CDFW and the USFWS provide the necessary support, direction, and guidance to
NCCP participants. (CDFW, n.d.)
There are currently 14 approved NCCPs (includes 6 subarea plans) and more than 20 NCCPs in the active
planning phase (includes 10 subarea plans), which together cover more than 7 million acres and will provide
conservation for nearly 400 special status species and a wide diversity of natural community types throughout
California. The Project Site is not located within an area covered by an approved NCCP or an NCCP in the
active planning phase. (CDFW, n.d.)
3. Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) of 1977
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) was enacted in 1977 and allows the Fish and Game Commission to
designate plants as rare or endangered. There are 64 species, subspecies, and varieties of plants that are
protected as rare under the NPPA. The NPPA prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants, but includes
some exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations; emergencies; and after properly notifying CDFW for
vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other sites, changes in land use, and in certain other situations.
(CDFW, n.d.)
4. Unlawful Take or Destruction of Nests or Eggs (CFGC Sections 3503.5-3513)
Section 3503.5 of the CFGC specifically protects birds of prey, stating: “It is unlawful to take, possess, or
destroy any . . . [birds-of-prey] or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as
otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Section 3513 of the CFGC
duplicates the federal protection of migratory birds, stating: “It is unlawful to take or possess any migratory
nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird
except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)
C. Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Fontana Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code (Section 28-67) requires that an arborist certified by the International Society of
Arboriculture be retained prior to the removal of any heritage, significant, and specimen tree(s) to make a
recommendation as to the feasibility of maintaining or removing the tree(s). If any heritage, significant, or
specimen trees are to be removed, replacement trees of a species approved by the Community Development
Director or their designee shall be planted on the property from which the tree(s) are to be removed or at an
approved off-site location. The Municipal Code defines “heritage trees” as a tree of historical value because
of its association with a place, building, natural feature or event of local, regional or national historical
significance as identified by city council resolution; or a tree representative of a significant period of the city's
growth or development (windrow tree, European Olive tree); or a protected or endangered species as specified
by federal or State statute; or a tree deemed historically or culturally significant by the City Manager or his or
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Biological Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.2-6
her designee because of size, condition, location or aesthetic qualities. The Municipal Code defines
“significant trees” as the species of Southern California black walnut, Coast live oak, Deodora cedar, California
sycamore, or London plane trees. The Municipal Code defines “specimen trees” as a mature tree (that is not
a heritage or significant tree) that is an excellent example of its species in structure and aesthetics and warrants
preservation, relocation, or replacement as specified by Municipal Code Sections 28-66, 28-67, and 28-68.
(Fontana, 2021)
4.2.3 METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
The biological resources impacts is based on literature review, including a review of the California Natural
Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), historical and current aerial photographs, USGS topographic maps, U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey maps, the
National Hydrography Dataset, and National Wetlands Inventory, and a visit to the Project Site where existing
biological resources on and adjacent to the Project Site were mapped. Refer to the Project’s Biology Report
for detailed descriptions of the Project Site survey dates, scopes of study, and research and survey
methodologies used in the biological resources analysis. (Alden, 2022, pp. 1-2)
4.2.4 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The State Legislature has established it to be the policy of the State of California to “[p]revent the elimination
of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below
self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal
communities...” (Public Resources Code Section 21001(c)). CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) establishes
that a project may have a significant effect where:
“The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or wildlife community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species ...”
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines is more specific in addressing biological resources and encompasses a
broader range of resources to be considered, including: candidate, sensitive, or special status species; riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities; federally-protected wetlands; fish and wildlife movement
corridors; local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; and, adopted Habitat Conservation Plans
(HCPs). Based on the guidance within CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Fontana has adopted a
set of significance thresholds for determining the specific conditions by which a development project could
result in a significant impact to biological resources (before considering offsetting mitigation measures). The
significance thresholds, contained in the City of Fontana’s Local Guidelines for Implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act, are utilized in the analysis presented in this Subsection. Accordingly, for the
purpose of analysis in this EIR, the proposed Project would result in a significant impact to biological resources
if the Project or any Project-related component would:
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Biological Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.2-7
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service;
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State- or federally-protected wetlands (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means;
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites;
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance; or
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
4.2.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
A. Direct Impacts to Special-Status Plants
No special-status plants were observed on the Project Site by Alden biologists during field surveys and, due to
the disturbed nature of the Project Site and the lack of natural plant communities on or adjacent to the Site, the
Project Site does not have potential to support special-status plant species known to occur in the general Project
area. (Alden, 2022, pp. 2, 5) No impacts to special-status plant species would occur.
B. Direct Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife
Alden biologists surveying the Project Site did not observe any sensitive wildlife species on the Project Site or
detect any sign that any sensitive wildlife species may use the Site. Because the Project Site contains no natural
habitat, substantial plant cover, or special site features that could be used by special-status wildlife species and
because of the high level of human activity on the Site and adjacent areas, no special-status wildlife species
are expected to be present on or periodically use the Project Site. (Alden, 2022, pp. 2, 4, 5) No impacts to
special-status animal species would occur.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Biological Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.2-8
C. Indirect Impacts to Special-Status Biological Resources
The Project Site is highly disturbed under existing conditions and the Site is surrounded by developed, urban
land uses. No natural or open spaces are located adjacent to the Project Site and it is unlikely that special-
status plants or wildlife species occur within areas adjacent to the Site due to high levels of disturbance and
ongoing human activity. In addition, the one special-status wildlife species known to occur in the Project Site
vicinity – the Delhi sands flower-loving fly – does not occur on the Project Site due to the lack of the specific
soil series that is requisite for this species’ habitat (i.e., Delhi sands). Due to the lack of natural, undisturbed
habitat surrounding the Project Site and the unlikely presence of listed or special-status plant or wildlife species
in areas abutting the Site, the Project would not result in indirect impacts to listed or special-status biological
resources.
The Project Site is in area that is surrounded by existing development with habitat conditions very similar to
those that exist on the Project Site. There are no native open space areas adjacent to the Project Site and no
listed or special-status plant or wildlife species are expected to occur within the developed and disturbed areas
abutting the site. Due to the lack of natural, undisturbed habitat surrounding the Project Site and the unlikely
presence of listed or special-status plant or wildlife species in areas abutting the site, the Project would not
result in indirect impacts to listed or special-status biological resources.
Threshold b: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Based on field surveys conducted on the Project Site no riparian habitat is present on the Project Site and, as
noted previously under Subsection 4.2.1, none of the vegetation communities or land cover types observed on
the Project Site (i.e., non-native grassland, agriculture, disturbed, developed) are classified as a sensitive or
natural community (Alden, 2022, pp. 4-5). Implementation of the Project would not have a substantial adverse
effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS; no impact would occur.
Threshold c: Would the Project have substantial adverse effect on State- or federally-protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The Project site does not contain any protected wetland or aquatic resources, including, but not limited to,
natural drainages or water courses, wetland habitat, marsh, vernal pools, or coastal resources (Alden, 2022, p.
5). As such, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on State- or federally-protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means. No impact would occur.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Biological Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.2-9
Threshold d: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The Project Site does not contain natural, surface drainage/watercourse or ponding features. Additionally,
there are no water bodies on or adjacent to the Project Site that could support fish. Therefore, there is no
potential for the Project to interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish. The Project Site
also does not serve as a wildlife corridor nor is it connected to an established corridor, and there are no native
wildlife nurseries on or adjacent to the Site. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to impede the use
of a native wildlife nursery Site. (Alden, 2022, p. 5) Based on the foregoing information, the Project would
result in no impact to any native resident or migratory fish, established wildlife corridor, or native wildlife
nursery sites.
The Project would remove vegetation (i.e., trees, shrubs, and grasses) from the Project Site that serves as
provides potential roosting and nesting habitat for birds common to the Fontana area, although no nests were
observed on the Project Site and no birds are known to nest on the Site Site (Alden, 2022, p. 5). As noted
previously, numerous non-sensitive bird species common to the Fontana area were observed on the Project
Site, including but not limited to Anna’s hummingbird, house finch, American crow, raven, and Eurasian
collared dove. Although these species are not considered special-status or sensitive based on their prevalence
in southern California, the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code are in place to protect these bird species,
among others, while nesting. If Project construction is to occur during the avian nesting season (February 15
– September 1) and active nests are present on the Project Site, significant impacts to nesting birds could occur.
The Project’s to impact nesting birds is a potentially significant impact for which mitigation is required.
Threshold e: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The Project would remove approximately 80 mature trees from the Project Site. Tree species observed on-Site
include the Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera), ficus (ficus
benjamina), olive (Olea europaea), pine (Pinus sp.), orange (Citrus sinensis), tree of heaven (Ailanthus
altissima), and Chinese elm (Ulmus chinensis). With the exception of the approximately 20 olive trees on the
Project Site, none of the trees that would be removed from the Site meet the definition for heritage, significant,
and/or specimen trees, as established by the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter 28 Article III of the
Fontana Municipal Code). The olive trees on the Project Site have the potential to meet the City’s definition
of a “heritage tree.” As required by the Tree Protection Ordinance, the Project Applicant would be required
to have a professional arborist survey the Project Site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Based on the
findings of the arborist, the trees on the Project Site would require replacement at a minimum ratio of 1:1 or a
maximum ratio of 4:1 depending on the size and health of the tree to be removed. The Project’s conceptual
landscape plan provides for the planting of a minimum of 264 trees on the Project Site. As part of the City’s
standard building permit review process, City staff would confirm if the 264 trees proposed by the Project
would be sufficient to meet the number of replacement trees required by the Tree Protection Ordinance or if
additional trees would be needed (or fees paid to the City’s tree account to provide for the planting of trees on
City land) in order to comply the requirements of the Municipal Code. The City would not issue a building
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Biological Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.2-10
permit until and unless compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance can be demonstrated. Accordingly,
implementation of the Project would not result in a conflict with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. No
impact would occur.
The City of Fontana does not have any additional policies or ordinances in place to protect biological resources
that are applicable to the Project Site.
Threshold f: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
The Project Site 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.
4.2.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
This cumulative impact analysis for biological resources considers development of the Project in conjunction
with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project Site as well as full General Plan buildout of the
cities of Fontana, Rialto, and Jurupa Valley as well as the unincorporated community of Bloomington.
The Project Site does not contain any special-status plant or wildlife species nor does the Site have the potential
to support such species. Therefore, the Project would not impact any special-status plant or wildlife species
and, thus, the Project would have no potential to contribute to a cumulative impact to special-status plant and/or
animal species.
The Project would not impact any riparian or sensitive natural communities; therefore, there is no potential for
the Project to contribute to a cumulatively-considerable impact to these resources.
The Project would not impact any State-protected or federally-protected wetlands. Accordingly, the Project
has no potential to contribute to a cumulatively-considerable impact to State or federally protected wetlands.
The Project would remove ornamental trees on the property perimeter that have the potential to support nesting
birds protected by federal and State regulations. A wide range of habitat and vegetation types have the potential
to support nesting birds; therefore, it is likely that other development projects within the cumulative study area
also may impact nesting birds. Thus, the Project has the potential to contribute to a cumulatively-considerable
impact to nesting birds.
The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Other
development projects in the cumulative study area would be required to comply with applicable local policies
and/or ordinances related to the protection of biological resources as a standard condition of review/approval.
Because the Project and cumulative development would be prohibited from violating applicable, local policies
or ordinances related to the protection of biological resources, a cumulatively-considerable impact would not
occur.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Biological Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.2-11
The Project Site 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. Because
there is no conservation plan applicable to the Project impact area, there is no potential for the Project to
contribute to the violation of a conservation plan. No cumulative impact would occur.
4.2.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: No Impact. The Project Site does not contain or support any special-status plant or wildlife
species. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and no impact would occur.
Threshold b.: No Impact. The Project Site does not contain riparian and/or other sensitive natural habitats;
therefore, the Project would have no impact on riparian or other sensitive habitats as classified by the CDFW
or USFWS.
Threshold c: No Impact. No State- or federally-protected wetlands are located on the Project Site; therefore,
no impact to wetlands would occur.
Threshold d: Potentially Significant Direct and Cumulatively-Considerable Impact. There is no potential for
the Project to interfere with the movement of fish or impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site. However,
the 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 season and should nesting birds be present.
Threshold e: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources.
Threshold f: No Impact. The 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.
4.2.8 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, AND MITIGATION
The following mitigation measures would address the potential for Project construction to impact nesting birds,
including migratory species.
MM 4.2-1 Vegetation clearing and ground disturbance shall be prohibited during the migratory bird
nesting season (January 31 through September 1), unless a migratory bird nesting survey is
completed in accordance with the following requirements:
a) A nesting bird survey shall be conducted on the Project Site and within suitable habitat
located within a 500-foot radius of the Project Site by a qualified biologist within three
days prior to initiating vegetation clearing or ground disturbance.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Biological Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.2-12
b) If the survey identifies the presence of active nests, then the nests shall not be disturbed
unless the qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either (i) the adult
birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or (ii) the juveniles from the occupied
nests are capable of independent survival.
c) If the biologist is not able to verify any of the conditions from sub-item “b,” above, then
no disturbance shall occur within a buffer zone specified by the qualified biologist for each
nest or nesting site. The buffer zone shall be species-appropriate (no less than 100-foot
radius around the nest for non-raptors and no more than a 500-foot radius around the nest
for raptors) and shall be sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect impacts from
construction activities. The size and location of buffer zones, if required, shall be based on
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and shall be subject to review and approval by the City. The nests and
buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved
buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within which no
vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist,
with City concurrence, verifies that the nests are no longer occupied and/or juvenile birds
can survive independently from the nests.
4.2.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold d: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-
1 would ensure that pre-construction surveys are conducted for nesting birds protected by State and federal
regulations in the event that vegetation is removed from the Project Site during the breeding season. If nesting
birds are present on the Project Site, the mitigation requires avoidance of active bird nests in conformance with
accepted protocols and regulatory requirements. With implementation of the required mitigation, potential
direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts to nesting birds protected by State and federal regulations would
be reduced to below a level of significance.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-1
4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The analysis in this Subsection is based on a cultural resources report prepared by Brian F. Smith and
Associates, Inc. (hereinafter, “BFSA”). This report, titled “A Cultural Resources Study for the Cypress/Slover
Industrial Center Project” and dated January 27, 2022 (BFSA, 2022a), is included as Technical Appendix E to
this EIR.
Confidential information has been redacted from Technical Appendix E for purposes of public review. In
addition, much of the written and oral communication between Native American tribes, the City, and BFSA is
considered confidential in respect to places that may have traditional tribal cultural significance (Gov. Code
Section 65352.4), and although relied upon in part to inform the preparation of this EIR Subsection, those
communications are treated as confidential and are not available for public review. Under existing law,
environmental documents must not include information about the location of archeological sites or sacred
lands or any other information that is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (Cal.
Code Regs. Section 15120(d)).
4.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Prehistoric and Protohistoric Resources
1. Regional Setting
The Project Site is located within the southern California region, or Inland Empire. The Paleo Indian Period,
Archaic Period, and Late Prehistoric Period are the three (3) general prehistoric cultural periods represented in
the Inland Empire, the resources of which that have likely potential for discovery are summarized briefly
below. Refer to Technical Appendix E for a more detailed discussion about the prehistoric cultural periods in
the Inland Empire (BFSA, 2022a, p. 1.0-5 through 1.0-12).
• Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 years before the present [YBP]): The
Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 YBP).
The late Pleistocene environment was cool and moist, allowing for glaciation in the mountains and the
formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands; however, by the terminus of the late
Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, causing glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal
erosion, large lakes to recede and evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation
changes. The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was
near the 30-meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west than its present location.
• Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP): The Archaic Period of
prehistory began with the onset of the Holocene around 9,000 YBP. In southern California, the general
climate at the beginning of the early Holocene was marked by cool/moist periods and an increase in
warm/dry periods and sea levels. The coastal shoreline at 8,000 YBP, depending upon the particular
area of the coast, was near the 20-meter isobath, or one to four kilometers further west than its present
location.
• Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790): Approximately 1,350 YBP, a
Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region moved into San Bernardino County, marking
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-2
the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. This period has been characterized by higher population
densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversified
and intensified during this period, with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-
bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations.
Technological developments during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow
between A.D. 400 and 600 and the introduction of ceramics.
The City of Fontana lies in an area of the Inland Empire where the traditional territories of two Native American
groups, the Gabrieliño and Serrano, adjoined and overlapped, at least during the Late Prehistoric and
Protohistoric Periods.
The territory of the Gabrieliño at the time of Spanish contact covers much of present-day Los Angeles and
Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso Creek, the eastern extent is
located east of present-day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River, the northern extent includes the San
Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrieliño
also occupied several Channel Islands including Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas
Island, and San Clemente Island. Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from
Santa Catalina Island, this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of
southern California. The Gabrieliño lived in permanent villages and smaller resource gathering camps
occupied at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Permanent villages were
located along rivers and streams, as well as in sheltered areas along the coast.
Aboriginally, the Serrano occupied an area east of present-day Los Angeles: the San Bernardino Mountains
east of Cajon Pass and at the base of and north of the mountains near Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms,
and south to the Yucaipa Valley. The Serrano were part of “exogamous clans” and formed alliances amongst
their own clans and with Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Gabrieliño, and Cupeño clans. Serrano village locations were
typically located near water sources and the Serrano were primarily hingers and gatherers.
2. Project Site Conditions
BFSA surveyed the Project Site for the presence of prehistoric and protohistoric archaeological resources.
BFSA noted that the entire Project Site was heavily disturbed and appeared to have been rough-graded in the
past. Ground visibility on the Site was limited due to the residential and industrial development present on
portions of the Site at the time of the survey, while other portions of the Site contained rubble from completed
demolition activities. Notwithstanding, BFSA did not observe any prehistoric or protohistoric resources on
the Project Site. (BFSA, 2022a, p. 3.0-2)
BFSA also performed an archaeological records search through the South Central Coastal Information Center
(SCCIC) at California State University (CSU), Fullerton. The records search provided information regarding
previous archaeological studies in the Project area and any previously recorded sites within a one-mile radius
of the Project site. The results of this records search indicate that no prehistoric or protohistoric artifacts have
been recorded on the Project Site or within a one-mile radius of the Site. (BFSA, 2022a, p. 1.0-17)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-3
B. Historic Resources
1. Regional Setting
The general historical setting for the southern California region and the City of Fontana is summarized below.
Refer to Technical Appendix E for a more detailed discussion of the local historic setting.
In 1772, three years after the beginning of Spanish colonization of Alta California, Pedro Fages, comandante
of the new province, and a small force of soldiers under his command became the first Europeans to set foot
in the San Bernardino Valley. They were followed in the next few years by two other early Spanish explorers,
Juan Bautista de Anza and Francisco Garcés, who traveled through the valley in the mid-1770s. Despite these
early visits, for the next 40 years the inland valley received little impact from the Spanish colonization activities
in Alta California, which were concentrated predominantly in the coastal regions.
Following the establishment of Mission San Gabriel in 1771, the San Bernardino Valley became nominally a
part of the vast landholdings of that mission. The name “San Bernardino” was bestowed on the region at least
by 1819, when a mission asistencia and an associated rancho were officially established under that name in
present-day Loma Linda. After gaining independence from Spain in 1821, the Mexican government began in
1834 the process of secularizing the mission system in Alta California, which in practice meant the confiscation
of the Franciscan missions’ land holdings, to be distributed later among prominent citizens of the province.
During the 1830s and the 1840s, several large land grants were created in the vicinity of present-day Fontana,
but most of the Fontana area was not involved in any of these, and thus remained public land when Alta
California became a part of the United States in 1848.
Used primarily as cattle ranches, the ranchos around Fontana saw little development until the mid-19th century,
when a group of Mormon settlers from Salt Lake City founded the town of San Bernardino in 1851. After the
completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in the mid-1870s, and especially after the Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe Railway introduced a competing line in the 1880s, a phenomenal land boom swept through much of
southern California, ushering in a number of new settlements in the San Bernardino Valley. In 1887, the Semi-
Tropic Land and Water Company purchased a large tract of land near the mouth of Lytle Creek, together with
the necessary water rights to the creek, and laid out the townsites of Rialto, Bloomington, and Rosena.
While Rialto and Bloomington were soon settled and began to grow, little development took place at Rosena
before the collapse of the 1880s land boom and the ensuing financial destruction of the Semi-Tropic Land and
Water Company. In 1905, Azariel Blanchard “A.B.” Miller (1878-1941), widely considered the founder of
present-day Fontana, arrived in Rosena from the Imperial Valley and, along with his associates, soon
established Fontana Farms on a tract of land that eventually reached 20,000 acres. By 1910, an irrigation
system was constructed and much of the land was planted in grain and citrus crops. Miller’s Fontana Farms
became synonymous to the location, and Rosena was renamed Fontana in 1913. It remained primarily an
agricultural settlement until the WWII era, with poultry, hog, and rabbit raising playing important roles in the
local economy.
In 1942, the establishment of the Kaiser Steel Mill dramatically altered the agrarian setting of the Fontana area.
With other industrial enterprises following Kaiser to the area during and after WWII, Fontana became known
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-4
for the next four decades as a center of industry. Since the closure of the Kaiser Steel Mill in 1983, and in
response to the growing demand for affordable housing, Fontana, like many other cities in the San Bernardino
Valley, has increasingly taken on the characteristics of a bedroom community.
2. Project Site Conditions
BFSA conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project Site and reviewed historical records databases to identify
the presence or absence of historical resources on the Project Site. The survey of the property identified nine
historic period residential structures on the Project Site, as well as several modern residential outbuildings
(e.g., sheds). The historic period residential structures on the Project Site were constructed as early as 1923
and as late as 1966. (BFSA, 2022b, p. 3.0-2)
BFSA also performed an archaeological records search through the SCICC at CSU Fullerton. The records
search provided information regarding previous archaeological studies in the Project area and any previously
recorded sites within a one-mile radius of the Project Site. The results of this records search indicate that no
historic artifacts have been recorded on the Project Site but 40 historic resources have been recorded within a
one-mile radius of the Site. The recorded historic resources are primarily comprised of historic residences but,
also, include a railroad alignment, farm/ranch complex, and the Kaiser Fontana Medical Center campus.
(BFSA, 2021a, p. 1.0-17)
4.3.2 REGULATORY SETTING
A. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) was passed primarily to acknowledge the importance
of protecting our nation’s heritage (NPS, 2021a). While Congress recognized that national goals for historic
preservation could best be achieved by supporting the drive, enthusiasm, and wishes of local citizens and
communities, it understood that the federal government must set an example through enlightened policies and
practices. In the words of the Act, the federal government's role would be to "provide leadership" for
preservation, "contribute to" and "give maximum encouragement" to preservation, and "foster conditions under
which our modern society and our prehistoric and historic resources can exist in productive harmony."
NHPA and related legislation sought a partnership among the federal government and the states that would
capitalize on the strengths of each. The federal government, led by the National Park Service (NPS) provides
funding assistance; basic technical knowledge and tools; and a broad national perspective on America's
heritage. The states, through State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) appointed by the governor of each
state, would provide matching funds, a designated state office, and a statewide preservation program tailored
to state and local needs and designed to support and promote state and local historic preservation interests and
priorities.
An Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the first and only federal entity created solely to
address historic preservation issues, was established as a cabinet-level body of Presidentially-appointed
citizens, experts in the field, and federal, state, and local government representatives, to ensure that private
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-5
citizens, local communities, and other concerned parties would have a forum for influencing federal policy,
programs, and decisions as they impacted historic properties and their attendant values.
Section 106 of NHPA granted legal status to historic preservation in federal planning, decision-making, and
project execution. Section 106 requires all federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on
historic properties, and provide ACHP with a reasonable opportunity to comment on those actions and the
manner in which federal agencies are taking historic properties into account in their decisions.
A number of additional executive and legislative actions have been directed toward improving the ways in
which all federal agencies manage historic properties and consider historic and cultural values in their planning
and assistance. Executive Order 11593 (1971) and, later, Section 110 of NHPA (1980, amended 1992),
provided the broadest of these mandates, giving federal agencies clear direction to identify and consider
historic properties in federal and federally assisted actions. The National Historic Preservation Amendments
of 1992 further clarified Section 110 and directed federal agencies to establish preservation programs
commensurate with their missions and the effects of their authorized programs on historic properties.
2. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation
(NPS, 2021b). Authorized by the NHPA of 1966, the NPS's National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is
part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect
America's historic and archaeological resources.
To be considered eligible, a property must meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. This involves
examining the property’s age, integrity, and significance, as follows:
• Age and Integrity. Is the property old enough to be considered historic (generally at least 50 years old)
and does it still look much the way it did in the past?
• Significance. Is the property associated with events, activities, or developments that were important in
the past? With the lives of people who were important in the past? With significant architectural
history, landscape history, or engineering achievements? Does it have the potential to yield
information through archaeological investigation about our past?
Nominations can be submitted to a SHPO from property owners, historical societies, preservation
organizations, governmental agencies, and other individuals or groups. The SHPO notifies affected property
owners and local governments and solicits public comment. If the owner (or a majority of owners for a district
nomination) objects, the property cannot be listed but may be forwarded to the NPS for a Determination of
Eligibility (DOE). Listing in the NRHP provides formal recognition of a property’s historical, architectural,
or archaeological significance based on national standards used by every state.
Under Federal Law, the listing of a property in the National Register places no restrictions on what a non-
federal owner may do with their property up to and including destruction, unless the property is involved in a
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-6
project that receives Federal assistance, usually funding or licensing/permitting. National Register listing does
not lead to public acquisition or require public access.
3. National Historic Landmarks Program
National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of
the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the
United States (NPS, 2021c). Today, over 2,600 historic places bear this national distinction. Working with
citizens throughout the nation, the NHL Program draws upon the expertise of NPS staff who guide the
nomination process for new Landmarks and provide assistance to existing Landmarks.
4. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA; Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C.
3001-3013) describes the rights of Native American lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian
organizations with respect to the treatment, repatriation, and disposition of Native American human remains,
funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony, referred to collectively in the statute as
cultural items, with which they can show a relationship of lineal descent or cultural affiliation (NPS, 2021d).
One major purpose of this statute is to require that federal agencies and museums receiving Federal funds
inventory holdings of Native American human remains and funerary objects and provide written summaries
of other cultural items. The agencies and museums must consult with Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian
organizations to attempt to reach agreements on the repatriation or other disposition of these remains and
objects. Once lineal descent or cultural affiliation has been established, and in some cases the right of
possession also has been demonstrated, lineal descendants, affiliated Indian Tribes, or affiliated Native
Hawaiian organizations normally make the final determination about the disposition of cultural items.
Disposition may take many forms from reburial to long term curation, according to the wishes of the lineal
descendent(s) or culturally affiliated Tribe(s).
The second major purpose of the statute is to provide greater protection for Native American burial sites and
more careful control over the removal of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects,
and items of cultural patrimony on Federal and tribal lands. NAGPRA requires that Indian tribes or Native
Hawaiian organizations be consulted whenever archaeological investigations encounter, or are expected to
encounter, Native American cultural items or when such items are unexpectedly discovered on Federal or tribal
lands. Excavation or removal of any such items also must be done under procedures required by the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act. This NAGPRA requirement is likely to encourage the in-situ
preservation of archaeological sites, or at least the portions of them that contain burials or other kinds of
cultural items.
Other provisions of NAGPRA: (1) stipulate that illegal trafficking in human remains and cultural items may
result in criminal penalties; (2) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer a grants program to assist
museums and Indian Tribes in complying with certain requirements of the statute; (3) requires the Secretary
of the Interior to establish a Review Committee to provide advice and assistance in carrying out key provisions
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-7
of the statute; authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to penalize museums that fail to comply with the statute;
and, (5) directs the Secretary to develop regulations in consultation with this Review Committee.
B. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4308
Section 4308, Archaeological Features, of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code provides that: “No
person shall remove, injure, disfigure, deface, or destroy any object of archaeological, or historical interest or
value” (NPS, n.d.).
2. California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1427
California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1427 provides that: “No person shall collect or remove any
object or thing of archaeological or historical interest or value, nor shall any person injure, disfigure, deface or
destroy the physical site, location or context in which the object or thing of archaeological or historical interest
or value is found” (NAHC, n.d.).
3. California Register of Historic Resources
The State Historical Resources Commission has designed this program for use by state and local agencies,
private groups, and citizens to identify, evaluate, register, and protect California's historical resources. The
Register is the authoritative guide to the state's significant historical and archaeological resources (OHP, n.d.).
The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural,
historical, archaeological, and cultural significance; identifies historical resources for state and local planning
purposes; determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding; and affords certain protections
under CEQA.
In order for a resource to be included on the Register of Historic Resources, the resources must meet one of
the following criteria:
• Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or
regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States (Criterion 1).
• Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history (Criterion 2).
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values (Criterion 3).
• Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local
area, California, or the nation (Criterion 4).
For resources included on the Register of Historic Resources, environmental review may be required under
CEQA if property is threatened by a project. Additionally, local building inspectors must grant code
alternatives provided under State Historical Building Code. Further, the local assessor may enter into contract
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-8
with property owner for property tax reduction pursuant to the Mills Act. A property owner also may place
his or her own plaque or marker at the site of the resource.
Consent of owner is not required, but a resource cannot be listed over an owner’s objections. The State
Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) can, however, formally determine a property eligible for the
California Register if the resource owner objects.
4. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52)
California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) (2014) Chapter 532 amended Section 5097.94 of, and added Sections
21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21802.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3 to the California Public
Resources Code, relating to Native Americans. AB 52 was approved on September 25, 2014. By including
tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to ensure that local and Tribal
governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available, early in the project
planning process, to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources (OPR, 2017).
By taking this proactive approach, the legislature also intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts
in the environmental review process.
The Public Resources Code now establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21084.2.) To help determine whether a project may have such
an effect, the Public Resources Code requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American
tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a
proposed project. That consultation must take place prior to the determination of whether a negative
declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. (Pub.
Resources Code, Section 21080.3.1.)
If a lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to tribal cultural resources,
the lead agency must consider measures to mitigate that impact. Public Resources Code Section 20184.3 (b)(2)
provides examples of mitigation measures that lead agencies may consider to avoid or minimize impacts to
tribal cultural resources. These rules apply to projects that have a notice of preparation for an environmental
impact report or negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015.
Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code defines “tribal cultural resources.” In brief, in order to be
considered a “tribal cultural resource,” a resource must be either:
(1) listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, on the national, state, or local register of historic
resources, or
(2) a resource that the lead agency chooses, in its discretion, to treat as a tribal cultural resource.
In the latter instance, the lead agency must determine that the resource meets the criteria for listing in the state
register of historic resources. In applying those criteria, a lead agency must consider the value of the resource
to the tribe.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-9
5. State Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5(b) requires that excavation and disturbance activities
must cease “In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a
dedicated cemetery…” until the coroner can determine regarding the circumstances, manner, and cause of any
death. The coroner is then required to make recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the
human remains. Further, this section of the code makes it a misdemeanor to intentionally disturb, mutilate or
remove interred human remains. Section 7051 specifies that the removal of human remains from “internment
or a place of storage while awaiting internment” with the intent to sell them or to dissect them with “malice or
wantonness” is a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a state prison. Lastly, HSC Sections 8010-
8011 establish the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act consistent with the
federal law addressing the same. The Act stresses that “all California Indian human remains and cultural items
are to be treated with dignity and respect.” It encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and
cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums in California. It also outlines the need for aiding
California Indian tribes, including non-federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims. (CA
Legislative Info, n.d.)
California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 states that whenever the commission receives notification
of a discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to HSC subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5, it shall
immediately notify those persons that are the most likely descendants. The descendants may inspect the site
and make recommendations to the landowner as to the treatment of the human remains. The landowner shall
ensure that the immediate vicinity around the remains is not damaged or disturbed by further development
activity until coordination has occurred with the descendants regarding their recommendations for treatment,
taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The descendants shall complete their inspection
and make recommendations within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.
6. California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5
The California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5 (the State CEQA Guidelines)
establishes the procedure for determining the significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources,
as well as classifying the type of resource. Cultural resources are aspects of the environment that require
identification and assessment for potential significance. The evaluation of cultural resources under CEQA is
based upon the definitions of resources provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, as follows:
• A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code Section 5024.1, Title 14
CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
• A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the
Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the
requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or
culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the
preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-10
• Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines
to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic,
agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered
to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial
evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to
be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of
Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the
following:
o Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage;
o Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
o Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
o Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
• The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section
5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the
criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from
determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code
sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
4.3.3 METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
The analysis of historic and pre/protohistoric archaeological resources is based on a cultural resources records
search through SCCIC at CSU Fullerton, historic background research, a review of historic aerial photographs,
and a visit to the Project Site.
4.3.4 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 cultural resources
that could result from development projects. The Project would result in a significant impact to cultural
resources if the Project or any Project-related component would:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5;
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5; or
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-11
4.3.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Nine (9) historic period structures, all residences, constructed between 1923 and 1966 are present on the Site.
All of these structures would be demolished as part of the Project. BFSA evaluated all of the on-Site historic
period structures for significance. None of the structures were found to be eligible for listing on the CRHR or
to be significant historic resources under CEQA due to a lack of integrity – most if not all of the structures had
been substantially altered since their original construction – combined with a lack of any association with
significant persons or noteworthy architectural elements (BFSA, 2022a, pp. 3.0-84 to 3.0-104). Accordingly,
implementation of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse change to any historical resource as
defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Threshold b: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
BFSA conducted a cultural resources inventory of the Project Site, which included a records search through
the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton and an intensive pedestrian survey of the Site. The results of this records search
indicate that no pre/protohistoric cultural resources are located on or within a one-mile radius of the Project
Site. Additionally, no pre/protohistoric resources were observed on the Project Site. (BFSA, 2022a, pp. 1.0-
17 to -18, 3.0-2). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a known prehistoric archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Given the lack of any previously identified pre/protohistoric sites within or near the property and the magnitude
of ground disturbances on the Project Site over the previous 90-plus years, there is little potential for any
pre/protohistoric resources to be present or disturbed by the proposed development. Notwithstanding,
excavations on portions of the Project Site will exceed five (5) feet below the existing ground surface while
previously disturbed soils on-site (i.e., artificial fills) extend only to a depth of approximately 2.5 to 8.5 feet
below the ground surface; thus, excavations on-Site would occur within previously undisturbed soils that
could, in theory, contain pre/protohistoric archaeological resources. If any pre/protohistoric cultural resources
are unearthed during Project construction that meet the definition of an archaeological resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and are disturbed/damaged by Project construction activities, impacts to
those pre/protohistoric cultural resources would be potentially significant.
Threshold c: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
The Project Site does not contain a cemetery and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate
Site vicinity (Google Earth, 2021). Field surveys conducted on the Project Site did not identify the presence of
any human remains and no human remains are known to exist beneath the surface of the Site (BFSA, 2022a,
p. 3.0-2). Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and
excavation activities associated with Project construction.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-12
If human remains are unearthed during Project construction, the construction contractor would be required by
law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 “Disturbance of Human Remains.”
According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be
contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to
believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains
from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely
descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of
the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the Site of the discovery of the Native American human
remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for
treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The
descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48
hours of being granted access to the Site. According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k), the NAHC
is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment
and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native
American burials. With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, any potential impacts to human remains, including human remains
of Native American ancestry, that may result from development of the Project would be less than significant.
4.3.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The potential for implementation of the Project to contribute to cumulative impacts to historical resources was
analyzed in conjunction with other projects located in areas that were once similarly influenced by the historical
steel production industry of the City of Fontana. Record searches and field surveys indicate the absence of
significant historical sites and resources on the Project Site; therefore, implementation of the Project has no
potential to contribute towards a significant cumulative impact to historical sites and/or resources.
The potential for Project construction to result in cumulatively-considerable impacts to prehistoric
archaeological resources were also analyzed in conjunction with other projects located in the traditional use
areas of Native American tribes that are affiliated to the Project Site. Development activities on the Project
Site would not impact any known prehistoric archaeological resources and the likelihood of uncovering
previously unknown prehistoric archaeological resources during Project construction are low due to the
magnitude of disturbance that has occurred on the Site due to historic agriculture, residential, and commercial
uses. Nonetheless, the potential exists for subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources that meet the CCR
Section 15064.5 definition of a significant archaeological resource to be discovered on the Project Site – and
other development project sites in the region – during construction activities. Accordingly, the Project has the
potential to contribute to a significant cumulative impact to prehistoric archaeological sites and/or resources.
Therefore, the Project would potentially result in a cumulatively-considerable impact to prehistoric
archaeological resources if such resources are unearthed during Project construction, for which mitigation is
required. As discussed below, with implementation of mitigation, potential cumulatively-considerable impacts
would be less than significant.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-13
Mandatory compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 as well as
Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq., would assure that all future development projects within the
region treat human remains that may be uncovered during development activities in accordance with
prescribed, respectful and appropriate practices, thereby avoiding significant cumulative impacts.
4.3.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: No Impact. No historic resources, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are present
on the Project Site; therefore, no historic resources could be altered or destroyed by construction or operation
of the Project.
Threshold b: Potentially Significant Direct and Cumulatively-Considerable Impact. No known prehistoric
resources are present on the Project Site and the likelihood of uncovering buried prehistoric resources on the
Project Site is low due to the magnitude of historic ground disturbance on the Project Site. Nonetheless, the
potential exists for Project-related construction activities to result in a potentially direct and cumulatively-
considerable impact to significant subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources should such resources be
discovered during Project-related construction activities.
Threshold c: Less-Than-Significant Impact. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during
Project grading or other ground disturbing activities, the Project would be required to comply with the
applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources
Code Section 5097 et seq. Mandatory compliance with State law would ensure that any discovered human
remains are appropriately treated and would preclude the potential for significant impacts.
4.3.8 MITIGATION
The following mitigation measures address the potential for Project construction activities to impact significant
archaeological resources that may be discovered during ground-disturbing construction activities. The City
also will assign Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 as a condition of Project approval.
MM 4.3-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City
of Fontana that an archaeologist that meets the latest version of the Secretary of the Interior
Professional Qualifications Standards (hereafter “Project Archaeologist”) has been retained to
conduct the training and monitoring activities described in Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 and
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3.
MM 4.3-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant or construction contractor shall
provide evidence to the City of Fontana that the construction site supervisors and crew members
involved with grading and trenching operations have received training by the Project
Archaeologist to recognize archaeological resources (historic and prehistoric) should such
resources be unearthed during ground-disturbing construction activities. The training will
include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the area; what resources could potentially be
identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the
protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of archaeological resources are
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-14
identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be
properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new supervisorial construction
personnel involved with grading and trenching operations that begin work on the Project Site
after the initial training session must take the training prior to beginning work on-site.
MM 4.3-3 The Project Archaeologist shall conduct monitoring during all grading, trenching, and excavation
activities. The Project Archaeologist shall be equipped to salvage artifacts if they are unearthed
to avoid construction delays. Should the Project Archaeologist determine during construction
activities that there are no archaeological resources within the Project’s disturbance area or
should the archaeological sensitivity be reduced to low, archaeological monitoring activities can
be reduced to spot-checking or may be allowed to cease.
MM 4.3-4 In the event that suspected cultural resources are discovered during Project construction
activities:
a. Upon discovery of any cultural, tribal cultural, or archaeological resources, construction
activities in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease until the find can be assessed. All
cultural, tribal and archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall
be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources
are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area
Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these
resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational
purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.
b. Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is
not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery
excavation to remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and
analysis. All Tribal Cultural Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic
archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public,
non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to
accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered
to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
c. Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction
projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid
any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and
associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of
the Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a
principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern
California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are
appropriately trained and qualified.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.3-15
4.3.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Implementation of MMs 4.3-1 through 4.3-4
would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant archaeological resources
that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction. With
implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impacts to important archaeological
resources would be reduced to less-than-significant. Cumulatively-considerable impacts would likewise be
reduced to less than significant.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.4-1
4.4 ENERGY
The analysis in this Subsection is primarily based on information contained in a technical a report prepared by
Urban Crossroads, Inc. titled, “Fontana Corporate Center Energy Analysis,” dated March 8, 2022 (Urban
Crossroads, 2022c). The technical report is included as Technical Appendix F to this EIR. Refer to Section
7.0, References, for a complete list of reference sources used in this Subsection.
4.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Electricity Consumption
The Project Site is located within the service area of Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE provides
electricity to a population of more than 15 million within a service area encompassing approximately 50,000
square miles. SCE generates electricity from varied energy resources including: fossil fuels, hydroelectric
generators, nuclear power plants, geothermal power plants, solar power generation, and wind farms. SCE also
purchases from independent power producers and utilities, including out‐of‐state suppliers. (Urban Crossroads,
2022c, p. 10)
B. Natural Gas Consumption
The Project Site is located within the service area of the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) which
is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). SoCalGas provides service to
approximately 5.9 million customers. Natural gas from out-of-state production basins is delivered into
California via the interstate natural gas pipeline system. The gas transported to California via the interstate
pipelines, as well as some of the California-produced gas, is delivered into SoCalGas intrastate natural gas
transmission pipeline systems (commonly referred to as California's "backbone" pipeline system). Natural gas
on the utilities' backbone pipeline system is then delivered to the local transmission and distribution pipeline
systems, or to natural gas storage fields. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 11)
C. Transportation Energy/Fuel Consumption
Gasoline and other vehicle fuels are commercially‐provided commodities. The Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) identified 35.8 million registered vehicles in California, and those vehicles consume an estimated 17.4
billion gallons of fuel each year. In 2015, Californians used approximately 15.8 billion gallons of gasoline
and 3.7 billion gallons of diesel fuel. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 7;14)
4.4.2 REGULATORY SETTING
A. Federal Plans, Policies and Regulations
1. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
The ISTEA promoted the development of inter‐modal transportation systems to maximize mobility as well as
address national and local interests in air quality and energy. ISTEA contained factors that Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) were to address in developing transportation plans and programs, including
some energy‐related factors. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, MPOs adopted explicit policies defining
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.4-2
the social, economic, energy, and environmental values guiding transportation decisions. (Urban Crossroads,
2022c, p. 17)
2. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
The TEA‐21 was signed into law in 1998 and builds upon the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation,
discussed above. TEA‐21 authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface
transportation programs. TEA‐21 continues the program structure established for highways and transit under
ISTEA, such as flexibility in the use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve the environment, and focus
on a strong planning process as the foundation of good transportation decisions. TEA‐21 also provides for
investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation system through,
for example, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems, to help improve operations and management
of transportation systems and vehicle safety. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 17)
B. State Plans, Policies and Regulations
1. Integrated Energy Policy Report
Senate Bill 1389 (Bowen, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) requires the California Energy Commission (CEC)
to prepare a biennial integrated energy policy report that assesses major energy trends and issues facing
California’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors and provides policy recommendations. The
2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report (2020 IEPR) continues to work towards improving electricity, natural
gas, and transportation fuel energy use in California. The 2020 IEPR identifies actions the state and others can
take to ensure a clean, affordable, and reliable energy system. California’s innovative energy policies
strengthen energy resiliency, reduce GHG emissions that cause climate change, improve air quality, and
contribute to a more equitable future. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, pp. 17-18)
2. State of California Energy Plan
The CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy
supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The Plan
calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce
congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To
further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet
operators and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled and accommodate pedestrian
and bicycle access. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 18)
3. California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards
California Code Title 24, Part 6 (also referred to as the California Energy Code), was promulgated by the CEC
in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy
consumption. To these ends, the California Energy Code provides energy efficiency standards for residential
and nonresidential buildings. The newest 2019 version of Title 24 was adopted by the CEC and became
effective on January 1, 2020. The CEC indicates that the 2019 Title 24 standards will reduce energy
consumption by 30 percent for nonresidential buildings above that achieved by the prior code. (Urban
Crossroads, 2022c, p. 18)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.4-3
4. Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493)
California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce
GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Under this legislation, CARB adopted regulations
to reduce GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger vehicles (cars and light-duty trucks). Although
aimed at reducing GHG emissions specifically, a co-benefit of the Pavley standards is an improvement in fuel
efficiency and consequently a reduction in fuel consumption. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 18)
5. California Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)
First established in 2002 under Senate Bill (SB) 1078, California’s RPS requires retail sellers of electric
services to increase procurement from eligible renewable resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020.
(Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 18)
6. Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) – Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015
In October 2015, the legislature approved, and the Governor signed SB 350, which reaffirms California’s
commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an
increase in the renewables portfolio standard (RPS), higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial
strategies towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations.
Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33% to 50% by 2030,
with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25% by 2027.
• Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target would be achieved through the
California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and local
publicly owned utilities.
• Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electrified transmission
markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which would facilitate the growth of renewable
energy markets in the western U.S. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 19)
C. Local Plans, Policies and Regulations
1. Fontana Municipal Code
The City adopted the California Building Standards Code (2019 Edition), including its Building Code, Energy
Code, and Green Building Code (CalGreen) components, and codified in Chapter 5 of the Fontana Municipal
Code. The City’s Building Code regulates and controls the minimum energy and resource efficiencies of all
new development within the City.
2. City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1879
City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1879 amends the City’s Municipal Code to establish sustainability standards
applicable to industrial commerce center development projects that are intended to improve local air and
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.4-4
environmental quality. Standards required by Ordinance No. 1879 that would directly affect the consumption
of energy resources include but are not limited to: 1) Restricting diesel truck idling to three minutes or less;
2) Requiring motorized cargo-handling equipment used at industrial commerce center sites to be zero
emission; 3) Requiring buildings with more than 400,000 s.f. of building area to install rooftop solar panels
that supply 100 percent of the power need of the non-refrigerated building space; 4) Requiring the installation
of electric plug-ins at all loading dock positions that would be utilized by trucks fitted with transport
refrigeration units (TRUs); 5) Requiring that five (5) percent of passenger vehicle parking spaces are wired for
electric vehicle charging and equipped with a Level 2 charging station and at least 10 percent of passenger
vehicle spaces are “EV ready” for future expansion of charging capabilities; and 6) Prohibiting the use of
diesel-powered generators, except in case of emergency or for temporary power during construction. The
Project would be required to comply with all applicable measures of Ordinance No. 1879. The City would
ensure compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 1879 as part of their standard building permit
review/approval and site inspection processes.
4.4.3 METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING PROJECT ENERGY DEMANDS
Information from the CalEEMod (version 2020.4.0) outputs from the Project’s AQIA (see Technical Appendix
B) was utilized to detail the Project’s construction equipment, transportation energy demands, and facility
energy demands. These outputs are referenced in Appendices 4.1 through 4.3 of the Project’s energy analysis
report (see Technical Appendix F). Additionally, CARB’s EMFAC2017 model was used to calculate emission
rates, fuel consumption, and VMT for light duty vehicles, light-heavy duty trucks, medium-heavy duty trucks,
and heavy-heavy duty trucks traveling to and from the Project Site during construction and operational
activities. Data from the EMFAC 2017 model outputs are included in Appendix 4.4 of the Project’s energy
analysis report.
4.4.4 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 energy effects that could result from
development projects. The Project would result in a significant impact to energy if the Project or any Project-
related component would:
a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or
b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Under Threshold “a,” the Project would be considered to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy if energy consumed by the Project’s construction and/or operation cannot be
accommodated with existing available resources and energy delivery systems, and requires and/or consumes
more energy than industrial uses in California of similar scale and intensity.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.4-5
4.4.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
A. Energy Use During Construction
The Project’s construction process would require the use of fuels (gasoline and diesel) and electricity. Project-
related construction would represent a “single‐event” energy demand and would not require on‐going or
permanent commitment of energy resources. Project construction activities are estimated to consume
approximately 213,110 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity, approximately 44,319 gallons of diesel fuel from
operation of construction equipment, 22,926 gallons of diesel fuel from construction vendor trips, and 45,953
gallons of fuel from construction worker trips. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, pp. 23-28) Detailed calculations for
all components of the Project’s construction energy use are provided in Subsection 4.3 of the Project’s energy
analysis (refer to Technical Appendix F).
The equipment used for Project construction would conform to CARB regulations and State emissions
standards. There are no unusual Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of
equipment that would be more energy intensive or less energy efficient than is used for comparable activities
elsewhere in the region; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel
efficiencies). Additionally, Project construction activities would be required to comply with State law (Code
of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3)) and CARB Air Toxic Control Measures that place
restrictions on the length of time that diesel-powered equipment and vehicles can idle before powering down
(thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction
equipment). Lastly, Project construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable CARB
regulations regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of older, less-efficient diesel off-road
construction equipment. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, pp. 28-29) Accordingly, the equipment and vehicles
employed in construction of the Project would not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption
of fuel.
Indirectly, the Project would realize construction energy efficiencies and energy conservation through the bulk
purchase, transport and use of construction materials. Use of materials in bulk reduces energy demands
associated with preparation and transport of construction materials as well as the transport and disposal of
construction waste and solid waste in general, with corollary reduced demands on area landfill capacities and
energy consumed by waste transport and landfill operations. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 29)
As supported by the preceding discussion, the Project’s construction energy consumption would not be
considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.4-6
B. Energy Use During Project Operation
Energy consumption in support of or related to Project operations would include transportation energy
demands (energy consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the Project Site) and facility energy
demands (energy consumed by building operations and Project Site maintenance activities).
The Project’s energy demand is calculated to be 516,447 gallons of fuel, 7,371,414 kWh of electricity, and
9,031,641 kBTU of natural gas per year (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, pp. 30-31). Refer to Subsection 4.4 from
the Project’s energy analysis (see Technical Appendix F) for detailed calculations of all components of the
Project’s operational energy use. It should be noted that City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1879 requires the
Project to provide 100 percent of its electrical demand for non-refrigerated building space via rooftop solar
panels, which for purposes of this analysis is estimated to be approximately 1,088,300 kWh per year.
The Project’s proposed building incorporates contemporary, energy-efficient/energy-conserving design and
operational programs (including the enhanced building/utility energy efficiencies mandated by the Energy
Code and CalGreen). The Project will be subject to compliance with 2019 Energy Code and CalGreen
standards, which became effective on January 1, 2020, and mandate energy conservation features that are more
stringent (energy-conserving) than prior versions of the respective codes. On this basis, the Project will
inherently use less energy than comparable buildings constructed under prior versions of the Energy and
CalGreen Codes. Project building operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary
consumption of energy due to mandatory Energy Code and CalGreen compliance. Furthermore, the Project
Site is within the existing service areas of SCE and SoCalGas, is capable of being served by both energy
providers, and implementation of the Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy
facilities or energy delivery systems. From a transportation energy perspective, the Project Site’s location
proximate to regional and local roadway systems would tend to minimize VMT within the region, acting to
reduce regional vehicle energy demands. Furthermore, the Project does not propose uses or operations that
would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and wasteful
vehicle energy consumption. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 31)
As supported by the preceding discussion, the Project’s operational energy consumption would not be
considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
Threshold b: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
The following section analyzes the Project’s consistency with the applicable federal, State, and local
regulations for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
A. Consistency with Federal Energy Regulations
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
Transportation and access to the Project Site is provided by the local and regional roadway systems. The Project
would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be realized
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.4-7
pursuant to the ISTEA because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities on or through the Project Site.
(Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 36)
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
The Project Site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway
system. The Site selected for the Project facilitates access, acts to reduce vehicle miles traveled, takes
advantage of existing infrastructure systems, and promotes land use compatibilities through collocation of
similar uses. The Project supports the strong planning processes emphasized under TEA‐21. The Project is
therefore consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of TEA‐21.
(Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 36)
B. Consistency with State Energy Regulations
Integrated Energy Policy Report
The IEPR provides policy recommendations to be implemented by energy providers in California. Electricity
would be provided to the Project by SCE. SCE’s Clean Power and Electrification Pathway (CPEP) builds on
existing State programs and policies that support the IEPR goals of improving electricity, natural gas, and
transportation fuel energy use in California. SCE is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with,
nor obstruct implementation of the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR. Thus, because the SCE is consistent
with the 2020 IEPR, the Project is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct
implementation of the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 36)
Additionally, the Project would comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which would ensure that the
Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. As such, development
of the Project would support the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 36)
State of California Energy Plan
The Project Site is located adjacent to major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate
freeway system. The location of the Project Site facilitates access, minimize VMT, and takes advantage of
existing infrastructure systems. Therefore, the Project supports urban design and planning processes identified
under the State of California Energy Plan, is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor
obstruct implementation of the State of California Energy Plan. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 37)
California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards
The Project will design the building shell and building components, such as windows, roof systems, electrical
and lighting systems, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems to meet 2019 Energy Efficiency
Standards, which would be confirmed by the City during the building permit review process. The Project also
is required by State law to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet or exceed 2019 Energy Efficiency
Standards. On this basis, the Project is determined to be consistent with, and would not interfere with, nor
otherwise obstruct implementation of the State’s 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c,
p. 37)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.4-8
Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493)
AB 1493 is not directly applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions
standards. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under AB 1493.
Notwithstanding, all model year 2009-2016 passenger cars and light duty truck vehicles traveling to and from
the Project Site are required by law to comply with the legislation’s fuel efficiency requirements. (Urban
Crossroads, 2022c, p. 37)
California Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078)
California’s RPS is not directly applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure that establishes a
renewable energy mix. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements
under RPS. Notwithstanding, energy directly or indirectly supplied to the Project Site by electric corporations
is required by law to comply with SB 1078. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 37)
Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) – Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015
Energy directly or indirectly supplied to the Project Site by electric corporations is required by law to comply
with SB 350. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under SB
350. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 37)
C. Consistency with Local Energy Regulations
Fontana Municipal Code
The City of Fontana will require the Project to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet or exceed the
California Green Building Standards Code (as adopted by Chapter 5 of the Fontana Municipal Code). The
City would confirm the Project’s compliance with the Building Code as part of the building permit review
process. On this basis, the Project is determined to be consistent with, and would not interfere with, nor
otherwise obstruct implementation of the California Building Standards Code.
City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1879
The City of Fontana will require the Project to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet the requirements
of Ordinance No. 1879, including the installation and operation of rooftop solar panels. The City would
confirm the Project’s compliance with Ordinance No. 1879 as part of the building permit review process and
as part of the City’s on-going code compliance process. On this basis, the Project is determined to be consistent
with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of Ordinance No. 1879.
D. Conclusion
As supported by the preceding analysis, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a federal, State or local
plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.4-9
4.4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The Project and other new development projects within the cumulative study area would be required to comply
with all of the same applicable federal, State, and local regulatory measures aimed at reducing fossil fuel
consumption and the conservation of energy. Accordingly, the Project would not cause or contribute to a
significant cumulatively considerable impact related to conflicts with a State or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency.
4.4.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. The amount of energy and fuel consumed by construction and
operation of the Project would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Furthermore, the Project would
not cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or energy delivery systems.
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not cause or result in the need for additional
energy production or transmission facilities. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct the achievement
of energy conservation goals within the State of California identified in State and local plans for renewable
energy and energy efficiency.
4.4.8 MITIGATION
Impact would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-1
4.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The analysis in this Subsection is based primarily on information contained within technical reports prepared
by Southern California Geotechnical (hereinafter, “SCG”) and BFSA, respectively. The report prepared by
SCG, titled “Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Warehouse” and dated August 10, 2021, is provided as
Technical Appendix G to this EIR (SCG, 2021). The report prepared by BFSA, titled “Paleontological
Assessment for the Cypress and Slover Avenue Project” and dated January 27, 2022, is provided as Technical
Appendix H to this EIR (BFSA, 2022b). Additional sources of information used to support the analysis in this
Subsection include the Final EIR prepared for the City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035 (Fontana,
2018b) and the Fontana Municipal Code (Fontana, 2021). All references used in this Subsection are listed in
EIR Section 7.0, References.
4.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Soils
Two types of soil conditions were encountered on the Project Site during the soils and geotechnical
investigations performed by SGC: artificial fill and alluvium. The characteristics of the soil conditions
encountered on the Project Site are summarized below.
1. Artificial Fill
Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface at all subsurface testing locations, extending to
depths of 3 to 7½± feet below the existing Site grades. The fill soils generally consist of loose to medium dense
silty sands with varying fine to coarse gravel. The fill soils possess a disturbed mottled appearance resulting
in their classification as artificial fill. (SCG, 2021, p. 8)
2. Alluvium
Native alluvium was encountered beneath the artificial fill soils at all subsurface testing locations, extending
to the maximum depth explored on the Project Site (25± feet below existing Site grades). The alluvium
generally consists of medium dense to very dense sands, gravelly sands and silty sands, with occasional
medium dense sandy silts. Occasional to extensive cobbles were encountered at most of the boring locations
as shallow as of 7± feet from the ground surface. (SCG, 2021, pp. 8-9)
B. Groundwater
SCG did not observe any free water at any subsurface testing location on the Project Site. Based on the lack
of water at subsurface testing locations and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, SCG concluded
that the groundwater table beneath the Project Site is located in excess of 25 feet below the existing ground
surface. According to data from the nearest monitoring well (State Well Number: 01S06W24R001S), located
0.5 mile west of the Project Site, groundwater is estimated to occur approximately 322 feet below the ground
surface. (SCG, 2021, p. 9)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-2
C. Seismic Hazards
The Project Site is located in an area of southern California that is subject to strong ground motions due to
seismic events (i.e., earthquakes). The geologic structure of southern California is dominated mainly by
northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The nearest active fault to the Project Site
is the Cucamonga Fault, located approximately 7.7 miles northwest of the Project Site. (CGS, 2015; Google
Earth, 2021) An active fault is defined by the California Geological Survey as a fault that has experienced
surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years).
Secondary hazards associated with earthquakes include surface rupture, ground failure, unstable soils and
slopes. Each of these hazards is briefly described below.
1. Fault Rupture
Fault rupture can occur along pre-existing, known active fault traces; however, fault rupture also can splay
from known active faults or rupture along unidentified fault traces. There are no active or potentially active
faults occurring on the Project Site and no known faults are mapped trending through or toward the Site.
Therefore, SGC considered the potential for fault rupture on the Project Site to be low. (SCG, 2021, p. 12)
2. Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesion-less soil deposits lose shear
strength during strong ground motions, which causes the soil to behave as a viscous liquid. Liquefaction is
generally limited to the upper 50 feet of subsurface soils. Research and historical data indicate that loose
granular soils of Holocene to late Pleistocene age below a near-surface groundwater table are most susceptible
to liquefaction, while the stability of most clayey material is not adversely affected by vibratory motion.
(SCEC, 1999, pp. 5-6) Based on mapping conducted by the County of San Bernardino, the Project Site is not
located within a designated liquefaction hazard zone, and the potential for liquefaction hazards affecting the
Project Site is low due to the absence of historic ground water levels within 50 feet of the ground surface (SCG,
2021, p. 14).
3. Unstable Soils and Slopes
The Project Site is generally flat and does not contain steep natural or manufactured slopes and there is no
evidence of historical landslides or rockfalls on the Site (Google Earth, 2021; CGS, 2022). As such, the Site
does not have any history of unstable soils or slopes and is not susceptible to seismically-induced landslides
and rockfalls.
D. Slope and Instability Hazards
1. Soil Erosion
Erosion is the process by which the upper layers of the surface (such as soils) are worn and removed by the
movement of water or wind. Soils with characteristics such as low permeability and/or low cohesive strength
are more susceptible to erosion than those soils having higher permeability and cohesive strength.
Additionally, the slope gradient on which a given soil is located also contributes to the soil’s resistance to
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-3
erosive forces. Because water is able to flow faster down steeper gradients, the steeper the slope on which a
given soil is located, the more readily it will erode. According to the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), soils on the Project Site have a “slight” susceptibility
to water erosion hazards. (NRCS, n.d.; USDA, 1980, p. 26)
Wind erosion can damage land and natural vegetation by removing soil from one place and depositing it in
another. It mostly affects dry, sandy soils in flat, bare areas, but wind erosion may occur wherever soil is
loose, dry, and finely granulated. According to the USDA NRCS, soils on the Project Site and in the
surrounding area have a “moderate” to “high” susceptibility to wind erosion hazards (NRCS, n.d.; USDA,
1980, p. 26). Under existing conditions, the portions of the Project Site that are undeveloped with little or no
vegetative cover – which comprises a majority of the Site – has the potential to contribute windblown soil and
sand.
2. Settlement Potential
Settlement refers to unequal compression of a soil foundation, shrinkage, or undue loads being applied to a
building after its initial construction that affect the soil foundation. According to SGC, the existing
undocumented fill soils and the near-surface native alluvial soils present on the Project Site have settlement
potential (SCG, 2021, p. 15).
3. Shrinkage/Subsidence Potential
Subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the ground surface (i.e., loss of elevation). The principal
causes of subsidence are aquifer-system compaction, drainage of organic soils, underground mining, and
natural compaction. Shrinkage is the reduction in volume of soil as the water content of the soil drops (i.e.,
loss of volume). Testing conducted by SCG on soils collected from the Project Site indicates that the estimated
shrinkage of the individual soil layers at the Site is highly variable, locally ranging from 1 to 13 percent
shrinkage, and the soils on the Project Site are subject to minor ground subsidence (approximately 0.1 feet).
(SCG, 2021, p. 16)
4. Soil Expansion Potential
Expansive soils are soils that exhibit cyclic shrink and swell patterns in response to variations in moisture
content. Expansive soils are soils that exhibit cyclic shrink and swell patterns in response to variations in
moisture content. On-Site soils contain no appreciable clay content and SCG visually classified the soils as
“non-expansive” (SCG, 2021, p. 15).
5. Landslide Potential
The Project Site is generally flat and does not contain steep natural or manufactured slopes. As such, there is
no potential for landslides to occur on or immediately adjacent to the Site. The Project Site does abut a
manufactured slope that supports the Cypress Avenue overpass (bordering the northeast corner of the Project
Site).
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-4
E. Paleontological Setting
Paleontological resources are the remains of prehistoric life that have been preserved in geologic strata. These
remains are called fossils and include bones, shells, teeth, and plant remains (including their impressions, casts,
and molds) in the sedimentary matrix, as well as trace fossils such as footprints and burrows. Fossils are
considered older than 5,000 years of age, but may include younger remains (subfossils) when viewed in the
context of local extinction of the organism or habitat, for example. Fossils are considered a nonrenewable
resource under State, county, and local guidelines.
The City of Fontana primarily is underlain by Quaternary (Pleistocene to Holocene) younger alluvial fan
deposits. Although younger fan deposits do not have the potential to contain significant paleontological
resources, the City also contains areas of Pleistocene older fan deposits exposed at surface levels that have
been mapped along the western area of the City near the intersection of Interstate 15 (I-15) and Interstate 210
(I-210) and also in the southwestern areas of the City. Within these Pleistocene older deposits, the potential
for paleontological resources is considered to be high. Vertebrate land mammal fossils that have been
discovered in the City include the saber-tooth cat, mammoth, camels, and horses. (CDC, 2015; Fontana, 2018b,
p. 5.4-8)
A fossil records search conducted by the Project’s paleontologist did not identify any previously-recorded
fossil localities within the Project Site. However, the Project Site is underlain by Quaternary (middle to late
Pleistocene) old alluvial fan deposits that occur as slightly raised areas protruding through the surrounding
Quaternary (Holocene and late Pleistocene) young alluvial fan sediments of the Lytle Creek fan. Old,
Pleistocene alluvial and alluvial fan deposits in the Inland Empire often yield important Ice Age terrestrial
vertebrate fossils, such as extinct mammoths, mastodons, giant ground sloths, extinct species of horse, bison,
and camel, saber-toothed cats, and others. Thus, the Pleistocene sediments present on the Project Site are
accorded a “High” sensitivity for containing paleontological resources. (BFSA, 2022b, pp. 7, 8)
4.5.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is a brief description of the federal, state, and local environmental laws and related regulations
governing issues related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources.
A. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the
waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was
enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was substantially
reorganized and expanded in 1972. "Clean Water Act" became the Act's common name with amendments in
1972. Under the CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented pollution control
programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry, and also has set water quality standards for all
contaminants in surface waters. The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source
into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained. EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-5
made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have
a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must
obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. (EPA, 2020a)
B. State Regulations
1. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-P Act) was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface
faulting to structures for human occupancy. The A-P Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of
buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The A-P Act only addresses the
hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)
The A-P Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones)
around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. ["Earthquake Fault Zones" were called
"Special Studies Zones" prior to January 1, 1994.] The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and
state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Local agencies must
regulate most development projects within the zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures
for human occupancy. Single family wood-frame and steel-frame dwellings up to two stories not part of a
development of four units or more are exempt. However, local agencies can be more restrictive than state law
requires.
Before a project can be permitted, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that
proposed buildings will not be constructed across active faults. An evaluation and written report of a specific
site must be prepared by a licensed geologist. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy
cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (generally 50 feet).
There are no active faults on the Project Site and the Project Site is not located within any Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone (SCG, 2021, p. 12).
2. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) of 1990 (Public Resources Code, Chapter 7.8, Section 2690-
2699.6) directs the Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey to identify and map areas prone
to liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. The purpose of the SHMA is to
minimize loss of life and property through the identification, evaluation, and mitigation of seismic hazards.
(CDC, n.d.)
Staff geologists in the Seismic Hazards Program gather existing geological, geophysical, and geotechnical data
from numerous sources to produce the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps. They integrate and interpret these data
regionally in order to evaluate the severity of the seismic hazards and designate as Zones of Required
Investigation (ZORI) those areas prone to liquefaction and earthquake–induced landslides. Cities and counties
are then required to use the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps in their land use planning and building permit
processes. The SHMA requires Site-specific geotechnical investigations be conducted within the ZORI to
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-6
identify and evaluate seismic hazards and formulate mitigation measures prior to permitting most
developments designed for human occupancy. The Project Site is not located within a ZORI (SCG, 2021, p.
12).
3. Natural Hazards Disclosure Act
The Natural Hazards Disclosure Act, effective June 1, 1998 (as amended June 9, 1998), requires that sellers of
real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a "Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement" when
the property being sold lies within one or more state-mapped hazard areas, including a Seismic Hazard Zone.
(CA Legislative Info, n.d.)
The law requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (Zones of Required Investigation) and to
issue appropriate maps (Seismic Hazard Zone maps). These maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties,
and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling construction and development. Single-family frame
dwellings up to two stories not part of a development of four or more units are exempt from the state
requirements. However, local agencies can be more restrictive than state law requires.
Before a development permit can be issued or a subdivision approved, cities and counties must require a site-
specific investigation to determine whether a significant hazard exists at the site and, if so, recommend
measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. The investigation must be performed by state-licensed
engineering geologists and/or civil engineers.
4. California Building Standards Code (Title 24)
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is reserved for state regulations that govern the design and
construction of buildings, associated facilities, and equipment. These regulations are also known as building
standards (reference California Health and Safety Code Section 18909). Health and Safety Code (state law)
Section 18902 gives CCR Title 24 the name California Building Standards Code (CBSC). (CBSC, 2019, p. 1)
The CBSC in CCR Title 24 is published by the California Building Standards Commission and it applies to all
building occupancies (see Health and Safety Code Sections 18908 and 18938) throughout the State of
California. Cities and counties are required by state law to enforce CCR Title 24 (reference Health and Safety
Code Sections 17958, 17960, 18938(b), and 18948). Cities and counties may adopt ordinances making more
restrictive requirements than provided by CCR Title 24, because of local climatic, geological, or topographical
conditions. Such adoptions and a finding of need statement must be filed with the California Building
Standards Commission (Reference Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.7 and 18941.5).
5. Porter-Cologne Water Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Act is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a
comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water (SWRCB, 2014). The Porter-
Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and ground water and to both point and nonpoint sources of
pollution. Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.), the policy of the
State is as follows:
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-7
• That the quality of all the waters of the State shall be protected;
• That all activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water
quality within reason; and
• That the State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water
in the State from degradation.
The Porter-Cologne Act established nine Regional Water Boards (RWQCBs) (based on hydrogeologic
barriers) and the State Water Board, which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have
primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The State Water Board provides program
guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews RWQCB decisions. In addition, the State Water Board
allocates rights to the use of surface water. The RWQCB have primary responsibility for individual permitting,
inspection, and enforcement actions within each of nine hydrologic regions. The State Water Board and
RWQCB have numerous non-point source (NPS) related responsibilities, including monitoring and
assessment, planning, financial assistance, and management.
The RWQCBs regulate discharges under the Porter-Cologne Act primarily through issuance of NPDES permits
for point source discharges and waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for NPS discharges. Anyone
discharging or proposing to discharge materials that could affect water quality (other than to a community
sanitary sewer system regulated by an NPDES permit) must file a report of waste discharge. The Storm Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the RWQCBs can make their own investigations or may require
dischargers to carry out water quality investigations and report on water quality issues. The Porter-Cologne
Act provides several options for enforcing WDRs and other orders, including cease and desist orders, cleanup
and abatement orders, administrative civil liability orders, civil court actions, and criminal prosecutions.
The Porter-Cologne Act also implements many provisions of the Clean Water Act, such as the NPDES
permitting program. The Porter-Cologne Act also requires adoption of water quality control plans that contain
the guiding policies of water pollution management in California. In addition, regional water quality control
plans (basin plans) have been adopted by each of the RWQCBs and are updated as necessary and practical.
These plans identify the existing and potential beneficial uses of waters of the State and establish water quality
objectives to protect these uses. The basin plans also contain implementation, surveillance, and monitoring
plans. The Project Site is located in the Santa Ana River Watershed, which is within the purview of the Santa
Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana’s RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan is the
governing water quality plan for the region.
C. Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. City of Fontana General Plan
The Infrastructure and Safety Element of the City of Fontana General Plan provides information about natural
and human-made hazards in Fontana and establishes goals and actions to prepare and protect the community
from such risks. The Infrastructure and Safety Element states that the City shall reduce the risk of geologic
hazards to the community by enforcing building codes, requiring the preparation of geotechnical hazard
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-8
analyses as applicable, and continuously update the City’s geologic and seismic hazards maps in concert with
updates from the California Geological Survey and local surveys. (Fontana, 2018a, Chapter 11)
2. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Fontana’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is a plan that the City reviews, monitors, and
updates approximately every five years to reflect changing conditions and new information regarding hazards
faced by the City of Fontana. The most current version is dated June 2017 and was approved and adopted by
the Fontana City Council on August 14, 2018 (Fontana, 2018c). The LHMP addresses hazards associated with
earthquakes, wind surges, wildfire, landslides, floods, terrorism, climate change and droughts being significant
hazards to the City of Fontana. The LHMP includes mitigation measures to address earthquake and landslide
concerns on a community-wide level. The LHMP mitigation measures include: evaluating proposed
developments for geologic hazards, performing a seismic review on existing City-owned buildings, mitigated
unreinforced masonry buildings in the City, working with local insurance brokers to encourage earthquake
insurance for homeowners, providing automatic shutoff valves for gas meters, encouraging homeowners in
high landslide hazard areas to plant native trees and shrubbery, and developing public education and awareness
materials regarding vegetation and erosion control.
3. City of Fontana Building Code
The City of Fontana Building Code is based on the CBSC and is supplemented with local amendments. The
Building Code regulates the construction, alteration, repair, moving, demolition, conversion, occupancy, use,
and maintenance of all buildings and structures in the City of Fontana. The Building Code is included in
Chapter 5 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code. (Fontana, 2021)
4. City of Fontana Municipal Code
The City of Fontana Municipal Code (Chapter 9, Article II) requires development projects to incorporate an
erosion and dust control plan to minimize water and windborne erosion. Specific dust control measures are
required to be listed on the grading/construction plan. The erosion and dust control plan is required to be
approved by City of Fontana staff prior to the issuance of the applicable construction permit. (Fontana, 2021)
The City of Fontana Municipal Code (Chapter 23, Article IX) requires all development activities subject to the
City’s NPDES permit to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which shall
identify proposed structural BMPs and source and treatment control BMPs to infiltrate and/or adequately treat
the projected stormwater and urban runoff from the development site. (Fontana, 2021)
Lastly, the City of Fontana Municipal Code (Chapter 26, Division 4) requires development project sites to be
evaluated by a preliminary soils report that identifies geologic and seismic conditions applicable to the subject
property and provides site-specific recommendations to preclude any expected adverse impacts from site-
specific soils-related hazards. These reports are required to recommend corrective action to preclude any
structural damage/hazards that may be caused by geological hazards or unstable soils. (Fontana, 2021)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-9
5. SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust)
SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) requires the implementation of best available dust control measures
(BACM) during active operations capable of generating fugitive dust. The purpose of this Rule is to minimize
the amount of particulate matter in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic fugitive dust sources.
(SCAQMD, 2005)
4.5.3 METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING GEOLOGY & SOILS IMPACTS
The analysis of potential geology and soils-related impacts is based upon geotechnical investigations prepared
specifically for the Project Site. The geotechnical investigation included a site reconnaissance, review of
published reports, maps and aerial photographs, geotechnical field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering
analysis, and soil borings. The City’s General Plan and information sources from State and Federal agencies
were researched to establish the Project Site’s existing conditions and likelihood of environmental effects.
4.5.4 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 geology/soils effects that could result
from development projects. The Project would result in a significant impact related to geology and soils if the
Project or any Project-related component would:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42;
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking;
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or
iv. Landslides.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse;
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2019),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property;
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water; or
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-10
4.5.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
A. Rupture of Known Earthquake Fault
There are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the Project Site and the Project
Site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (SCG, 2021, p. 12). Because there
are no known faults located on or trending towards the Project Site, there is no potential for the Project to
directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to ground rupture. No
impact would occur.
B. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
The Project Site is located in a seismically active area of southern California and is expected to experience
moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. This risk is not substantially different
than the risk to other properties throughout the southern California area. As a mandatory condition of Project
approval, the Project Applicant would be required to construct the proposed building in accordance with the
CBSC and the Fontana Building Code, which is based on the CBSC with local amendments (Fontana
Municipal Code, Chapter 5). The CBSC and Fontana Building Code, which have been specifically tailored
for California earthquake conditions, provide building standards that must be met to safeguard life or limb,
health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials,
use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures. In addition, the CBSC (Chapter
18) (adopted by the City as Municipal Code Chapter 5, Article III, Section 5-61) and the Fontana Municipal
Code (Chapter 26, Division 4) require development project sites to be evaluated in preliminary soils reports to
identify Site-specific geologic and seismic conditions and provide Site-specific recommendations to preclude
adverse effects involving unstable soils and strong seismic ground-shaking, including, but not limited to,
recommendations related to ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and depths, and
selection of appropriate structural systems. The Project Applicant retained a professional geotechnical firm,
SCG, to prepare geotechnical report for the Project Site, which is included as Technical Appendix G to this
EIR. The geotechnical report included recommendations for design, construction, and grading considerations
based on the Site-specific geological conditions and the Project’s specific design. The recommendations
included seismic design considerations, geotechnical design considerations, site grading recommendations,
construction considerations, foundation design and construction, floor slab design and construction, retaining
wall design and construction, and pavement design parameters. This geotechnical report complies with the
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-11
requirements of Chapter 18 of the CBSC and Chapter 26, Division 4 of the Fontana Municipal Code. In
conformance with the Municipal Code, the City will condition the Project to comply with the Site-specific
ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. With mandatory
compliance with these standard and Site-specific design and construction measures, implementation of the
Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including
loss, injury or death, involving seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.
C. Seismic-Related Ground Failure
According to available mapping data, the Project Site is not expected to be subjected to a significant risk
associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction (SCG, 2021, p. 14). Regardless, the
Project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable seismic safety
guidelines, including the standard requirements of the CBSC and Fontana Building Code, as noted above.
Furthermore, and pursuant to the requirements of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 26, Division 4, the Project
would be required (via conditions of approval) to comply with the grading and construction recommendations
contained within the geotechnical report for the Project Site to further reduce the risk of seismic-related ground
failure due to liquefaction. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly expose
people or structures to substantial hazards associated with seismic-related ground failure and/or liquefaction
hazards. Impacts would be less than significant.
D. Landslides
The Project Site is relatively flat and there are no steep slopes or recorded landslides in the immediate vicinity
of the Project Site (CGS, 2022). The Project would not disturb or modify the existing manufactured slope for
the Cypress Avenue overpass that abuts the Project Site and the Project provides an easement so that the City
can adequately access the manufactured slope for required, on-going maintenance to ensure its long-term
stability. Mandatory compliance with the recommendations contained within the Project Site’s geotechnical
reports (as required by City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 26, Division 4) would ensure that the Project
is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on-Site and abutting off-
Site areas. Accordingly, the Project would not be exposed to substantial landslide risks, and implementation
of the Project would not pose a substantial direct or indirect landslide risk to surrounding properties. Impacts
would be less than significant.
Threshold b: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
A. Construction-Related Erosion Impacts
Development of the Project would result in the demolition of all structures on-site, and grading and
construction activities would occur that would expose and disturb soils that are currently covered by
impervious surfaces. Disturbed soils would be subject to potential erosion during rainfall events or high winds
due to the removal of stabilizing vegetation and building materials (e.g., existing concrete foundations) and
exposure of these erodible materials to wind and water.
Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant would be
required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-12
activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include
construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one (1) acre of total
land area. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana
River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River
Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-related activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that the Project Applicant will be required to implement during construction activities to
ensure that waterborne pollution – including erosion/sedimentation – is prevented, minimized, and/or
otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Examples
of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles,
storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding. Lastly, the Project
would be required to implement an erosion and dust control plan pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter
9, Article II (and to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403) to minimize water- and windborne erosion.
Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and the erosion control plan would ensure that the Project’s
implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during
construction activities. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.
B. Post-Development Erosion Impacts
Upon Project build-out, the Project Site would be covered by buildings, landscaping, and impervious surfaces.
Stormwater runoff from the Project Site would be captured, treated to reduce waterborne pollutants (including
sediment), and conveyed off-site via an on-site storm drain system. Accordingly, the amount of erosion that
would occur on the Project Site would be minimal and comparable to existing conditions.
To meet the requirements of the City’s Municipal Storm Water Permit, and in accordance with Fontana
Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a
Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), which is a Site-specific post-construction water quality
management program designed to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants
of concern for downstream receiving waters, under long-term conditions via Best Management Practices
(BMPs). The SWQMP is required to identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control
measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce or eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from storm water and non-
storm water discharges. The preliminary SWQMP for the Project, which is provided as Technical Appendix L
of this EIR, identifies preventive, low impact development BMPs (such as the use of permeable surfaces across
the site, catch basin inserts, and an underground retention system), non-structural source control BMPs (such
as vacuum sweeping of parking lots and routine maintenance of catch inserts to prevent clogging and maximize
removal efficiency), and structural source control BMPs (such as utilizing efficient irrigation systems that
minimize overspray), to minimize erosion. The SWQMP also is required to establish a post-construction
implementation and maintenance plan to ensure on-going, long-term erosion protection. Compliance with the
WQMP will be required as a condition of approval for the Project, as will the long-term maintenance of erosion
and sediment control features. Because the Project would be required to utilize erosion and sediment control
measures to preclude substantial, long-term soil erosion and loss of topsoil, the Project would result in less-
than-significant impacts related to soil erosion.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-13
Threshold c: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
The Project Site is relatively flat and the Project does not propose the construction of any manufactured slopes.
Additionally, the Project would not disturb or modify the existing manufactured slope for the Cypress Avenue
overpass that abuts the Project Site and would not result in the slope becoming unstable. Accordingly, the
Project would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with landslide hazards.
SCG determined that removal and re-compaction of the existing artificial fill soils and near-surface alluvium
would result in an average shrinkage of one (1) to 13 percent in the remaining portions of the Project Site
(SCG, 2021, p. 16). However, the geotechnical report prepared for the Project indicates that the Site’s
shrinkage/subsidence and settlement potential can be attenuated through the removal of surface and near
surface soils down to competent materials and replacement with properly compacted fill with optimum
moisture content (SCG, 2021, pp. 14-20). The City will condition the Project to comply with the Site-specific
ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the Project’s geotechnical report. Based
on the foregoing, potential impacts related to soil shrinkage/subsidence and collapse would be less than
significant.
Lateral spreading is primarily associated with liquefaction hazards. As noted above under the response to
Threshold “a,” the Project Site is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility based on its
topography and soil characteristics. Thus, the potential for lateral spreading is low (SCG, 2021, p. 12).
Accordingly, impacts associated with lateral spreading would be less than significant.
Threshold d Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
SCG determined that near surface soils on the Project Site are classified as “non-expansive” (SCG, 2021, p.
15). Accordingly, the Project Site does not contain expansive soils and as such, would not create substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with the presence of expansive soils. No impacts would
occur.
[Note: Threshold “d” is based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and references Table 18-1-B of the 1994 Uniform Building Code
(UBC) which has been superseded by the 2016 CBSC. The 2016 CBSC references ASTM D-4829, a standard procedure for testing and
evaluating the expansion index (or expansion potential) of soils established by ASTM International, which was formerly known as the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). ASTM D-4829 was used as the standard for evaluating the Project’s potential impact
related to expansive soils in the above analysis.]
Threshold e: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
waste water?
The Project is designed to connect to the City-owned municipal wastewater conveyance system, with
wastewater treatment services supplied by the Inland Empire Utilities Authority (IEUA). The Project does not
include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Accordingly, implementation of the Project
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-14
would result in no impact related to the use or performance of septic tanks and/or alternative wastewater
systems.
Threshold f: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
As previously noted, there are no known unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the
Project Site under existing conditions. However, the Project Site is underlain at depth (approximately 10 feet
below ground surface) by old, Pleistocene alluvial and alluvial fan deposits, which are accorded a “High”
sensitivity for containing paleontological resources (BFSA, 2022b, p. 9). In the event that the Project’s
construction activities encroach into previously undisturbed older alluvium deposits, the Project could result
in impacts to important paleontological resources if such resources are unearthed and not properly treated.
Therefore, the Project’s potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource buried
beneath the ground surface is determined to be a potentially significant impact and mitigation is required.
4.5.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
With the exception of erosion hazards, potential hazardous effects related to geologic and soil conditions
addressed under Thresholds “a,” “c,” “d,” and “e” are unique to the Project Site, and inherently restricted to
the specific property proposed for development. That is, issues including fault rupture, seismic ground
shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils would involve effects to (and not from) a proposed
development project, are specific to conditions on the subject property, and are not influenced or exacerbated
by the geologic and/or soils hazards that may occur on other, off-site properties. Further, as noted in the
foregoing analysis, all potential Project-related direct and indirect impacts related to potential hazardous effects
related to geologic and soil conditions would be precluded through mandatory compliance with the CBSC,
Fontana Municipal Code, other standard regulatory requirements, and the Site-specific geotechnical
recommendations contained within the Project’s geotechnical report, which will be incorporated into the
Project’s design via conditions of approval. Because of the Site-specific nature of these potential hazards and
the measures to address them, there would be no direct or indirect connection to similar potential issues or
cumulative effects to or from other properties.
As discussed under Threshold “b,” regulatory requirements mandate that the Project incorporate design
measures during construction and long-term operation to ensure that significant erosion impacts do not occur.
Other development projects in the vicinity of the Project Site would be required to comply with the same
regulatory requirements as the Project to preclude substantial adverse water and wind erosion impacts.
Because the Project and other projects within the cumulative study area would be subject to similar mandatory
regulatory requirements to control erosion hazards during construction and long-term operation, cumulative
impacts associated with wind and water erosion hazards would be less than significant.
The Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts to paleontological resources (Threshold “f”) is similar
to that of other projects located in the region that are underlain by older alluvial soils. Because the older
alluvial soils present on the Project Site contain high paleontological sensitivity and because this geologic layer
is present throughout the City of Fontana and southern California, the potential to impact paleontological
resources is a potentially cumulatively-considerable impact for which mitigation is required.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-15
4.5.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project would not expose people or
structures to substantial direct or indirect adverse effects related to liquefaction or fault rupture. The Project
Site is subject to seismic ground shaking associated with earthquakes; however, mandatory compliance with
local and State regulatory requirements and building codes would ensure that the Project minimizes potential
hazards related to seismic ground shaking to less-than-significant levels.
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project would not result in substantial soil
erosion or loss of topsoil. The Project Applicant would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities and adhere to a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and prepare an erosion control plan to minimize water and wind erosion. Following
completion of development, the Project’s owner or operator would be required by law to implement a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) during operation, which would preclude substantial erosion impacts in
the long-term.
Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact. There is no potential for the Project’s construction or operation to
cause, or be impacted by, on- or off-site landslides or lateral spreading. Potential hazards associated with
unstable soils would be precluded through mandatory adherence to the recommendations contained in the
Project’s site-specific geotechnical reports during Project construction.
Threshold d: No Impact. The Project Site contains soils with no susceptibility to expansion; therefore, the
Project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with the presence of
expansive soils. No impact would occur.
Threshold e: No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed to be
installed on the Project Site. Accordingly, no impact would occur associated with soil compatibility for
wastewater disposal systems.
Threshold f: Potential Direct and Cumulatively-Considerable Impact. The Project would not impact any
known paleontological resource or unique geological feature. However, the Project Site is underlain by older
alluvium soils with a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Accordingly, construction activities on
the Project Site have the potential to unearth and adversely impact paleontological resource that may be buried
beneath the ground surface.
4.5.8 MITIGATION
The following mitigation measures (MMs) would address the Project’s potential to result in impacts to
previously-undiscovered paleontological resources that may be present beneath the Project Site’s surface.
MM 4.5-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the
City of Fontana that a qualified paleontologist (“paleontologist”) has been retained by the
Project Applicant or contractor to conduct monitoring of excavation activities and has the
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.5-16
authority to halt and redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected paleontological
resources are unearthed.
MM 4.5-2 The paleontologist shall conduct full-time monitoring during grading and excavation
operations in undisturbed late Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits starting at a depth of 10 feet
below the existing ground surface. The paleontologist shall be equipped to salvage fossils if
they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are
likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The paleontologist
shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of
abundant and large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the
potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined
upon exposure and examination by the paleontologist to have a low potential to contain or yield
fossil resources.
MM 4.5-3 Recovered specimens shall be properly prepared to a point of identification and permanent
preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and
vertebrates, if necessary. Identification and curation of specimens into the collections of the
Division of Geological Sciences, San Bernardino County Museum, shall be required for
discoveries of significance as determined by the paleontological monitor.
MM 4.5-4 A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared,
including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to accurately
record the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the City of
Fontana prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit.
4.5.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold f: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Implementation of MMs 4.5-1 through 4.5-4
would ensure that grading activities within late Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits would be subject to monitoring
by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor, and require that any uncovered paleontological
resources are recovered and prepared for long-term preservation at an accredited institution (university or
museum). Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project’s potential direct and
cumulatively-considerable impacts to paleontological resources to below a level of significance.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-1
4.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The analysis provided in this Subsection evaluates whether greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from
the Project have the potential to contribute substantially to Global Climate Change (GCC) and its associated
environmental effects. This analysis is based on a report prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. titled, “Slover
Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Greenhouse Gas Analysis,” dated March 8, 2022 (Urban Crossroads,
2022d). The GHG analysis report (GHGA) is included as Technical Appendix I to this EIR. All references
used in this Subsection are listed in EIR Section 7.0, References.
4.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Introduction to Global Climate Change
GCC is defined as the change in average meteorological conditions on Earth with respect to temperature,
precipitation, and storms. The majority of scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the
Industrial Revolution is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past due to human activity and
industrialization over the past 200 years. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased
concentrations of GHGs in planet Earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and
fluorinated gases. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 16)
An individual land development project is not capable of generating the magnitude of GHG emissions
necessary to cause a discernible effect on global climate. However, individual development projects may
contribute to GCC by generating GHGs that combine with other regional and global sources of GHGs. (Urban
Crossroads, 2022d, p. 16)
B. Greenhouse Gases
Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions are the focus of evaluation in this
Subsection because these gases are the primary contributors to GCC resulting from land development projects.
Although other substances, such as fluorinated gases, also contribute to GCC, sources of fluorinated gases are
not well-defined and no accepted emissions factors or methodology exist to accurately calculate the emissions
of these gases. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, pp. 16-17)
A global warming potential (GWP) value represents the effectiveness of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere.
Individual GHGs have varying GWP values, as assigned by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected GHGs are summarized in Table 4.6-1. GWP and
Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs. As shown in Table 4.6-1, GWP values range from 1 for CO2 up to
23,900 for Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6).
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-2
Table 4.6-1 GWP and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs
Gas Atmospheric Lifetime (years)
Global Warming Potential (100-year time horizon)
2nd Assessment Report (SAR) 5th Assessment Report (AR5)
CO2 See* 1 1
CH4 12.4 21 28
N2O 121 310 265
HFC-23 222 11,700 12,400
HFC-134a 13.4 1,300 1,300
HFC-152a 1.5 140 138
SF6 3,200 23,900 23,500
*As per Appendix 8.A. of IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, no single lifetime can be given. Adapted from Table 2.14 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007 Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 2-2)
Provided below is a description of the various gases that contribute to GCC. For more information about these
gases and their associated human health effects, refer to Section 2.3 of Technical Appendix I and the reference
sources cited therein.
• Water Vapor (H2O) is the most abundant and variable GHG in the atmosphere. Changes in the
concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere are considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related
to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. As the temperature of the
atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because
the air is warmer, the relative humidity rises (in essence, the air is able to ‘hold” more water when it is
warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. The higher concentration of water vapor in the
atmosphere is then able to absorb more indirect thermal energy radiated from the Earth, further warming
the atmosphere and causing the evaporation cycle to perpetuate. This is referred to as a “positive feedback
loop.” The extent to which this positive feedback loop will continue is unknown as there are also dynamics
that hold the positive feedback loop in check. As an example, when water vapor increases in the
atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are able to reflect incoming solar
radiation and thereby allow less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up. There are no human
health effects from water vapor itself; however, certain pollutants can dissolve in water vapor and the water
vapor can then act as a pollutant-carrying agent. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 17)
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is an odorless and colorless GHG that is emitted from natural and man-made
sources. Natural CO2 sources include: the decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria,
plants, animals and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Man-made CO2 sources
include: the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid-
1700s, human activities that produce CO2 have increased dramatically. As an example, prior to the
industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were fairly stable at 280 parts per million
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-3
(ppm). Today, they are around 370 ppm, an increase of more than 30 percent. Exposure to CO2 in high
concentrations can cause adverse human health effects, but outdoor (atmospheric) levels are not high
enough to be detrimental to human health. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 18)
• Methane (CH4) absorbs thermal radiation (i.e., retains heat) extremely effectively. Over the last 50 years,
human activities such as rice cultivation, cattle ranching, natural gas combustion, and coal mining have
increased the concentration of methane in the atmosphere. Other man-made sources include fossil-fuel
combustion and biomass burning. No human health effects are known to occur from atmospheric exposure
to methane; however, methane is an asphyxiant that may displace oxygen in enclosed spaces. (Urban
Crossroads, 2022d, p. 19)
• Nitrous Oxide (N2O) concentrations began to rise in the atmosphere at the beginning of the industrial
revolution. N2O can be transported into the stratosphere, be deposited on the Earth’s surface, and be
converted to other compounds by chemical reaction. N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and
water, including reactions that occur in nitrogen-containing fertilizer. In addition to agricultural sources,
some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and
vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. N2O also is used as an aerosol spray propellant,
as a preservative in potato chip bags, and in rocket engines and in race cars. Also, known as laughing gas,
N2O is a colorless GHG that can cause dizziness, euphoria, and hallucinations. In small doses, it is
considered harmless; however, heavy and extended use can cause brain damage. (Urban Crossroads,
2022d, p. 19)
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in CH4 or
ethane (C2H6) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are non-toxic, non-flammable, insoluble and
chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth’s surface). CFCs were first
synthesized in 1928 and have no natural source. CFCs were used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants and
cleaning solvents. Due to the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to
halt their production was undertaken and has been extremely successful, so much so that levels of CFCs
are now remaining steady or declining. However, due to their long atmospheric lifetime, some of the CFCs
will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 20)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic, man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs
and have one of the highest global warming potential ratings. The HFCs with the largest measured
atmospheric abundances are (in order from largest to smallest), HFC-23 (CHF3), HFC-134a (CF3CH2F),
and HFC-152a (CH3CHF2). No human health effects are known to result from exposure to HFCs, which
are man-made and used for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants. (Urban
Crossroads, 2022d, p. 21)
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are primarily produced for aluminum production and semiconductor
manufacture. PFCs have stable molecular structures and do not break down through chemical processes
in the lower atmosphere. Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000
years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6). No human health
effects are known to result from exposure to PFCs. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 21)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-4
• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. Sulfur
hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the
magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. In high
concentrations in confined areas, the gas presents the hazard of suffocation because it displaces the oxygen
needed for breathing. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 21)
• Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3) is a colorless gas with a distinctly moldy odor. The World Resources Institute
(WRI) indicates that NF3 has a 100-year GWP of 17,200. NF3 is used in industrial processes and is
produced in the manufacturing of semiconductors, Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) panels, types of solar
panels, and chemical lasers. Long-term or repeated exposure may affect the liver and kidneys and may
cause fluorosis. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 22)
C. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
1. Global and National
Worldwide, man-made GHG emissions are tracked by the IPCC. Man-made GHG emissions data is available
through 2018 for industrialized nations (referred to as Annex I). Based on the latest available data, total GHG
emissions from Annex I nations were approximately 28,768,440 gigagrams (Gg) of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e). The United States is the world’s second-largest emitter of GHGs, producing 6,676,650 Gg CO2e in
2018. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, pp. 23-24)
2. State of California
Based on the most recent GHG inventory data compiled by the CARB, California emitted an average of
approximately 418.1 million metric tons (MMT) CO2e per year between 2000-2019. This total represents
approximately six (6) percent of the GHGs generated by the United States. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 24)
D. Potential Effects of Climate Change in California
In 2006, the California Climate Change Center (CCCC) published a report titled “Scenarios of Climate Change
in California: An Overview” (the “Climate Scenarios report”) that is generally instructive about effects of
climate change in California. The Climate Scenarios report used a range of emissions scenarios developed by
the IPCC to project a series of potential warming ranges (i.e., temperature increases) that may occur in
California during the 21st century: lower warming range (3.0-5.4°F); medium warming range (5.5-7.8°F); and
higher warming range (8.0-10.4°F). (CCCC, 2006, p. 7)
In 2009, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted the “California Climate Adaptation Strategy.” This
report details many vulnerabilities arising from climate change with respect to matters such as temperature
extremes, sea level rise, wildfires, floods and droughts and precipitation changes, and responds to the
Governor’s Executive Order (EO) S-13-2008 that called on state agencies to develop California’s strategy to
identify and prepare for expected climate impacts. (CNRA, 2021, p. 3)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-5
Based on the estimated scenarios presented in the Climate Scenario and California Climate Adaption Strategy
reports, Table 4.6-2, Summary of Projected Global Warming Impact, 2070-2099, presents potential impacts of
GCC within California.
Table 4.6-2 Summary of Projected Global Warming Impact, 2070-2099
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Exhibit 2-A)
The potential effects of climate change in California are summarized below and include, but are not limited to,
the following:
• Human Health Effects. Climate change can affect the health of Californians by increasing the frequency,
duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation, oppressive heat, and wildfires.
The primary concern is not the change in average climate, but rather the projected increase in extreme
conditions that are responsible for the most serious health consequences. In addition, climate change has
the potential to influence asthma symptoms and the incidence of infectious disease. (CCCC, 2006, p. 26)
• Water Resource/Supply Effects. Although most climate model simulations predict relatively moderate
changes in precipitation over the 21st century, rising temperatures are expected to lead to diminishing snow
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-6
accumulation in mountainous watersheds, including the Sierra Nevada. Warmer conditions during the last
few decades across the western United States have already produced a shift toward more precipitation
falling as rain instead of snow, and snowpacks over the region have been melting earlier in the spring.
Delays in snow accumulation and earlier snowmelt can have cascading effects on water supplies, natural
ecosystems, and winter recreation. (CCCC, 2006, p. 14)
• Agriculture Effects. Agriculture, along with forestry, is the sector of the California economy that is most
likely to be affected by a change in climate. California agriculture is a $68 billion industry. California is
the largest agricultural producer in the nation and accounts for 13% of all U.S. agricultural sales, including
half of the nation’s total fruits and vegetables. Regional analyses of climate trends over agricultural regions
of California suggest that climate change is already affecting the agriculture industry. Over the period
1951 to 2000, the growing season has lengthened by about a day per decade, and warming temperatures
resulted in an increase of 30 to 70 growing degree days per decade, with much of the increase occurring in
the spring. Climate change affects agriculture directly through increasing temperatures and rising CO2
concentrations, and indirectly through changes in water availability and pests. (CCCC, 2006, p. 19)
• Forest and Landscape Effects. Climate changes and increased CO2 concentrations are expected to alter
the extent and character of forests and other ecosystems. The distribution of species is expected to shift;
the risk of climate-related disturbance such as wildfires, disease, and drought is expected to rise; and forest
productivity is projected to increase or decrease – depending on species and region. In California, these
ecological changes could have measurable implications for both market (e.g., timber industry, fire
suppression and damages costs, public health) and nonmarket (e.g., ecosystem services) values. (CCCC,
2006, p. 22)
• Sea Level Effects. Coastal observations and global model projections indicate that California’s open coast
and estuaries will experience rising sea levels during the next century. Sea level rise already has affected
much of the coast in southern California, Central California, and the San Francisco Bay and estuary. These
historical trends, quantified from a small set of California tide gages, have approached 0.08 inches per year
(in/yr), which are rates very similar to those estimated for global mean sea level. So far, there is little
evidence that the rate of rise has accelerated, and indeed the rate of rise at California tide gages has actually
flattened since about 1980. However, projections indicate that substantial sea level rise, even faster than
the historical rates, could occur during the next century. Sea level rise projections range from 5.1–24.4
inches (in.) higher than the 2000 sea level for simulations under the lower emissions scenario, from 7.1–
29.9 in. for the medium-high emission scenario, and from 8.5–35.2 in. for the higher emissions scenario.
(CCCC, 2006, p. 10)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-7
4.6.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is a brief description of the federal, state, and local environmental laws and related regulations
related to GHG emissions.
A. International Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, which commits its Parties by setting internationally binding emission reduction targets
(UNFCCC, n.d.). Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels
of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity, the Protocol
places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of "common but differentiated
responsibilities."
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on December 11, 1997 and entered into force on February
16, 2005. The detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol were adopted at Conference of the Parties
(COP) 7 in Marrakesh, Morocco, in 2001, and are referred to as the "Marrakesh Accords." Its first commitment
period started in 2008 and ended in 2012.
On December 8, 2012, in Doha, Qatar, the "Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol" was adopted. The
amendment includes:
• New commitments for Annex I Parties to the Kyoto Protocol who agreed to take on commitments in a
second commitment period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2020;
• A revised list of greenhouse gases (GHG) to be reported on by Parties in the second commitment
period; and
• Amendments to several articles of the Kyoto Protocol which specifically referenced issues pertaining
to the first commitment period and which needed to be updated for the second commitment period.
During the first commitment period, 37 industrialized countries and the European Community committed to
reduce GHG emissions to an average of five percent against 1990 levels. During the second commitment
period, Parties committed to reduce GHG emissions by at least 18 percent below 1990 levels in the eight-year
period from 2013 to 2020; however, the composition of Parties in the second commitment period is different
from the first.
2. The Paris Agreement
The Paris Agreement entered into force on November 4, 2016. The Paris Agreement brings all nations into a
common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced
support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global climate effort.
The Paris Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by
keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-8
pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius (UNFCCC, n.d.).
Additionally, the agreement aims to strengthen the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate
change. To reach these ambitious goals, appropriate financial flows, a new technology framework and an
enhanced capacity building framework will be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries
and the most vulnerable countries, in line with their own national objectives. The Agreement also provides
for enhanced transparency of action and support through a more robust transparency framework.
The Paris Agreement requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through “nationally determined
contributions” (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all
Parties report regularly on their emissions and on their implementation efforts.
On June 1, 2017, President Donald Trump announced he would begin the process of withdrawing the United
States from the Paris Agreement. In accordance with articles within the Paris Agreement, the earliest effective
date for the United States’ withdrawal from the Agreement was November 4, 2020, at which time the
withdrawal became official. On January 20, 2021, President Joseph Biden signed the executive order for the
United States to rejoin the Paris Agreement, which became official on February 19, 2021.
B. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Clean Air Act
Coinciding with the 2009 meeting of international leaders in Copenhagen, on December 7, 2009, the EPA
issued an Endangerment Finding under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), opening the door to federal
regulation of GHGs (EPA, 2021a; DOJ, 2021). The Endangerment Finding notes that GHGs threaten public
health and welfare and are subject to regulation under the CAA. To date, the EPA has not promulgated
regulations on GHG emissions, but it has begun to develop them.
Previously the EPA had not regulated GHGs under the CAA because it asserted that the Act did not authorize
it to issue mandatory regulations to address Global Climate Change (GCC) and that such regulation would be
unwise without an unequivocally established causal link between GHGs and the increase in global surface air
temperatures. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (127 S. Ct. 1438 [2007]); however,
the U.S. Supreme Court held that GHGs are pollutants under the CAA and directed the EPA to decide whether
the gases endangered public health or welfare. The EPA had also not moved aggressively to regulate GHGs
because it expected Congress to make progress on GHG legislation, primarily from the standpoint of a cap-
and-trade system. However, proposals circulated in both the House of Representative and Senate have been
controversial and it may be some time before the U.S. Congress adopts major climate change legislation. The
EPA’s Endangerment Finding paves the way for federal regulation of GHGs with or without Congress.
C. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Title 24 Building Energy Standards
The California Energy Commission (CEC) first adopted Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative
mandate to reduce energy consumption in the state. Although not originally intended to reduce GHG
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-9
emissions, increased energy efficiency, and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels
would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard.
The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency
technologies and methods. The 2019 version of Title 24 was adopted by the CEC and became effective on
January 1, 2020 (CEC, 2018). The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are seven (7) percent more
efficient than the previous (2016) Building Energy Efficiency Standards for residential construction and 30
percent more efficient than the previous Standards for non-residential construction. The 2016 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards already were 28 percent more efficient for residential construction and five (5) percent
more efficient for nonresidential construction than the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards they
replaced.
Part 11 of Title 24 is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The
purpose of the CALGreen Code is to “improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the
design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental
impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: (1) Planning and design;
(2) Energy efficiency; (3) Water efficiency and conservation; (4) Material conservation and resource
efficiency; and (5) Environmental air quality.” The CALGreen Code is not intended to substitute or be
identified as meeting the certification requirements of any green building program that is not established and
adopted by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). Unless otherwise noted in the regulation,
all newly constructed buildings in California are subject of the requirements of the CALGreen Code.
2. California Assembly Bill No. 1493 (AB 1493)
AB 1493 required the CARB to adopt the nation’s first GHG emission standards for automobiles (CARB,
n.d.). On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the “Pavley” regulations that reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions in new passenger vehicles from model year 2009 through 2016. These amendments were
part of California’s commitment toward a nation-wide program to reduce new passenger vehicle GHGs from
2012 through 2016. CARB’s September amendments cement California’s enforcement of the Pavley rule
starting in 2009 while providing vehicle manufacturers with new compliance flexibility. The amendments also
prepare California to harmonize its rules with the federal rules for passenger vehicles.
The U.S. EPA granted California the authority to implement GHG emission reduction standards for new
passenger cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles on June 30, 2009. The first California request to
implement GHG standards for passenger vehicles, known as a waiver request, was made in December 2005,
and was denied by the EPA in March 2008. That decision was based on a finding that California’s request to
reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles did not meet the CAA requirement of showing that the waiver
was needed to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” With the granting of the waiver, it is estimated
that the Pavley regulations reduced GHG emissions from California passenger vehicles by about 22 percent in
2012 and about 30 percent in 2016, all while improving fuel efficiency and reducing motorists’ costs.
The CARB has adopted a new approach to passenger vehicles – cars and light trucks – by combining the
control of smog-causing pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions into a single coordinated package of
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-10
standards. The new approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the numbers of plug-in hybrids
and zero-emission vehicles in California.
3. Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 documents GHG emission reduction goals, creates the Climate Action Team and
directs the Secretary of the California EPA to coordinate efforts with meeting the GHG reduction targets with
the heads of other state agencies (CA State Library, 2005). The EO requires the Secretary to report back to
the Governor and Legislature biannually to report: progress toward meeting the GHG goals; GHG impacts to
California; and applicable Mitigation and Adaptation Plans. EO S-3-05 documents goals for GHG emissions
reductions include: reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels by the year 2010; reducing GHG emissions to
1990 levels by the year 2020; and reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
4. California Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
In September 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by
2020, which represents a reduction of approximately 15 percent below emissions expected under a “business
as usual” scenario (CARB, 2018). Pursuant to AB 32, the CARB must adopt regulations to achieve the
maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. The full implementation of
AB 32 will help mitigate risks associated with climate change, while improving energy efficiency, expanding
the use of renewable energy resources, cleaner transportation, and reducing waste.
AB 32 specifically required that CARB do the following:
• Prepare and approve a Scoping Plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-
effective reductions in GHG emissions from sources or categories of sources of GHGs by 2020, and
update the Scoping Plan every five years.
• Maintain and continue reductions in emissions of GHG beyond 2020.
• Identify the statewide level of GHG emissions in 1990 to serve as the emissions limit to be achieved
by 2020.
• Identify and adopt regulations for discrete early actions that could be enforceable on or before January
1, 2010.
• Adopt a regulation that establishes a system of market-based declining annual aggregate emission
limits for sources or categories of sources that emit GHG emissions.
• Convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee to advise the Board in developing and
updating the Scoping Plan and any other pertinent matter in implementing AB 32.
• Appoint an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee to provide
recommendations for technologies, research, and GHG emission reduction measures.
In November 2007, CARB completed its estimated calculations of Statewide 1990 GHG levels. Net emission
1990 levels were estimated at 427 MMTs; emission sources by sector were: transportation – 35 percent;
electricity generation – 26 percent; industrial – 24 percent; residential – seven (7) percent; agriculture – five
(5) percent; and commercial – three (3) percent. Accordingly, 427 MMTs of carbon dioxide equivalent
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-11
(MMTCO2e) was established as the emissions limit for 2020. For comparison, CARB’s estimate for baseline
GHG emissions was 473 MMTCO2e for 2000 and “business as usual” (without GHG reductions measures)
GHG emissions were projected to be 532 MMTCO2e in 2010 and 596 MMTCO2e in 2020. (CARB, 2007)
AB 32 required CARB to develop a Scoping Plan which lays out California’s strategy for meeting the goals.
The Scoping Plan must be updated every five years. In December 2008, CARB approved the initial Scoping
Plan, which included a suite of measures to sharply cut GHG emissions. Table 4.6-3, Scoping Plan GHG
Reduction Measures Towards 2020 Target, shows the proposed reductions from regulations and programs
outlined in the Scoping Plan. CARB’s original determination was that to achieve the 1990 emission level in
2020 a reduction in GHG emissions of approximately 28.5 percent would be needed in the absence of new
laws and regulations. The Scoping Plan evaluated opportunities for sector-specific reductions, integrates all
CARB and Climate Action Team (CAT) early actions and additional GHG reduction measures, identifies
additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the role of the cap-and-trade program.
When the 2020 emissions level projection was updated to account for regulatory measures in effect, the 2020
projection in the “business as usual” condition was reduced to 507 MMTCO2e. As a result, CARB determined
that achieving the 1990 emissions level in 2020 would now only require a reduction of GHG emissions of 80
MMTCO2e, or approximately 16 percent from the “business as usual” condition (down from the original
estimate of 28.5 percent).
In May 2014, CARB approved the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Update), which builds
upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations. The Update highlights California’s
progress toward meeting the near-term 2020 GHG emission reduction goals, highlights the latest climate
change science and provides direction on how to achieve long-term emission reduction goal described in
Executive Order S-3-05. The Update recalculates 1990 GHG emissions using new global warming potentials
identified in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007. Based on the revised emissions level
projections, achieving the 1990 emissions level in 2020 would require a reduction of 78 MMTCO2e, or
approximately 15.3 percent from the “business as usual” condition (down, again, from the original estimate of
28.5 percent). (CARB, 2018; CARB, 2017)
In December 2017, CARB adopted the Second Update to the Scoping Plan, which identifies the State’s post-
2020 reduction strategy. The Second Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent GHG emissions reduction
below 1990 levels set by SB 32. The Second Update builds upon the Cap- and-Trade Regulation; the Low
Carbon Fuel Standard; much cleaner cars, trucks and freight movement; cleaner, renewable energy; and
strategies to reduce methane emissions from agricultural and other wastes to reduce GHG emissions. (CARB,
2017)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-12
Table 4.6-3 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures Towards 2020 Target
5. California Senate Bill No. 1368 (SB 1368)
In 2006, the State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 1368 (Perata, Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006), which
directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt a GHG emission performance standard
(EPS) for the future power purchases of California utilities (CEC, n.d.). SB 1368 seeks to limit carbon
emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements
for energy longer than five years from resources that exceed specified emissions criteria. Accordingly, SB
1368 effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-13
purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. SB 1368 will lead to dramatically lower
GHG emissions associated with California energy demand.
6. Executive Order S-01-07
Executive Order (EO) S-01-07 is effectively known as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The Executive
Order seeks to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10 percent by
2020 (CA State Library, 2007). The LCFS requires fuel providers in California to ensure that the mix of fuel
they sell into the California market meet, on average, a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in
CO2e grams per unit of fuel energy sold.
7. Senate Bill 1078
Senate Bill (SB) 1078 establishes the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which requires
electric utilities and other entities under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission to meet
20% of their renewable power by December 31, 2017 for the purposes of increasing the diversity, reliability,
public health, and environmental benefits of the energy mix (CA Legislative Info, n.d.).
8. Senate Bill 107
SB 107 directed California Public Utilities Commission's Renewable Energy Resources Program to increase
the amount of renewable electricity (Renewable Portfolio Standard) generated per year, from 17% to an amount
that equals at least 20% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31,
2010 (CA Legislative Info, n.d.).
9. Executive Order S-14-08
On November 17, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, revising California's
existing Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) upward to require all retail sellers of electricity to serve 33% of
their load from renewable energy sources by 2020 (CA State Library, 2008). Executive Order S-14-08 seeks
to accelerate such development by streamlining the siting, permitting, and procurement processes for
renewable energy generation facilities. To this end, S-14-08 issues two directives: (1) the existing Renewable
Energy Transmission Initiative will identify renewable energy zones that can be developed as such with little
environmental impact, and (2) the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will collaborate to expedite the review, permitting, and licensing process for
proposed RPS-eligible renewable energy projects.
10. Senate Bill 97
By enacting SB 97 in 2007, California’s lawmakers expressly recognized the need to analyze GHGs as a part
of the CEQA process. SB 97 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop, and
the Natural Resources Agency to adopt, amendments to the CEQA Guidelines addressing the analysis and
mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (CA Legislative Info, n.d.). Those CEQA Guidelines amendments
clarified several points, including the following:
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-14
• Lead agencies must analyze the GHG emissions of proposed projects, and must reach a conclusion
regarding the significance of those emissions. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4.)
• When a project’s GHG emissions may be significant, lead agencies must consider a range of potential
mitigation measures to reduce those emissions. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(c).)
• Lead agencies must analyze potentially significant impacts associated with placing projects in
hazardous locations, including locations potentially affected by climate change. (See CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.2(a).)
• Lead agencies may significantly streamline the analysis of GHGs on a project level by using a
programmatic GHG emissions reduction plan meeting certain criteria. (See CEQA Guidelines
Section 15183.5(b).)
• CEQA mandates analysis of a proposed project’s potential energy use (including transportation-related
energy), sources of energy supply, and ways to reduce energy demand, including through the use of
efficient transportation alternatives. (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F.)
The CEQA Guideline amendments do not identify a quantitative threshold of significance for GHG emissions,
nor do they prescribe assessment methodologies or specific mitigation measures. Instead, they call for a “good-
faith effort, based on available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas
emissions resulting from a project.” The amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in
performing a CEQA analysis and preserve lead agencies’ discretion to make their own determinations based
upon substantial evidence. The amendments also encourage public agencies to make use of programmatic
mitigation plans and programs from which to tier when they perform individual project analyses. The GHG
analysis thresholds incorporated into the CEQA Guidelines’ Environmental Checklist (Guidelines Appendix
G) are addressed in this EIR. The amendments to the CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 97 became effective
on March 18, 2010.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 was further amended in 2018 to assist agencies in determining the
significance of GHG emissions. This Section gives discretion to the lead agency whether to: (1) use a model
or methodology to quantify GHG emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use;
or (2) rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. CEQA does not provide guidance to
determine whether the project’s estimated GHG emissions are significant or cumulatively considerable.
11. Senate Bill 375
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Sustainable Communities Act, SB 375,
Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) supports the State's climate action goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable
communities (CARB, n.d.). Under the Sustainable Communities Act, CARB sets regional targets for GHG
emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. In 2010, CARB established these targets for 2020 and 2035
for each region covered by one of the State's metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). CARB will
periodically review and update the targets, as needed.
Each of California’s MPOs must prepare a "sustainable communities strategy" (SCS) as an integral part of its
regional transportation plan (RTP). The SCS contains land use, housing, and transportation strategies that, if
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-15
implemented, would allow the region to meet its GHG emission reduction targets. Once adopted by the MPO,
the RTP/SCS guides the transportation policies and investments for the region. CARB must review the adopted
SCS to confirm and accept the MPO's determination that the SCS, if implemented, would meet the regional
GHG targets. If the combination of measures in the SCS would not meet the regional targets, the MPO must
prepare a separate “alternative planning strategy" (APS) to meet the targets.
The Sustainable Communities Act also establishes incentives to encourage local governments and developers
to implement the SCS or the APS. Developers can get relief from certain environmental review requirements
under CEQA if their new residential and mixed-use projects are consistent with a region’s SCS (or APS) that
meets the targets (see Cal. Public Resources Code Sections 21155, 21155.1, 21155.2, 21159.28.).
12. Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-30-15, which sets a goal to reduce GHG
emissions in California to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (CA State Library, 2015). The 2030 target
serves as a benchmark goal on the way to achieving the GHG reductions goal set by Governor Schwarzenegger
via Executive Order S-3-05 (i.e., 80 percent below 1990 greenhouse gas emissions levels by 2050).
13. Senate Bill 32
On September 8, 2016, Governor Brown signed the Senate Bill (SB) 32. SB 32 requires the State to reduce
statewide GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced
in Executive Order B-30-15 (CA Legislative Info, n.d.). The new legislation builds upon the AB 32 goal of
1990 levels by 2020 and provides an intermediate goal to achieving S-3-05, which sets a statewide greenhouse
gas reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
D. Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Fontana’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is a plan that the City reviews, monitors, and
updates approximately every five years to reflect changing conditions and new information regarding hazards
faced by the City of Fontana. The most current version is dated June 2017 and was approved and adopted by
the Fontana City Council on August 14, 2018 (Fontana, 2018c). The LHMP addresses hazards associated with
earthquakes, wind surges, wildfire, landslides, floods, terrorism, climate change and droughts being significant
hazards to the City of Fontana. The LHMP includes mitigation measures to address climate change concerns
on a community-wide level. The LHMP mitigation measures include: continuing to construct parks, planting
street trees, continuing to work with Southern California Edison to promote energy conservation, and
continuing to work with local water department agencies to offer educational and water wise values.
2. City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1891
City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1891 amended the City’s Municipal Code to establish sustainability standards
applicable to industrial commerce center development projects that are intended to improve local air and
environmental quality. Standards required by Ordinance No. 1891 that would directly reduce local air
pollution and GHG emissions and minimize potential adverse effects to GCC include but are not limited to:
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-16
1) Restricting diesel truck idling to three (3) minutes or less; 2) Requiring motorized cargo-handling equipment
used at industrial commerce center sites to be zero emission; 3) Requiring buildings with more than 400,000
s.f. of building area to install rooftop solar panels that supply 100 percent of the power need of the non-
refrigerated building space; 4) Requiring the installation of electric plug-ins at all loading dock positions that
would be utilized by trucks fitted with transport refrigeration units (TRUs); 5) Requiring that five (5) percent
of passenger vehicle parking spaces are wired for electric vehicle charging and equipped with a Level 2
charging station and at least 10 percent of passenger vehicle spaces are “EV ready” for future expansion of
charging capabilities; and 6) Prohibiting the use of diesel-powered generators, except in case of emergency or
for temporary power during construction. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable
measures of Ordinance No. 1891. The City would ensure compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No.
1891 as part of their standard building permit review/approval and site inspection processes.
4.6.3 METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod, v2020.4.0, released on May 2021), developed by the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the SCAQMD and air
pollution control districts across the State, was used to quantify GHG emissions from Project-related
construction and operational activities (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 49). CalEEMod is the software analysis
tool recommended by SCAQMD for the quantification of GHG emissions associated with the construction and
operation of land development projects because it is the only software model maintained by CAPCOA and
incorporates locally-approved emission factors and methodologies for estimating pollutant emissions. Inputs
and outputs from the model runs for both Project-related construction and operational activities are provided
Appendices 3.1 through 3.3 of the Project’s GHGA (Technical Appendix I).
Although CalEEMod is a comprehensive analysis tool, CalEEMod is limited to quantifying GHG emissions
that are known as of the date of release of the model; therefore, there may be sources of GHG emissions that
are not known (or not quantifiable) at this time but may be measurable by the time the Project is constructed
and operational. Furthermore, CalEEMod relies on data published by the CARB and other data sources to be
representative of local/regional averages which may not be completely representative of the Project’s
construction and/or operational characteristics (and may slightly underestimate or overestimate the Project’s
emissions). Lastly, not all of the CalEEMod calculation data files are known or publicly available for review,
although it is reasonable to assume that the data contained in CalEEMod is accurate and grounded in science
because CalEEMod is developed by CAPCOA in collaboration with 35 local air pollution control districts.
A life-cycle analysis (LCA), which assesses economy-wide GHG emissions from construction (i.e., the
processes in manufacturing and transporting all raw materials used in the project development and
infrastructure) and operation, was not conducted for the Project due to the lack of scientific consensus on LCA
methodology. A LCA depends on emission factors or econometric factors that are not well established for all
processes as of the date the NOP for this EIR was published. Additionally, SCAQMD recommends analyzing
a project’s direct and indirect GHG emissions generated within California in-lieu of an LCA because a project’s
life-cycle effects could extend beyond California and these effects might not be well understood or well
documented and/or infeasible to mitigate. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, pp. 49-50)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-17
A. Methodology for Estimating Project-Related Construction Emissions
The Project’s construction-related GHG emissions were calculated using the same methodology, construction
schedule information, and equipment fleet information that were used to calculate construction-related criteria
air pollutant emissions, and as previously described in detail in EIR Subsection 4.2, Air Quality (Urban
Crossroads, 2022d, pp. 50-51). Refer to EIR Subsection 4.2 and the Project’s GHGA (see Technical Appendix
I) for a detailed description of the methodology used to calculate the Project’s construction GHG emissions.
In accordance with the SCAQMD recommendations, the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions were
quantified, amortized over a 30-year period, and then added to the sum of the Project’s annual operational
GHG emissions. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 51)
B. Methodology for Estimating Project-Related Operational Emissions
The Project’s operational GHG emissions were calculated using the same methodology that was used to
calculate operational criteria air pollutant emissions, and as previously described in detail in EIR Subsection
4.2, Air Quality (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, pp. 52-55). Refer to EIR Subsection 4.2 and the Project’s GHGA
(see Technical Appendix I) for a detailed description of the methodology used to calculate the Project’s
operational GHG emissions.
4.6.4 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. Neither the CEQA Statute nor the CEQA Guidelines prescribe
specific methodologies and significance criteria for determining the significance of GHG emissions impacts.
The CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate thresholds
consistent with the manner in which other impact categories are addressed by CEQA. CEQA case law has
upheld local agencies’ discretion to determine the significance of GHG emissions impacts. The Project would
result in a significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions if the Project or any Project-related component
would:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment; or
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases.
As part of the November, 30, 2015, decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (“Newhall Ranch”), the California Supreme Court outlined four potential pathways that
CEQA compliance documents could use to determine if GHG emissions from a specific project would be
significant under Threshold “a”:
1. Substantiation of Project Reductions from “Business as Usual” (BAU). A lead agency may use a BAU
comparison based on the CARB Scoping Plan’s methodology if it also substantiates the reduction a
particular project must achieve to comply with statewide goals. The Court suggested a lead agency
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-18
could examine the “data behind the Scoping Plan’s business-as-usual model” to determine the
necessary project level reductions from new land use development at the proposed location;
2. Compliance with Regulatory Programs or Performance-based Standards. A lead agency “might assess
consistency with AB 32’s goal in whole or part by looking to compliance with regulatory programs
designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from particular activities;
3. Compliance with GHG Reduction Plans or Climate Action Plans (CAPs). A lead agency may utilize
“geographically specific GHG emission reduction plans” such as climate action plans or greenhouse
gas emission reduction plans to provide a basis for the tiering or streamlining of project-level CEQA
analysis; or
4. Compliance with Local Air District Thresholds. A lead agency may rely on “existing numerical
thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions” adopted by, for example, local air districts.
The City of Fontana does not have an adopted threshold of significance for GHG emissions, but for CEQA
purposes, it has discretion to select an appropriate significance criterion, based on substantial evidence. To
provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA
documents, the SCAQMD Board adopted an Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e
emissions per year. The City has selected this value as a significance criterion which has been supported by
substantial evidence.
The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold is based on a 90 percent emission “capture” rate methodology. Prior to
its use by the SCAQMD, the 90 percent emissions capture approach was one of the options suggested by the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in their CEQA & Climate Change white
paper (2008). A 90 percent emission capture rate means that unmitigated GHG emissions from the top 90
percent of all GHG-producing projects within a geographic area – the SCAB in this instance – would be subject
to a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts from GHG emissions, while the bottom 10 percent of
all GHG-producing projects would be excluded from detailed analysis. A GHG significance threshold based
on a 90 percent emission capture rate is appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with
global climate change because medium and large projects will be required to implement measures to reduce
GHG emissions, while small projects, which are generally infill development projects that are not the focus of
the State’s GHG reduction targets, are allowed to proceed. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the
emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial proportion of future development projects and
demonstrate that cumulative emissions reductions are being achieved while setting the emission threshold high
enough to exclude small projects that will, in aggregate, contribute approximate 1 percent of projected
statewide GHG emissions in the Year 2050 (SCAQMD, 2008, p. 4).
In setting the threshold at 3,000 MTCO2e per year, SCAQMD researched a database of projects kept by the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That database contained 798 projects, 87 of which were
removed because they were very large projects and/or outliers that would skew emissions values too high,
leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th percentile capture rate. The SCAQMD
analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined commercial, residential, and mixed-use
projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects included warehouses and other light industrial land uses
but did not include industrial processes (i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing, electric generating stations,
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-19
mining operations, etc.). Emissions from each of these projects were calculated by SCAQMD to provide a
consistent method of emissions calculations across the sample population and from projects within the sample
population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD analysis determined that the 90th percentile ranged
between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e per year. The SCAQMD set their significance threshold at the low-end value
of the range when rounded to the nearest hundred tons of emissions (i.e., 3,000 MTCO2e per year) to define
small projects that are considered less than significant and do not need to provide further analysis.
The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was proposed by SCAQMD a decade ago and
was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has since been
adopted. The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert
agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (2008) document and subsequent Working Group meetings (latest of
which occurred in 2010). SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the interim threshold and all
documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that provides
guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD significance thresholds for
regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also are listed). Further, as stated by SCAQMD,
this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal [80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050] as the basis for
deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains valid for use in 2022 (SCAQMD, 2008, pp. 3-4). Lastly, this
threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of GHG analyses performed for projects located within
the SCAQMD jurisdiction.
Thus, for purposes of analysis in this EIR, if Project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e
per year threshold, then Project-related GHG emissions would clearly have a less-than-significant impact
pursuant to Threshold “a.” On the other hand, if Project-related GHG emissions exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per
year, the Project would be considered a substantial source of GHG emissions.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-20
4.6.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment?
The Project would result in emissions of 7,482.63 MTCO2e per year, as summarized in Table 4.6-4, Project
GHG Emissions. The GHG emissions from the Project would exceed the significance threshold of 3,000
MTCO2e per year and, thus, are considered a significant impact on the environment.
Table 4.6-4 Project GHG Emissions
Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions amortized over 30 years 34.14 4.23E-03 1.50E-03 34.70
Area Source 0.05 1.30E-04 0.00 0.05
Energy Source 1,596.25 0.10 0.02 1,604.86
Mobile Source 4,691.68 0.19 0.56 4,863.40
TRU Source 143.28
On-Site Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Waste 119.41 7.06 0.00 295.82
Water Usage 387.76 4.74 0.11 540.51
Total CO2e (All Sources) 7,482.63
CalEEMod output, See Appendix 3.1 and 3.3 of the Project’s GHGA for detailed model outputs. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 3-7)
Threshold b: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As demonstrated by the following analysis, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies,
and/or regulations adopted with the intent to reduce GHG emissions, including AB 32 and SB 32, SCAG’s
2016-2040 RTP/SCS, and the Title 24 CBSC, which are particularly applicable to the Project.
In April 2015, Governor signed EO B-30-15, which advocated for a statewide GHG-reduction target of 40
percent below year 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In September 2016,
Governor Brown signed SB 32, which formally established a statewide goal to reduce GHG emissions to 40
percent below year 1990 levels by 2030. To date, no statutes or regulations have been adopted to translate the
year 2050 GHG reduction goal into comparable, scientifically-based statewide emission reduction targets.
CARB prepared the 2017 Scoping Plan Update to identify the measures that would achieve the emissions
reductions goals of SB 32 (and, thus, also would achieve the emissions reductions goals of AB 32). Research
conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory confirmed that California, under its existing GHG
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-21
reduction policy framework (i.e., Scoping Plan Update), is on track to meet the year 2030 reduction targets
established by SB 32 (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 37). As explained in point-by-point detail in Table 3-9 of
the Project’s GHGA which is herein incorporated by reference and attached to this EIR as Technical Appendix
I, the Project would not conflict with applicable measures of the 2017 Scoping Plan Update and, therefore,
would not interfere with the State’s ability to achieve the year GHG-reduction targets established by AB 32
and SB 32. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, pp. 57-62)
Rendering a significance determination for year 2050 GHG emissions relative to EO B-30-15 would be
speculative because EO B-30-15 establishes a goal three decades into the future; no agency with GHG subject
matter expertise has adopted regulations to achieve these statewide goals at the project-level; and, available
analytical models cannot presently quantify all project-related emissions in those future years. Further, due to
the technological shifts anticipated and the unknown parameters of the regulatory framework in 2050, available
GHG models and the corresponding technical analyses are subject to limitations for purposes of quantitatively
estimating the Project’s emissions in 2050.
The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS was prepared to ensure that the SCAG region attains the per capita vehicle miles
targets for passenger vehicles identified by CARB (and, thus, meeting associated GHG emissions targets), as
required by Senate Bill 375. As explained in EIR Section 4.10, Transportation, the Project would not conflict
with applicable measures of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and, therefore, would not interfere with the region’s
ability to minimize GHG emissions from transportation sources.
The Project would provide for the construction and operation of a warehouse building that would include
contemporary, energy-efficient/energy-conserving design features and operational procedures. Warehouse
land uses are not inherently energy intensive and the total Project energy demands would be comparable to, or
less than, other goods movement projects of similar scale and configuration due to the Project’s modern
construction and requirement to be constructed in accordance with the most recent CBSC (Urban Crossroads,
2022d, pp. 40-43). The CBSC includes the California Energy Code, or Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code
of Regulations, also titled The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. The
California Energy Code was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's
energy consumption. The standards are updated approximately every three years to improve energy efficiency
by allowing incorporating new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Project would be required to
comply with all applicable provisions of the CBSC. As such, the Project’s energy demands would be
minimized through design features and operational programs that, in aggregate, would ensure that Project
energy efficiencies would comply with – or exceed – incumbent CBSC energy efficiency requirements, thereby
minimizing GHG emissions produced from energy consumption.
As described on the preceding pages, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the State’s ability
to achieve the State-wide GHG reduction mandates and would be consistent with applicable policies and plans
related to GHG emissions reductions. Implementation of the Project would not actively interfere with any
future federally-, State-, or locally-mandated retrofit obligations (such as requirements to use new technologies
such as diesel particulate filters, emissions upgrades to a higher tier equipment, etc.) enacted or promulgated
to legally require development projects to assist in meeting State-adopted GHG emissions reduction targets,
including those established under EO S-3-05, EO B-30-15, or SB 32. Therefore, the Project would not conflict
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-22
with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and
would result in a less-than-significant impact.
4.6.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
GCC occurs as the result of global emissions of GHGs. An individual development project does not have the
potential to result in direct and significant GCC-related effects in the absence of cumulative sources of GHGs.
The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed
in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impacts analysis (See CEQA Guidelines Section
15130[f]). Accordingly, the analysis provided in Subsection 4.6.5 reflects a cumulative impact analysis of the
effects related to the Project’s GHG emissions, which concludes that the Project would not conflict with
applicable GHG-reduction plans, policies, or regulations but would generate cumulatively-considerable GHG
emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment because the Project would exceed the City’s
GHG emissions threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year.
4.6.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Cumulatively Considerable Impact. The Project would exceed the City’s significance threshold
of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. As such, the Project would generate substantial, cumulatively-considerable GHG
emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Threshold b: Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not
conflict with, applicable regulations, policies, plans, and policy goals that would further reduce GHG
emissions.
4.6.8 MITIGATION
The Project will be required to implement design measures to maximize energy efficiency and reduce GHG
emissions as required by State law (for example, the use of energy efficient appliances as required by the
CBSC) and by local regulations (for example, the installation of rooftop solar panels, the installation of
electrical plug-ins for TRUs, the installation of electric vehicle charging stations, and limitations on diesel
vehicle idling, as required by Ordinance No. 1891). Although mandatory compliance with applicable State
and local regulations would reduce Project-related GHG emissions, these requirements would not substantially
reduce Project mobile source GHG emissions (i.e., emissions from construction equipment, passenger cars,
and heavy-duty trucks), which comprise approximately 66 percent of all Project-related GHG emissions.
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, the Project Applicant, and future Project
occupants. 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 that have a proportional nexus to the Project’s
level of impact.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.6-23
4.6.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold a: Significant Unavoidable Cumulatively-Considerable Impact. As noted above, a majority of the
Project’s GHG emissions would be produced by mobile sources. Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead
Agency (City of Fontana) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions
beyond federal and State regulations. Accordingly, the City finds that the Project’s GHG emissions are a
significant and unavoidable cumulatively-considerable impact for which no feasible mitigation is available.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-1
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The information and analysis presented in this Subsection is based in part on an environmental site
assessment (ESA) report prepared by Apex Companies (hereinafter, “Apex”) to determine the presence or
absence of hazardous materials on the Project Site under existing conditions. The technical report, titled
“Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update 2021, Cypress Avenue and Slover Avenue, Fontana,
California” and dated August 31, 2021, is included as Technical Appendix J to this EIR (Apex, 2021). This
Subsection also relies on information from the City of Fontana General Plan (Fontana, 2018a); the City of
Fontana General Plan EIR (Fontana, 2018b); Cal Fire (Cal Fire, 2008); and Google Earth (Google Earth,
2021). All references used in this Subsection are listed in EIR Section 7.0, References.
In this EIR, the term “toxic substance” is defined as a substance that, because of its quantity, concentration,
or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human
health or the environment. Toxic substances include chemical, biological, flammable, explosive, and
radioactive substances.
In this EIR, the term “hazardous material” is defined as a substance that, because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may: 1) pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, disposed of, or
otherwise mismanaged; or 2) cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in irreversible or
incapacitating illness.
Hazardous waste is defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66261.3. The defining
characteristics of hazardous waste are: ignitability (oxidizers, compressed gases, and extremely flammable
liquids and solids), corrosivity (strong acids and bases), reactivity (explosives or generates toxic fumes when
exposed to air or water), and toxicity (materials listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]
as capable of inducing systemic damage to humans or animals). Certain wastes are called “Listed Wastes”
and are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.30 through 66261.35. Wastes
appear on the lists because of their known hazardous nature or because the processes that generate them are
known to produce hazardous wastes (which are often complex mixtures).
4.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Under existing conditions, the Project Site contains a mixture of residential, light industrial, and vacant land
uses. Specifically, the northwest portion of the Project Site, north of existing Boyle Avenue, contains several
existing residential structures, a mobile home, several sheds, and truck trailer parking areas. The
northeastern portion of the Project Site, north of existing Boyle Avenue, includes light industrial businesses,
as well as storage yards for construction equipment and parking areas for truck trailers, and vacant land. The
northeastern portion of the Project Site abutting Cypress Avenue is vacant and contains a manufactured slope
that supports the Cypress Avenue overpass. To the south of existing Boyle Avenue in the western portion of
the Site are several existing residential structures. The southwest portion of the Project Site is vacant land
that appears to have been heavily disturbed as part of past residential development on the Project Site.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-2
A. Historical Review, Regulatory Records Review, and Field Reconnaissance
1. Historical Review
Apex reviewed various sources of information to determine the historical uses of the Project Site, including
prior environmental site assessments (ESAs) for the subject property, historical aerial photographs, historical
topographic maps, Environmental Data Resources (EDR) collection of regulatory database records, city
directories, historical site occupants, and historical site ownership records. Refer to Technical Appendix J of
this EIR for more detailed information from the historical review.
The portion of the Project Site located north of existing Boyle Avenue was used for agriculture (orchards)
and residential uses beginning sometime between the early 1900s and the 1930s, except for the northeast
corner of the Site which was vacant. By the 1950s, the orchards were cleared from several parcels in the
northeast corner of the Site and replaced with a barn (possibly a commercial chicken house) abutting the
existing alignment of Cypress Avenue. The northern portion of the Project Site was mostly unchanged until
the mid-1990s/early-2000s when the parcels north of Boyle Avenue, except for the parcels abutting Oleander
Avenue, were cleared and used for industrial land uses (a trucking business, trailer parking, and a
construction company).
The portion of the Project Site located south of existing Boyle Avenue was used for agriculture (orchards)
and residential uses beginning sometime between the early 1900s and the 1930s, except for the southeast
corner of the Site which was vacant. These uses continued until the 1950s, when several residences and
commercial chicken houses were constructed on the portions of the Project Site abutting the existing
alignment of Slover Avenue. The chicken houses were removed from the southwestern portion of the
Project Site by 1975 and were removed from the southeastern portion of the Project Site by the early 2000s.
Following the removal of the chicken houses on the southern portion of the Project Site, these areas were
used for industrial purposes (a trucking business, trailer parking, and a recycling business).
2. Regulatory Records Review
Apex researched federal, State, and local environmental records databases to identify properties on or
adjacent to the Project Site with reported environmental issues. A summary of the research results is
provided below; detailed information is provided in the Project’s ESA (refer to Technical Appendix J).
The address of 16470 Slover Avenue, located in the southeastern portion of the Project Site, is listed on
seven (7) environmental records databases related to the former operation of a materials recycling business.
The listings include: 1) San Bernardino County Permit database for operation as a special waste handler and
generator; 2) California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) database for construction and operation
of a stormwater control system; 3) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act NonGen/No Longer Regulated
(RCRA/NLR) database for operation as a special waste handler and generator; 4) Facility Index System
(FINDS) database as a special waste handler and generator; 5) Enforcement and Compliance History Online
(ECHO) database as a special waste handler and generator; and 6) HAZNET database for handling of waste
oil and mixed oil, and recovery of reclamation of reuse including acid regeneration and organics recovery;
and 7) Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS) database for handling of waste oil and mixed oil, and
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-3
recovery of reclamation of reuse including acid regeneration and organics recovery. No spills or releases of
hazardous materials were noted in the environmental records databases (Apex, 2021, pp. 6-7).
The address of 16357 Boyle Avenue, located in the central-northern portion of the Project Site, was listed on
one (1) environmental records database related to the former operation of a trucking/transport company. The
listing is: 1) San Bernardino County Permit database for operation as a special waste handler and generator.
No spills or releases of hazardous materials were noted in the environmental records databases (Apex, 2021,
pp. 6-7).
The address of 16368 Boyle Avenue, located in the central-northern portion of the Project Site, was listed on
two (2) environmental records databases related to the former operation of a trucking/transport company.
The listings include: 1) San Bernardino County Permit database for operation as a special waste handler and
generator; and 2) FINDS database for operation as a special waste handler and generator. No spills or
releases of hazardous materials were noted in the environmental records databases (Apex, 2021, pp. 6-7).
The address of 16398 Boyle Avenue, located in the central-northern portion of the Project Site, was listed on
one (1) environmental records database related to the former operation of a construction company. The
listing is: 1) RCRA/NLR database for operation as a special waste handler and generator. No spills or
releases of hazardous materials were noted in the environmental records databases (Apex, 2021, pp. 6-7).
Properties in the general vicinity of the Project Site are included on environmental records databases due to
the use and storage of hazardous materials on these properties, potential contamination concerns (e.g.,
leaking storage tanks), and soil contamination. A detailed description of the environmental record review
results in included in Technical Appendix J. Apex reviewed the environmental records listings for these
properties, including documentation related to completed remediation activities, and determined that the
historic use and storage of hazardous materials on properties in proximity of the Project Site were unlikely to
affect the soil and groundwater conditions at the Project Site due to their distance from and orientation to the
Site (Apex, 2021, p. 7).
3. Field Reconnaissance
Apex conducted an inspection of the Project Site and immediately abutting area on July 19, 2021. At 10349
Oleander Avenue (a residential property), Apex observed two plastic aboveground storage tanks (ASTs)
totes containing unknown substances outside a garage and, also, observed various retail-sized containers of
petroleum products and cleaners within the garage and storage sheds on the property. The AST totes and all
containers were observed in good condition with no evidence of leaks or staining. (Apex, 2021, p. 3)
At 16398 Boyle Avenue (occupied at the time by Ohno Construction), Apex observed three 55-gallon drums
of engine oil, one 55-gallon drum of grease, one 55-gallon drum of waste oil filters, one 55-gallon drum of
hydraulic oil, one 55- gallon drum of waste oil, one 55-gallon drum of antifreeze, several five-gallon
containers of gasoline, and five oxygen cylinders, all stored within a garage. Minor concrete staining was
observed in the vicinity of these containers; however, the concrete was observed to be in good condition.
Additionally, two 55-gallon drums of engine oil, one 55-gallon drum of waste oil, propane cylinders, and one
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-4
plastic AST tote containing unknown petroleum products were observed outside of the garage. Minor
concrete staining was observed in the vicinity of the drums; however, the concrete was observed to be in
good condition. Apex also observed various retail-sized containers of petroleum products and cleaners
throughout the property. All containers were observed to be in good condition with no evidence of leaks or
staining.
Apex observed minor staining at the 16434 and 16464 Boyle Avenue properties from former truck storage
activities. Apex considered the staining to be de minimis. No evidence of underground storage tanks,
unusual odors, water wells, stressed vegetation, ponds, or lagoons were found on the Project Site. Septic
tanks were observed at the 16326, 16398, 16434, and 16464 Boyle Avenue properties; however, details
regarding the status of these septic tanks were not available. Finally, Apex observed pole mounted
transformers along the existing Boyle Avenue segment that bisects the Project Site. All transformers were
observed in good condition with no evidence of leaks or staining. (Apex, 2021, pp. 3-4)
Based on the preceding, Apex did not identify recognized environmental conditions associated with the
Project Site during the field reconnaissance (Apex, 2021, p. 4).
B. Airport Hazards
The Project Site is located approximately 7.6 miles east of the Ontario International Airport (ONT). Under
existing conditions, the Project Site is exposed to noise from overflight of aircraft.
C. Wildland Fire Hazards
The Project Site is located in a portion of the City of Fontana that is not located adjacent to any wildlands.
The Fontana General Plan designated the Project Site and its surrounding area as being subject to “little or no
threat” from wildland fires (Fontana, 2018b, p. 11-4). According to the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), the Project Site is located within a non-very high fire hazard severity zone
(Cal Fire, 2008).
4.7.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are regulated by various federal, State, and local regulations to
protect public health and the environment. This section summarizes the overall regulatory framework
governing hazardous materials management that is applicable to the Project and the Project Site.
A. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as CERCLA or
Superfund, provides a Federal "Superfund" to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous-waste sites as
well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment
(EPA, 2021a). Through CERCLA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given power to seek
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-5
out those parties responsible for any release and assure their cooperation in the cleanup. EPA cleans up
orphan sites when potentially responsible parties cannot be identified or located, or when they fail to act.
Through various enforcement tools, EPA obtains private party cleanup through orders, consent decrees, and
other small party settlements. EPA also recovers costs from financially viable individuals and companies
once a response action has been completed.
EPA is authorized to implement the Act in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Superfund site identification,
monitoring, and response activities in states are coordinated through the state environmental protection or
waste management agencies.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 reauthorized CERCLA to continue
cleanup activities around the country. Several site-specific amendments, definitions clarifications, and
technical requirements were added to the legislation, including additional enforcement authorities. Also,
Title III of SARA authorized the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste
from the "cradle-to-grave;" this includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste (EPA, 2021b). RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous
solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could
result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances.
The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that
focused on waste minimization and phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste as well as corrective action
for releases. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement authority for EPA, more
stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.
3. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA)
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (HMTA) empowered the Secretary of Transportation to
designate as hazardous material any "particular quantity or form" of a material that "may pose an
unreasonable risk to health and safety or property." (OSHA, n.d.)
Hazardous materials regulations are subdivided by function into four basic areas:
• Procedures and/or Policies 49 CFR Parts 101, 106, and 107
• Material Designations 49 CFR Part 172
• Packaging Requirements 49 CFR Parts 173, 178, 179, and 180
• Operational Rules 49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, and 177
The HMTA is enforced by use of compliance orders [49 U.S.C. 1808(a)], civil penalties [49 U.S.C. 1809(b)],
and injunctive relief (49 U.S.C. 1810). The HMTA (Section 112, 40 U.S.C. 1811) preempts state and local
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-6
governmental requirements that are inconsistent with the statute, unless that requirement affords an equal or
greater level of protection to the public than the HMTA requirement.
4. Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990
In 1990, Congress enacted the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act (HMTUSA) to
clarify the maze of conflicting state, local, and federal regulations. Like the HMTA, the HMTUSA requires
the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations for the safe transport of hazardous material in
intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce (OSHA, n.d.). The Secretary also retains authority to designate
materials as hazardous when they pose unreasonable risks to health, safety, or property.
The statute includes provisions to encourage uniformity among different state and local highway routing
regulations, to develop criteria for the issuance of federal permits to motor carriers of hazardous materials,
and to regulate the transport of radioactive materials.
5. Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
Congress passed the Occupational and Safety Health Act (OSHA) to ensure worker and workplace safety.
Their goal was to make sure employers provide their workers a place of employment free from recognized
hazards to safety and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical
dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions (EPA, 2021c). In order to establish standards for
workplace health and safety, the Act also created the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) as the research institution for OSHA. OSHA is a division of the U.S. Department of Labor that
oversees the administration of the Act and enforces standards in all 50 states.
6. Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides EPA with authority to require reporting, record-
keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures (EPA,
2021d). Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs,
cosmetics, and pesticides. TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific
chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint.
Various sections of TSCA provide authority to:
• Require, under Section 5, pre-manufacture notification for "new chemical substances" before
manufacture
• Require, under Section 4, testing of chemicals by manufacturers, importers, and processors where
risks or exposures of concern are found
• Issue Significant New Use Rules (SNURs), under Section 5, when it identifies a "significant new
use" that could result in exposures to, or releases of, a substance of concern.
• Maintain the TSCA Inventory, under Section 8, which contains more than 83,000 chemicals. As new
chemicals are commercially manufactured or imported, they are placed on the list.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-7
• Require those importing or exporting chemicals, under Sections 12(b) and 13, to comply with
certification reporting and/or other requirements.
• Require, under Section 8, reporting and record-keeping by persons who manufacture, import,
process, and/or distribute chemical substances in commerce.
• Require, under Section 8(e), that any person who manufactures (including imports), processes, or
distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which
reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury
to health or the environment to immediately inform EPA, except where EPA has been adequately
informed of such information. EPA screens all submissions as well as voluntary "For Your
Information" (FYI) submissions. The latter are not required by law, but are submitted by industry and
public interest groups for a variety of reasons.
B. State Regulations
1. Cal/OSHA and the California State Plan
Under an agreement with OSHA, since 1973 California has operated an occupational safety and health
program in accordance with Section 18 of the federal OSHA (OSHA, n.d.). The State of California’s
Department of Industrial Relations administers the California Occupational Safety and Health Program,
commonly referred to as Cal/OSHA. The State of California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health
(DOSH) is the principal agency that oversees plan enforcement and consultation. In addition, the California
State program has an independent Standards Board responsible for promulgating State safety and health
standards, and reviewing variances. It also has an Appeals Board to adjudicate contested citations and the
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to investigate complaints of discriminatory retaliation in the
workplace.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1952.172, the California State Plan applies to all public and private sector places of
employment in the state, with the exception of federal employees, the United States Postal Service, private
sector employers on Native American lands, maritime activities on the navigable waterways of the United
States, private contractors working on land designated as exclusively under federal jurisdiction and
employers that require federal security clearances. Cal/OSHA is the only agency in the state authorized to
adopt, amend, or repeal occupational safety and health standards or orders. In addition, the Standards Board
maintains standards for certain things not covered by federal standards or enforcement, including: elevators,
aerial passenger tramways, amusement rides, pressure vessels and mine safety training. The Cal/OSHA
enforcement unit conducts inspections of California workplaces in response to a report of an industrial
accident, a complaint about an occupational safety and health hazard, or as part of an inspection program
targeting industries with high rates of occupational hazards, fatalities, injuries or illnesses.
2. California Hazardous Waste Control Law
The Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) (Health and Safety Code [HSC], Division 20, Chapter 6.5,
Section 25100, et seq.) is the primary hazardous waste statute in California (CA Legislative Info, n.d.). The
HWCL implements RCRA as a “cradle-to-grave” waste management system in the state. It specifies that
generators have the primary duty to determine whether their wastes are hazardous and to ensure its proper
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-8
management. The HWCL also establishes criteria for the reuse and recycling of hazardous wastes used or
reuse as raw materials. The HWCL exceeds federal requirements by mandating source reduction planning
and broadening requirements for permitting facilities that treat hazardous waste. It also regulates a number
of waste types and waste management activities not covered by federal law (RCRA).
3. California Code of Regulations (CCR), Titles 5, 17, 22 and 26
A variety of California Code of Regulation (CCR) titles address regulations and requirements for generators
of hazardous waste. Title 5 contains the California Plumbing Code which, in Appendix H, establishes
detailed standards for the capping, removal, fill, and disposal of cesspools, septic tanks, and seepage pits.
Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 8, defines and regulates handling and disposal of lead-based paint. Any
detectable amount of lead is regulated. Title 22 contains detailed compliance requirements for hazardous
waste generators, transporters, and facilities for treatment, storage, and disposal. Because California is a
fully-authorized state according to RCRA, most regulations (i.e., 40 CFR 260, et seq.) have been duplicated
and integrated into Title 22. However, because the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
regulates hazardous waste more stringently than the EPA, the integration of state and federal hazardous
waste regulations that make up Title 22 does not contain as many exemptions or exclusions as does 40 CFR
260. Title 22 also regulates a wider range of waste types and waste management activities than does RCRA.
To aid the regulated community, California has compiled hazardous materials, waste, and toxics-related
regulations from CCR, Titles 3, 8, 13, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 27 into one consolidated listing: CCR Title 26
(Toxics).
4. Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program
California’s Unified Program, overseen by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA),
protect Californians from hazardous waste and hazardous materials by ensuring local regulatory agencies
consistently apply statewide standards when they issue permits, conduct inspections, and engage in
enforcement activities. The Unified Program is a consolidation of multiple environmental and emergency
management programs, including the following:
• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) Program;
• Area Plans for Hazardous Materials Emergencies;
• California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program;
• Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans);
• Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statements
(HMIS) (California Code)
• Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) Programs;
and
• Underground Storage Tank Program.
State agency partners involved in the implementation of the Unified Program are responsible for setting
program element standards, working with CalEPA to ensure program consistency, and providing technical
assistance to the California Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs) and Program Agencies (PAs). The state
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-9
agencies involved with the Unified Program include CalEPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC), the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), CAL FIRE – Office of the State Fire
Marshall (CAL FIRE-OSFM), and the State Water Resources Control Board.
5. License to Transport Hazardous Materials
Caltrans regulates hazardous materials transportation on all interstate roads (California Vehicle Code,
Section 32000.5, et seq). Within California, the State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing
federal and State regulations and for responding to transportation emergencies are the California Highway
Patrol and Caltrans. Together, federal and State agencies determine driver-training requirements, load
labeling procedures, and container specifications for vehicles transporting hazardous materials.
6. California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory Law of 1985
The Business Plan Act requires preparation of Hazardous Materials Business Plans and disclosure of
hazardous materials inventories, including an inventory of hazardous materials handled, plans showing
where hazardous materials are stored, an emergency response plan, and provisions for employee training in
safety and emergency response procedures for businesses that handle, store, or transport hazardous materials
in amounts exceeding specified minimums (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95,
Article 1). Statewide, DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility for management of hazardous materials,
with delegation of authority to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements with the State. Local agencies
are responsible for administering these regulations.
Several state agencies regulate the transportation and use of hazardous materials to minimize potential risks
to public health and safety, including CalEPA and the California Emergency Management Agency. The
California Highway Patrol and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) enforce regulations
specifically related to the transport of hazardous materials. Together, these agencies determine container
types used and license hazardous waste haulers for hazardous waste transportation on public roadways.
7. Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8: Accreditation,
Certification and Work Practices for Lead‐Based Paint and Lead Hazards
Title 17 requires that work on any structure built before January 1, 1978 must use lead-safe work practices
including containment and clean the work area after the project is completed. The revised state law went into
effect on April 30, 2008 and applies to everyone including contractors, painters, homeowners, renters, and
maintenance staff. The regulations also cover accreditation of training providers and certification of
individuals to perform lead abatement and sets work practice standards for lead hazard evaluations and the
abatement of lead hazards. Title 17 implements the mandates of the California Health and Safety Code
regarding lead-based paint and lead hazards.
8. California Government Code (CGC) Section 51178
This section specifies that the Director of CalFire, in cooperation with local fire authorities, shall identify
areas that are Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) in Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs),
based on consistent statewide criteria, and the expected severity of fire hazard. Per CGC Section 51178, a
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-10
local agency may, at its discretion, exclude an area within its jurisdiction that has been identified as a
VHFHSZ, if certain conditions are met and/or specific findings can be made regarding the availability of
effective fire protection services within the affected area.
C. Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Local Permitting Requirements
The aforementioned federal and State hazardous materials regulations require all businesses that handle more
than a specified amount of hazardous materials or extremely hazardous materials to obtain a hazardous
materials permit and submit a business plan to its local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The
CUPA also ensures local compliance with all applicable hazardous materials regulations. The CUPA for the
Project is the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division. The San Bernardino
County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division also manages the following hazardous waste
programs: 1) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory; 2) California Accidental Release
Program; 3) Underground Storage Tanks; 4) Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act/Spill Prevention, Control,
and Countermeasure Plan; 5) Hazardous Waste Generation and Onsite Treatment; and 6) Hazardous
Materials Management Plans and Inventory.
2. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Fontana’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is a plan that the City reviews, monitors, and
updates approximately every five years to reflect changing conditions and new information regarding
hazards faced by the City of Fontana. The most current version is dated June 2017 and was approved and
adopted by the Fontana City Council on August 14, 2018 (Fontana, 2018c). The LHMP addresses hazards
associated with earthquakes, wind surges, wildfire, landslides, floods, terrorism, climate change and droughts
being significant hazards to the City of Fontana. The LHMP includes mitigation measures to address
wildfire concerns on a community-wide level. The LHMP mitigation measures include: improvement of
public education programs, maintaining and improving access to fire prone areas, continuing weed
abatement and fuel management in open space areas and urban/wildland interface areas, and
repairing/replanting vegetation on slopes after fire to minimize landslide risk.
3. Ontario International Airport – Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Ontario International Airport (ONT) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) establishes safety
zones, airspace protection zones, noise impact zones, and recorded overflight notification zones for areas
within the ONT. Although the Project Site is located approximately 7.6 miles east of the nearest runway at
the ONT, the Site is within the airport influence area (AIA) for the ONT and subject to compatibility with the
ONT ALUCP.
The Project Site is not located within any ONT Safety Zone or Airspace Protection Zone, and is located
outside of areas subject to airport-related noise that exceeds 60 dB CNEL. The Project Site is located within
an area where the ONT ALUCP does not impose any land use or design restrictions and buildings are
permitted to exceed heights of 200 feet (subject to compliance with local zoning ordinances). (Ontario, 2011,
Policy Maps 2-1 through 2-5)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-11
4. SCAQMD Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities
Rule 1403 requires the implementation of specific work practices to limit asbestos emissions from building
demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing
materials (ACM) (SCAQMD, 2007). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include
asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean-up
procedures, and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste materials
(ACWM).
4.7.3 METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS
The analysis of potential hazards and hazardous materials-related impacts is based upon hazardous materials
investigations prepared specifically for the Project Site. The investigations included a site reconnaissance,
review of published reports, maps, and aerial photographs, and field investigations. The analysis also
included a review of the City’s General Plan, information sources from State and Federal agencies, a review
of applicable airport land use plans, hazardous materials mapping, fire hazard mapping, and other resource
databases.
4.7.4 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
hazards and hazardous materials that could result from development projects. The Project would result in a
significant impact to hazards and hazardous materials if the Project or any Project-related component would:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials;
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment;
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area;
f. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan; or
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-12
4.7.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Threshold b: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Implementation of the Project would require demolition and removal of all existing structures,
improvements, and solid waste from the Project Site and would result in the construction and long-term
operation of an industrial warehouse building on the Site. In the event any hazards or hazardous materials
were to be present on the Project Site or any hazardous materials were to be used or stored on the Project Site
during construction or long-term operation, the Project would have the potential to expose workers on-site,
the public, and/or the environment to a substantial hazard. The analysis below evaluates the potential for the
Project to result in a substantial hazard to people or the environment during any stage of the Project.
A. Impact Analysis for Existing Site Conditions
As discussed in subsection 4.7.1, no RECs were identified on the Project Site. The Project’s ESA did
identify several environmental issues associated with the property, which do not qualify as RECs but warrant
further discussion.
1. Septic Systems
Septic tanks were observed at the 16326, 16398, 16434, and 16464 Boyle Avenue properties. Septic systems
occurring on-site would be required to be removed, handled, and disposed of in accordance with all
applicable local and State regulations, including but not limited to the CCR Title 5, Appendix H.
Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not expose the public or the environment to significant
hazards associated with the removal and disposal of the on-site septic systems from the Project Site; impacts
would be less than significant.
2. Storage Tanks
Storage tanks (i.e., AST totes and 55-gallons drums) holding petroleum products were observed at the 10349
Oleander Avenue and 16398 Boyle Avenue properties. Minor concrete staining was observed in the vicinity
of the tanks; however, the concrete was observed to be in good condition and no unusual odors or stressed
vegetation was observed on the Project Site. Accordingly, the presence and removal of the storage tanks is
not presumed to create a negative adverse effect to the environment. The Project’s construction contractor
would be required to remove, handle, and dispose of the storage tanks under the oversight of the San
Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division and in accordance with its
requirements/regulations (as discussed under subsection 4.7.2.A.3). Accordingly, implementation of the
Project would not expose the public or the environment to significant hazards associated with the removal
and disposal of the storage tanks found on the Project Site. Impacts would be less than significant.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-13
3. Building Materials
Due to the age of the buildings present in the western and northern portions of the Project Site, there is a
potential that the existing buildings may contain Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs) and/or Lead-Based
Paints (LBPs). The use of ACMs (a known carcinogen) and lead paint (a known toxin) was common in
building construction prior to 1978. Because the Project Site contains structures known to be constructed
before 1978, there is the potential that ACMs and/or lead paint is present on the Project Site.
Asbestos is a carcinogen and is categorized as a hazardous air pollutant by the federal EPA. Federal asbestos
requirements are found in National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) within the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 61, Subpart M, and are enforced in the Project area by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) via Rule 1403. Rule 1403 establishes survey
requirements, notification, and work practice requirements to prevent asbestos emissions from emanating
during building renovation and demolition activities. Assuming that ACMs are present in the existing
construction debris and/or structures located on the property, Rule 1403 requires notification of the
SCAQMD prior to commencing any demolition or renovation activities. Rule 1403 also sets forth specific
procedures for the removal of asbestos, and requires that an on-site representative trained in the requirements
of Rule 1403 be present during the stripping, removing, handling, or disturbing of ACM. Mandatory
compliance with the provisions of Rule 1403 would ensure that construction-related grading, clearing, and
demolition activities do not expose construction workers or nearby sensitive receptors to significant health
risks associated with ACMs. Because the Project’s demolition and construction contractors would be
required to comply with AQMD Rule 1403 during demolition activities, impacts due to asbestos would be
less than significant.
During demolition of the existing buildings on-site, there also is a potential to expose construction workers to
health hazards associated with LBPs. The Project’s demolition and construction contractors would be
required to comply with CCR Title 17 (Division 1, Chapter 8), which includes requirements such as
employer provided training, air monitoring, protective clothing, respirators, and hand washing facilities.
Mandatory compliance with these regulations would ensure that construction workers and the public are not
exposed to significant health hazards associated with LBPs during demolition and/or during transport of
demolition waste to an appropriate disposal facility, and would ensure that impacts related to LBP remain
less than significant.
B. Impact Analysis for Temporary Construction-Related Activities
Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would be operated on the Project Site during
construction. This heavy equipment likely would be fueled and maintained by petroleum‐based substances
such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which are considered hazardous if improperly stored or
handled. In addition, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in
building construction would be located on the Project Site during construction. Improper use, storage, or
transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks
to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would
be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the Project than would
occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-14
applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of
hazardous construction‐related materials, including but not limited to requirements imposed by the EPA,
DTSC, and the Santa Ana RWQCB. Upon mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials
regulations, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase. A less-than-significant
impact would occur.
Although impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with the regulations cited above,
Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.7-1 is specified herein to ensure regulatory compliance, which requires the
Project Applicant to conduct soil testing in the event that any unidentified subsurface feature, oil, or
chemical-stained concrete is discovered during grading and removal/remediation actions (if deemed
hazardous). Impacts would remain less than significant.
C. Impact Analysis for Long-Term Operation
The Project Site would be developed with an industrial warehouse building; the future building user(s) are
not yet identified. Hazardous materials storage is not expected to occur within the building or on the Project
Site; however, the future user(s) of the Project could use hazardous chemicals and/or materials could be
utilized during routine Project operations and maintenance, including but not limited to aerosols, cleaners,
fertilizers, lubricants, paints or stains, solvents, and fuels (e.g., gasoline, propane). State and federal
Community-Right-to-Know laws allow the public access to information about the amounts and types of
chemicals in use at local businesses. Laws also are in place that require businesses to plan and prepare for
possible chemical emergencies. Any business that occupies the warehouse building on the Project Site and
that handles hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division
20, Chapter 6.95) will require a permit from the San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous
Materials Division in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are
required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law,
which requires immediate reporting to the County of San Bernardino Fire Department and the State Office of
Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the
amount handled by the business, and to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP).
An HMBEP is a written set of procedures and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of
a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project
would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for
accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Based on
the foregoing information, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the
Project are regarded as less than significant.
Threshold c: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The Project Site is located approximately 0.14-mile northeast of Jurupa Hills High School, located at 10700
Oleander Avenue (Google Earth, 2021). Accordingly, the Project has the potential to emit hazardous
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-15
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, and/or wastes within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school.
As described above under the analysis for Thresholds “a” and “b,” the use of and transport of hazardous
substances or materials to-and-from the Project Site during construction and long-term operational activities
would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations that would preclude
substantial public safety hazards. Accordingly, there would be no potential for existing or proposed schools
to be exposed to substantial safety hazards associated with emission, handling of, or the routine transport of
hazardous substances or materials to-and-from the Project Site and impacts would be less than significant.
Although impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with applicable federal, State, and local
regulations, MM 4.7-2 is specified herein to ensure regulatory compliance, which requires the Project
Applicant to provide a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP) (if required by law) to the
Superintendent’s Office and Facilities Office of the Fontana Unified School District as well as the Principal
of Jurupa Hills High School. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant.
Refer to EIR Subsection 4.1, Air Quality, for analysis pertaining to human health risks associated with air
pollutant emissions associated with the Project, including risks to school child receptors at Jurupa Hills High
School. As disclosed in EIR Subsection 4.1, the Project’s toxic air contaminant emissions (and their
associated health risks) would be less than significant.
Threshold d: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires DTSC, the State Department of Health Services, State Water
Resources Control Board, and the State Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to maintain a list
of hazardous materials sites that fall within specific, defined categories. Although the Project Site is
included on several hazardous materials databases (refer to Subsection 4.8.1A.2), none of the databases
where the Project Site is listed fall within the categories regulated by Government Code Section 65962.5.
No impact would occur.
Threshold e: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
As previously described, the Project Site is not located within any ONT Safety Zone or Airspace Protection
Zone and the ONT does not impose any land use restriction on the Project Site or design restrictions on the
Project. The Project would not interfere with flight operations at the ONT because the building proposed by
the Project would be no greater than 50 feet tall and the Project does not include an air travel component
(e.g., runway, helipad). Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in a safety hazard for
people living or working in the Project area and impacts would be less than significant.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-16
Additionally, the Project Site is located outside of the 60 dB CNEL noise contour for the ONT. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) considers noise levels 65 dB CNEL and below to be acceptable for all land
uses; therefore, the Project would not expose future employees on the Site to excessive noise levels (Fontana,
2018a, p. 11-9). Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold f: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Project Site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation
route (Fontana, 2018a; Fontana, 2018b). As part of the City’s discretionary review process, the City
reviewed the Project’s application materials to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would
be available to-and-from the Project Site and that Project operation would not substantially impede
emergency response times in the local area. During construction, all materials and equipment would be
stored/staged on the Project Site and would not interfere with emergency vehicles traveling along Slover
Avenue, Oleander Avenue, or Cypress Avenue. Limited Project construction activities would occur within
the Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue public rights-of-way; however, for any work within the right-of-
way that requires a partial or full closure of a sidewalk or vehicle travel lane, the construction contractor
would be required to implement a traffic control plan that complies with the California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices and must be approved by the City to ensure that emergency response is not adversely
affected. During construction and long-term operation, the proposed Project would be required to maintain
adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not
impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan, and no impact would occur.
Threshold g: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires.
The Project Site is not located adjacent to wildlands nor is the Project Site located within or adjacent to a
very high fire hazard severity zone (Fontana, 2018a, p. 11-4; Cal Fire, 2008; Google Earth, 2021).
Accordingly, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires. No impact would occur.
4.7.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Because the issue of hazards and hazardous materials tend to be site-specific in nature, the cumulative study
area includes existing and planned developments within a one-mile radius of each Project Site. A one-mile
radius is appropriate because that is the standard distance used in regulatory database searches of properties
that may generate or store toxic materials.
As discussed above under the responses to Thresholds “a” and “b,” the Project’s construction and operation
would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure proper use,
storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Such uses also would be subject to additional review and
permitting requirements by the San Bernardino County Fire Department. Similarly, any other developments
in the area proposing the construction of uses with the potential for use, storage, or transport of hazardous
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-17
materials also would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, and such
uses would be subject to additional review and permits from their local oversight agency. Therefore, the
potential for release of toxic substances or hazardous materials into the environment, either through accidents
or due to routine transport, use, or disposal of such materials, would be reduced to a less-than-cumulatively-
significant level.
The Project Site is located within one-quarter mile of Jurupa Hills High School. There are several
cumulative development projects within one-quarter mile of Jurupa Hills High School listed in Table 4.0-1.
All cumulative development Projects would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local
regulations related to the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. Compliance with these
regulations would ensure the safe handling of hazardous materials, including the appropriate response and
clean-up in the event of an accident, to preclude substantial health and safety hazards to students at Jurupa
Hills High School. Potential cumulative impacts to students at Jurupa Hills High School related to the use,
handling, and transport of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
The Project Site is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5; therefore, the Project has no potential to contribute to substantial, cumulative effects
related to the development or re-development of contaminated property.
As discussed above under the response to Threshold “e,” the Project is not a noise-sensitive land use and
would not be adversely affected by noise from operations at the ONT. In addition, the Project would not
introduce any land use to the Project Site that would conflict with the ONT ALUCP. Therefore, the Project
would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area and
would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact associated with airport hazards.
The Project Site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation
route; thus, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
As discussed above under Threshold “g,” the Project Site is not located within or in close proximity to areas
identified as being subject to wildland fire hazards and would have no potential to contribute to adverse,
cumulative wildland fire hazards.
4.7.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Thresholds a and b: Less-than-Significant Impact. During Project construction and operation, mandatory
compliance with federal, State, and local regulations would ensure that the Project would not create a
significant hazard to the environment due to routine transport, use, disposal, or upset of hazardous materials.
Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within one-quarter mile of Jurupa
Hills High School; however, the Project would comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations
related to the handling, storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials to ensure that students at Jurupa
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-18
Hills High School are not exposed to substantial hazardous emissions or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste.
Threshold d: No Impact. The Project Site is not located on any list of hazardous materials sites complied
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Threshold e: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project is consistent with the restrictions and requirements
of the ONT ALUCP. As such, the Project would not result in an airport safety hazard for people residing or
working in the Project area.
Threshold f: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project Site does not contain any emergency facilities nor
does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation, adequate
emergency vehicle access is required to be provided. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not
impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan.
Threshold g: No Impact. The Project Site is not located in close proximity to wildlands or areas with high
fire hazards. Thus, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant wildfire risk.
4.7.8 MITIGATION
Even though impacts would be less than significant upon the Project Applicant’s compliance with applicable
federal, State, and local regulations addressing hazardous materials, the following mitigation measures will
be implemented to ensure regulatory compliance.
MM 4.7-1 In the event that any unidentified subsurface feature, oil, or chemical-stained concrete is
discovered during grading or other ground-disturbing construction activity, all activity in the
vicinity of the unidentified material shall be halted and a qualified hazardous materials
professional shall be called to inspect the site and determine if further assessment is needed.
The results of any testing shall be provided to the City. In the event that the material is
determined not to be hazardous, no further action is required. In the event that the material is
deemed hazardous, removal/remediation shall be conducted pursuant to applicable State
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Title 22 hazardous waste criteria or contamination standards for industrial land uses. This
work must be carried out by a qualified hazardous materials professional hired by the Project
Applicant. Prior to the completion of material removal, the Project Applicant shall submit
evidence to the City for review and approval demonstrating that the hazardous material has
been appropriately removed/remediated. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City of Fontana’s Community Development Department.
MM 4.7-2 Prior to the issuance of any new occupancy permit for a use/user within the Project’s
warehouse buildings, and to the extent hazardous materials exist on-site and a Hazardous
Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP) is required by law, the Project
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.7-19
Applicant/Developer or Project Site owner shall provide a copy of its approved Emergency
Response Plan to the Superintendent’s Office and Facilities Office of the Fontana Unified
School District as well as the Principal of Jurupa Hills High School outlining how the
building user will prevent or respond to spills or leaks of hazardous materials related to its
facility/facilities and use of the Project Site. If so requested, the Project Applicant/Developer
or Project Site owner shall also meet with School District and Fire Department officials to
discuss emergency response procedures as contained in the HMBEP for spills or leaks at the
Project Site in relation to the nearby school facilities. This measure shall be implemented
under the supervision of the City of Fontana’s Planning Division, with input from the
Fontana Unified School District Superintendent as appropriate. All meetings shall be
documented and documentation shall be provided to the City Planning Department within 30
days of each meeting. Failure to abide by these procedures may be grounds for revocation of
any conditional use permits or other discretionary approvals for specific warehouse uses on
the Project Site.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-1
4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Information in this Subsection relies on two technical reports prepared for the Project by Huitt-Zollars, Inc.
(hereinafter, “Huitt-Zollars”): 1) “Preliminary Drainage Report for Cypress at Slover Industrial,” dated
September 13, 2021 (Huitt-Zollars, 2021a); and 2) “Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Cypress
at Slover Industrial,” dated September 13, 2021 (Huitt-Zollars, 2021b). These reports are provided as
Technical Appendices K and L, respectively, to this EIR. All other information sources referenced in this
Subsection are listed in EIR Section 7.0, References.
The Project Site is located within the Santa Ana River watershed and is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). As such, information for this Subsection also was obtained
from the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (updated June 2019) and
the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) for the Santa Ana River watershed (also referred
to as “One Water One Watershed Plan Update 2018,” (February 19, 2019) prepared by the Santa Ana
Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA). These documents are herein incorporated by reference and are
available for public review at the physical locations and website addresses given in EIR Section 7.0.
4.8.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Regional Hydrology
The Project Site is located within the Santa Ana River Watershed, which drains a 2,840 square-mile area and
is the principal surface flow water body within the region. The Santa Ana River flows over 100 miles and
drains the largest coastal stream system in Southern California. It discharges into the Pacific Ocean at the City
of Huntington Beach. The total stream length of the Santa Ana River and its major tributaries is about 700
miles. The location of the Project Site within the Santa Ana River watershed is depicted on Figure 4.8-1, Santa
Ana River Watershed Map. The Project Site is specifically located within the Chino Hydrologic Subarea of
the Middle Santa Ana River Hydrologic Area Split of the Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit (RWQCB, 2019,
p. 4-33).
B. Site Hydrology
The Project Site’s existing stormwater drainage pattern is illustrated on Figure 4.8-2, Existing Conditions
Hydrology Map. Under existing conditions, runoff from the Project Site and offsite run-on from the railroad
to the north of the Site currently sheet flows across the Site in a southerly direction onto Slover Avenue. From
Slover Avenue, runoff is conveyed westerly via the existing curb and gutter system on the north side of Slover
Avenue to an existing storm drain inlet at the northeast corner of the Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue
intersection. The storm drain carries stormwater flows downstream to the Declez Channel, San Sevaine
Channel and Prado Basin before ultimately discharging to the Santa Ana River. The peak runoff flow rate
from the Project Site during 100-year storm conditions is approximately 60.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) under
existing conditions. (Huitt-Zollars, 2021a, p. 1)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-4
C. Flooding and Dam Inundation
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No.
06071C8654H, the Project Site is located in “Flood Zone X (unshaded),” which corresponds to areas with
minimal flood hazard outside of the 500-year floodplain (also referred to as the 0.2% annual chance
floodplain). No portions of the Project Site are located within a 100-year flood hazard area. (FEMA, 2008)
According to the City of Fontana General Plan EIR, the Project Site is not located within any mapped dam
inundation area (Fontana, 2018b, p. 5.8-11).
D. Water Quality
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (also referred to as the Clean Water Act, CWA)
requires all states to conduct water quality assessments of their water resources to identify water bodies that
do not meet water quality standards. Water bodies that do not meet water quality standards due to excessive
concentrations of pollutants are placed on a list of impaired waters pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA.
The Project Site’s receiving waters include the Oleander Avenue Storm Drain, Declez Channel, San Sevaine
Channel, Prado Control Basin, Santa Ana River Reaches 1-3, and the Pacific Ocean. Of the Project Site’s
receiving waters, the Santa Ana River Reach 2 is included on the CWA’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters
because of bacterial indicators; the Santa Ana River Reach 3 is included on the CWA’s Section 303(d) list of
impaired waters because of excessive copper, lead, and pathogens; and the Prado Control Basin is included on
the CWA’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters because of excessive nutrients, pathogens, and total
suspended solids (Huitt-Zollars, 2021b, p. 3-8).
E. Groundwater
The Project Site is underlain by groundwater resources associated with the Chino Groundwater Basin. The
Project Site is located within the eastern portion of the Groundwater Basin within the “Chino North”
groundwater management zone. According to geotechnical investigation prepared for the Project (refer to EIR
Technical Appendix G), the groundwater table beneath the Project Site is located approximately 322 feet below
the existing ground surface (SCG, 2021, p. 9).
4.8.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is a brief description of the federal, state, and local environmental laws and related regulations
related to hydrology and water quality.
A. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the
waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was
enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was substantially
reorganized and expanded in 1972. "Clean Water Act" became the Act's common name with amendments in
1972. Under the CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented pollution control
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-5
programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry, and also has set water quality standards for all
contaminants in surface waters. The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source
into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained. EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-
made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have
a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must
obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. (EPA, 2020a)
B. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Porter-Cologne Water Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Act is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a
comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water (SWRCB, 2014). The Porter-
Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and ground water and to both point and nonpoint sources of
pollution. Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.), the policy of the
State is as follows:
• That the quality of all the waters of the State shall be protected;
• That all activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water
quality within reason; and
• That the State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water
in the State from degradation.
The Porter-Cologne Act established nine RWQCBs (based on hydrogeologic barriers) and the State Water
Board, which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for
protecting water quality in California. The State Water Board provides program guidance and oversight,
allocates funds, and reviews RWQCB decisions. In addition, the State Water Board allocates rights to the use
of surface water. The Regional Water Boards have primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection,
and enforcement actions within each of nine hydrologic regions. The State Water Board and RWQCBs have
numerous non-point source (NPS) related responsibilities, including monitoring and assessment, planning,
financial assistance, and management.
The RWQCBs regulate discharges under the Porter-Cologne Act primarily through issuance of NPDES permits
for point source discharges and waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for NPS discharges. Anyone
discharging or proposing to discharge materials that could affect water quality (other than to a community
sanitary sewer system regulated by an NPDES permit) must file a report of waste discharge. The Storm Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the RWQCBs can make their own investigations or may require
dischargers to carry out water quality investigations and report on water quality issues. The Porter-Cologne
Act provides several options for enforcing WDRs and other orders, including cease and desist orders, cleanup
and abatement orders, administrative civil liability orders, civil court actions, and criminal prosecutions.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-6
The Porter-Cologne Act also implements many provisions of the Clean Water Act, such as the NPDES
permitting program. The Porter-Cologne Act also requires adoption of water quality control plans that contain
the guiding policies of water pollution management in California. In addition, regional water quality control
plans (basin plans) have been adopted by each of the RWQCBs and are updated as necessary and practical.
These plans identify the existing and potential beneficial uses of waters of the State and establish water quality
objectives to protect these uses. The basin plans also contain implementation, surveillance, and monitoring
plans. The Project Site is located in the Santa Ana River Watershed, which is within the purview of the Santa
Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana’s RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan is the
governing water quality plan for the region.
2. California Water Code
The California Water Code is the principal state law regulating water quality in California. Water quality
provisions must be complied with as contained in numerous code sections including: 1) the Health and Safety
Code for the protection of ground and surface waters from hazardous waste and other toxic substances; 2) the
Fish and Game Code for the prevention of unauthorized diversions of any surface water and discharge of any
substance that may be deleterious to fish, plant, animal, or bird life; 3) the Harbors and Navigation Code for
the prevention of the unauthorized discharge of waste from vessels into surface waters; and 4) the Food and
Agriculture Code for the protection of groundwater which may be used for drinking water supplies (CA
Legislative Info, n.d.). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), through provisions of the
Fish & Game Code (Sections 1601 - 1603) is empowered to issue agreements for any alteration of a river,
stream, or lake where fish or wildlife resources may be adversely affected. CDFW regulates wetland areas
only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake as defined by CDFW.
Surface water quality is the responsibility of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), water
supply and wastewater treatment agencies, and city and county governments. The principal means of
enforcement by the RWQCB is through the development, adoption, and issuance of water discharge permits.
RWQCB basin plans establish water quality objectives that are defined as the limits or levels of water quality
constituents or characteristics for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of water.
3. California Toxics Rule (CTR)
The California Toxics Rule (CTR) fills the gap in California’s water quality standards necessary to protect
human health and aquatic life beneficial uses (SWRCB, 2016, pp. 14-15). The CTR criteria are similar to
those published in the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. The CTR supplements, and does not
change or supersede, the criteria that EPA promulgated for California waters in the National Toxics Rule
(NTR). The human health NTR and CTR criteria that apply to drinking water sources (those water bodies
designated in the Basin Plans as municipal and domestic supply) consider chemical exposure through
consumption of both water and aquatic organisms (fish and shellfish) harvested from the water. For waters that
are not drinking water sources (e.g., enclosed bays and estuaries), human health NTR and CTR criteria only
consider the consumption of contaminated aquatic organisms. The CTR and NTR criteria, along with the
beneficial use designations in the Basin Plans and the related implementation policies, are the directly
applicable water quality standards for toxic priority pollutants in California waters.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-7
4. Watershed Management Initiative (WMI)
The State and Regional Water Boards are currently focused on looking at entire watersheds when addressing
water pollution. The Water Boards adopted the Watershed Management Initiative (WMI) to further their goals.
The WMI establishes a broad framework overlying the numerous federal and State mandated priorities. As
such, the WMI helps the Water Boards achieve water resource protection, enhancement and restoration while
balancing economic and environmental impacts. The integrated approach of the WMI involves three main
ideas:
• Use water quality to identify and prioritize water resource problems within individual watersheds.
Involve stakeholders to develop solutions.
• Better coordinate point source and nonpoint source regulatory efforts. Establish working relationships
between staff from different programs.
• Better coordinate local, state, and federal activities and programs, especially those relating to
regulations and funding, to assist local watershed groups. (SWRCB, 2017)
5. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires governments and water agencies of
high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of
pumping and recharge (DWR, n.d.). Under SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of
implementing their sustainability plans. The DWR categorizes the priority of groundwater basins (DWR,
2020). For critically over-drafted basins, that will be 2040. For the remaining high and medium priority basins,
2042 is the deadline. The SGMA also requires local public agencies and Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
(GSAs) in high- and medium-priority basins to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans
(GSPs) or Alternatives to GSPs. GSPs are detailed road maps for how groundwater basins will reach long term
sustainability.
C. Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Fontana’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is a plan that the City reviews, monitors, and
updates approximately every five years to reflect changing conditions and new information regarding hazards
faced by the City of Fontana. The most current version is dated June 2017 and was approved and adopted by
the Fontana City Council on August 14, 2018 (Fontana, 2018c). The LHMP addresses hazards associated with
earthquakes, wind surges, wildfire, landslides, floods, terrorism, climate change and droughts being significant
hazards to the City of Fontana. The LHMP includes mitigation measures to address flooding concerns on a
community-wide level. The LHMP mitigation measures include: performing a feasibility study or retention
and detention of storm water to include water sensitive design, evaluation of public infrastructure, ensuring
undeveloped properties adhere to flood plain preservation and risk reduction methodologies, continuing to
impose BMPs on users of the storm drain system, and continuing street sweeping and trash services.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-8
2. City of Fontana Municipal Code
Chapter 23, Article IX (Preventing Discharge of Pollutants into Storm Drains) of the City of Fontana Municipal
Code requires the City to participate as a "Co-permittee" under the NPDES permit program to accomplish the
requirements of the CWA. Pursuant to this chapter, the City requires all development activities subject to the
City’s NPDES permit to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which is
required to identify proposed structural BMPs and source and treatment control BMPs to infiltrate and/or
adequately treat the projected stormwater and urban runoff from the development site. (Fontana, 2021)
The City of Fontana Municipal Code (Chapter 9, Article II) requires development projects to incorporate an
erosion and dust control plan to minimize water- and windborne erosion. Specific dust control measures are
required to be listed on the grading/construction plan. The erosion and dust control plan is required to be
approved by City of Fontana staff prior to the issuance of the applicable construction permit. (Fontana, 2021)
3. SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust)
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) requires the
implementation of best available dust control measures (BACM) during active operations capable of
generating fugitive dust. The purpose of this Rule is to minimize the amount of particulate matter in the
ambient air as a result of anthropogenic fugitive dust sources. (SCAQMD, 2005)
4.8.3 METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
The analysis of potential hydrology and water quality-related impacts is based upon the hydrology calculations
and preliminary water quality management plan prepared specifically for the Project Site. The hydrology
calculations were prepared using the San Bernardino County Rational Method program (AES software). The
preliminary water quality management plan was prepared based on the technical guidance document for water
quality management plans within the Santa Ana River Watershed and utilizes the water quality management
plan template for the Santa Ana River Watershed, both published by the County of San Bernardino. The City’s
General Plan and information sources from State and Federal agencies were researched to establish the Project
Site’s existing conditions and likelihood of environmental effects.
4.8.4 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 hydrology and water quality effects
that could result from development projects. The Project would result in a significant impact to hydrology and
water quality if the Project or any Project-related component would:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality;
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin;
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-9
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
ii. Substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
iii. Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems of provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows;
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation; or
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan.
4.8.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
The Project Applicant would be required to comply with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which authorizes
the NPDES permit program that covers point sources of pollution discharging to a water body. The NPDES
program would require the Project Applicant and/or construction contractor to prepare a SWPPP and obtain
authorization to discharge stormwater under an NPDES construction stormwater permit because the Project
would result in construction on a site that is larger than one acre. The Project Applicant also would be required
to comply with the California Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 13000 et seq., of the
California Water Code), which requires that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all
waters within the State of California. The Project Site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana
RWQCB.
A. Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts
Construction of the Project would involve demolition, clearing, grading, paving, utility installation, building
construction, and landscaping activities, which have the potential to generate silt, debris, organic waste,
chemicals, paints, and other solvents; should these materials come into contact with water that reaches the
groundwater table or flows off-site, the potential exists for the Project’s construction activities to adversely
affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during Project
construction in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB and Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX,
the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm
Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development
projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least
one (1) acre of total land area. In addition, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the Santa
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-10
Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit
and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation
of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-related activities. The SWPPP will
specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project’s construction contractors would be required
to implement during construction activities to ensure that potential pollutants of concern are prevented,
minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property.
Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers,
geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding. Pursuant
to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article II, the Project Applicant also would be required to implement
an erosion control plan to minimize water- and windborne erosion. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP
and the erosion control plan would ensure that the Project’s construction does not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction
activities would be less than significant.
B. Post-Development Water Quality Impacts
Stormwater pollutants that may be produced during Project operation include pathogens (bacterial/virus),
phosphorous, nitrogen, noxious aquatic plants, sediment, metals, oil/grease, trash/debris, pesticides/herbicides,
and organic compounds. The expected pollutants of concern for the Project are pathogens, phosphorous,
nitrogen, sediment, and metals. (Huitt-Zollars, 2021b, p. 2-3)
The Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan
(SWQMP) to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize
the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters.
The SWQMP is a Site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to address the
potential release of pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters and other water pollutants through
the use of BMPs. Implementation of the SWQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the watershed
basin. The preliminary SWQMP for the Project was prepared by Huit-Zollars and is included as Technical
Appendix L to this EIR. As identified in the preliminary SWQMP, the Project is designed to include structural
source control BMPs that include an underground infiltration/ detention system, as well as operational source
control BMPs (including but not limited to: the installation of water-efficient landscape irrigation systems,
storm drain system stenciling and signage, and implementation of a trash and waste storage areas) to minimize,
prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat stormwater runoff flows before they are discharged into the City’s
storm drain system. Compliance with the preliminary SWQMP would be required as a condition of Project
approval pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX, and long-term maintenance of on-Site
BMPs would be required to ensure their long-term effectiveness.
Additionally, the NPDES program requires certain land uses, including the industrial land uses proposed by
the Project, to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and to implement a long-term water quality sampling
and monitoring program, unless an exemption has been granted. On November 6, 2018, the California State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted an amended the NPDES permit for storm water discharge
associated with industrial activities (referred to as the “Industrial General Permit”) (SWRCB, 2021). The new
Industrial General Permit, which is more stringent than the former Industrial General Permit, became effective
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-11
on July 1, 2020. Under this currently effective NPDES Industrial General Permit, the Project would be required
to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and implement a long-term water quality sampling and
monitoring program or receive an exemption. Because the permit is dependent upon a detailed accounting of
all operational activities and procedures, and the Project’s building users and their operational characteristics
are not known at this time, details of the operational SWPPP (including BMPs) or potential exemption to the
SWPPP operational activities requirement cannot be determined with certainty at this time. However, based
on the performance requirements of the NPDES Industrial General Permit, the Project’s mandatory compliance
with all applicable water quality regulations would further reduce potential water quality impacts during long-
term operation.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during long-term operation.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold b: Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Water service to the Project would be provided by the Fontana Water Company (FWC), and the Project would
not utilize wells or any other groundwater extractive activities. Therefore, the Project would not directly draw
water from the groundwater basin. Accordingly, implementation of the Project has no potential to substantially
deplete or decrease groundwater supplies and the Project’s direct impact to groundwater supplies would be
less than significant.
Development of the Project would increase impervious surface coverage on the Project Site which would, in
turn, reduce the amount of water percolating down into the underground aquifer that underlies the Project Site.
However, a majority of the groundwater recharge in the Chino Groundwater Basin occurs in the northern and
western portions of the Basin (and north and west of the City of Fontana), within percolation or “recharge”
basins (CBWM, 2021, Exhibit 3-5). The Project Site is located in the eastern portion of the Chino Groundwater
Basin and would not physically impact any of the major groundwater recharge facilities in the Basin.
Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial, adverse effects to local groundwater levels. Additionally,
the Project includes design features that would maximize the percolation of on-site storm water runoff into the
groundwater basin, such as permeable landscape areas. Accordingly, buildout of the Project with these design
features would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater
management of the Chino Groundwater Basin. Based on the foregoing information, the Project would not
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
For the reasons stated above, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-12
Threshold c: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition
of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Implementation of the Project would alter the existing ground contours of the Project Site and result in the
installation of impervious surfaces, which would result in changes to the site’s existing, internal drainage
patterns. The Project would include the installation of an integrated, on-site system of underground storm
drain pipes, catch basins, and an underground infiltration/detention system to capture on-site stormwater runoff
flows, convey the runoff across the Site, and treat the runoff to minimize the amount of water-borne pollutants
carried from the Project Site (the Project’s stormwater drainage concept is described in detail in EIR Section
3.0, Project Description). Upon development of the Project, all stormwater from the Project Site would be
discharged to Slover Avenue. Figure 4.8-3, Proposed Post-Development Hydrology Map, illustrates the post-
development drainage conditions on the Project Site, while EIR Figure 3-9 (previously presented) depicts the
location of the proposed catch basins, storm drain lines, and the underground infiltration/detention system.
The following analysis evaluates the potential for Project-related development activities to adversely affect
water quality or cause or exacerbate local flooding.
A. Erosion and Siltation
Although the Project would alter the Project Site’s interior drainage patterns, such changes would not result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources
Control Board, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General
Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required
for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation,
that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with
the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the
NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and
implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that would be required to be implemented during construction activities to ensure that
waterborne pollution, including erosion/siltation, is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately
treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be
utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet
protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding. Lastly, the Project would be required to
implement an erosion and dust control plan pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article II, and also
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-14
would be required to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize water- and windborne erosion.
Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and the City-required erosion control plan would ensure that the
Project’s implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during
construction activities. Based on the foregoing information, water quality impacts associated with Project
construction activities would be less than significant.
During operation of the Project, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a SWQMP,
which is a Site-specific post-construction water quality management program that will be implemented to
minimize erosion and siltation, pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX. The SWQMP is
required to identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., Best
Management Practices) to reduce or eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from storm water and non-
storm water discharges. The SWQMP also is required to establish a post-construction implementation and
maintenance plan to ensure on-going, long-term erosion protection. Compliance with the SWQMP is required
as a condition of approval for the Project, as is the long-term maintenance of erosion and sediment control
features. The preliminary SWQMP for the Project is provided as Technical Appendix L to this EIR. Because
the Project Applicant would be required to utilize erosion and sediment control measures to preclude
substantial, long-term soil erosion and loss of topsoil, Project operation would result in less-than-significant
impacts related to soil erosion and sedimentation.
B. Stormwater Runoff Discharge
The Project’s storm drain system is designed to capture all stormwater runoff originating on the Project Site
and convey these flows to an existing storm drain beneath Slover Avenue (inlet located at the northeast corner
of the Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue intersection), which receives all stormwater runoff discharge from
the Project Site under existing conditions. Upon Project buildout, approximately 48.3 cfs of stormwater runoff
would be discharged from the Project Site during peak storm conditions to the existing storm drain beneath
Slover Avenue, which represents an approximately 21% reduction relative to existing conditions (Huitt-
Zollars, 2021a, p. 1). The Project’s design provides for the reduction in stormwater runoff from the Project
Site through the use of underground infiltration/detention basins. Due to the reduction in the volume of peak
stormwater runoff leaving the Project Site and discharging into the existing municipal storm drain system,
implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface water runoff from
the site in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site; no impact would occur.
C. Stormwater Drainage System Capacity & Polluted Runoff
As described above, buildout of the Project would substantially reduce the amount of runoff discharged into
the existing municipal storm drain system during peak storm events relative to existing conditions.
Accordingly, the Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of any existing
storm water drainage system, and impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed in detail earlier under Threshold “a” and this Threshold (refer to sub-item “A.”), the Project’s
construction contractors would be required to comply with a SWPPP and the Project’s owner or operator would
be required to comply with a SWQMP to ensure that Project-related construction activities and operational
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-15
activities do not result in substantial amounts of polluted runoff. The Project would not result in substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff and impacts would be less than significant.
D. Flood Flows
According to the FEMA FIRM No. 06071C8654H, the Project Site is not located in a special flood hazard
area, rather the Site is located in an area outside of the 500-year (0.2% annual chance) floodplain (FEMA,
2008). Accordingly, the Project Site is not expected to be inundated by flood flows during the lifetime of the
Project and the Project would not impede flood flows. No impact would occur.
Threshold d: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
The Pacific Ocean is located over 43 miles southwest of the Project Site; consequently, there is no potential
for the Project Site to be impacted by a tsunami as tsunamis typically only reach up to a few miles inland. The
Project Site also is not subject to flooding hazards associated with a seiche because the nearest large body of
surface water (Prado Reservoir) is located more than 10 miles southwest of the Project Site, which is too far
away from the subject property to impact the property with a seiche. Furthermore, as noted in the City of
Fontana General Plan EIR, the Project Site is not located within any mapped dam inundation area (Fontana,
2018b, p. 5.8-11). Because the Project Site cannot be affected by a tsunami, seiche, or dam inundation, there
is no potential for such hazards to inundate the Project Site and cause a release of waterborne pollutants.
Accordingly, the Project would not release water pollutants due to inundation. No impact would occur.
Threshold e: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan
or sustainable groundwater management plan?
As discussed in Threshold “a” above, the Project Site is located within the Santa Ana River Basin and Project-
related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s
Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and WQMP. As
also discussed in Threshold “a” above, implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the
Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
The Project Site is located within the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is an adjudicated groundwater basin.
Adjudicated basins, like the Chino Groundwater Basin, are exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA) because such basins already operate under a court-ordered management plan to
ensure the long-term sustainability of the Subbasin. No component of the Project would obstruct or prevent
implementation of the management plan for the Chino Groundwater Basin. As such, the Project’s construction
and operation would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less
than significant.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-16
4.8.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The cumulative impact analysis considers construction and operation of the Project in conjunction with other
development projects in the vicinity of the Project Site and projects located in the Santa Ana River Basin and
Chino Groundwater Basin.
A. Water Quality
Project construction and the construction of other projects in the cumulative study area would have the potential
to contribute waterborne pollution, including erosion and siltation, to the Santa Ana River Watershed. Pursuant
to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board and the Santa Ana RWQCB, all construction
projects that disturb one (1) or more acres of land area are required to obtain coverage for construction activities
under the State’s General Construction NPDES Permit. In order to obtain coverage, an effective Site-specific
SWPPP is required to be developed and implemented. The SWPPP must identify potential on-site pollutants
and identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures to reduce or eliminate
discharge of pollutants to surface waters. In addition, the Project Applicant and all cumulative developments
in the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River
Basin Water Quality Control Program, which establishes water quality standards for ground and surface waters
of the region. Compliance with these mandatory regulatory requirements, would ensure that development
projects within the Santa Ana River watershed, including the proposed Project, would not contribute
substantially to water quality impairments during construction.
Operational activities on the Project Site would be required to comply with the Project’s SWQMP to minimize
the amount of waterborne pollution, including erosion and sediment, discharged from the Site. Other
development projects within the watershed would similarly be required by law to prepare and implement Site-
specific SWQMPs to ensure that runoff does not substantially contribute to water quality violations.
Accordingly, operation of the Project would not contribute to cumulatively-considerable water quality effects.
B. Groundwater Supplies and Management
A majority of the groundwater recharge in the Chino Groundwater Basin occurs in the northern and western
portions of the Basin (and north and west of the City of Fontana), within percolation basins. The Project would
not physically impact any of the major groundwater recharge facilities in the Basin and other development
projects in the Basin similarly would be prohibited by the Chino Basin Watermaster from resulting in adverse
physical effects to recharge basins. The Project incorporates permeable landscape areas and other design
features (i.e., an underground infiltration/detention system) that would allow surface runoff to infiltrate into
the groundwater basin. Other development projects would similarly be required by the lead agency for the
project to incorporate design features (e.g., through minimum landscaped area requirements and site-specific
WQMP requirements) that facilitate percolation and minimize surface runoff. Lastly, the Chino Groundwater
Basin is an adjudicated basin that operates under a court-ordered management plan to ensure the long-term
sustainability of the Basin. No component of the Project would obstruct with or prevent implementation of
the Basin’s management plan and other development projects within the Basin would be prohibited from any
activity that would endanger the health and sustainability of the groundwater basin. Based on the lack of
impacts to groundwater recharge facilities, the provision of design measures that would facilitate percolation,
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-17
and compliance with the Basin’s groundwater management plan, cumulative development would not result in
a considerable, adverse effect to local groundwater supplies.
C. Flooding
Construction of the Project and other development projects within the Santa Ana River Basin would be required
to comply with federal, State, and local regulations and applicable regional and local master drainage plans in
order to mitigate flood hazards both on- and off-site. Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations
and applicable drainage plans would require development sites to be protected from flooding during peak storm
events (i.e., 100-year storm) and also would not allow development projects to expose downstream properties
to increased flooding risks during peak storm events. In addition, future development proposals within the
Santa Ana River Basin would be required to prepare hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, subject to review
and approval by the responsible City/County Engineer, to demonstrate that substantial on- and/or off-site flood
hazards would not occur. As discussed under the response to Threshold “c,” the Project is designed to ensure
that runoff from the Project Site during peak storm events is substantially reduced relative to existing
conditions. Because the Project and all other developments throughout the Santa Ana River Basin, would need
to comply with federal, State, and local regulations to ensure that stormwater discharges do not substantially
exceed existing volumes or exceed the volume of available conveyance infrastructure, a substantial cumulative
impact related to flood hazards would not occur.
Additionally, the Project Site is not located within a special flood hazard area or in an area subject to
inundation. Accordingly, development on the Project Site would have no potential to impede or redirect flood
flows and a cumulatively-considerable impact would not occur.
4.8.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Adherence to a
SWPPP and WQMP is required as part of the Project’s implementation to address construction- and
operational-related water quality.
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not physically impact any of the major
groundwater recharge facilities in the Chino Groundwater Basin. The Project would not substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede
sustainable groundwater management of the Basin.
Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would be required to comply with applicable water
quality regulatory requirements to minimize erosion and siltation. Additionally, the Project would not result
in flooding on- or off-site or impede/redirect flood flows. Lastly, the Project would not create or contribute
runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Threshold d: No Impact. The Project Site would not be subject to inundation from tsunamis, seiches, or other
hazards.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.8-18
Threshold e: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
4.8.8 MITIGATION
Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-1
4.9 NOISE
This Subsection addresses the environmental issue of noise, including existing noise levels in the Project area
and the Project’s potential to introduce new or elevated sources of noise. The analysis contained herein
incorporates information contained in a technical report prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., titled “Slover
Avenue and Cypress Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis” (“Noise Analysis”) and dated December 4,
2022 (Urban Crossroads, 2022e). The report is included as Technical Appendix M to this EIR. Refer to Section
7.0, References, for a complete list of reference sources used in the analysis presented in this Subsection.
4.9.1 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
A. Noise Definitions
Noise is simply defined as “unwanted sound.” Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal
activities, when it causes physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health. Because the range of sound
that the human ear can detect is large, the scale used to measure sound intensity is based on multiples of 10,
the logarithmic scale. The unit of measure to describe sound intensity is the decibel (dB). A sound increase of
10 dB represents a ten-fold increase in sound energy and is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice
as loud. A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency
noise sources by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum (i.e.,
frequencies that are not audible to the human ear). The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very
quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at a distance of three feet is roughly 60 dBA, while a jet
engine is 110 dBA at approximately 100 feet. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 7-8)
B. Noise Descriptors
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The
most used noise descriptor is the equivalent level (Leq). Leq represents a steady state sound level containing
the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period. Leq values are not measured directly
but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in dBA. Consequently, Leq can vary
depending on the time of day. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 8)
Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise
levels lower than peak hour may cause a disturbance if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable,
namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the
intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections
require the addition of five (5) decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These
additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when
sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents
the total sound exposure. The City relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with
transportation related noise sources. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 8)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-2
C. Sound Propagation
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in which noise
reduces with distance depends on geometric spreading, ground absorption, atmospheric effects, shielding, and
reflection.
1. Geometric Spreading
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical
pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point
source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a
line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates
outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3
dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 8)
2. Ground Absorption
The path of travel for noise from a highway to a receiver is usually very close to the ground. Noise attenuation
from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric
spreading. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver,
such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive
or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver such as soft
dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance
is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the ground attenuation results in an overall
drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, pp. 8-9)
3. Atmospheric Effects
Receptors located downwind from a noise source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm
conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Additionally, sound levels can be
increased at large distances (typically more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversions. Other
factors that may affect noise levels include air temperature, humidity, and turbulence. (Urban Crossroads,
2022e, p. 9)
4. Shielding
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise
levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and
the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation that blocks the line-of-
sight typically reduces the perceived noise levels; however, for vegetation to provide a noticeable noise
reduction (up to 5 dBA of noise reduction), the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide
and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of sight between the source and the receiver. (Urban
Crossroads, 2022e, p. 9).
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-3
5. Reflection
Field studies conducted by the FHWA have shown that the reflection from barriers and buildings does not
substantially increase noise levels. If all the noise striking a structure was reflected back to a given receiving
point, the increase would be theoretically limited to 3 dBA. Further, not all the acoustical energy is reflected
back to same point. Some of the energy would go over the structure, some is reflected to points other than the
given receiving point, some is scattered by ground coverings (e.g., grass and other plants), and some is blocked
by intervening structures and/or obstacles (e.g., the noise source itself). Additionally, some of the reflected
energy is lost due to the longer path that the noise must travel. FHWA measurements made to quantify
reflective increases in traffic noise have not shown an increase of greater than 1-2 dBA; an increase that is not
perceptible to the average human ear. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 9)
D. Response to Noise
Approximately 10 percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not
of their own making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Another
25 percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of
reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given environment. Despite this variability in behavior
on an individual level, the population as a whole can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes
in noise levels: an increase of 1 dBA cannot be perceived except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments;
a change of 3 dBA is considered “barely perceptible;” and a change of 5 dBA is considered “readily
perceptible.” (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 10-11)
E. Vibration
Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. Sources of groundborne vibration include natural
phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g.,
explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as
factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, groundborne vibrations
may be described by amplitude and frequency. Vibration is often described in units of velocity (inches per
second) and decibels (dB) and is denoted as VdB. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 11)
The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Groundborne vibration is
normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75
VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. (Urban
Crossroads, 2022e, p. 11)
4.9.2 EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS
A. Existing Study Area Ambient Noise Conditions
Urban Crossroads recorded 24-hour noise readings at four (4) locations in the Project vicinity on August 5,
2021. The noise measurement locations are identified in Figure 4.9-1, Noise Measurement Locations. The
results of the existing noise level measurements are summarized below. Noise measurement worksheets for
the hourly noise levels and the minimum and maximum observed noise levels at each measurement location
are provided in the Noise Analysis (refer to Technical Appendix M). In general, the existing background
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-4
ambient noise levels in the Project area are dominated by traffic noise associated with automobiles and truck
traffic on the local arterial roadway network.
• Location L1 represents the noise levels located in the middle of the Project Site at the address 16434
Boyle Avenue. The noise level measurements collected show an average daytime noise level calculated
to be 61.3 dBA Leq and an average nighttime noise level calculated to be 58.8 dBA Leq at location L1.
(Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 21)
• Location L2 represents the noise levels located east of the Project Site (and east of Cypress Avenue)
at the address 16521 Boyle Avenue. The noise level measurements collected show an average daytime
noise level calculated to be 61.0 dBA Leq and an average nighttime noise level calculated to be 56.0
dBA Leq at Location L2. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 21)
• Location L3 represents the noise levels located south of the Project Site (and south of Slover Avenue)
near the address 10600 Cypress Avenue. The noise level measurements collected show an average
daytime noise level calculated to be 61.8 dBA Leq and an average nighttime noise level calculated to
be 57.3 dBA Leq at Location L3. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 21)
• Location L4 represents the noise levels located in the southern portion of the Project Site at 16376
Slover Avenue. The noise level measurements collected show an average daytime noise level
calculated to be 67.9 dBA Leq and an average nighttime noise level calculated to be 64.4 dBA Leq at
Location L4. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 21)
B. Existing Groundborne Vibration
Based on the nature of the existing uses on the Project Site – and the lack of heavy, impact machinery – there
are no sources of groundborne vibration on the Project Site under existing conditions.
C. Existing Airport Noise
The Project Site is located approximately 7.7 miles northeast of the Ontario International Airport (ONT). This
places the Project Site within the ONT Airport Influence Area. According to the ONT Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP), the Project Site is located outside the 60 dB CNEL airport noise contour
(Ontario, 2011, Map 2-3).
4.9.3 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is a brief description of the federal, State, and local environmental laws and regulations related
to noise that are applicable to the Project, the Project Site, and/or the surrounding area.
A. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Noise Control Act of 1972
The Noise Control Act of 1972 establishes a national policy to promote an environment for all Americans free
from noise that jeopardizes their health and welfare. The Act also serves to (1) establish a means for effective
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-6
coordination of Federal research and activities in noise control; (2) authorize the establishment of Federal noise
emission standards for products distributed in commerce; and (3) provide information to the public respecting
the noise emission and noise reduction characteristics of such products. (EPA, 2021)
While primary responsibility for control of noise rests with State and local governments, Federal action is
essential to deal with major noise sources in commerce, control of which require national uniformity of
treatment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is directed by Congress to coordinate the programs
of all Federal agencies relating to noise research and noise control. (EPA, 2021)
2. Federal Transit Administration
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) published a Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (NVIA), which
provides guidance for preparing and reviewing the noise and vibration sections of environmental documents.
In the interest of promoting quality and uniformity in assessments, the manual is used by project sponsors and
consultants in performing noise and vibration analyses for inclusion in environmental documents. The manual
sets forth the methods and procedures for determining the level of noise and vibration impact resulting from
most federally-funded transit projects and for determining what can be done to mitigate such impact. (FTA,
2006, pp. 1-1)
The NVIA also establishes criteria for acceptable ground-borne vibration, which are expressed in terms of root
mean square (rms) velocity levels in decibels and the criteria for acceptable ground-borne noise are expressed
in terms of A-weighted sound levels. As shown in Table 4.9-1, Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne
Noise Impact Criteria for General Assessment, the FTA identifies three categories of land uses and provides
Ground-Based Vibration (GBV) and Ground-Based Noise (GBN) criteria for each category of land use. (FTA,
2006, pp. 8-3 and 8-4)
3. Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the agency responsible for administering the Federal-aid
highway program in accordance with Federal statutes and regulations. The FHWA developed the noise
regulations as required by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-605, 84 Stat. 1713). The
regulation, 23 CFR 772 Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, applies
to highway construction projects where a State department of transportation has requested Federal funding for
participation in the project. The regulation requires the highway agency to investigate traffic noise impacts in
areas adjacent to federally-aided highways for proposed construction of a highway on a new location or the
reconstruction of an existing highway to either significantly change the horizontal or vertical alignment or
increase the number of through-traffic lanes. If the highway agency identifies impacts, it must consider
abatement. The highway agency must incorporate all feasible and reasonable noise abatement into the project
design. (FHWA, 2017)
The FHWA regulations for mitigation of highway traffic noise in the planning and design of federally aided
highways are contained in Title 23 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations Part 772. The regulations
contain noise abatement criteria, which represent the upper limit of acceptable highway traffic noise for
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-7
Table 4.9-1 Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for General
Assessment
Source: (FTA, 2006, Table 8-1)
different types of land uses and human activities. The regulations do not require meeting the abatement criteria
in every instance. Rather, they require highway agencies make every reasonable and feasible effort to provide
noise mitigation when the criteria are approached or exceeded. Compliance with the noise regulations is a
prerequisite for the granting of Federal-aid highway funds for construction or reconstruction of a highway.
(FHWA, 2017)
4. Construction-Related Hearing Conservation
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hearing conservation program is designed to
protect workers with significant occupational noise exposures from hearing impairment even if they are subject
to such noise exposures over their entire working lifetimes. Standard 29 CFR, Part 1910 indicates the noise
levels under which a hearing conservation program is required to be provided to workers exposed to high noise
levels. (OSHA, 2002)
Note: Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, this analysis does not evaluate the noise exposure of construction
workers within the Project Site, and instead, evaluates the Project‐related construction noise levels at the
nearby sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area. Further, periodic exposure to high noise levels in
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-8
short duration, such as Project construction, is typically considered an annoyance and not impactful to human
health. It would take several years of exposure to high noise levels to result in hearing impairment.
B. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. State of California Noise Requirements
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational
noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State
law requires that each county and city in the State of California adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise
Element, which is to be prepared according to guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research. The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise
levels.
2. Building Standards Code
The State of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title
24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Standards Code. These noise
standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of controlling interior noise levels
resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when
noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals are developed near major
transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or
higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans for noise-sensitive land uses must demonstrate that
the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new
residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA
CNEL. (BSC, n.d.)
3. OPR General Plan Guidelines
Though not adopted by law, the 2017 California General Plan Guidelines, published by the California
Governor’s OPR, provides guidance for local agencies in preparing or updating General Plans. The Guidelines
provide direction on the required Noise Element portion of the General Plans. The purpose of the Noise
Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. The OPR Guidelines state that
General Plan policies and standards must be sufficient to serve as a guideline for compliance with sound
transmission control requirements, and directly correlate to the Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Elements.
The Guidelines also state that the Noise Element must be used to guide decisions concerning land use and the
location of new roads and transit facilities since these are common sources of excessive noise levels. (OPR,
2017, pp. 131-132) The City’s General Plan addresses the topic of noise in the City’s General Plan Safety and
Noise Element. Refer below for a discussion of the City’s General Plan.
C. Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Ontario International Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Project Site is located approximately 7.7 miles northeast of the nearest runway at the ONT and is located
within the ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA). The most recent ONT ALUCP was adopted on April 19, 2011.
The ALUCP establishes safety zones, airspace protection zones, noise impact zones, and recorded overflight
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-9
notification zones for areas within the ONT AIA. The Project Site is located outside the 60 dB CNEL airport
noise contour, which is a compatible zone for industrial land uses (Ontario, 2011, Map 2-3, Table 2-3).
2. City of Fontana General Plan
The City’s General Plan Noise and Safety Element addresses the control and abatement of noise and includes
actions for developments that would be impacted by non-transportation noise sources including industrial,
commercial, and residential activities and equipment. The Noise and Safety Element, Goal 8, Action A
establishes the City’s acceptable noise level of 65 dBA CNEL for mobile source (traffic) noise levels at existing
and future noise-sensitive land uses. (City of Fontana, 2018a, p. 11-9)
3. Fontana Municipal Code
Construction-Related Noise Standards
Section 18-63(b)(7) of the Fontana Municipal Code establishes the City’s acceptable noise criteria for
construction activities. Specifically, construction activities are exempt from noise restrictions so long as
construction activities occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays (except in the case of urgent necessity). However, if activity occurs
outside of these hours, the City of Fontana stationary-source (operational) noise level standards of 70 dBA Leq
during the daytime hours and 65 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours would apply. (City of Fontana, 2019a)
Operational Noise Standards
Section 30-259 of the Fontana Municipal Code establishes the City’s noise standards for sensitive receptor
exposures to stationary noise from industrial-zoned properties. Pursuant to Section 30-259, no person shall
create or cause to be created any sound on an industrial-zoned property that exceeds 70 dBA Leq during the
daytime hours or 65 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours at sensitive receiver locations. (City of Fontana,
2019a)
Vibration Standards
Section 30-183 of the Fontana Municipal Code prohibits any activity that creates or cause to be created
vibration that can be felt on abutting properties with or without the aid of an instrument. (City of Fontana,
2019a)
4.9.4 METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING PROJECT-RELATED NOISE IMPACTS
A. Construction Noise Analysis Methodology
For the construction noise analysis, reference noise level measurements published in the Update of Noise
Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites by the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) were utilized. The DEFRA database provides the most recent and comprehensive
source of reference construction noise levels. Table 4.9-2, Reference Construction Noise Levels, provides a
summary of the DEFRA construction reference noise level measurements expressed in hourly average dBA
Leq using the estimated FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) usage factors to describe the
typical construction activities for each stage of Project construction. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 43)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-10
The construction noise analysis evaluates Project construction-related noise levels at the closest nearby
receiver locations in the Project study area. Four (4) representative receiver locations were considered in the
construction noise analysis, including existing residences adjacent to Oleander Avenue, Slover Avenue, and
Washington Drive. The receiver locations used in the construction noise analysis are shown on Figure 4.9-2,
Noise Receiver Locations. The modeled noise-sensitive receiver locations are representative of existing
receptors nearest the Project Site. It is not necessary to quantify Project construction-related noise levels at
every receiver location in proximity to the Project Site because receivers located at a similar distance from
Project construction activities with similar ground elevations, orientation, and intervening physical conditions
as the modeled receptor locations would experience the same or very similar noise effects as those disclosed
herein, while receptors at a greater distance would experience lesser noise effects.
Table 4.9-2 Reference Construction Noise Levels
Construction Stage Reference Construction Activity
Reference Noise Level @ 50 Feet (dBA Leq)
Highest Reference Noise Level (dBA Leq)
Demolition
Demolition Equipment 69
73 Backhoes 61
Hauling Trucks 71
Site Preparation
Crawler Tractors 77
79 Hauling Trucks 71
Rubber Tired Dozers 71
Grading
Graders 79
79 Excavators 64
Compactors 67
Building Construction
Cranes 67
74 Tractors 72
Welders 65
Paving
Pavers 70
74 Paving Equipment 69
Rollers 69
Architectural Coating
Cranes 67
72 Air Compressors 67
Generator Sets 67
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 10-1)
B. Stationary Noise Analysis Methodology
To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from
active industrial and warehousing facilities in southern California with similar operational characteristics as
the Project. While sound pressure levels (e.g., Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at
a reference distance, sound power levels (Lw) are connected to the sound source and are independent of
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-12
distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish because of
intervening obstacles and barriers, air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustical
energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value that is not affected by the environment. The
reference Project operational noise and sound power levels are summarized in Table 4.9-3, Reference
Stationary Noise Levels.
Table 4.9-3 Reference Stationary Noise Levels
Noise Source1
Noise Source Height (Feet)
Min./Hour2 Reference Noise Level @ 50 feet (dBA Leq)
Sound Power Level (dBA)3 Day Night
Cold Storage and Loading Dock Activity 8' 60 60 65.7 111.5
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 5' 39 28 57.2 88.9
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 5' 60 60 56.1 79.0
Trash Enclosure Activity 5' 10 10 57.3 89.0
Truck Movements 8' 60 60 58.0 93.2
1 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project Site. "Day" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Night" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source. Numbers may vary due to size differences between point and area noise sources.
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 9-1)
To fully describe the exterior operational noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads developed a noise
prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA can
analyze multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate Development Site plan, georeferenced
Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels.
Refer to Subsection 9.3 of the Project’s Noise Analysis (refer to Technical Appendix M) for a description of
the CadnaA Noise Prediction Model parameters. Noise levels were calculated at the receiver locations shown
in Figure 4.9-2. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 38)
C. Transportation Noise Analysis Methodology
Transportation-related noise impacts were projected using a computer program that replicates the FHWA
Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108 (the “FHWA Model”). The FHWA Model arrives at a
predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL).
In California, the national REMELs are substituted with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission
Levels. Adjustments are then made to the REMELs to account for: 1) roadway classification (e.g., collector,
secondary, major or arterial), 2) roadway travel width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost
travel lanes on each side of the roadway), 3) total average daily traffic (ADT), 4) travel speed, 5) percentages
of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, 6) roadway grade, 7) angle of view
(e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), 8) site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-13
ground, pavement, or landscaping), and 9) percentage of total ADT that flows each hour throughout a 24-hour
period. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 25) Tables 6-1 through 6-6 from the Project’s Noise Analysis (refer to
Technical Appendix M) present the detailed model inputs for roadway parameters, average daily traffic
volumes, vehicle mix, and time of day vehicle splits that were assigned to each of the roadway segments
included in the in the transportation noise analysis.
D. Vibration Analysis Methodology
Vibration levels were predicted using reference vibration levels and logarithmic equations contained in the
Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) 2018 publication: “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment”
(Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 49). The vibration source levels for Project construction equipment are
summarized in Table 4.9-4, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment.
Table 4.9-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 10-5)
4.9.5 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 noise effects that could result from
development projects. The Project would result in a significant noise impact if the Project or any Project-
related component would result in:
a. Result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies;
b. Result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
In relation to Threshold “a,” Project-related construction and operational activities would be subject to the
applicable noise standards established by the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code. However, neither
the General Plan nor the Municipal Code define the levels at which a development project’s temporary or
permanent noise increases are considered substantial. Under Threshold “a,” CEQA requires that consideration
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-14
be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of sensitive
receptors in order to determine if a noise increase represents a substantial increase and thus a significant
adverse environmental impact. For purposes of this EIR, the metric used to evaluate the magnitude of
temporary construction noise levels is taken from the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) and the significance of
the Project’s permanent increase in ambient noise levels is adapted from the Federal Interagency Committee
on Noise (FICON). A detailed discussion of the noise exposure criteria is provided in Sections 3 and 8 of the
Project’s noise impact analysis (refer to Technical Appendix M). Accordingly, in consideration of the City’s
General Plan, Municipal Code, and the FTA and FICON noise exposure criteria, the Project would result in a
significant noise impact during operation if any of the following conditions occur:
Project construction activities would result in a significant impact if construction noise conflicts with the
City of Fontana Municipal Code (Section 18-63(b)(7)) and FTA criteria as follows:
• Construction activities occur within the hours permitted by right by the Fontana Municipal Code,
Section 18-63(7) (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
on Saturdays); and
o Project construction noise levels exceed 80 dBA Leq at adjacent land uses; or
• Construction activities occur outside of the hours permitted by the Fontana Municipal Code, Section
18-63(7) (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
Saturdays); and
o Project construction noise levels would exceed the exterior 70 dBA Leq daytime or 65 dBA Leq
nighttime noise level standards at adjacent land uses (City of Fontana Municipal Code, Chapter 30
Zoning and Development Code, Section 30-259).
Project operational activities would result in a significant impact if operational noise exceeds the levels
allowed by the City of Fontana Municipal Code (Section 30-543) and FICON criteria as follows:
• If operational (stationary-source) noise levels exceed the exterior 70 dBA Leq daytime or 65 dBA Leq
nighttime noise level standards at sensitive receptor land uses; and
o When the ambient noise levels at existing and future noise-sensitive land uses (e.g. residential, schools, churches, etc.) is less than 60 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a community noise level increase of greater than or equal to 5 dBA CNEL; or
o When the ambient noise levels at existing and future noise-sensitive land uses is between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a community noise level increase of greater than or equal to 3 dBA CNEL; or
o When the ambient noise levels at existing and future noise-sensitive land uses exceed 65 dBA
CNEL and the Project creates a community noise level increase of greater than or equal to 1.5 dBA CNEL.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-15
Project-related traffic noise would result in a significant impact if traffic noise exceeds the levels
established by FICON as follows:
• When off-site traffic noise levels at existing noise-sensitive land uses (e.g. residential, schools,
churches, etc.) is less than 60 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a community noise level increase of
greater than or equal to 5 dBA CNEL; or
• When off-site traffic noise levels at existing noise-sensitive land uses is between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL
and the Project creates a community noise level increase of greater than or equal to 3 dBA CNEL; or
• When off-site traffic noise levels at existing noise-sensitive land uses exceed 65 dBA CNEL and the
Project creates a community noise level increase of greater than or equal to 1.5 dBA CNEL.
In relation to Threshold “b,” the Fontana Municipal Code (Section 30-183) establishes a qualitative vibration
limit for acceptable levels of vibration. However, the Municipal Codes does not define the numeric level at
which a development project’s vibration levels are considered “excessive.” For purposes of this EIR, the
metric used to evaluate whether the Project’s vibration levels are considered “excessive” during either
construction or operation is adapted from FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Accordingly, in consideration of the Municipal Code and FTA criteria, for evaluation under Threshold “b,”
vibration levels are considered significant if Project-related activities would:
• Create or cause to be created any vibration activity that would exceed 0.2 in/sec PPV at an adjacent
land use.
Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP establishes noise level compatibility contour boundaries for activities on
properties, like the Project Site, that are located within the ONT Noise Impact Zone. For evaluation under
Threshold “c,” exposure to excessive noise levels from airport operations are considered significant if:
• The Project Site is located in the 65-70 CNEL dB noise contour (or above) and indoor noise levels
cannot be attenuated to a level of 50 dB CNEL.
4.9.6 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The analysis presented on the following pages summarizes the Project’s potential construction noise levels and
operational noise levels, including operational noise that would be generated on-site as well as off-site noise
that would be generated by Project-related traffic. The detailed noise calculations for the analysis presented
here are provided in Appendices 7.1 through 10.2 of the Project’s Noise Analysis (see Technical Appendix M).
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-16
A. Construction Noise Impact Analysis
Construction activities on the Project Site would proceed in six (6) stages: 1) demolition; 2) site preparation;
3) grading; 4) building construction; 5) paving; and 6) application of architectural coatings. These activities
would create temporary periods of noise when heavy construction equipment (i.e., bulldozer, trucks, concrete
mixer, portable generators, power tools) is in operation and would cause a short-term increase in ambient noise
levels. The Project construction noise levels at nearby receiver locations are summarized in Table 4.9-5,
Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary.
Table 4.9-5 Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary
Receiver Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Demolition Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Highest Levels2
R1 62.4 68.4 68.4 63.4 63.4 61.4 68.4
R2 63.5 69.5 69.5 64.5 64.5 62.5 69.5
R3 65.6 71.6 71.6 66.6 66.6 64.6 71.6
R4 67.5 73.5 73.5 68.5 68.5 66.5 73.5
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 4.9-2. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction activity, which is measured from the Project Site boundary to the nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 10.1 of the Project’s Noise Analysis (see Technical Appendix M). Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 10-2)
The noise levels presented in Table 4.9-5 are expected to occur during daytime hours when construction
activities are allowed by right pursuant to City Municipal Code Section 18-63(7). As previously noted, the
Municipal Code does not limit construction noise between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays
and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, thus proposed daytime construction activities
would not conflict with or exceed the standards established by the Municipal Code. Notwithstanding, noise
from daytime construction activities is evaluated against a secondary standard, established by the FTA, to
ensure that daytime construction noise does not result in a substantial adverse effect to nearby receptor
locations. The FTA standard of 80 dBA Leq is consistent with safety standards adopted by the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and construction noise levels of 80 dBA Leq or below have been
demonstrated to result in insignificant health effects to exposed receptors during prolonged exposure (more
than 8 hours per day) (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 35). Accordingly, daytime Project construction activities
would not expose nearby receptors to substantial adverse effects and impacts would be less than significant.
If the Project’s construction requires concrete pouring during nighttime hours (and if the City allows such
nighttime activities pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7)), the resulting noise levels are
summarized in Table 4.9-6, Nighttime Concrete Pouring Noise Level Summary. At all receiver locations, the
Project’s nighttime concrete pouring noise levels would not exceed the standards established by the City and
impacts would be less than significant.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-17
Table 4.9-6 Nighttime Concrete Pouring Noise Level Summary
Receiver Location1 Use
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Paving Construction2 Nighttime Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4
R1 Residence 53.8 65 No
R2 Residence 51.1 65 No
R3 Residence 52.2 65 No
R4 Residence 54.2 65 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 4.9-2. 2 Paving construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to nearby receiver locations. 3 Exterior noise level standards based on the City of Fontana Development Code Section 30-543. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the nighttime construction noise level threshold? Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 10-4)
B. Operational Noise Impact Analysis – Stationary Noise
Stationary (on-Site) noise sources associated with long-term Project operation are expected to include idling
trucks, delivery truck and automobile parking, delivery truck backup alarms, roof-top air conditioning units,
loading and unloading of delivery trailers, and parking lot vehicle movements. The daytime and nighttime
stationary noise levels from Project operations, as heard from nearby sensitive receptor locations, are
summarized on Table 4.9-7 and Table 4.9-8, respectively.
Table 4.9-7 Daytime Project Operational (Stationary) Noise Level Summary
Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq)
R1 R2 R3 R4
Cold Storage Loading Dock
Activity 53.7 51.0 51.8 53.0
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 26.8 21.0 27.8 34.4
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 23.3 3.7 23.5 39.3
Trash Enclosure Activity 22.2 0.0 0.0 2.4
Truck Movements 35.0 35.3 41.8 47.1
Total (All Noise Sources) 53.8 51.1 52.2 54.2
1 See Exhibit 9-A from the Project’s Noise Analysis (Technical Appendix M) for the on-Site noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 9.1 of the Project’s Noise Analysis (see Technical Appendix M). Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 9-2)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-18
Table 4.9-8 Nighttime Project Operational (Stationary) Noise Level Summary
Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq)
R1 R2 R3 R4
Cold Storage Loading Dock
Activity 53.7 51.0 51.8 53.0
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 24.4 18.6 25.4 32.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 22.4 2.7 22.5 38.3
Trash Enclosure Activity 21.2 0.0 0.0 1.5
Truck Movements 34.0 34.3 40.9 46.1
Total (All Noise Sources) 53.8 51.1 52.2 54.0
1 See Exhibit 9-A from the Project’s Noise Analysis (Technical Appendix M) for the on-Site noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 9.1 of the Project’s Noise Analysis (see Technical Appendix M). Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 9-3)
Table 4.9-7 and Table 4.9-8 demonstrate that Project operations will satisfy the City of Fontana 70 dBA Leq
daytime and 65 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards at the nearest receiver locations. Furthermore,
as shown in Table 4.9-9 and Table 4.9-10, Project operations are not expected to generate a substantial daytime
or nighttime noise level increase at the nearest receiver locations. Accordingly, the Project’s stationary noise
impact would be less than significant.
Table 4.9-9 Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases
Receiver Location1
Total Project Operational Noise Level2
Measurement Location3
Reference Ambient Noise Levels4
Combined Project and Ambient5
Project Increase6 Increase Criteria7
Increase Criteria Exceeded?
R1 53.8 L1 61.3 61.4 0.1 3.0 No
R2 51.1 L3 61.8 62.2 0.4 3.0 No
R3 52.2 L4 67.9 68.0 0.1 1.5 No
R4 54.2 L1 61.3 62.1 0.8 3.0 No
1 See Exhibit 9-A of the Project’s Noise Analysis (see Technical Appendix M) for the on-Site noise source locations. 2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 4.9-8. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Figure 4.9-1. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 See Subsection 4.9.5. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 9-5)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-19
Table 4.9-10 Nighttime Operational Noise Level Increases
Receiver Location1
Total Project Operational Noise Level2
Measurement Location3
Reference Ambient Noise Levels4
Combined Project and Ambient5
Project Increase6 Increase Criteria7
Increase Criteria Exceeded?
R1 53.8 L1 58.8 59.0 0.2 5.0 No
R2 51.1 L3 57.3 58.2 0.9 5.0 No
R3 52.2 L4 64.4 64.7 0.3 3.0 No
R4 54.0 L1 58.8 60.0 1.2 5.0 No
1 See Exhibit 9-A of the Project’s Noise Analysis (see Technical Appendix M) for the on-Site noise source locations. 2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 4.9-8. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Figure 4.9-1. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 See Subsection 4.9.5. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 9-6)
C. Off-Site Transportation Noise Impact Analysis
The analysis below addresses potential off-site traffic noise generated from the Project. To evaluate off-site
noise increases that could result from Project-related traffic on the roadway system, noise levels were modeled
for the following scenarios:
o Existing plus Project (E+P)
o Opening Year plus Cumulative (2023)
The Existing plus Project (E+P) analysis determines the Project’s traffic noise impacts under the theoretical
scenario where traffic from the Project is added to existing conditions. The E+P scenario is presented to
disclose direct impacts to the existing environment as required by CEQA. In the case of the Project, the
estimated time period between the commencement of the Project’s CEQA analysis (2021) and Project buildout
(2023) is two years. During this time period, traffic conditions are not static – other projects are being
constructed, the transportation network is evolving, and traffic patterns are changing. Therefore, the E+P
scenario is very unlikely to materialize in real-world conditions when the Project is constructed and becomes
operational. An analysis of E+P traffic conditions has been included in this report for informational purposes.
The Opening Year plus Cumulative conditions analysis evaluates the potential for Project traffic, background
traffic growth, and traffic associated with other known cumulative development projects to result in substantive
noise impacts.
1. Existing plus Project Conditions
E+P traffic noise conditions in the Project vicinity are summarized in Table 4.9-11, E+P Traffic Noise Levels.
Under E+P traffic conditions, Project-related traffic would contribute a maximum of 0.5 dBA CNEL to
roadways in the vicinity of the Project Site. This incremental noise increase would not exceed the applicable
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-20
significance thresholds under the E+P scenario; therefore, the Project’s contribution to off-site traffic noise
would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Table 4.9-11 E+P Traffic Noise Levels
ID Road Segment
CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)1
Adjacent Noise Sensitive Land Use?
Incremental Noise Level Increase Threshold
No Project With Project Project Addition Limit2 Exceeded?
1 Slover Av. w/o Oleander Av. 75.5 76.0 0.5 Yes 1.5 No
2 Slover Av. w/o Cypress Av. 75.9 76.1 0.2 Yes 1.5 No
3 Slover Av. w/o Juniper Av. 76.0 76.3 0.3 Yes 1.5 No
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 2 See Subsection 4.9.5. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 7-5)
2. Opening Year plus Cumulative (2023) Conditions
Opening Year plus Cumulative traffic noise conditions in the Project vicinity are summarized in Table 4.9-12,
Opening Year Traffic Noise Levels. Under Opening Year plus Cumulative traffic conditions, Project-related
traffic would contribute a maximum of 0.4 dBA CNEL to roadways in the vicinity of the Project Site. This
incremental noise increase would not exceed the applicable significance thresholds under the Opening Year
plus Cumulative scenario; therefore, the Project’s contribution to off-site traffic noise would not result in a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4.9-12 Opening Year Traffic Noise Levels
ID Road Segment
CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)1 Adjacent Noise Sensitive Land Use?
Incremental Noise Level Increase Threshold
No Project With Project Project Addition Limit2 Exceeded?
1 Slover Av. w/o Oleander Av. 76.4 76.8 0.4 Yes 1.5 No
2 Slover Av. w/o Cypress Av. 76.7 76.9 0.2 Yes 1.5 No
3 Slover Av. w/o Juniper Av. 76.8 77.0 0.2 Yes 1.5 No
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 2 See Subsection 4.9.5. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 7-6)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-21
Threshold b: Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
A. Construction Analysis
Construction activities on the Project Site would utilize equipment that has the potential to generate vibration.
Vibration levels at sensitive receptors near the Project Site during Project construction are summarized on
Table 4.9-14, Construction Equipment Vibration Levels. As shown, none of the receiver locations in the
vicinity of the Project Site would be exposed to vibration levels that exceed the applicable significance
threshold. Accordingly, Project construction would not generate excessive or substantial temporary
groundborne vibration or noise levels and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Table 4.9-13 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Receiver1
Distance to Const. Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds PPV (in/sec)
Thresholds Exceeded? Small bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded Trucks Large bulldozer
Highest Vibration Level
R1 495' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.2 No
R2 220' 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.2 No
R3 159' 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.2 No
R4 94' 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.012 0.012 0.2 No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Figure 4.9-2 2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary. 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 4.9-4). Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 10-6)
B. Operational Analysis
Under long-term conditions, the Project would not include or require equipment or activities that would result
in perceptible groundborne vibration beyond the Project Site. Trucks would travel to and from the Project Site
along local roadways; however, vibration levels for heavy trucks operating at the posted speed limits on paved
surfaces are not perceptible beyond the roadway. The Project would not result in the exposure of persons to
excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels during long-term operation and a less-than-significant impact
would occur.
Threshold c: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan,
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
The Project Site not located outside of the 60 dB CNEL airport noise contour for the ONT and is not located
within an ONT Noise Impact Zone (Ontario, 2011, Table 2-3). Pursuant to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, all
industrial land uses – including the warehouse building proposed by the Project – are suitable outside of the
60 dBA CNEL noise contour with no sound attenuation needed. Accordingly, the Project would be a
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-22
compatible use within the vicinity of the ONT and operation of the Project would not expose people working
on the Project Site to excessive noise levels. The Project’s impact would be less than significant.
4.9.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Construction Noise
There are no known active, pending, or planned construction projects in the immediate vicinity of the Project
Site that would overlap with the Project’s proposed construction schedule. Although the Project Site is
adjacent to the approved Sierra Business Center site (located north of Slover Avenue and east of Cypress
Avenue), simultaneous construction on the Project Site and the Sierra Business Center site is not expected to
occur because the Sierra Business Center project is substantially “ahead” of the proposed Project, having
already been approved and only requiring construction permits whereas the Project still needs to complete the
City’s discretionary review process before being considered for approval by the City’s decision-makers (and,
if approved, would still require the City’s review and issuance of construction permits). Notwithstanding, in
the unlikely event that construction on the Project Site and the Sierra Business Center site occur
simultaneously, the effect to sensitive receptors in proximity to the Project Site would not be cumulatively
considerable in consideration of the existing built environment adjacent to both sites. Specifically, the segment
of Cypress Avenue that separates the Project Site and the Sierra Business Center sites is an overpass that is
supported by a manufactured slope of solid, packed dirt that, essentially, serves as a noise barrier that disrupts
the line of sight between the two development sites and would substantially reduce the commingling of
construction noise between the two sites. Accordingly, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to the
exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to substantial temporary (construction-related) increases in daytime or
nighttime ambient noise levels.
B. Stationary Noise
The analysis presented for Threshold “a” addresses the Project’s contribution of noise to existing cumulative
noise sources (i.e., ambient noise) in the Project area. As previously shown in this Subsection, the Project’s
noise contribution would not be perceptible to noise-sensitive receptors in the Project area during daytime or
nighttime hours. The Project’s permanent stationary noise impacts would not be cumulatively-considerable.
C. Traffic Noise
The analysis presented under Threshold “a” evaluates the Project’s traffic noise contribution along study area
roadways with consideration of cumulative development (Opening Year plus Cumulative scenario). As
summarized in that analysis, the Project’s traffic noise contributions along study area roadways would not
exceed applicable significance thresholds and, therefore, would not be cumulatively-considerable under near-
or long-term conditions.
D. Groundborne Vibration and Noise
During construction, the Project’s peak vibration impacts would occur during the grading phase when large
pieces of equipment, like bulldozers, are operating on-site. (During the non-grading phases of Project
construction, when smaller pieces of equipment are used on-site, the Project’s vibration would be minimal.)
Vibration effects diminish rapidly from the source; therefore, the only reasonable sources of cumulative
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.9-23
vibration in the vicinity of the Project Site could occur on properties abutting these sites. As described above,
there are no known active or pending construction projects abutting the Project Site that would overlap with
the Project’s proposed construction schedule. Accordingly, there is no potential for the Project to contribute
to the exposure of persons to substantial temporary groundborne vibration or noise.
Under long-term conditions, the Project would not include or require equipment or activities that would result
in perceptible groundborne vibration beyond the Project Site. Trucks would travel to and from the Project Site
along local roadways; however, vibration levels for heavy trucks operating at the posted speed limits on paved
surfaces are not perceptible beyond the roadway. The Project would not cumulatively-contribute to the
exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels during long-term operation.
E. Airport Noise
The Project would not involve the construction, operation, or use of any public airports or public use airports.
There are no conditions associated with implementation of the Project that would contribute airport noise or
exposure of additional people to unacceptable levels of airport noise. Accordingly, the Project would have no
potential to cumulatively-contribute to impacts associated with noise from a public airport, public use airport,
or private airstrip. Additionally, the Project Site and the immediately surrounding area are not subject to
substantial airport- or air traffic-related noise. Accordingly, there is no potential for cumulative development
to expose persons residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport-related noise levels.
4.9.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would generate short-term construction and long-term
operational noise but would not generate noise levels that exceed the standards established by the Fontana
General Plan or Municipal Code.
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project’s construction and operational activities would not
result in a perceptible groundborne vibration or noise.
Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be compatible with noise levels from
the ONT and operation of the Project would not expose future employees on the Project Site to excessive noise
levels.
4.9.9 MITIGATION
Project impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.10-1
4.10 TRANSPORTATION
This Subsection assesses transportation impacts resulting from implementation of the Project. In accordance
with Senate Bill (SB) 743, further discussed under Subsection 4.10.2 below, the California Natural Resources
Agency (CNRA) adopted changes to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018, which identify that starting on
July 1, 2020, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation
impacts. As of December 2018, when the revised CEQA Guidelines were adopted, automobile delay, as
measured by “level of service” (LOS) and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant
environmental effect under CEQA. Lead agencies in California are required to use VMT to evaluate project-
related transportation impacts.
The VMT analysis for the Project is provided within a report (“Traffic Study”) prepared by Urban Crossroads
(Urban Crossroads, 2022f). This report, which is titled “Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Traffic
Study” and dated December 5, 2022, was prepared in accordance with the City of Fontana’s Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (October 21,
2020), and is provided as Technical Appendix N to this EIR.
4.10.1 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SETTING
A. Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled
The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) provides VMT data for each of its member
agencies and for the County of San Bernardino region via its San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model
(SBTAM). The SBTAM identifies a baseline VMT per service population value, which calculates the number
of daily vehicles miles traveled by each member of the “service population,” which includes area employees
and residents. Based on data from the SBTAM, the regional average VMT per service population is 28.37
(Urban Crossroads, 2022f, p. 60).
B. Existing Roadway System
The Project Site is located north of Slover Avenue. The Fontana General Plan classifies Slover Avenue as a
“Primary Highway.” Primary Highways are 4-lane roadways that often have raised medians or two-way left
turn lanes. The Project Site has five (5) driveway connections to Slover Avenue under existing conditions.
Existing traffic on Slover Avenue consists of both passenger vehicles and trucks passing through the area and
accessing nearby land uses.
The Project Site is located west of Cypress Avenue. The Fontana General Plan classifies Cypress Avenue as
a “Secondary Highway.” Secondary Highways have up to 4 lanes of travel and are typically used to carry
traffic along the perimeters of large developments. Abutting the Project Site, Cypress Avenue is elevated and
does not provide access to the Project Site. Existing traffic on Cypress Avenue consists of both passenger
vehicles and trucks passing through the area.
The Project Site is located east of Oleander Avenue. The Fontana General Plan classifies Oleander Avenue as
a “Collector Street.” Collector Streets are 2- or 4-lane roadways that are used to funnel traffic to Primary and
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.10-2
Secondary Highways. The Project Site has eight (8) driveway connections to Oleander Avenue under existing
conditions. Existing traffic on Oleander Avenue primarily consists of passenger vehicles.
The primary regional travel route serving the Project area is I-10, which is located approximately 0.1-mile
north of the Project Site. The Project Site is located approximately 0.6-mile (driving distance) southeast of the
Citrus Avenue on/off ramps at the I-10, and approximately 0.8-mile (driving distance) from the Sierra Avenue
on/off ramps.
C. Existing Truck Routes
The Fontana General Plan designates three roadways as “truck routes” in the Project Site vicinity: Slover
Avenue (which abuts the Project Site on the south), Citrus Avenue (which is located approximately 0.4-mile
west of the Project Site), and Sierra Avenue (which is located approximately 0.5-mile east of the Project Site).
D. Existing Transit Services
Public transit service in the region is provided by Omnitrans, a public transit agency that serves various
jurisdictions within San Bernardino County. There is existing bus service along Citrus Avenue and Slover
Avenue via Omnitrans Route 82 with multiple existing stops along Slover Avenue in close proximity to the
Project Site, including a stop along the Project Site frontage (approximately 300 feet west of Cypress Avenue).
E. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
There are no existing bicycle facilities in the Project area; however, Citrus Avenue and Cypress Avenue are
planned Class II bike facilities. There are no existing sidewalks abutting the Project Site along Slover Avenue
or Oleander Avenue; however, there is an existing sidewalk along Cypress Avenue abutting the Site.
4.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING
A. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Senate Bill 743
SB 743, which was codified in Public Resources Code Section 21099, required changes to the CEQA
Guidelines regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099,
the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must “promote the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land
uses.” To that end, in developing the criteria, the OPR proposed, and the CNRA certified and adopted changes
to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018, which entailed changes to the thresholds of significance for the
evaluation of impacts to transportation. The updated CEQA Guidelines include the addition of CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, of which subsection “b” establishes criteria for evaluating a project’s
transportation impacts based on project type and using automobile VMT as the metric.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.10-3
B. Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council approved and adopted the 2020-2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“Connect SoCal”). Connect SoCal is the applicable
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the Project. The goals of
Connect SoCal are to: 1) Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness; 2) Improve
mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods; 3) Enhance the preservation, security,
and resilience of the regional transportation system; 4) Increase person and goods movement and travel choices
within the transportation system; 5) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality; 6) Support
healthy and equitable communities; 7) Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional
development pattern and transportation network; 8) Leverage new transportation technologies and data-driven
solutions that result in more efficient travel; 9) Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that
are supported by multiple transportation options; 10) Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands
and restoration of habitats. Performance measures and funding strategies also are included to ensure that the
adopted goals are achieved through implementation of the RTP.
2. San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program
The San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was prepared by the San Bernardino
Associated Governments (since re-named as the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, SBCTA).
The intent of the CMP is to create a link between land use, transportation, and air quality planning decisions
and to prompt reasonable growth management programs that would more effectively utilize new and existing
transportation funds to alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts and improve air quality. The San
Bernardino CMP was first adopted in November 1992 and has since been updated 12 times, with the most
recent comprehensive update in June 2016. None of the roadways in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site
are part of the San Bernardino CMP arterial roadway network (Urban Crossroads, 2022f, p. 5).
3. Fontana General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element
The City’s General Plan contains a Community Mobility and Circulation Element that is intended to guide the
development of the City’s circulation system in a manner that is compatible with the General Plan’s land use
vision. The Mobility and Circulation Element provides policy direction to create a system of “complete
streets,” which refers to a multi-modal transportation network designed and operated to meet the needs of all
users. Through the goals and policies of this Chapter, the City will strive to meet diverse mobility needs and
reduce vehicle miles traveled, which will reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and roadway
congestion. The Mobility and Circulation Element goals and policies applicable to the Project are addressed
later in this Subsection (see analysis under Threshold “a”).
4. Fontana Active Transportation Plan
The Fontana Active Transportation Plan was created by the City as a tool for implementing infrastructure
improvements that will provide for the development of a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycling network that
provides safe and comfortable access to local parks, schools, workplaces, shopping, and dining, as well as to
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.10-4
destinations in other San Bernardino County communities. The goals and policies of the Fontana Active
Transportation Plan that are applicable to the Project are addressed later in this Subsection (see analysis under
Threshold “a”).
5. San Bernardino County Measure “I”
Measure “I,” a one-half of one percent sales tax on retail transactions, was approved by San Bernardino County
voters in 1989 and extended by County voters in 2004 to remain effective through the year 2040. While
Measure “I” is a self‐executing sales tax, it bears discussion here because the funds raised through Measure
“I” have funded in the past and will continue to fund new transportation facilities in San Bernardino County,
including within the City. The revenue generated by Measure “I” is to be used to fund transportation projects
including, but not limited to, roadway improvements, commuter rail, public transit, and other identified
improvements. Measure “I” also required that a local traffic impact fee be created to ensure that development
projects are paying a fair share for transportation projects from which they would benefit (see discussion of
“Fontana Development Impact Fee Program,” below). Revenues collected through local traffic impact fee
programs are used in tandem with regional Measure “I” revenues to fund projects identified in the SANBAG
Development Mitigation Nexus Study, which is included as Appendix G to the San Bernardino County CMP.
6. City of Fontana Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program
The City of Fontana created its Development Impact Fee (DIF) program to impose and collect fees from new
residential, commercial, and industrial development for the purpose of funding local improvements necessary
to accommodate expected local growth, as identified in the City’s General Plan. The collected fees are used
to fund Measure “I” regional facilities as well as local (i.e., City) facilities. The identification and nomination
of specific roadway and intersection improvement projects and the disbursement of the DIF to fund capital
improvement programs is overseen by the City’s Engineering Department.
4.10.3 VMT EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
The Project’s VMT analysis was prepared in accordance with the City of Fontana’s Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (October 21, 2020) and
relies on the analysis methodologies that are generally summarized below. Refer to Section 7 of the Project’s
Traffic Study (Technical Appendix N) for a detailed description of the methodology used in the VMT analysis.
The Project’s VMT analysis relies on the SBTAM to extract baseline and cumulative VMT values with and
without the Project. The model runs with the Project account for the Project’s land use and service population.
For employment-generating land uses, like the proposed Project, the City considers the service population to
be the number of employees supported by the Project. Project-generated VMT includes all employee vehicle
trips that are traced to the Project’s TAZ, this includes internal to internal, internal to external, and external to
internal trips, and is generated as a total VMT value. The Project’s VMT is converted to a service population
efficiency metric by dividing the VMT by the Project’s number of employees to allow a comparison with the
baseline and cumulative VMT generated by the SBTAM.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.10-5
As noted in the City’s VMT analysis guidelines, a development project would result in a significant VMT
impact if either of the following conditions is met: 1) Baseline project-generated VMT per service population
is not at least 15 percent below the baseline VMT in San Bernardino County; or 2) Cumulative project-
generated VMT per service population is not at least 15 percent below the baseline VMT in San Bernardino
County. The baseline VMT per employee vehicle trip originating within San Bernardino County is 16.90
miles; therefore, for analysis purposes, the City’s VMT significance threshold for the Project is set at 14.37
VMT per Project employee (Urban Crossroads, 2022f, p. 60).
4.10.4 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 transportation-related effects that
could result from development projects. The proposed Project would result in a significant transportation
impact if the Project or any Project-related component would:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3 or conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
4.10.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
This response provides an analysis of a project’s potential to conflict with plans, programs, ordinances, or
policies that address the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. A
project that generally conforms with, and does not obstruct, applicable development plans, programs,
ordinances, and policies is considered to be consistent. The transportation plans, policies, programs,
ordinances, and standards that are relevant to the Project are identified in the analysis below.
SCAG Connect SoCal
The fundamental goals of SCAG’s Connect SoCal are to make the SCAG region a better place to live, work,
and play for all residents regardless of race, ethnicity, or income class. As indicated below, implementation
of the Project would not conflict with the goals and policies of SCAG’s regional planning program that are
applicable to the Project and related to vehicular and non-vehicular circulation. As such, Project impacts would
be less than significant.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.10-6
Goal 2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods.
No component of the Project would alter, modify, or obstruct local transportation facilities in a manner that
would adversely affect the mobility, accessibility, or reliability of the local transportation network. As
discussed later in this section under the response to Threshold “c,” the Project would not result in a substantial
safety hazard to motorists. Additionally, the proposed building – as an indoor storage facility in close proximity
to State highway facilities – would facilitate the mobility and reliability of the movement of goods throughout
the region. The Project would not conflict with this goal from Connect SoCal.
Goal 3: Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system.
The Project would not conflict with the City’s transportation network or the City’s coordination with other
agencies. The Project contributes to and would be consistent with planned land use and growth assumptions
in the City of Fontana, as anticipated by the General Plan. The Project Applicant would pay applicable
development impact fees that would fund additional local traffic improvements and maintenance of roadway
infrastructure in the Project area. The Project would not conflict with this goal from Connect SoCal.
Goal 4: Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system.
The Project involves development of an industrial building within a developing industrial area on a property
that abuts a designated City truck route in proximity to the State highway system, which would facilitate goods
movement locally and within the region. The Project would construct new sidewalks along Slover Avenue
and Oleander Avenue and would retain an existing bus stop along the Site’s frontage with Slover Avenue.
Also, the Project provides on-Site bicycle parking facilities and no component of the Project would obstruct
or prevent the use of Slover Avenue as a planned Class II bicycle facility. Accordingly, the Project would
ensure that multiple travel choices are available for future employees. The Project would not conflict with this
goal from Connect SoCal.
Fontana General Plan
The following provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies of the
Fontana General Plan that focus on connecting neighborhoods and city destinations by expanding
transportation choices within the City. Many of the goals and policies applicable to the Project are found in
the Community Mobility and Circulation Element; however, several applicable goals and policies also are
found in the Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element. As indicated in the analysis below and on the
following pages, the Project would not conflict with any applicable General Plan policies addressing the
circulation system. As such, Project impacts would be less than significant.
Community Mobility and Circulation Element
Goal 1: The City of Fontana has a comprehensive and balanced transportation system with safety and
multimodal accessibility the top priority of citywide transportation planning, as well as accommodating
freight movement.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.10-7
Policy: Provide roadways that serve the needs of Fontana residents and commerce, and that facilitate safe
and convenient access to transit, bicycle facilities, and walkways.
The Project would not result in the alteration of the vehicular travel way for Slover Avenue or Cypress Avenue
and, thus, would not hinder either roadway’s ability to serve adjacent land uses. The Project provides for
improvements to the eastern half of Oleander Avenue abutting the Project Site that would improve the safety
and efficiency of vehicle access north of Slover Avenue. The Project provides for the construction of new
sidewalks along the Project Site’s frontages with Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue and would retain the
existing sidewalk along Cypress Avenue. In addition, the proposed site plan provides bicycle parking facilities
for Project employees and retains an existing bus stop along the Site’s frontage with Slover Avenue. As
discussed in detail in the response to Threshold “c,” below, the Project would not introduce incompatible uses
or design hazards that would result in safety hazards to cars, pedestrians, or bicyclists. Based on the foregoing
information, the Project would not conflict with this General Plan policy.
Policy: Make land use decisions that support walking, bicycling, and public transit use, in alignment with the
2014-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy.
As noted above under the consistency discussion for Connect SoCal provided above, implementation of the
Project would not conflict with the applicable transportation goals and policies of SCAG’s regional planning
program. Further, the Project would include bicycle parking facilities for employees and the Project provides
for the construction of new sidewalks where the Project Site abuts Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue,
thereby preserving and promoting local opportunities for walking and bicycling. The Project would not
conflict with this General Plan policy.
Goal 2: Fontana’s street network is safe and accessible to all users, especially the most vulnerable such as
children, youth, older adults and people with disabilities.
Policy: When constructing or modifying roadways, design the roadway space for use by all users when
feasible, including motor vehicles, buses, bicyclists, mobility devices, and pedestrians, as appropriate for the
context of the area.
The Project would not result in any modifications to the vehicle travel way for Slover Avenue or Cypress
Avenue along the Project Site’s frontages, which would ensure that these roadways remain accessible for motor
vehicles and bicyclists. The Project would result in the widening of Oleander Avenue along the Project Site
frontage, which would make the roadway more accessible to vehicle and bicycle traffic. The Project would not
introduce any hazards or obstacles within any public right of right-of-way while providing for the construction
of new sidewalks along the Project Site’s frontages with Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue (and the
retention of the existing sidewalk along Cypress Avenue), thereby ensuring safe local access for pedestrians.
Lastly, ramps provided at Project driveways connecting to Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue would meet
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements to ensure that safe and accessible paths of travel are
available for pedestrians that utilize mobility devices. The Project would not conflict with this General Plan
policy.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.10-8
Policy: Support designated truck routes that avoid negative impacts on residential and commercial areas while
accommodating the efficient movement of trucks on designated truck routes and arterial streets.
The Project Site abuts Slover Avenue, which is a designated City of Fontana truck route. Project-related traffic
would utilize Slover Avenue to access I-10 via Citrus Avenue or Sierra Avenue, which also are designated
City of Fontana truck routes. Accordingly, Project-related truck traffic is expected to solely utilize City truck
routes between the Project Site and the State highway system and would not utilize streets within local
residential or commercial areas. The Project would not conflict with this General Plan policy.
Goal 3: Local transit within the City of Fontana is a viable choice for residents, easily accessible and serving
destinations throughout the city.
Policy: Maximize the accessibility, safety, convenience, and appeal of transit service and transit stops.
Omnitrans provides public transit service within the City of Fontana. Under existing conditions, Omnitrans
operates Route 82 along Slover Avenue with multiple stops in the vicinity of the Project Site, including a stop
along the Project Site frontage (approximately 300 feet west of Cypress Avenue). The Project would not result
in an impact to the existing transit stop along its frontage and would not introduce any improvements within
the right-of-way that would hinder the operations of Route 82. Accordingly, the Project would not affect the
accessibility of transit service or the safety of transit stops adjacent to the Project Site. The Project would not
conflict with this General Plan policy.
Goal 6: The city has attractive and convenient parking facilities for both motorized and non-motorized
vehicles that fit the context.
Policy: Provide the right amount of motor vehicle and bicycle parking in commercial and employment centers
to support vibrant economic activity.
The Project’s site plan provides motor vehicle parking, including designated parking spaces and charging
apparatus for electric vehicles, and bicycle parking that conforms to the applicable requirements of the City’s
Zoning and Development Code. The Project would not conflict with this General Plan policy.
Land Use, Zoning and Urban Design Element
Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic prosperity.
Policy: Locate industrial uses where there is easy access to regional transportation routes.
The Project Site is located adjacent to three designated City of Fontana truck routes that would provide easy
access to/from the Site from I-10: Slover Avenue, Citrus Avenue, and Sierra Avenue. Slover Avenue abuts
the Project Site on the south. Citrus Avenue is located approximately 0.4-mile west of the Site. Sierra Avenue
is located approximately 0.5-mile east of the Project Site. Via Slover Avenue and Citrus Avenue, the Project
Site is located at a driving distance of approximately 0.6-mile from the Citrus Avenue on/off-ramp to I-10.
Via Slover Avenue and Sierra Avenue, the Project Site is located at a driving distance of approximately 0.8-
mile from the Sierra Avenue on/off-ramp to I-10. The Project would not conflict with this General Plan policy.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.10-9
Goal 5: High-quality job producing industrial uses are concentrated in a few locations where there is easy
access to regional transportation routes.
Policy: Promote the Southwest Industrial Park and the I-10 corridor as preferred locations for industrial uses.
The Project Site is located within the I-10 corridor – the Site is located approximately 0.1-mile south of I-10 –
with easy access to regional transportation routes. The Project Site is located adjacent to three designated City
of Fontana truck routes that provide access to/from the Site from I-10: Slover Avenue, Citrus Avenue, and
Sierra Avenue. Slover Avenue abuts the Project Site on the south. Citrus Avenue is located approximately
0.4-mile west of the Site. Sierra Avenue is located approximately 0.5-mile east of the Project Site. Via Slover
Avenue and Citrus Avenue, the Project Site is located at a driving distance of approximately 0.6-mile from the
Citrus Avenue on/off-ramp to I-10. Via Slover Avenue and Sierra Avenue, the Project Site is located at a
driving distance of approximately 0.8-mile from the Sierra Avenue on/off-ramp to I-10.
Fontana Active Transportation Plan
The following provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies of the City
of Fontana’s Active Transportation Plan. As indicated in the analysis below and on the following pages, the
Project would not conflict with any applicable Active Transportation Plan goals and policies addressing the
circulation system. As such, Project impacts would be less than significant.
Goal 1 MOBILITY & ACCESS: Increase and improve pedestrian and bicyclist access to employment
centers, schools, transit, recreation facilities, other community destinations across the City of Fontana, and
facilities in neighboring cities for people of all ages and abilities.
Objective 1.A: Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 4% by 2035.
The VMT generated by the Project’s service population (i.e., employees) would be less than the regional
average. The regional average VMT per employee is 16.90 whereas the Project’s VMT per employee is
calculated to range between 13.8 and 14.2 VMT (an approximately 16 to 18 percent reduction to the existing
baseline, see response to Threshold “b” for more information). Because the Project would generate VMT that
is below the regional baseline, the Project is considered to not substantially influence or increase VMT within
the City. The Project would not conflict with this objective or obstruct the City from achieving this objective.
Objective 1.B: Reduce barriers to pedestrian and bicyclist travel.
The Project would provide new sidewalks along the Project Site’s frontages with Slover Avenue and Oleander
Avenue and would retain the existing sidewalk along the Project Site’s frontage with Cypress Avenue, thereby
preserving and promoting local opportunities for walking. The site plan for the Project provides bicycle parking
facilities for Project employees, thereby promoting local opportunities for bicycling. The Project would not
conflict with this objective from the Active Transportation Plan.
GOAL 3 INFRASTRUCTURE & SUPPORT FACILITIES: Maintain and improve the quality, operation,
and integrity of the pedestrian and bicycle network infrastructure that allows for convenient and direct
connections throughout Fontana. Increase the number of high-quality support facilities to complement the
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.10-10
network, and create public pedestrian and bicycle environments that are attractive, functional, and
accessible to all people.
Objective 3.A: Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities into private and public development
projects.
The Project would provide new sidewalks along the Project Site’s frontages with Slover Avenue and Oleander
Avenue and would retain the existing sidewalk along the Project Site’s frontage with Cypress Avenue, thereby
preserving and promoting local opportunities for walking. The site plan for the Project provides bicycle parking
facilities for Project employees, thereby promoting local opportunities for bicycling. The Project would not
conflict with this objective from the Active Transportation Plan.
Objective 3.B: Provide and maintain walkways and bikeways that are clean, safe, and attractive in accordance
with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)
guidelines.
The Project would not result in any modifications to the vehicle travel way for Slover Avenue or Cypress
Avenue along the Project Site’s frontages, which would ensure that these roadways remain accessible for motor
vehicles and bicyclists. The Project would result in the widening of Oleander Avenue along the Project Site
frontage, which would make the roadway more accessible to vehicle and bicycle traffic. The Project would not
introduce any hazards or obstacles within any public right of right-of-way while providing for the construction
of new sidewalks along the Project Site’s frontages with Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue (and the
retention of the existing sidewalk along Cypress Avenue), thereby ensuring safe local access for pedestrians.
Lastly, ramps provided at Project driveways connecting to Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue would meet
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements to ensure that safe and accessible paths of travel are
available for pedestrians that utilize mobility devices. The Project would not conflict with this objective from
the Active Transportation Plan.
Threshold b: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, or
conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to,
level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highway?
The City of Fontana’s VMT analysis guidelines, as set forth 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. The City’s VMT analysis guidelines establish
analysis methodologies that the City’s Engineering Department determined to be most appropriate for different
types of development projects. The City’s VMT analysis guidelines classify the Project as a single-
employment generating land use, for which VMT per employee is the metric used to evaluate the significance
of Project-related VMT.
Using employment generation factors from SCAG, the Project’s transportation analysis assumed the Project
would have 523 employees (Urban Crossroads, 2022f, p. 58). Under Baseline (2021) traffic conditions, the
Project is calculated to generate 14.40 VMT per employee without consideration of the Project’s design
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.10-11
features (Urban Crossroads, 2022f, p. 59). With consideration of the Project’s design features – preferential
parking for carpool/vanpools and bicycle parking – the Project’s VMT is calculated to range between 13.8 and
14.2 VMT per employee (Urban Crossroads, 2022f, p. 60).The Project’s VMT would be approximately 16 to
18 percent below the average regional trip length, which would surpass the VMT reductions required by the
applicable City significance threshold (15 percent below the average regional trip length). Accordingly, the
Project’s VMT impact is considered to be less than significant and the Project would not conflict with or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3.
There are no CMP arterial roadways in the vicinity of the Project Site and the Project would neither generate
250 or more peak hour trips nor send 50 or more peak hour trips to a State highway facility (Urban Crossroads,
2022f, pp. 5, 38-41). As such, the Project would not be considered a major traffic generator pursuant to the
San Bernardino County CMP’s traffic impact analysis guidelines and is not expected to substantially affect
the performance of the CMP circulation network. The CMP’s land use and travel demand management goals
and policies are directed to local and regional public agencies and none would be directly applicable to the
Project. Notwithstanding, the Project does not include any component that would prevent or obstruct the
implementation of the CMP’s goals and policies. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with the
applicable congestion management plan and no impact would occur.
Threshold c: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The types of traffic generated during operation of the Project (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) would be
compatible with the type of traffic observed along adjacent roadways under existing conditions. All proposed
improvements within the public right-of-way would be installed in conformance with City design standards.
If any component of Project construction would occur in the public right-of-way and require the partial or full
closure of a sidewalk and/or travel lane, all work would be required to adhere to the applicable construction
control practices that are specified in the State of California Department of Transportation Construction
Manual and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, to minimize potential safety hazards.
The City reviewed the Project’s site plan drawings and determined that no hazardous transportation design
features would be introduced within the City public right-of-way through implementation of the Project. Based
on the foregoing information, the Project’s construction and operation would not create or substantially
increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold d: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access?
The types of traffic generated during operation of the Project (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) would be
compatible with the type of traffic observed along surrounding roadways under existing conditions. In addition,
all proposed improvements within the public right-of-way would be installed in conformance with City design
standards. The City reviewed the Project’s site plan drawings and determined that no hazardous transportation
design features would be introduced through implementation of the Project. Specifically, all Project
construction materials and equipment would be stored/staged on the Project Site and would not interfere with
emergency vehicles traveling along Slover Avenue, Cypress Avenue, or Oleander Avenue. Any Project
construction activities that would occur within the Slover Avenue public right-of-way and requires a partial or
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.10-12
full closure of a sidewalk or vehicle travel lane would require a traffic control plan that complies with the
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and that must be approved by the City of Fontana to
ensure that emergency response is not adversely affected. Accordingly, the Project’s construction and
operation would not create or substantially increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use.
No impact would occur.
4.10.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
As described under the response to Threshold “a,” the Project would not conflict with an applicable program,
plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities and, thus, would not cumulatively contribute to a conflict or obstruction with an applicable
transportation-related program.
Under cumulative traffic conditions, the Project is calculated to generate 7.29 VMT per employee (Urban
Crossroads, 2022f, p. 59). The Project’s cumulative VMT would be approximately 49 percent below the
average regional trip length (i.e., 14.37 miles), which would surpass the VMT reductions required by
applicable significance threshold (15 percent below the average regional trip length). Accordingly, the
Project’s cumulative VMT impact is considered to be less than significant.
As noted under the analysis for Threshold “b,” the Project would not conflict with the San Bernardino County
CMP. None of the goals or policies within the CMP are applicable to private development projects. Therefore,
the Project would have no potential to contribute to a conflict with the CMP that would result in a cumulatively
considerable environmental effect.
The Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact under the topics discussed under
Thresholds “c” and “d” because the Project would not cause or exacerbate existing transportation design safety
concerns or adversely affect emergency access and there are no cumulative development projects adjacent to
the Project Site that could contribute additive effects that could degrade motor vehicle or pedestrian safety or
emergency vehicle access in proximity to the Project Site.
4.10.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with an applicable program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system.
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact. The VMT generated by the Project would not exceed the City’s significance threshold. Further, the Project would not conflict with the San Bernardino County CMP.
Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not introduce any significant transportation
safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use.
Threshold d: No Impact. Adequate emergency access would be provided to the Project Site during construction
and long-term operation. The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access to the Site or
surrounding properties.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.10-13
4.10.8 MITIGATION
The Project would result in a less than significant transportation impact and no mitigation is required.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.11-1
4.11 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This Subsection relies on information from a cultural resource report titled “A Cultural Resources
Study for the Cypress/Slover Industrial Center Project” (dated January 27, 2022). The report was
prepared by BFSA and is included as Technical Appendix E to this EIR. The analysis in this Subsection
also contains information obtained by the City during consultation with local Native American tribal
representatives. All references used in this Subsection are listed in EIR Section 7.0, References.
Under existing law, environmental documents must not include information about the location of
archeological sites or sacred lands or any other information that is exempt from public disclosure
pursuant to the Public Records Act (California Code Regulations Section 15120(d)). Accordingly,
confidential information has been redacted from Technical Appendix E for purposes of public review.
In addition, written and oral communication between Native American tribes, the City, and BFSA with
respect to places that may have traditional tribal cultural significance is considered confidential and
are not available for public review (California Government Code Section 65352.4).
4.11.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Regional Setting
Refer to Subsection 4.3, Cultural Resources, for a description of the pre/protohistoric period setting
for the Inland Empire region and the Fontana area.
B. Project Site Conditions
The portion of the Project Site located north of existing Boyle Avenue was used for agriculture
(orchards) and residential uses beginning sometime between the early 1900s and the 1930s, except for
the northeast corner of the Site which was vacant. By the 1950s, the orchards were cleared from several
parcels in the northeast corner of the Site and replaced with a barn (possibly a commercial chicken
house) abutting the existing alignment of Cypress Avenue. The northern portion of the Project Site
was mostly unchanged until the mid-1990s/early-2000s when several parcels were cleared and used
for industrial land uses (a trucking business, trailer parking, and a construction company).
The portion of the Project Site located south of existing Boyle Avenue was used for agriculture
(orchards) and residential uses beginning sometime between the early 1900s and the 1930s, except for
the southeast corner which remained vacant. These uses continued until the 1950s, when several
residences and commercial chicken houses were constructed on the portions of the Project Site abutting
Slover Avenue. The chicken houses were removed from the southwestern portion of the Project Site
by 1975 and were removed from the southeastern portion of the Project Site by the early 2000s.
Following the removal of the chicken houses on the southern portion of the Project Site, these areas
were used for industrial purposes (a trucking business, trailer parking, and a recycling business).
BFSA surveyed the Project Site for the presence of prehistoric and protohistoric archaeological
resources. BFSA noted that the entire Project Site was heavily disturbed and appeared to have been
rough-graded in the past. Ground visibility on the Site was limited due to the residential and industrial
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.11-2
development present on portions of the Site at the time of the survey, while other portions of the Site
contained rubble from completed demolition activities. Notwithstanding, BFSA did not observe any
prehistoric or protohistoric resources on the Project Site. (BFSA, 2022a, p. 3.0-2)
BFSA also performed an archaeological records search through the South Central Coastal Information
Center (SCCIC) at California State University (CSU), Fullerton. The records search provided
information regarding previous archaeological studies in the Project area and any previously recorded
sites within a one-mile radius of the Project site. The results of this records search indicate that no
prehistoric or protohistoric artifacts have been recorded on the Project Site or within a one-mile radius
of the Site. (BFSA, 2022a, p. 1.0-17)
4.11.2 REGULATORY SETTING
A. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA; Public Law 101-601; 25
U.S.C. 3001-3013) describes the rights of Native American lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and
Native Hawaiian organizations with respect to the treatment, repatriation, and disposition of Native
American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony, referred
to collectively in the statute as cultural items, with which they can show a relationship of lineal descent
or cultural affiliation.
One major purpose of this statute is to require that federal agencies and museums receiving Federal
funds inventory holdings of Native American human remains and funerary objects and provide written
summaries of other cultural items. The agencies and museums must consult with Indian Tribes and
Native Hawaiian organizations to attempt to reach agreements on the repatriation or other disposition
of these remains and objects. Once lineal descent or cultural affiliation has been established, and in
some cases the right of possession also has been demonstrated, lineal descendants, affiliated Indian
Tribes, or affiliated Native Hawaiian organizations normally make the final determination about the
disposition of cultural items. Disposition may take many forms from reburial to long term curation,
according to the wishes of the lineal descendent(s) or culturally affiliated Tribe(s).
The second major purpose of the statute is to provide greater protection for Native American burial
sites and more careful control over the removal of Native American human remains, funerary objects,
sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony on Federal and tribal lands. NAGPRA requires that
Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations be consulted whenever archaeological investigations
encounter, or are expected to encounter, Native American cultural items or when such items are
unexpectedly discovered on Federal or tribal lands. Excavation or removal of any such items also must
be done under procedures required by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. This NAGPRA
requirement is likely to encourage the in-situ preservation of archaeological sites, or at least the
portions of them that contain burials or other kinds of cultural items. (NPS, 2021c)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.11-3
Other provisions of NAGPRA: (1) stipulate that illegal trafficking in human remains and cultural items
may result in criminal penalties; (2) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer a grants
program to assist museums and Indian Tribes in complying with certain requirements of the statute;
(3) requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a Review Committee to provide advice and
assistance in carrying out key provisions of the statute; authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
penalize museums that fail to comply with the statute; and, (5) directs the Secretary to develop
regulations in consultation with this Review Committee.
B. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations
1. California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4308
Section 4308, Archaeological Features, of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code provides
that: “No person shall remove, injure, disfigure, deface, or destroy any object of archaeological, or
historical interest or value.”
2. California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1427
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Section 1427 provides that: “No person shall collect
or remove any object or thing of archaeological or historical interest or value, nor shall any person
injure, disfigure, deface or destroy the physical site, location or context in which the object or thing of
archaeological or historical interest or value is found.”
3. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52)
California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) (2014) Chapter 532 amended Section 5097.94 of, and added
Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21802.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3 to the
California Public Resources Code, relating to Native Americans. AB 52 was approved on September
25, 2014. By including tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to
ensure that local and Tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have
information available, early in the project planning process, to identify and address potential adverse
impacts to tribal cultural resources. By taking this proactive approach, the legislature also intended to
reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process.
The Public Resources Code (PRC) now establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment.” (PRC, Section 21084.2.) To help determine whether a project
may have such an effect, the PRC requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native
American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
geographic area of a proposed project. That consultation must take place prior to the determination of
whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is
required for a project. (PRC, Section 21080.3.1.)
If a lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to tribal cultural
resources, the lead agency must consider measures to mitigate that impact. PRC Section 20184.3 (b)(2)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.11-4
provides examples of mitigation measures that lead agencies may consider to avoid or minimize
impacts to tribal cultural resources.
Section 21074 of the PRC defines “tribal cultural resources.” In brief, in order to be considered a “tribal
cultural resource,” a resource must be either:
(1) listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, on the national, state, or local register of historic
resources, or
(2) a resource that the lead agency chooses, in its discretion, to treat as a tribal cultural resource.
In the latter instance, the lead agency must determine that the resource meets the criteria for listing in
the state register of historic resources. In applying those criteria, a lead agency must consider the value
of the resource to the tribe.
4. State Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5(b) requires that excavation and disturbance
activities must cease “In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location
other than a dedicated cemetery…” until the coroner can determine regarding the circumstances,
manner, and cause of any death. The coroner is then required to make recommendations concerning
the treatment and disposition of the human remains. Further, this section of the code makes it a
misdemeanor to intentionally disturb, mutilate or remove interred human remains. Section 7051
specifies that the removal of human remains from “internment or a place of storage while awaiting
internment” with the intent to sell them or to dissect them with “malice or wantonness” is a public
offense punishable by imprisonment in a state prison. Lastly, HSC Sections 8010-8011 establish the
California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act consistent with the federal law
addressing the same. The Act stresses that “all California Indian human remains and cultural items are
to be treated with dignity and respect.” It encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and
cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums in California. It also outlines the need for
aiding California Indian tribes, including non-federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims.
California HSC, Section 5097.98 states that whenever the commission receives notification of a
discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to HSC subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5, it
shall immediately notify those persons that are the most likely descendants. The descendants may
inspect the site and make recommendations to the landowner as to the treatment of the human remains.
The landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity around the remains is not damaged or disturbed
by further development activity until coordination has occurred with the descendants regarding their
recommendations for treatment, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The
descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations within 48 hours of being
granted access to the site.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.11-5
5. California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5 (the State CEQA
Guidelines) establishes the procedure for determining the significance of impacts to archaeological and
historical resources, as well as classifying the type of resource. Cultural resources are aspects of the
environment that require identification and assessment for potential significance. The evaluation of
cultural resources under CEQA is based upon the definitions of resources provided in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5, as follows:
• A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission,
for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code Section 5024.1,
Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
• A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k)
of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey
meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed
to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as
significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or
culturally significant.
• Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency
determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering,
scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of
California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s
determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a
resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource
meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code
Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
o Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage;
o Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
o Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values; or
o Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
• The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources
(pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical
resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does
not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as
defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.11-6
4.11.3 METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
The analysis of tribal cultural resources is based on a cultural resources records search through SCCIC
at CSU Fullerton, historic background research, a review of historic aerial photographs, and a visit to
the Project Site. In addition, this analysis is based on consultation between the City and interested
Native American tribes pursuant to AB 52.
4.11.4 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds listed below are from the City of Fontana’s Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act and address the typical, adverse effects related to tribal cultural
resources that could result from development projects. The Project would result in a significant impact
to tribal cultural resources if the Project or any Project-related component would:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth is subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.11-7
4.11.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or
in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
No pre/protohistoric resource sites, features, places, or landscapes were identified on the Project Site
that are either listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Places (BFSA, 2022a,
pp. 1.0-17 to -18, 3.0-2). To be eligible for the Register, a resource must include the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of California's history and cultural heritage;
(B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
(C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values; or
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC,
Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852)
No tribal cultural resources were identified on the Project Site that meet any of the four criteria listed
above to be eligible for the California Register and no prehistoric resource sites or isolates are known
to exist on the Project Site (ibid.). Furthermore, no substantial evidence was presented to or found by
the City during the tribal consultation process that led to the identification of any features or resources
on the Project Site that in the City’s discretion had the potential to be considered a tribal cultural
resource.
As part of the AB 52 consultation process required by State law, the City sent notification of the Project
to Native American tribes with possible traditional or cultural affiliation to the Project area on July 26,
2022. No Native American tribe requested consultation with the City or provided the City with
substantial evidence indicating that tribal cultural resources, as defined in PRC Section 21074, are
present on the Project Site or have been found previously on the Project Site. Notwithstanding, due to
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.11-8
the Project Site’s location in an area where Native American tribes are known to have a cultural
affiliation, there is the possibility that pre/protohistoric archaeological resources, including tribal
cultural resources, could be encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities – although
this likelihood is considered low due to the pervasive, historic and on-going disturbances that have
occurred on the Project Site. In the event a tribal cultural resource, as defined in PRC Section 21074,
is found on the Project Site during construction a significant impact could occur. Mitigation is
required.
As discussed under EIR Subsection 4.3, the Project Site does not contain a known cemetery site and
human remains have not been previously discovered on the site. Mandatory compliance with State
law (California HSC Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98) would ensure that, in the unlikely event
that human remains are discovered during Project construction, the remains would be identified in
accordance with proper protocols and the remains would be treated or disposed with appropriate
dignity. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect to tribal cultural
resources associated with human remains.
4.11.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Development activities on the Project Site would not impact any known tribal cultural resources and
the likelihood of uncovering previously unknown prehistoric archaeological resources during Project
construction are low due to the magnitude of disturbance that has occurred on the Site due to historic
agriculture uses. Nonetheless, the potential exists for tribal cultural resources that meet the definition
from PRC Section 21074 to be buried below the existing ground surface and discovered on the Project
Site – and other development project sites in the region – during construction activities. Accordingly,
the Project has the potential to contribute to a significant cumulative impact to tribal cultural resources.
Therefore, the Project would potentially result in a cumulatively considerable impact to tribal cultural
resources if such resources are unearthed during Project construction.
4.11.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Significant Direct and Cumulatively Considerable Impact. The Project Site does not
contain any recorded, significant tribal cultural resource sites; therefore, the Project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or a local register of historical resources.
Nonetheless, Project construction activities have the potential to unearth and adversely impact tribal
cultural resources that may be buried at the Project Site.
4.11.8 MITIGATION
MMs 4.3-1 through 4.3-4 shall apply (refer to Subsection 4.3, Cultural Resources).
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 4.11-9
4.11.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of MMs 4.3-1
through MM 4.3-4 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant
tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with
Project development. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impact to
significant tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less-than-significant.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-1
5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS
IMPLEMENTED
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR disclose the significant environmental effects of a proposed project
that cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance if the project is implemented and, where impacts cannot be
alleviated without imposing an alternative design, the reasons why the project is being proposed,
notwithstanding their effect, should be described (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b) & Section 15126.2(c)).
As described in detail in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR, the proposed Project is anticipated
to result in impacts to the environment that cannot be reduced to below a level of significance after the
consideration of Project design features, compliance with applicable federal, State and local regulations, and
the application of the feasible mitigation measures identified in this EIR. The Project’s significant impacts
that cannot be mitigated to a level below thresholds of significance consist of the following:
• GHG Emissions Generation: After the application of Project design features and mandatory regulatory
requirements, Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the applicable significance threshold and
would result in a cumulatively-considerable impact to the environment. (Refer to EIR Subsection 4.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.)
Notwithstanding the significant and unavoidable effects listed above, the Project is proposed to develop a
modern warehouse distribution building in the City that is located in close proximity to the State highway
system, that will increase local employment opportunities, and improve the City’s economic competitiveness.
This underlying purpose aligns with various aspects of the SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, primarily related to
accommodating goods movement industries and balancing job and housing opportunities in local areas to
reduce long commutes from home to work. SCAG identifies the Inland Empire as a housing-rich area and the
coastal communities as job rich areas, and is striving in its policies to achieve more equal balances locally.
The Project would contribute toward the achievement of a more equal jobs-to-housing ratio in the Inland
Empire by creating short-term construction jobs and creating long-term employment opportunities.
5.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE CAUSED BY THE
PROJECT SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
The CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would
be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c)). An
environmental change would fall into this category if: a) the project would involve a large commitment of non-
renewable resources; b) the primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future
generations to similar uses; c) the project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any
potential environmental accidents; or d) the proposed consumption of resources are not justified (e.g., the
project results in the wasteful use of energy).
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-2
Determining whether the Project may result in significant irreversible environmental changes requires a
determination of whether key non-renewable resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that
there would be little possibility of restoring them. Natural resources, in the form of construction materials and
energy resources, would be used in the construction of the proposed Project. The consumption of these natural
resources would represent an irreversible change to the environment. However, development of the Project
Site would have no measurable adverse effect on the availability of such resources, including resources that
may be non-renewable (e.g., construction aggregates, fossil fuels) and, in fact, the Project would crush existing
on-site concrete and re-use the crushed concrete as a base material during Project construction to minimize the
demand for construction aggregates and fossil fuels (that would be used to power the haul trucks bringing
aggregates to the Project Site). Additionally, the Project is required by law to comply with the California
Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which will minimize the Project’s demand for energy, including
energy produced from non-renewable sources, as well as City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1879, which will
require the Project to install and utilize roof-mounted solar panels (among other energy efficiency design
measures). A more detailed discussion of Project energy consumption is provided in EIR Subsection 4.4,
Energy.
Implementation of the Project would commit the Project Site to long-term use as a warehouse distribution
facility. The land use proposed by the Project is consistent with the Project Site’s existing General Plan land
use designation and zoning classification, and the proposed use would be compatible with existing and planned
industrial developments within the corridor between I-10 and Slover Avenue. Although the proposed
warehouse distribution building could be perceived to be incompatible with the existing legal, non-conforming
residential land uses that abut the Project Site on the west, the Project would not result in any significant and
unavoidable local/localized physical impacts to these receptors. Although the Project would result in
unavoidable physical impacts from GHG emissions, these effects are significant due to their effect on the
region (and planet), not their local impacts to receptors located near the Project Site. Accordingly, the Project
and its environmental effects would not compel or commit surrounding properties to land uses other than those
that are existing today or those that are planned by the City of Fontana General Plan. For this reason, the
Project would not result in a significant, irreversible change to nearby, off-site properties.
EIR Subsection 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides an analysis of the potential for hazardous
materials to be transported to/from the Project Site and/or used on the Project Site during construction and
operation. As concluded in Subsection 4.7, mandatory compliance with federal, State, and local regulations
related to hazardous materials handling, storage, and use by all 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 site.
As discussed in detail under EIR Subsection 4.4, Energy, the Project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a significant, irreversible
change to the environment related to energy use.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-3
Based on the above, 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 and
would be consistent with regional and local growth forecasts and development goals for the area. The loss of
such resources would not be highly accelerated when compared to existing conditions, and such resources
would not be used in an inefficient or wasteful manner. Project construction and operation would adhere to the
sustainability requirements of Title 24, Green Building Code, and CALGreen. Therefore, the Project would
not 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 PROJECT
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the proposed Project 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 persons between 2016 and 2045 (an approximately 1.1% annual
increase). Over this same time period, employment in the City is expected to add 18,400 new jobs (an
approximately 1.0% annual increase). (SCAG, 2020, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report,
Table 14) Economic growth would likely take place as a result of the Project’s operation as a warehouse
distribution building. The 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 Project Site, would be highly unlikely to result in any unanticipated, adverse physical impacts to the
environment. In addition, the 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 of Fontana and nearby
incorporated and unincorporated areas. Accordingly, because it is anticipated that most of the Project’s future
employees would already be living in the Inland Empire area, the Project’s introduction of employment
opportunities on the Project Site 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
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-4
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 Project represents infill, urban redevelopment with land uses in an area of the City that is planned for
employment-generating land uses. The Project would not extend roads or infrastructure to an area that is not
already served by these facilities. Thus, the Project would not remove obstacles to growth or include
improvements that that could induce growth. Furthermore, the area surrounding the Project Site consists of a
mixture of light industrial and legal, non-conforming residential land uses. Development of the Project Site is
not expected to place short-term development pressure on abutting properties because these areas are either
already developed or are planned for future development with light industrial land uses. Furthermore, the
Project area is already served by utilities and infrastructure, and there are no components of the Project or the
Project’s proposed infrastructure improvements that would remove obstacles for surrounding properties to
develop.
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 EIR PREPARATION 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.” During the preparation of this EIR, the Project was determined to clearly
have no potential to result in significant impacts under nine (9) environmental issue areas: aesthetics;
agriculture and forestry resources; land use and planning; mineral resources; population and housing; public
services; recreation; utilities and service systems; and wildfire. Therefore, these issue areas were not required
to be analyzed in detail in EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis. A brief summary of the Project’s impacts
to aesthetics, agriculture/forestry resources, land use/planning, mineral resources, population and housing,
public services, recreation, utilities/service systems, and wildfire is presented below and on the following
pages. The thresholds of significance used to evaluate the Project’s potential impacts under each issue area
were taken from the City of Fontana’s Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act.
5.4.1 AESTHETICS
Threshold a: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Under existing conditions, the Project Site does not serve as a scenic vista or contribute to a scenic vista; the
Project Site is mainly vacant with scattered vegetation and demolition debris. Furthermore, the City of Fontana
General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas or scenic corridors on the Project Site or in the vicinity of the
Project Site (City of Fontana, 2018b, p. 5.1-1).
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-5
Scenic resources visible (at least partially) from public viewpoints adjacent to the Project Site include the San
Gabriel Mountains (approximately 7.3 miles to the northwest and partially visible from Slover Avenue and
visible from Cypress Avenue) and the Jurupa Hills (approximately 1.4 miles to the south and visible from
Slover Avenue and visible from I-10) (Google Earth Pro, 2021). Under existing conditions, views of the San
Gabriel Mountains to the northwest are mostly obscured from Slover Avenue due to intervening development
and landscaping, topography, and atmospheric haze that is common in the Inland Empire throughout the year.
Under existing conditions, views of the Jurupa Hills are largely unobstructed from Slover Avenue and I-10.
The Project would not substantially alter any existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains from Slover Avenue.
As stated above, views of the San Gabriel Mountains from Slover Avenue are mostly obscured from the Project
Site by existing development and on-site landscaping (and, for parts of the year, atmospheric haze). The Project
would construct an approximately 48.5-foot-tall warehouse and install new landscaping on the Project Site.
The proposed building and site improvements would partially obscure views of the San Gabriel Mountains
from Slover Avenue – although not substantially more than views are obscured under existing conditions –
and views of the Mountains would continue to be available above the building. The Project would not obstruct
views of the San Gabriel Mountains from Cypress Avenue because Cypress Avenue is elevated above the
Project Site and views of the San Gabriel Mountains would remain available looking over the Project.
Similarly, implementation of the Project would not substantially alter existing views of the Jurupa Hills from
I-10 because I-10 is elevated above the Project Site and views of the Jurupa Hills would remain available
looking over the Project. Due to the orientation of the Jurupa Hills in relation to the Project Site (the Hills are
located south of the Project Site and south of Slover Avenue), implementation of the Project would not alter
views of the Hills from Slover Avenue because the Project would not result in any improvements/alterations
to the south side of Slover Avenue.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or
scenic resources in the Project vicinity. No impact would occur.
Threshold b: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
The Project Site is not located within or adjacent to an officially designated State scenic highway corridor and
does not contain scenic resources, such as trees of scenic value, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings
(Caltrans, 2017). The nearest officially designated scenic highway to the Project Site is the segment of State
Route 38 (SR-38) at I-10 near Redlands and SR-18 near Fawnskin, located approximately 15.1 miles to the
east of the Project area (Google Earth Pro, 2021; Caltrans, 2017). Because of distance and intervening
development and topography, the Project would not be visible from the aforementioned segment of SR-38 and,
therefore, would not adversely affect views from this scenic corridor. No impact would occur.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-6
Threshold c: In non-urbanized areas, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
The United States Census Bureau defines “urbanized area” as a densely settled core of census tracts and/or
census blocks that have 50,000 or more residents, and meet minimum population density requirements while
also being adjacent to territory containing non-residential urban land uses. The Project Site is located within
the boundaries of the Census-defined “Riverside-San Bernardino urban area” (USCB, 2012); therefore, the
Project would be considered to result in a significant adverse impact under this threshold only if the Project
design would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
The Project’s design, including site layout, architecture, and landscaping is discussed and illustrated in detail
in EIR Section 3.0. As previously described, the Project’s architecture incorporates a neutral color palette that
would not be visually offensive and also incorporates accent elements, such as colored glass and decorative
building elements for visual interest. Additionally, the Project’s landscape plan incorporates low-water-need
plant species that can maintain vibrancy during drought conditions. The proposed visual features of the Project
would ensure a high-quality aesthetic for the site. The City of Fontana reviewed the Project proposal in detail
and determined that no component of the Project would conflict with applicable design regulations within the
City of Fontan’s Zoning and Development Code that govern scenic quality. No impact would occur.
Threshold d: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area??
Under the existing conditions, the Project Site contains no sources of artificial lighting; but, artificial lighting
(i.e., street lights) is present along the Project Site’s frontage on Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue. The
Project Applicant proposes to develop the site with a warehouse facility and would introduce additional
lighting elements on-site to illuminate the parking areas, truck docking areas, and building entrances.
The Project would be required to adhere to the lighting requirements as set forth in the City of Fontana
Municipal Code (Sections 30-265 and 30-266). The Municipal Code lighting standards govern the placement
and design of outdoor lighting fixtures to ensure adequate lighting for public safety while also minimizing light
pollution and glare and precluding public nuisances. The City would confirm compliance with applicable
lighting requirements during future review of building permit applications/plans. Mandatory compliance with
Municipal Code Sections 30-265 and 30-266 would ensure that the Project would not introduce any permanent
design features that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
With respect to glare, a majority of Project building materials would consist of tilt-up concrete panels (which
are low-reflective), although the buildings would incorporate some glass elements. While window glazing has
a potential to result in minor glare effects, such effects would not adversely affect daytime views of surrounding
properties, including motorists along adjacent roadways, because the glass proposed for the Project would be
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-7
low-reflective and proposed landscaping would provide a buffer between all proposed glass surfaces and the
public right of way. Thus, no glare impacts would occur.
5.4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Threshold a: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
According to Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program mapping information available from the California
Department of Conservation, the Project Site does not contain any soils mapped as “Prime Farmland,” “Unique
Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” (CDC, 2016). As such, implementation of the Project
would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-
agricultural use. No impact would occur.
Threshold b: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
The Project Site is not subject to a land conservation (Williamson Act) contract and, thus, would not conflict
with a land conservation contract (City of Fontana, 2018b, p. 7-10). In addition, the Project Site is zoned for
“Light Industrial (M-1)” and General Industrial (M-2)” land uses under existing conditions, which are not
zoning categories for agricultural use. Therefore, implementation of the Project has no potential to conflict
with existing zoning for an agricultural use. No impact would occur.
Threshold c: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
The Project Site is not zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production, nor is it surrounded by
forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production land. Therefore, implementation of the Project has no
potential to conflict with or cause the rezoning of any areas currently zoned as forest, timberland, or
Timberland Production and would not result in the rezoning of any such lands. As such, no impact would
occur.
Threshold d: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
The Project Site does not contain a forest and is not designated as forest land. Thus, implementation of the
Project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As such,
no impact would occur.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-8
Threshold e: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
“Farmland” is defined in Section II(a) of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to mean “Prime Farmland,”
“Unique Farmland” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance.” As noted above in Response 3.2(a), the Project
Site does not contain any soils mapped by the Department of Conservation as “Farmland.” Additionally, as
described above in preceding responses under the “Agricultural Resources” topic, the Project Site and
surrounding areas do not contain forest lands or areas designated for forest land uses. Thus, implementation
of the Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest
land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.
5.4.3 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Threshold a: Would the Project physically divide an established community?
Development of the Project would not physically disrupt or divide the arrangement of an established
community. Railroad tracks and I-10 form the northern boundary of the Project Site; Slover Avenue forms the
southern boundary of the Project Site; Oleander Avenue forms the western boundary; and Cypress Avenue
forms the eastern boundary of the Project Site. Due to the existing barriers that already separate the Project
Site from abutting properties, implementation of the Project would not result in the physical disruption or
division of an established community. Furthermore, the proposed vacation of the segment of Boyle Avenue
that bisects the Project Site would not divide an established community because this segment of Boyle Avenue
terminates west of Cypress Avenue and is not a through street. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Threshold b: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
City of Fontana General Plan
The Project is consistent with the land use designation assigned to the Project Site by the General Plan and the
Project would not conflict with any specific objectives, policies, or actions in the General Plan’s Community
and Neighborhoods; Housing; Building a Healthier Fontana; Conservation, Open Space, Parks, and Trails;
Public and Community Services; Community Mobility and Circulation; Infrastructure and Green Systems;
Noise and Safety; Sustainability and Resilience; Economy, Education, and Workforce Development; and Land
Use, Zoning, and Urban Development elements that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. The Project would not result in any land use or planning conflicts with the General Plan
and no impact would occur.
Connect SoCal
As shown in Table 5-1, SCAG’s Connect SoCal Goal Consistency Analysis, the Project would not conflict with
the adopted Connect SoCal. Thus, no impacts would occur.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-9
Table 5-1 SCAG’s Connect SoCal Goal Consistency Analysis
Goals Goal Statement Project Consistency Discussion
1 Encourage regional economic prosperity and global
competitiveness. No conflict identified. This policy would be
implemented by cities and the counties within the
SCAG region as part of comprehensive local and
regional planning efforts. It should be noted that the
Project would improve the regional economy by
creating a new warehouse facility that is estimated to
create new jobs that would create a new regional income
source and would increase the local tax base.
2 Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and
travel safety for people and goods. No conflict identified. The Project Applicant would
improve the segment of Slover Avenue that abuts the
Project Site to its planned ultimate half-width, thereby
improving local mobility. Additionally, there are no
components of the Project that would foreseeably result
in substantial safety hazards to motorists or pedestrians,
as discussed in EIR Subsection 4.10, Transportation.
3 Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of
the regional transportation system. No conflict identified. This policy would be
implemented by cities and the counties within the
SCAG region as part of the overall planning and
maintenance of the regional transportation system. The
Project would have no adverse effect on such planning
or maintenance efforts. This policy provides guidance
to the City of Fontana to monitor the transportation
network and to coordinate with other agencies as
appropriate. The Project would not conflict with the
City’s transportation network or the City’s coordination
with other agencies.
4 Increase person and goods movement and travel
choices within the transportation system. No conflict identified. The Project involves
development of a warehouse facility within a
developing industrial area, along a designated truck
route, and in close proximity to the State highway
system, which would avoid or shorten truck-trip lengths
on other roadways. The Project would promote an
improved quality of life by constructing infill
development near regional transportation/transit
corridors, which would reduce vehicle trips, vehicle
miles traveled, and air pollution. The Project would
construct frontage improvements, including sidewalks
which would encourage walking in the Project area.
5 Reduce greenhouse gas emission and improve air
quality. No conflict identified. As required by State building
codes and City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1879, the
Project would incorporate various measures related to
building design, landscaping, and energy systems to
promote energy efficiency. The Project also would
construct frontage improvements, including sidewalks
which would encourage walking in the Project area.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-10
Table 5-1 SCAG’s Connect SoCal Goal Consistency Analysis
Goals Goal Statement Project Consistency Discussion
6 Support healthy and equitable communities. No conflict identified. The proposed building design
would support the health of occupants and users by
using non-toxic building materials and finishes, and by
using windows to maximize natural light and
ventilation.
7 Adapt to a changing climate and support an
integrated regional development. No conflict identified. Connect SoCal indicates that
since the adoption of the Connect SoCal, there have
been significant drivers of change in the goods
movement industry including emerging and new
technologies, more complex supply chain strategies,
evolving consumer demands and shifts in trade policies.
Warehouse distribution and e-commerce continues to be
one of the most influential factors shaping goods
movement. The Project involves the redevelopment of
the Project Site, historically used for manufacturing
with a warehouse facility that would diversify the City
of Fontana’s economy and bring employment
opportunities closer to the local workforce. Co-locating
jobs near housing reduces greenhouse gas emissions
caused by long commutes and contributes to integrated
development patterns.
8 Leverage new transportation technologies and data-
driven solutions that result in more efficient travel. No conflict identified. Connect SoCal also indicates
that the advancement of automation is expected to have
considerable impacts throughout regional supply chains.
Notably, warehouses, such as those proposed with the
Project, are increasingly integrating automation to
improve operational efficiencies in response to the surge
in e-commerce. Additionally, continued developments
and demonstrations of electric-powered and automated
truck technologies will alter the goods movement
environment with far-reaching effects ranging from
employment to highway safety. The Project would meet
contemporary industry standards to support
advancements in these and other transportation
technologies.
9 Encourage development of diverse housing types in
areas that are supported by multiple transportation
options.
Not applicable. The Project is located in an area
designated for employment-generating uses and is not
planned for housing.
10 Promote conservation of natural and agricultural
lands and restoration of habitats. Not applicable. The Project Site is completely disturbed
and developed under existing conditions and has been
so for at least 90 years. The entire Project Site is
developed.
Source: (SCAG, 2020a, p. 9)
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-11
SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
The Project’s consistency with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP was addressed in detail in EIR Subsection 4.2, Air
Quality. As concluded in EIR Subsection 4.1, implementation of the Project would not result in or cause
NAAQS or CAAQS violations. The proposed Project is consistent with the land use and growth intensities
reflected in the adopted General Plan and would not result in growth (and associated air pollution) that was
not anticipated by the 2016 AQMP. As such, the Project would not conflict with the AQMP and a less than
significant impact is expected.
San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program
The Project’s consistency with the San Bernardino County CMP is addressed in EIR Subsection 4.10,
Transportation. As concluded in EIR Subsection 4.10, none of the intersections in the Project Study Area are
part of the San Bernardino CMP roadway network. Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial
environmental impact due to a conflict with the San Bernardino County CMP and no impacts would occur.
5.4.4 MINERAL RESOURCES
Threshold a: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Threshold b: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
The Project Site is located within Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which indicates the significance of local
mineral deposits is undetermined (CDC, 1995). Accordingly, the Project Site is not located within an area
known to be underlain by regionally-important mineral resources. In addition, the Project Site is not identified
as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site in the City of Fontana General Plan (City of Fontana,
2018a, Chapters 7 and 15). Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State of
California. Therefore, no impact would occur.
5.4.5 POPULATION AND HOUSING
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)?
The Project Applicant would develop the Project Site with employment land uses. The Project Site is located
in an area of Fontana that is already developing with employment land uses – and on a site that is planned for
employment land uses by the Fontana General Plan. Accordingly, development of the Project would sustain
the ongoing trend of the development of employment land uses in the City of Fontana and would generate job
growth that is consistent with what was already anticipated by the City in their General Plan and evaluated in
the General Plan EIR. Additionally, the Project Site is located in an area of Fontana that is served by existing
roadways and public utility infrastructure and the Project would not require the extension or expansion of any
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-12
infrastructure beyond what is needed to service the Project. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would
not induce direct or indirect substantial unplanned growth in the area and no impact would occur.
Threshold b: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The Project would result in the demolition of all housing units on the Project Site. The Site contains 10 legal
non-conforming dwelling units. According to data from the California Department of Finance, the average
household in Fontana contains approximately four (4) people (DOF, 2021). Thus, the loss of 10 dwelling units
on the Project Site would displace up to 40 people. The City of Fontana contains approximately 59,909
dwelling units and a population of 213,944 (ibid.). The dwelling units that would be lost on the Project Site
represent approximately 0.02 percent of the total dwelling units in the City; the 40 people that would be
displaced from the Project Site represent approximately 0.02 percent of the total population of the City. In
comparison to City-wide figures, neither the people nor housing on the Project Site represent a substantial
number. Furthermore, the City contains an estimated 2,836 vacant dwelling units under existing conditions
which would be more than adequate to provide housing for the people that may be displaced from the Project
Site (ibid.). Based on the foregoing information, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of people,
displace substantial housing, or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would
occur.
5.4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES
Threshold a.i: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, need for new or physically
altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for fire protection services?
Under existing conditions, the Project Site receives fire protection services from the Fontana Fire Protection
District (FFPD) via Station 77. Station 77 is located at 17459 Slover Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335, (Google
Earth Pro, 2021). The FFPD has a response time goal of 5 minutes (FFPD, 2018). Station 77 is located
approximately 1.3 roadway miles from the Project Site; therefore, the response time to the Project Site from
Station 77 is estimated to be approximately 2 minutes (1.3 roadway miles traveled at 35 miles per hour average
vehicle travel speed = 2 minutes). Implementation of the Project would not substantially impact the Station’s
5-minute response time goal. Furthermore, the City of Fontana Community Development Department,
Planning Division forwarded the Project’s application materials to the FFPD for review and comment. The
FFPD did not provide any comments to the Planning Division indicating that the Project would not be
adequately served by fire protection services or that incremental increase in the demand for FFPD services
would result in or require new or expanded fire protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.
The construction and operation of the Project would increase the demand for fire protection by introducing
more building area on the Project Site. Service demand in and of itself is not an environmental impact under
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-13
CEQA unless such demand causes a physical change to the environment. The increase in building area on the
Site is not anticipated to result in an increase in demand for fire protection services high enough to trigger the
need to physically construct new fire protection facilities because Station 77 already exists near the Site within
the FFPD’s 5-minute response time goal. Additionally, the Project would incorporate fire prevention and fire
suppression design features to minimize the potential demand placed on the FFPD. The proposed buildings
would be of concrete tilt-up construction. Concrete is non-flammable and concrete tilt-up buildings have a
lower fire hazard risk than typical wood-frame construction. The Project also would install fire hydrants on-
site – the FFPD reviewed the Project’s Site plan to ensure proper spacing of hydrants on-site to provide
adequate coverage – and would provide paved primary and secondary emergency access to the Project Site to
support the FFPD in the event fire suppression activities are needed on-site. Lastly, the proposed warehouse
buildings would feature a fire alarm system and ceiling-mounted sprinklers.
Based on the Project Site’s proximity to an existing fire station, the incremental increase in the demand for
FFPD services would not result in or require new or expanded fire protection facilities in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.
Although the Project would not result in the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities, as a standard
condition of approval, the Project Applicant/Developer or Project Site owner would be required to pay impact
fees for fire protection services in accordance with Section 21-122 of the Fontana Municipal Code. The City
will collect Development Impact Fees (DIF) for the Project based on building square footage. The Project’s
payment of DIF fees, as well as increased property tax revenues that would result from development of the
Project, would be used by the City to help pay for fire protection services and other public services (City of
Fontana, 2021, Section 21-122).
Based on the foregoing, the Project would receive adequate fire protection service and would not result in the
need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. No impacts to fire protection facilities would occur.
Threshold a.ii: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, need for new or
physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which would cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives for police protection services?
The Project Site receives police protection services from the Fontana Police Department (FPD). The Project
would introduce a new building, employees, and visitors to the Project Site, which would result in an
incremental increase in demand for police protection services. The City of Fontana Community Development
Department, Planning Division forwarded the Project’s application materials to the FPD for review and
comment. The FPD did not provide any comments to the Planning Division indicating that the Project would
necessitate or result in the construction of new or physically altered police facilities. Service demand in and
of itself is not an environmental impact under CEQA unless such demand causes a physical change to the
environment, and there is no aspect of the Project’s construction, design, or operation that would cause the
need to construct new police protection facilities. For these reasons, the Project is not anticipated to generate
crime nor would the Project precipitate crime which would necessitate the construction of new or physically
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-14
altered police facilities. Additionally, and pursuant to City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 21-122, the
Project would be subject to payment of DIF fees, which the City uses in part to fund police protection services.
Furthermore, property tax revenues generated from development of the Site would provide funding to offset
potential increases in the demand for police services at Project build-out. The City of Fontana uses DIF fees
and property tax revenues to help pay for police protection needs and other public services. (Fontana, 2019,
Section 21-122)
Because Project implementation would not result in or require new or expanded police protection facilities and
because the Project is required to contribute appropriate DIF fees to offset the Project’s increased demand for
police protection services, no impacts to police protection services would occur.
Threshold a.iii: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered school facilities, need for new or physically altered
school facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for school services?
The Project does not include residential land uses and would not directly introduce new school-age children
within the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD) boundaries. Because the Project would not directly
generate students and is not expected to indirectly draw students to the area, the Project would not cause or
contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. Although the Project would
not create a direct demand for public school services, the Project Applicant/Developer or Project Site owner
would be required to contribute development impact fees to the FUSD in compliance with the Leroy F. Greene
School Facilities Act of 1998, which allows school districts to collect fees from new developments to offset
the costs associated with increasing school capacity needs. Mandatory payment of school fees would be
required prior to the issuance of building permits. No impacts to FUSD schools would occur.
Threshold a.iv: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered park facilities, need for new or physically altered
park facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for park services?
The Project does not propose to construct any new on- or off-site recreation facilities. Additionally, the Project
would not expand any existing off-site recreational facilities. The Project does not propose any type of
residential use or other land use that may generate a population that would increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. No impact would occur.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-15
Threshold a.v: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered other public facilities, need for new or physically
altered other public facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for other public services?
The Project does not include any residential land uses and, therefore, is not expected to result in a demand for
other public facilities/services, including libraries, community recreation centers, post offices, public health
facilities, and/or animal shelters. As such, implementation of the Project would not adversely affect other
public facilities or require the construction of new or modified public facilities. No impact would occur.
5.4.7 RECREATION
Threshold a: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
The Project would entail the development of the subject property with industrial land uses. The Project does
not propose any type of residential use or other land use that may generate a population that would increase
the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. No impact would occur.
Threshold b: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The Project does not propose to construct any new on- or off-site recreation facilities. Additionally, the Project
would not expand any existing off-site recreational facilities. Therefore, environmental effects related to the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not occur.
5.4.8 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Threshold a: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
The Project would construct an on-site network of water and sewer pipes and stormwater facilities that would
connect to existing water, sewer, and storm drain lines beneath Oleander Avenue and Slover Avenue. The
Project also would install connections to existing electricity (including undergrounding exiting overhead
powerlines along the Project Site frontage with Slover Avenue), natural gas, and communications
infrastructure that already exist in the area, and all such connections would be accomplished in conformance
with the rules and standards enforced by the applicable service provider. The installation of water and sewer
line connections, stormwater drainage facilities, electricity, natural gas, and communications infrastructure as
proposed by the Project would result in physical impacts to the environment; however, these impacts are
considered to be part of the Project’s construction phase and the construction phase impact analysis provided
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-16
under the individual topic areas addressed in this EIR was inclusive of the environmental effects from the
construction of utility infrastructure. Where potentially significant construction-related impacts have been
identified in the above-listed sections, feasible and enforceable mitigation measures are imposed by this EIR
to reduce the Project’s impacts to a less than significant level. No impacts would occur specifically related to
construction of the Project’s utility connections.
Threshold b: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
The total area of the Project Site and the square footage of the proposed building is below the threshold for
which a Water Supply Analysis would be required under SB 610. The Fontana Water Company (FWC) is
responsible for supplying potable water to the Project Site and its surrounding area. As discussed in FWC’s
2020 Urban Water Management Plan, herein incorporated by reference as the “UWMP,” adequate water
supplies are projected to be available to meet the estimated water demand for the FWC’s service area through
at least 2045 under normal, historic single-dry and historic multiple-dry year conditions (FWC, 2021, pp. 7-5
through 7-7). The FWC forecasts for projected water demand are based on the population projections of the
SCAG, which rely on the adopted land use designations contained within the general plans that cover the
geographic area within FWC’s service. Because the Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan
land use designation for the Project Site and the Fontana Gateway Specific Plan land use/zoning designation
for the Project Site, the water demand associated with the Project was considered in the FWC’s projected
demand in the 2020 UWMP and analyzed therein. As stated above, the FWC expects to have adequate water
supplies to meet all its demands until at least 2045; therefore, the FWC has sufficient water supplies available
to serve the Project from existing entitlements/resources and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. No
impact would occur.
Threshold c: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The Project is calculated to generate 65,560 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater (2,200 gpd/acre × 29.8 acres
= 65,560 gpd). Wastewater generated by the Project would be treated by IEUA’s RP-1 or RP-4 wastewater
treatment plants. The RP-1 facility has an existing treatment capacity of approximately 44 million gallons of
wastewater per day and treats approximately 28 million gallons of wastewater per day on average; therefore,
the RP-1 facility has approximately 16 million gallons (44 million gpd – 28 million gpd = 16 million gpd) of
excess treatment capacity under existing conditions (IUEA, 2020a). The RP-4 facility has an existing treatment
capacity of approximately 14 million gallons of wastewater per day and treats approximately 10 million gallons
of wastewater per day on average; therefore, the RP-4 facility has approximately 4 million gallons (14 million
gpd – 10 million gpd = 4 million gpd) of excess treatment capacity under existing conditions (IUEA, 2020b).
The wastewater generated by the Project would only represent approximately 0.4 percent of the excess
treatment capacity of RP-1 ([65,560 gpd ÷ 16 million gpd] × 100 = 0.4%) or approximately 1.6 percent of the
excess treatment capacity of RP-4 ([65,560 gpd ÷ 4 million gpd] × 100 = 1.6%); therefore, it is anticipated that
RP-1 and RP-4 have sufficient treatment capacity to provide service to the Project. The Project would not
require the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities and no impact would occur.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-17
Threshold d: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity or local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
Implementation of the Project would generate an incremental increase in solid waste volumes requiring off-
site disposal during short-term construction and long-term operational activities. Solid waste generated by the
Project would be disposed at the Mid-Valley Landfill. The Mid-Valley Landfill is permitted to receive 7,500
tons of refuse per day and has a total capacity of 101,300,000 cubic yards. According to CalRecycle, the Mid-
Valley Landfill has a total remaining capacity of 61,219,377 cubic yards. The Mid-Valley Landfill is estimated
to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2045. (CalRecycle, 2019) As of October 2021, the Mid-
Valley Landfill’s peak daily disposal was approximately 4,636 tons, which represents 62 percent of the
Landfill’s maximum permitted daily capacity of 7,500 tons (CalRecycle, 2021).
Construction Impact Analysis
Solid waste requiring disposal would be generated by the construction process, primarily consisting of
discarded materials and packaging. Based on the size of the Project (i.e., 623,460 s.f. building) and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) construction waste generation factor of 4.34 pounds
per s.f. for non-residential uses, approximately 1,357.2 tons of waste is expected to be generated during the
Project’s construction phase ([623,460 s.f. × 4.34 pounds per s.f.] ÷ 2,000 pounds per ton = 1,352.9 tons) (EPA,
2009, Table A-2). California Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) requires that a minimum of 50% of all solid waste
be diverted from landfills (by recycling, reusing, and other waste reduction strategies); therefore, the Project
is estimated to generate approximately 676.5 tons during its construction phase. The Project’s construction
phase is estimated to last for up to 10 months; therefore, the Project is estimated to generate approximately
2.25 tons of solid waste per day (676.5 tons ÷ 300 days = 2.25 tons per day) requiring landfill during
construction.
Non-recyclable construction waste generated by the Project would be disposed at the Mid-Valley Landfill. As
described above, this landfill receives well below their maximum permitted daily disposal volume; thus, the
relatively minimal construction waste generated by the Project is not anticipated to cause the landfill to exceed
its maximum permitted daily disposal volume. Furthermore, the Mid-Valley Landfill is not expected to reach
its total maximum permitted disposal capacities during the Project’s construction period. Thus, waste
generated by the Project’s construction is not anticipated to cause the landfill to exceed its maximum permitted
daily disposal volume. Because the Project would generate a relatively small amount of solid waste per day as
compared to the permitted daily capacities at the receiving landfill, no impacts to the Mid- Valley Landfill
facility would occur during the Project’s short-term construction activities.
Operational Impact Analysis
Based on a daily waste generation factor of 1.42 pounds of waste per 100 square feet of industrial building
area obtained from CalRecycle, long-term, on-going operation of the Project would generate approximately
4.44 tons of solid waste per day ([[1.42 pounds ÷ 100 s.f.] × 623,460 s.f. ] ÷ 2,000 pounds = 4.4 tons per day)
(CalRecycle, n.d.). Pursuant to AB 939, at least 50 percent of the Project’s solid waste is required to be diverted
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-18
from landfills; therefore, the Project would generate a maximum of 2.2 tons of solid waste per day requiring
landfilling (4.4 tons per day × 50% = 2.2 tons per day) (CalRecycle, 2018).
Non-recyclable solid waste generated during long-term operation of the Project would be disposed at the Mid-
Valley Landfill. As described above, this landfill receives well below their maximum permitted daily disposal
volume; thus, waste generated by the Project’s operation is not anticipated to cause the landfill to exceed its
maximum permitted daily disposal volume. Furthermore, the Mid-Valley Landfill is estimated to have
adequate long-term capacity to accept waste from the Project as the landfill would not reach capacity until
2045, at the earliest time, and has opportunities for future expansion. Because the Project would generate a
relatively small amount of solid waste per day as compared to the permitted daily capacities at the receiving
landfill, impacts to the Mid- Valley Landfill facility would occur during Project operation.
Threshold e: Would the Project comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), signed into law in 1989, established an integrated
waste management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste.
In addition, the bill established a 50% waste reduction requirement for cities and counties by the year 2000,
along with a process to ensure environmentally safe disposal of waste that could not be diverted.
In order to assist the City of Fontana in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management
Act, and pursuant to City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 24, the Project’s building occupant(s) would be
required to work with future refuse haulers to develop and implement feasible waste reduction programs,
including source reduction, recycling, and composting. Additionally, in accordance with the California Solid
Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (Cal Pub Res. Code Section 42911), the Project is required to provide
adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials where solid waste is collected. The collection
areas are required to be shown on construction drawings and be in place before occupancy permits are issued.
(Cal Pub Res. Code, 2005) Further, in compliance with AB 341 (Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program),
the future occupant(s) of the proposed Project would be required to arrange for recycling services, if the
occupant generates four (4) or more cubic yards of solid waste per week (Cal Pub Res. Code, 2011). The
implementation of these mandatory requirements would reduce the amount of solid waste generated by the
Project and diverted to landfills, which in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites.
The Project would be required to comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations; as such, no
impacts would occur.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 5-19
5.4.9 WILDFIRE
Threshold a: Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Threshold b: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Threshold c: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary on ongoing impacts to the
environment?
Threshold d: Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?
The Project Site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones (Fontana, 2018a, p. 11-4; Cal Fire, 2008); therefore, implementation of the Project would not
exacerbate any existing wildfire hazard risks or expose people or the environment to adverse environmental
effects related to wildfires. No impact would occur.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-1
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a):
An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of
the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would
avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative
to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives
that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to
consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selection of a
range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for
selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the
alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.
As discussed in Section 4.0 of this EIR, the Project would result in significant adverse environmental effects
under one environmental issue area that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance after the
implementation of Project design features, mandatory regulatory requirements, and all feasible mitigation
measures. The unavoidable significant impact of the Project is:
• GHG Emissions Generation: After the application of Project design features and mandatory regulatory
requirements, Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the applicable significance threshold and
would result in a cumulatively-considerable impact to the environment.
It should be noted that although the Project would not result in any other significant and unavoidable impacts,
mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than
significant for the following topical issues: Biological Resources (due to the potential to destroy bird nests
during Project demolition activities), Cultural Resources (due to the potential to encounter pre/protohistoric
cultural resources during Project grading), Geology and Soils (due to the potential to encounter paleontological
resources during Project grading), and Tribal Cultural Resources (due to the potential to encounter tribal
cultural resources during Project grading). These potentially significant impacts are associated with
construction activities, not operation of the Project.
6.1 ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that an EIR include an alternative that describes what would
reasonably be expected to occur on the Project Site in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved,
based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services (i.e., “No Project”
Alternative). For projects that include a revision to an existing land use plan, the “No Project” Alternative
may be the continuation of the existing land use plan into the future. For projects other than a land use plan
(for example, a development project on a specific property), the “No Project” Alternative is considered to be
the circumstance under which the project does not proceed (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(3)(A-B).
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-2
Because the Project does not include a land use plan amendment, this EIR analyzes a “No Project” Alternative
where the Project does not proceed. The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use map a land use
revision is not required; therefore, for purposes of this alternatives analysis the “No Project” Alternative is
considered to be the scenario where the Project Site remains in its existing condition for the foreseeable future.
In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), an EIR must describe “a range of reasonable
alternatives to a project, or to the location of a project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives
of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” The EIR
need not consider every conceivable alternative; rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially
feasible alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would avoid or substantially lessen
significant effects of the project, even if “these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the
project objectives, or would be more costly” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b)).
The following alternatives are analyzed in this Section:
6.1.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project Alternative considers no development on the Project Site beyond what occurs on the Site under
existing conditions. Under this Alternative, the residential units on the northern and western portions of the
Project Site would be retained while the remaining portions of the Site would be kept vacant for the foreseeable
future. This Alternative was used to compare the environmental effects of the proposed Project with an
alternative that would leave the property in its existing state.
6.1.2 BOYLE AVENUE PRESERVATION AND REDUCED BUILDING AREA ALTERNATIVE
The Boyle Avenue Preservation and Reduced Building Area Alternative (hereinafter “Boyle Avenue
Alternative”) considers a proposal where the segment of Boyle Avenue located east of Oleander Avenue and
west of Cypress Avenue is retained, splitting the Project Site into two halves. Under this Alternative, both the
northern and southern halves of the Project Site would be developed with warehouse distribution/commerce
center buildings at floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of 0.45, as allowed by the City of Fontana General Plan and
Zoning and Development Code. This Alternative was selected to evaluate whether the retention of Boyle
Avenue and the development of the Site with two smaller industrial buildings would result in fewer
environmental impacts than the one larger building proposed by the Project.
6.1.3 MODIFIED BUILDING OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE
The Modified Building Operations Alternative considers a proposal where proposed building operations are
less intensive than the Project, but all other aspects of the Project (building size, site layout, architecture,
landscaping, etc.) are unchanged. Specifically, the Modified Building Operations Alternative would reduce
the amount of refrigerated warehouse space to half the amount provided by the Project, or approximately 12.5
percent of the total building floor area. This Alternative was selected to evaluate whether modifying a
relatively energy-intensive aspect of the Project’s operations would result in a substantive reduction to any of
the significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-3
6.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
An EIR is required to identify any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but were rejected as
infeasible. Among the factors described by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 in determining whether to
exclude alternatives from detailed consideration in the EIR are: a) failure to meet most of the basic project
objectives, b) infeasibility, or c) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. With respect to the
feasibility of potential alternatives to the Project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) notes:
“Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of
alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan
consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…and whether the
proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site…”
In determining an appropriate range of alternatives to be evaluated in this EIR, a number of possible
alternatives were initially considered and, for a variety of reasons, rejected. Alternatives were rejected because
either: 1) they could not accomplish the basic objectives of the Project, 2) they would not have resulted in a
reduction of significant adverse environmental impacts, or 3) they were considered infeasible to construct or
operate. A summary of the alternatives that were considered but rejected are described below.
6.2.1 ALTERNATIVE SITES
CEQA does not require that an analysis of alternative sites be included in an EIR. However, if the surrounding
circumstances make it reasonable to consider an alternative site, then an alternative sites analysis should be
considered and analyzed in the EIR. In making the decision to include or exclude an analysis of an alternative
site, the “key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would
be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid
or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the
EIR” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)).
Historic activities on the Project Site have resulted in pervasive and ongoing disturbance over the last 90+
years. The Project Site does not contain any natural/native habitat and the Project Site has most recently been
used for residential and industrial land uses. Based on review of aerial photography and the City of Fontana
land use and zoning maps, there are no other properties available for purchase by the Project Applicant in the
City of Fontana that are zoned for industrial land uses with similar accessibility to the regional goods
movement system (discussed in further detail below) that are large enough to support the proposed Project,
and that have fewer environmental and development constraints than the Project Site evaluated in this EIR.
Development of the Project at an alternative location would likely result in similar (or greater) environmental
impacts as would occur with implementation of the Project at the proposed Project Site. The Project’s
significant and unavoidable impact is related primarily to vehicles traveling to/from the Project Site and not
related to the presence of sensitive resources on the Project Site or its location near sensitive receptors.
Vehicle-related impacts are a direct reflection of the Project’s expected operational characteristics as a
warehouse distribution facility, regardless of where the Project is located. Because the Project Site abuts a
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-4
designated truck route (Slover Avenue) and is located in close proximity to on/off-ramps to I-10, any
alternative site that was located farther from State freeways or major arterial roads that are designated truck
routes than the Project Site would increase vehicle miles traveled (and would result in a concomitant increase
in the severity of GHG emissions from tailpipe emissions). Further, an alternative site that was not as
thoroughly disturbed by existing development as the Project Site may have additional environmental impacts
that the Project would not.
In light of the foregoing reasons, a more detailed analysis of alternative sites is not warranted.
6.3 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
The discussion on the following pages compares the environmental impacts expected from each alternative
considered by the Lead Agency relative to the impacts of the Project. A conclusion is provided for each topic
as to whether the alternative results in one of the following: (1) reduction of elimination or the Project’s impact,
(2) a greater impact than would occur under the Project, (3) the same impact as the Project, or (4) a new impact
in addition to the Project’s impacts. Table 6-1, Alternatives to the Project – Comparison of Environmental
Impacts, at the end of this section compares the impacts of the alternatives against those of the Project and
identifies the ability of the alternative to meet the basic objectives of the Project. As previously listed in EIR
Section 3.0, the Project’s basic objectives are:
1. To expand economic development in the City of Fontana by re-developing an underutilized property
with an in-demand industrial use within a portion of the City that is planned for long-term industrial
development.
2. To make efficient use of a property in the City of Fontana by maximizing its buildout potential for
employment-generating uses.
3. To attract employment-generating businesses to the City of Fontana to reduce the need for members
of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.
4. To develop an industrial building with loading bays adjacent to City of Fontana truck routes and in
close proximity to the I-10 Freeway that can be used as part of the southern California supply chain
and goods movement network.
5. To attract businesses that can expedite the delivery of goods to consumers and businesses in the City
of Fontana and beyond.
6. To develop a project that has architectural design and operational characteristics that are compatible
with other existing and planned land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site.
7. To redevelop a property that has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities.
6.3.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project Alternative allows decision-makers to compare the environmental impacts of approving the
Project to the environmental impacts that would occur if the Project Site were left in its existing conditions for
the foreseeable future. Under existing conditions, the Project Site is entirely disturbed/developed with
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-5
residential units on the northern and western portions of the Project Site and the remaining portions of the Site
are vacant. Refer to the description of the Project Site’s existing physical conditions in Section 2.0 of this EIR.
A. Air Quality
The No Project Alternative would not involve construction activities and would generate no construction-
related air pollutant emissions. Although the Project would result in a less than significant air quality impact
from construction activities, the No Project Alternative would avoid all construction-related air quality
impacts.
The Project Site contains residential land uses and vacant land. Nominal amounts of air pollution associated
with typical residential uses and routine property maintenance activities (e.g., mowing/discing) are produced
at the Project Site. The No Project Alternative would leave the Project Site in its existing condition and would
retain these uses (and less than significant amounts of air pollution). Although the Project would result in a
less than significant air quality impact from operational activities, the No Project Alternative would avoid all
construction-related air quality impacts.
B. Biological Resources
The No Project Alternative would leave the Project Site in its existing condition, which includes
developed/disturbed land with minimal vegetation or habitat areas. No grading would occur under this
Alternative and there would be no potential impacts to bird nests that may be present on the Project Site.
Although there are mitigation measures identified in EIR Subsection 4.2 that would reduce the Project’s direct
and cumulatively considerable impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance, implementation
of the No Project Alternative would avoid impacts to biological resources associated with the Project and
would require no mitigation.
C. Cultural Resources
The No Project Alternative would leave the Project Site in its existing condition; no grading would occur under
this Alternative and there would be no potential impacts to archeological resources that may be present beneath
the existing ground surface. Although there are mitigation measures identified in EIR Subsection 4.3 that
would reduce the Project’s direct and cumulatively considerable impacts to cultural resources to below a level
of significance, implementation of the No Project Alternative would avoid impacts to cultural resources
associated with the Project and would require no mitigation.
D. Energy
Under the No Project Alternative, the existing uses on the Project Site would continue to operate; therefore,
there would be nominal demand for near-term and long-term electricity, natural gas, and fuel use on the Site.
Selection of this Alternative would result in a less than significant impact to energy and would reduce the
Project’s near- and long-term energy use.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-6
E. Geology and Soils
The No Project Alternative would leave the Project Site in its existing condition. The No Project Alternative
would not construct any new structures on the Project Site; accordingly, there would be no potential for this
Alternative to expose people or structures to safety risks associated with geologic hazards.
With respect to paleontological resources, the No Project Alternative would not involve any excavation or
grading activities. Therefore, the potential to discover previously unidentified paleontological resources is
eliminated. Although there are mitigation measures identified in EIR Subsection 4.5 that would reduce the
Project’s direct and cumulatively considerable impacts to paleontological resources to below a level of
significance, implementation of the No Project Alternative would avoid potential impacts to paleontological
resources associated with the Project and would require no mitigation.
F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project Alternative, no new development would occur on the Project Site and the existing uses
on the Site would continue to operate. Therefore, with the exception of ongoing nominal GHG emissions
associated with on-site residential uses, there would be no new sources of near-term or long-term GHG
emissions under the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant and
unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions that would result from the Project.
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The No Project Alternative would not involve construction activities; therefore, the potential for exposure to
asbestos containing materials and lead-based materials during demolition would be reduced. As with the
Project, the No Project Alternative would be required to follow applicable hazardous materials regulations and
would have a less than significant impact related to transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials; and,
release of hazardous materials and hazardous emissions. Additionally, consistent with the Project, the No
Project Alternative would have no impact or a less than significant impact related to its location on a hazardous
materials site, hazards from airport operations, emergency response/evacuation, and wildland fires.
H. Hydrology and Water Quality
No changes to the Site’s existing hydrology and drainage conditions would occur under the No Project
Alternative. No stormwater drainage improvements would be constructed on or adjacent to the Project Site
and rainfall would continue to be discharged from the Project Site as sheet flow without treatment from BMPs
to minimize waterborne pollutants and contain sediment. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result
in greater impacts to hydrology and water quality than the proposed Project; however, under this Alternative,
impacts would remain less than significant.
I. Noise
The No Project Alternative would not involve construction activities; no noise or vibration effects associated
with construction would occur. Although the Project would result in a less than significant noise impact from
construction activities, the No Project Alternative would avoid all construction-related noise impacts.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-7
Under the No Project Alternative, no new sources of permanent noise would be introduced on the Project Site.
Additionally, because the Project Site would not be developed and no new traffic trips would be generated, the
No Project Alternative would not contribute to an incremental increase in area-wide traffic noise levels.
Selection of this Alternative would avoid the Project’s less-than-significant long-term noise impacts.
J. Transportation
The No Project Alternative would not generate any new daily traffic. Accordingly, this Alternative would
avoid the Project’s less-than-significant impacts to transportation.
K. Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project Alternative would leave the Project Site in its existing condition; no grading would occur under
this Alternative and there would be no potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that may be present beneath
the existing ground surface. Although there are mitigation measures identified in EIR Subsection 4.11 that
would reduce the Project’s direct and cumulatively considerable impacts to tribal cultural resources to below
a level of significance, implementation of the No Project Alternative would avoid impacts to tribal cultural
resources associated with the Project and would require no mitigation.
L. Conclusion
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in no physical environmental impacts to the Project
Site beyond those that have historically occurred on the Project Site. All potentially significant effects of the
Project would be avoided by the selection of this Alternative.
Because the No Project Alternative would not re-develop the Project Site and would not promote local
economic development, including through the creation of new jobs and the expansion of the local tax base, the
No Project Alternative would fail to meet all of the Project’s objectives.
6.3.2 BOYLE AVENUE PRESERVATION AND REDUCED BUILDING AREA ALTERNATIVE
The Boyle Avenue Preservation and Reduced Building Area Alternative (“Boyle Avenue Alternative”)
considers a proposal where the segment of Boyle Avenue located east of Oleander Avenue and west of Cypress
Avenue is retained, splitting the Project Site into two halves. Under this Alternative, both the northern and
southern halves of the Project Site would be developed with warehouse distribution/commerce center land uses
at a FAR of 0.45, as allowed by the City of Fontana General Plan and Zoning and Development Code, resulting
in a combined total of approximately 560,250 s.f. of building area on the Site. The northern half of the Project
Site would feature an approximately 258,750 s.f. warehouse distribution/commerce center building with
automobile parking, trailer parking, landscaping, walls and fences, signage, outdoor light fixtures and utility
connections. The southern half of the Project Site would feature an approximately 301,500 s.f. warehouse
distribution/commerce center building with automobile parking, trailer parking, landscaping, walls and fences,
signage, outdoor light fixtures and utility connections. Both buildings provided by this Alternative would be
constructed to the same height as the building proposed by the Project (48 feet and 6 inches) and would orient
loading dock doors toward Boyle Avenue (and away from Slover Avenue and I-10). Boyle Avenue would be
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-8
re-built under this Alternative with new pavement, a curb and gutter system, and sidewalks on both side of the
street. This Alternative was used to evaluate whether a scenario that would retain Boyle Avenue and develop
the Site with smaller industrial buildings would result in fewer environmental impacts than the Project.
A. Air Quality
The Boyle Avenue Alternative would result in construction activities across the entire Project Site, similar to
the Project. This Alternative would utilize similar construction equipment (and in similar quantities) as the
proposed Project. The Boyle Avenue Alternative would result in a reduction to the Project’s proposed building
area – a 65,210 s.f. reduction – which would result in a reduction in daily construction emissions. Both the
Project and this Alternative would result in less than significant air quality impacts from construction activities.
Under the Boyle Avenue Alternative, neither building would utilize rooftop solar panels. Pursuant to City of
Fontana Ordinance No. 1891, the Project would be required to utilize rooftop solar panels to supply 100% of
the Project’s electricity demand for non-refrigerated building space. The requirement in Ordinance No. 1891
for rooftop solar panels only applies to buildings with more than 400,000 s.f. of building area and, thus, would
not be applicable to the 258,750 s.f. and 301,500 s.f. buildings provided by this Alternative. All other aspects
of operation, including traffic, would be similar to the proposed Project. Because the Boyle Avenue
Alternative would not utilize rooftop solar panels for electricity generation, this Alternative would draw more
energy from the power grid than the Project, which would result in additional air pollution from electricity
generation. Although the Boyle Avenue Alternative would reduce daily vehicle traffic to/from the Project Site
due to the reduction in building area – resulting in a reduction of approximately 140 vehicle trips per day – the
air quality benefits from the reduction of these vehicles would be partially, if not wholly, offset by the
additional air pollution from electricity generation. The operation of the Boyle Avenue Alternative is expected
to result in similar, less than significant impacts to air quality as the proposed Project.
B. Biological Resources
The Boyle Avenue Alternative would disturb the entire Project Site, similar to the Project. This Alternative
would have the same impacts to biological resources and would require the same mitigation as the proposed
Project. After mitigation, both the Boyle Avenue Alternative and the Project would result in less-than-
significant impacts to biological resources.
C. Cultural Resources
The Boyle Avenue Alternative would disturb the entire Project Site and would require a similar depth of
grading/earthwork as the Project. Thus, the Boyle Avenue Alternative would have the same potential to impact
cultural resources as the proposed Project. The Boyle Avenue Alternative would require similar mitigation as
the Project and, after mitigation, both the Boyle Avenue Alternative and the Project would result in less-than-
significant impacts to cultural resources.
D. Energy
The Boyle Avenue Alternative would require a less energy to construct than the Project, due to a reduction in
total building area. However, because this Alternative would not utilize rooftop solar panels, its electricity
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-9
demand would be substantially higher than the Project. Adequate electricity would be available to service the
Boyle Avenue Alternative, and its lack of rooftop solar panels would neither prevent the building’s energy
demands being adequately met nor result in a wasteful use of energy. The Boyle Avenue Alternative would
generate similar daily traffic, which would travel a similar distance as Project-related traffic, thus this
Alternative would consume similar – and less than significant - amounts of transportation fuels as the Project.
E. Geology and Soils
This Alternative would disturb the same physical area as the Project and would, therefore, have the same
potential for soil erosion during the construction phase as the Project. Soil erosion impacts would be less than
significant under both the Project and this Alternative due to mandatory compliance with federal, State, and
local water quality standards. The Boyle Avenue Alternative would be required to comply with the same
mandatory regulatory requirements as the Project to preclude substantial hazards associated with seismic
ground shaking. The Boyle Avenue Alternative would result in a similar, less-than-significant impacts related
to geology and soils hazards as the Project.
The Boyle Avenue Alternative would disturb the entire Project Site and would require a similar depth of
grading/earthwork as the Project. Thus, the Boyle Avenue Alternative would have the same potential to impact
paleontological resources as the proposed Project. The Boyle Avenue Alternative would require similar
mitigation as the Project and, after mitigation, both the Boyle Avenue Alternative and the Project would result
in less-than-significant impacts to paleontological resources.
F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Boyle Avenue Alternative would utilize similar construction equipment (and in similar quantities) as the
proposed Project. The Boyle Avenue Preservation Alternative would result in a reduction to the Project’s
proposed building area – an approximately 65,210 s.f. reduction – which would result in an incremental
reduction in total GHG emissions from construction. During long-term operation, the Boyle Avenue
Alternative would produce more GHG emissions from energy consumption than the Project due to the lack of
rooftop solar panels under this Alternative. All other sources of operational GHG emissions would be similar
under this Project. The Boyle Avenue Alternative would increase the severity of the Project’s significant and
unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions.
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Neither the Boyle Avenue Alternative nor the Project would result in a significant impact related to hazards or
hazardous materials. The land uses proposed by this Alternative would have a similar potential to handle and
store hazardous materials than the Project. With mandatory regulatory compliance, both the Boyle Avenue
Alternative and the Project would pose a less-than-significant hazard to the public or the environment related
to the use, handling, storage, and/or transport of hazardous materials.
H. Hydrology and Water Quality
Neither the Project nor the Boyle Avenue Alternative would result in substantial alterations to the drainage
pattern of the Project Site or would result in substantial erosion effects. Accordingly, implementation of the
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-10
Project and the Boyle Avenue Alternative would both result in less-than-significant impacts to existing
drainage patterns.
During construction, potential hydrology and water quality effects on the Project Site would be similar under
both the Boyle Avenue Alternative and the Project due to this Alternative and the Project both disturbing the
same physical area. Like the Project, the Boyle Avenue Alternative would be required to implement a SWPPP
to ensure that stormwater runoff during construction does not contain substantial pollutant concentrations.
Both the Project and the Boyle Avenue Alternative would result in similar – and less-than-significant –
construction impacts to hydrology and water quality.
In the long-term, potential hydrology and water quality effects on the Project Site would be similar under both
the Boyle Avenue Alternative and the Project. Similar to the Project, the Boyle Avenue Alternative would be
required to implement a drainage plan to ensure that stormwater runoff is conveyed to local and regional
stormwater drainage facilities with adequate capacity to handle runoff flows from the Project Site.
Additionally, similar to the Project, the Boyle Avenue Alternative would be required to implement a long-term
WQMP to ensure that stormwater runoff leaving the site does not contain substantial pollutant concentrations.
The Project and the Boyle Avenue Alternative would result similar operational hydrology and water quality
impacts. Impacts under the Boyle Avenue Alternative and the Project would be less than significant.
I. Noise
Noise associated with this Alternative would occur during short-term construction activities and under long-
term operation. Under the construction scenario, the Boyle Avenue Alternative is expected to result in similar
short-term noise levels as the Project due to the similarities between the construction activities and construction
equipment being used. Under operational conditions, the Boyle Avenue Alternative is expected to result in a
similar long-term noise impact as the Project due to the similar types of vehicles accessing the Site and similar
types of operational activities on the Site (i.e., loading and unloading of trailers). Under both the Project and
the Boyle Avenue Alternative, long-term noise impacts would be less than significant.
J. Transportation
Because the Boyle Avenue Alternative is a similar land use as the proposed Project, would construct similar
improvements as the proposed Project, and would utilize the same travel routes as the Project, this Alternative
would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system and would
not result in any local transportation safety hazards. The volume of traffic generated by this Alternative would
be less than the Project (by approximately 140 trips per day); the average distance traveled by vehicle trips
under this Alternative would be identical to the Project. Accordingly, the Boyle Avenue Alternative would
result in a similar – and less than significant – impact as the Project to transportation.
K. Tribal Cultural Resources
The Boyle Avenue Alternative would disturb the entire Project Site and would require a similar depth of
grading/earthwork as the Project. Thus, the Boyle Avenue Alternative would have the same potential to impact
tribal cultural resources as the proposed Project. The Boyle Avenue Alternative would require similar
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-11
mitigation as the Project and, after mitigation, both the Boyle Avenue Alternative and the Project would result
in less-than-significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.
L. Conclusion
The Boyle Avenue Alternative would not reduce – but would likely increase – the Project’s significant and
unavoidable environmental impact from GHG emissions. This Alternative would also increase energy
consumption in comparison to the Project; however, energy impacts would remain less than significant. Upon
application of the same mitigation measures as the Project, the Boyle Avenue Alternative would result in
similar, less than significant impacts as the Project to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resources.
The Boyle Avenue Alternative would not meet Project Objective 2 because it provides a reduced scale of
development in comparison to the proposed Project and would not maximize employment-generating potential
of development on the Project Site. The Boyle Avenue would meet all other Project objectives because it
provides a similar land use and building design as the Project.
6.3.3 MODIFIED BUILDING OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE
The Modified Building Operations Alternative considers a proposal where a physical development design that
is identical to the proposed Project is provided, but operations of the building are modified to limit refrigerated
warehouse space to no more than 12.5 percent of the total proposed building area (approximately 78,200 s.f.).
Other than reducing the amount of floor area that would potentially be utilized for refrigerated storage uses,
all other aspects of the proposed Project – including but not limited to its site plan, building height, architecture
design, landscape design, proposed use, and hours of operation – would remain unchanged. Due to the
reduction in the amount of cold storage provided, operation of this Alternative would require less electricity
than the Project and, also, fewer heavy trucks equipped with transport refrigeration units (TRUs). This
Alternative was selected to evaluate whether modifying a relatively energy-intensive aspect of the Project’s
operations would result in a substantive reduction to any of the significant environmental impacts that would
result from the Project.
A. Air Quality
The Modified Building Operations Alternative would result in construction activities across the entire Project
Site that are identical to the Project. This Alternative would utilize the construction equipment in the same
quantities as the proposed Project. Because the Modified Building Operations Alternative would require the
same construction activities as the Project, this Alternative would result in identical – and less than significant
– construction-related impacts to air quality as the Project.
Because the Modified Building Operations Alternative would provide less refrigerated storage space than the
Project, this Alternative would consume less electricity than the Project and would require service from fewer
heavy trucks outfitted with TRUs than the Project. Thus, operation of this Alternative would produce less
regional criteria air pollution than the Project from electricity generation and TRU operation; the reduction
would vary by criteria pollutant but could be as high as an approximate 8 percent reduction to peak NOX and
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-12
CO emissions under the Project. The reduction in TRU operations also would result in an incremental
reduction in localized health risk impacts from diesel particulate matter emissions in comparison to the Project.
Notwithstanding, the reductions to operational air pollutant emissions under this Alternative, both the Project
and the Modified Operations Alternative would result in less than significant operational air quality impacts.
B. Biological Resources
The Modified Operations Alternative would redevelop the entire Project Site and would have an identical
development footprint as the Project. This Alternative would have the same impacts to biological resources
and would require the same mitigation as the proposed Project. After mitigation, both the Modified Operations
Alternative and the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to biological resources.
C. Cultural Resources
The Modified Operations Alternative would have an identical development footprint as the Project and would
require a similar depth of grading/earthwork as the Project. Thus, the Modified Operations Alternative would
have the same potential to impact cultural resources as the proposed Project. The Modified Operations
Alternative would require similar mitigation as the Project and, after mitigation, both the Modified Operations
Alternative and the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to cultural resources.
D. Energy
The Modified Operations Alternative would require the same energy to construct as the Project, due to a
identical development and construction plan. The Modified Operations Alternative would reduce the Project’s
consumption of electricity during operation due to a reduction of refrigerated storage space. Adequate
electricity would be available to service the Modified Operations Alternative and this Alternative’s energy
usage would not be wasteful; this is the same conclusion as the Project. The Modified Operations Alternative
would generate similar daily traffic, which would travel a similar distance as Project-related traffic, thus this
Alternative would consume similar – and less than significant - amounts of transportation fuels as the Project.
E. Geology and Soils
This Alternative would disturb the same physical area as the Project and would, therefore, have the same
potential for soil erosion during the construction phase as the Project. Soil erosion impacts would be less than
significant under both the Project and this Alternative due to mandatory compliance with federal, State, and
local water quality standards. The Modified Operations Alternative would be required to comply with the
same mandatory regulatory requirements as the Project to preclude substantial hazards associated with seismic
ground shaking. The Modified Operations Alternative would result in a similar, less-than-significant impacts
related to geology and soils hazards as the Project.
The Modified Operations Alternative would have an identical development footprint as the Project and would
require a similar depth of grading/earthwork as the Project. Thus, the Modified Operations Alternative would
have the same potential to impact paleontological resources as the proposed Project. The Modified Operations
Alternative would require similar mitigation as the Project and, after mitigation, both the Modified Operations
Alternative and the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to paleontological resources.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-13
F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Modified Operations Alternative would result in identical construction activities as the Project and would
rely on identical construction equipment in the same quantities as the Project. Because the Modified Building
Operations Alternative would require the same construction activities as the Project, this Alternative would
result in identical construction-related GHG emissions as the Project. The Modified Building Operations
Alternative would reduce GHG emissions as compared to the Project due to a reduction of refrigerated
warehouse space within the proposed building; GHG emissions from electricity emissions and TRU operations
would be halved relative to the Project which would result in an annual reduction of approximately 850 MT
of CO2e emissions. This reduction correlates to an approximately 11 percent reduction of the Project’s GHG
emissions. Despite the reduction to GHG emissions afforded by this Alternative, impacts from GHG emissions
would remain significant and unavoidable under the Modified Operations Alternative.
G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Neither the Modified Operations Alternative nor the Project would result in a significant impact related to
hazards or hazardous materials. The land uses proposed by this Alternative would have a similar potential to
handle and store hazardous materials than the Project. With mandatory regulatory compliance, both the
Modified Operations Alternative and the Project would pose a less-than-significant hazard to the public or the
environment related to the use, handling, storage, and/or transport of hazardous materials.
H. Hydrology and Water Quality
Neither the Project nor this Alternative would result in substantial alterations to the drainage pattern of the
Project Site or would result in substantial erosion effects. Accordingly, implementation of the Project and the
Modified Operations Alternative would both result in less-than-significant impacts to existing drainage
patterns.
During construction, potential hydrology and water quality effects on the Project Site would be identical under
both the Modified Operations Alternative and the Project due to this Alternative and the Project having an
identical development footprint. Like the Project, this Alternative would be required to implement a SWPPP
to ensure that stormwater runoff during construction does not contain substantial pollutant concentrations.
Both the Project and the Modified Operations Alternative would result in similar – and less-than-significant –
construction impacts to hydrology and water quality.
In the long-term, potential hydrology and water quality effects on the Project Site would be identical under
both the Modified Operations Alternative and the Project. Both the Modified Operations Alternative and the
Project would be required to implement a drainage plan and a WQMP to adequately capture and convey
stormwater runoff and preclude substantial concentrations of waterborne pollution. Impacts under the
Modified Operations Alternative and the Project would be less than significant.
I. Noise
Under the construction scenario, the Modified Operations Alternative is expected to result in identical short-
term noise levels as the Project due to the similarities between the construction activities and construction
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-14
equipment being used. Under operational conditions, the Modified Operations Alternative is expected to result
in a similar long-term noise impact as the Project due to the similar types of vehicles accessing the Site and
similar types of operational activities on the Site (i.e., loading and unloading of trailers). Under both the Project
and the Modified Operations Alternative, long-term noise impacts would be less than significant.
J. Transportation
Because the Modified Operations Alternative is a similar land use as the proposed Project, would construct
similar improvements as the proposed Project, and would utilize the same travel routes as the Project, this
Alternative would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system
and would not result in any local transportation safety hazards. The volume of traffic generated by this
Alternative would be similar to the Project and the average distance traveled by vehicle trips under this
Alternative would be identical to the Project. Accordingly, the Modified Operations Avenue Alternative would
result in a similar – and less than significant – impact as the Project to transportation.
K. Tribal Cultural Resources
The Modified Operations Alternative would have an identical development footprint as the Project and would
require a similar depth of grading/earthwork as the Project. Thus, the Modified Operations Alternative would
have the same potential to impact tribal cultural resources as the proposed Project. The Modified Operations
Alternative would require similar mitigation as the Project and, after mitigation, both the Modified Operations
Alternative and the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.
L. Conclusion
The Modified Operations Alternative would reduce – but not avoid – the Project’s significant and unavoidable
environmental impact from GHG emissions. This Alternative would reduce energy consumption in
comparison to the Project; however, both the Project and the Modified Operations Alternative would result in
less than significant environmental impacts from energy consumption. The Modified Operations Alternative
would require the same mitigation measures as the Project for biological resources, cultural resources, geology
and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources. Upon consideration of all required
mitigation measures, the Modified Operations Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to air
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise,
transportation, and tribal cultural resources, which is the same conclusion drawn for the Project.
Because the Modified Operations Alternative provides a similar land use and identical building design and
scale of development as the proposed Project, this Alternative would meet all of the Project’s objectives.
6.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives shall identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in the EIR. In general, the
environmentally superior alternative as defined by CEQA should minimize adverse impacts to the Project site
and its surrounding environment.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-15
As shown in Table 6-1, the No Project Alternative would avoid or reduce all of the Project’s significant
environmental impacts and, therefore, can be considered environmentally superior to the Project. The No
Project Alternative is considered to be a “no project” alternative as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(e)(3). If a “no project” alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative then the
EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (see CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2). Thus, the Modified Building Operations Alternative, as described above in
Subsection 6.3.3, is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, because the Modified Building
Operations Alternative would result in the greatest reduction of environmental impacts among the remaining
alternatives as summarized in Table 6-1.
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-16
Table 6-1 Alternatives to the Project – Comparison of Environmental Impacts
ENVIRONMENTAL
TOPIC
PROJECT
SIGNIFICANCE OF
IMPACTS AFTER
MITIGATION
NO PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE
BOYLE AVENUE
PRESERVATION
ALTERNATIVE
MODIFIED BUILDING
OPERATIONS
ALTERNATIVE
Air Quality
Less than
Significant
(Construction)
Reduced Similar Similar
Less than
Significant
(Operations)
Reduced Similar Similar
Biological
Resources
Less than
Significant Reduced Similar Similar
Cultural Resources Less than
Significant Reduced Similar Similar
Energy Less than
Significant Reduced Increased Similar
Geology & Soils Less than
Significant Reduced Similar Similar
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Significant and
Unavoidable Reduced Increased Reduced
Hazards &
Hazardous
Materials
Less than
Significant Increased Similar Similar
Hydrology &
Water Quality
Less than
Significant
(Construction)
Increased Similar Similar
Less than
Significant
(Operations)
Increased Similar Similar
Noise
Less than
Significant
(Construction)
Reduced Similar Similar
Less than
Significant
(Operations)
Reduced Similar Similar
Transportation Less than
Significant Reduced Similar Similar
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Less than
Significant Reduced Similar Similar
ABILITY TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Objective 1. To expand economic
development in the City of Fontana by re-
developing an underutilized property with
an in-demand industrial use within a portion
of the City that is planned for long-term
industrial development.
No Yes Yes
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 6-17
Table 6-1 Alternatives to the Project – Comparison of Environmental Impacts
ENVIRONMENTAL
TOPIC
PROJECT
SIGNIFICANCE OF
IMPACTS AFTER
MITIGATION
NO PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE
BOYLE AVENUE
PRESERVATION
ALTERNATIVE
MODIFIED BUILDING
OPERATIONS
ALTERNATIVE
ABILITY TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Objective 2: To make efficient use of a
property in the City of Fontana by
maximizing its buildout potential for
employment-generating uses.
No No Yes
Objective 3: To attract employment-
generating businesses to the City of Fontana
to reduce the need for members of the local
workforce to commute outside the area for
employment.
No Yes Yes
Objective 4: To develop an industrial
building with loading bays adjacent to City
of Fontana truck routes and in close
proximity to the I-10 Freeway that can be
used as part of the southern California
supply chain and goods movement network.
No Yes Yes
Objective 5: To attract businesses that can
expedite the delivery of goods to consumers
and businesses in the City of Fontana and
beyond.
No Yes Yes
Objective 6: To develop a project that has
architectural design and operational
characteristics that are compatible with
other existing and planned land uses in the
immediate vicinity of the Project Site.
No Yes Yes
Objective 7: To redevelop a property that
has access to available infrastructure,
including roads and utilities.
No Yes Yes
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 7-1
7.0 REFERENCES
7.1 PERSONS CONTRIBUTING TO EIR PREPARATION
7.1.1 CITY OF FONTANA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Jon Dille, Associate Planner
7.1.2 T&B PLANNING, INC.
Tracy Zinn, AICP, Principal B.S. Regional Planning and Geography
David Ornelas, Senior Project Manager B.A. Urban Studies and Planning
Jerrica Harding, Senior Associate
B.S. Natural Resources Planning; Master of Urban and Regional Planning
Tracy Chu, Environmental Analyst
B.A. Economics; Master of Urban Planning
7.2 DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO THIS EIR
The following reports, studies, and supporting documentation were used in preparing the Slover and Cypress
EIR and are bound separately as Technical Appendices. A copy of the Technical Appendices is available for
review at the City of Fontana Community Development Department, Planning Division at 8353 Sierra Avenue,
Fontana, CA 92335.
Appendix A: A: Notice of Preparation and Written Comments on the NOP
Appendix B: Air Quality Impact Analysis
Appendix C: Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment
Appendix D: Biological Resources Report
Appendix E: Cultural Resources Study
Appendix F: Energy Analysis
Appendix G: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix H: Paleontological Assessment
Appendix I: Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix J: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix K: Preliminary Drainage Report
Appendix L: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix M: Noise Analysis
Appendix N: Traffic Study
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 7-2
7.3 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
The following reports, studies, and supporting documentation were used in the preparation of this EIR and are
incorporated by reference within this EIR. A copy of the following reports, studies, and supporting
documentation is a matter of public record and is generally available to the public at the location listed.
Fontana, City of. 2018a. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035. Approved and Adopted:
November 13, 2018. Available on-line at: https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015--
-2035. Accessed: October 13, 2021.
Fontana, City of. 2018b. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report. June 8, 2018. Available on-line at: https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental- Documents.
Accessed: October 13, 2021.
Fontana, City of. 2019. Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act for City
of Fontana. Available for review at the City of Fontana Planning Division, 8353 Sierra Avenue,
Fontana, California 92335.
Fontana, City of. 2021. City of Fontana Municipal Code. September 13, 2021. Available on-line at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances. Accessed: October 13, 2021.
Fontana Water Company, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Available on-line at:
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-
Final.pdf. Accessed: October 26, 2021.
7.4 DOCUMENTS AND WEBSITES CONSULTED
Cited As: Citation:
BSC, n.d. California Building Standards Code (BSC), n.d. California Building Standards Code. Available on-line
at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes
CA Legislative
Info, n.d.
California Legislative Information (CA Legislative Info), n.d. California Health and Safety Code
Section 5097.98. Available on-line at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC§ionNum=509
7.98.
CA Legislative
Info, n.d.
CA Legislative Info, n.d. California Water Code. Available on-line at:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=WAT&tocTitle=+Water+Co
de+-+WAT
CA Legislative
Info, n.d.
CA Legislative Info, n.d. Fish and Game Code Division 4. Available on-line at:
http://www.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=4.&chapter=1.&part=2.
&lawCode=FGC
CA Legislative
Info, n.d.
CA Legislative Info, n.d. Hazardous Waste Control. Available on-line at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=HSC&division=
20.&title=&part=&chapter=6.5.&article=
CA Legislative
Info, n.d.
CA Legislative Info, n.d. Senate Bill No. 32. Available on-line at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 7-3
Cited As: Citation:
CA Legislative
Info, n.d.
CA Legislative Info, n.d. Senate Bill No. 97. Available on-line at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200720080SB97
CA Legislative
Info, n.d.
CA Legislative Info, n.d. Senate Bill No. 107. Available on-line at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=200520060SB107
CA Legislative
Info, n.d.
CA Legislative Info, n.d. Senate Bill No. 1078. Available on-line at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1078
CA Legislative
Info, n.d.
CA Legislative Info, n.d. Aeronautics Act. Available on-line at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=PUC&division=
9.&title=&part=1.&chapter=&article=
CA Legislative
Info, n.d.
CA Legislative Info, n.d. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Available on-line at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=2.&chapter=7.5.&lawCode=
PRC
CA Legislative
Information, 2005
CA Legislative Information, 2005. PRC 42911. Available on-line at:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC§ionNum=4291
1
CA Legislative
Information, 2011
CA Legislative Information, 2011. AB 341. Available on-line at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB341
CA Legislative
Information, n.d.
CA Legislative Information, n.d. ARTICLE 1.7. Disclosure of Natural and Environmental Hazards,
Right-to-Farm, and Other Disclosures Upon Transfer of Residential Property. Available on-line at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1103.2.&lawCode=C
IV
CA Legislative
Information, n.d.
CA Legislative Information, n.d. PRC Division 13, Environmental Quality. Available on-line at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC§ionNum=210
96.
CA State Library,
2005
CA State Library, 2005. Executive Order S-3-05. June 1, 2005. Available on-line at:
https://www.library.ca.gov/Content/pdf/GovernmentPublications/executive-order-proclamation/5129-
5130.pdf
CA State Library,
2007
CA State Library, 2007. Executive Order S-01-07. January 18, 2007. Available on-line at:
https://www.library.ca.gov/Content/pdf/GovernmentPublications/executive-order-proclamation/5107-
5108.pdf
CA State Library,
2008
CA State Library, 2008. Executive Order S-14-08. November 17, 2008. Available on-line at:
https://www.library.ca.gov/Content/pdf/GovernmentPublications/executive-order-proclamation/38-S-
14-08.pdf
CA State Library,
2015
CA State Library, 2015. Executive Order B-30-15. April 29, 2015.Available on-line at:
https://www.library.ca.gov/Content/pdf/GovernmentPublications/executive-order-proclamation/39-B-
30-15.pdf
CAB, n.d. California Architects Board (CAB), n.d. Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act (ESBSSA).
Available on-line at: https://www.cab.ca.gov/general_information/esbssa.shtml
CAL FIRE, 2007 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones
in SRA. November 7, 2007. Available on-line at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6781/fhszs_map62.pdf
CAL FIRE, 2008 CAL FIRE, 2008 Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Available on-line at:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/san_bernardino/Fontana.pdf
CAL FIRE, 2020 CAL FIRE, 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Development. Available on-line at:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414
CalRecycle, 2018 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2018. History of
California Solid Waste Law, 1985-1989. Available on-line at:
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/laws/legislation/calhist/1985to1989
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 7-4
Cited As: Citation:
CalRecycle, 2019 CalRecycle, 2019. Mid-Valley Landfill. Available on-line at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662
CalRecycle, 2020 CalRecycle, 2020. Inspection Detail - Mid Valley Sanitary Landfill. July 2020. Available on-line at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteInspection/Details/318405
CalRecycle, n.d. CalRecycle, n.d. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available on-line at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates
Caltrans, 2017 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2017. Scenic Highway. February 25, 2017.
Available on-line at:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f0259b1ad0fe4093a5604c9b838a486a
CAPCOA, 2008 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2008. CEQA and Climate Change.
January 2008. Available on-line at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-
White-Paper.pdf
CARB, 2007 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2007. Staff Report: California 1990 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit. November 16, 2007. Available on-line at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_report_1990_level.pdf
CARB, 2012 CARB, 2012. Air Quality and Transportation Planning . June 27, 2012. Available on-line at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/planning.htm
CARB, 2018 CARB, 2018. AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. September 28, 2018. Available on-line
at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/ab-32-global-warming-solutions-act-2006
CARB, 2021 CARB, 2021. Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet. August 20, 2021. Available on-line
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-clean-trucks-fact-sheet
CARB, n.d. CARB, n.d. California's GHG Vehicle Emission Standards under AB 1493 of 2002 (Pavley). Available
on-line at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/californias-greenhouse-gas-vehicle-emission-standards-under-
assembly-bill-1493-2002-pavley
CARB, n.d. CARB, n.d. Sustainable Communities & Climate Protection Program (SB 375) . Available on-line at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable-communities-climate-protection-program/about
CARB, n.d. CARB, n.d. Truck & Bus Regulation. Available on-line at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
work/programs/truck-and-bus-regulation/about
CBSC, 2019 California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2019. Guide to Title 24 California Building
Standards Code. August 2019. Available on-line at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-
/media/Divisions/BSC/05-Resources/Guidebooks/2019-Guide-toTitle-24-ACC-Aug-
2019.pdf?la=en&hash=ECF9E9CA02A3A8E6EB6F16394CF4178D8464B1B2
CBWM, 2019 Chino Basin Watermaster (CBWM), 2021. Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management Program 2020
State of the Basin Report. Available on-line at:
http://www.cbwm.org/docs/engdocs/State_of_the_Basin_Reports/SOB%202020/2020%20State%20of
%20the%20Basin%20Report.pdf
CCCC, 2006 California Climate Change Center (CCCC), 2006. Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An
Overview. February 2006. Available on-line at: https://www.sustainable-
design.ie/arch/California2006_Climate-Change-Scenarios.pdf
CDC, 1995 California department of Conservation (CDC), 1995. Mineral Land Classification of a Part of
Southwest San Bernardino County (West). Available on-line at:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_94-04/OFR_94-04_Report.pdf
CDC, 2015 CDC, 2015. Geologic Map of California. Available on-line at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/
CDC, 2016 CDC, 2016. FMMP. Available on-line at: file:///C:/Users/thomas/Downloads/sbd16_so%20(1).pdf
CDC, n.d. CDC, n.d. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Available on-line at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shma
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 7-5
Cited As: Citation:
CDFW, n.d. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), n.d. California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
Permits. Available on-line at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA/Permitting
CDFW, n.d. CDFW, n.d. California Laws Protecting Native Plants. Available on-line at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants/Laws
CDFW, n.d. CDFW, n.d. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP). Available on-line at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/planning/nccp
CEC, 2018 California Energy Commission (CEC), 2018. 2019 BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. December 2018.
Available on-line at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2008/2019-building-energy-efficiency-
standards-residential-and-nonresidential
CEC, n.d. CEC, n.d. Emission Performance Standard - SB 1368. Available on-line at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/emission_standards/
CGS, 2015 California Geological Survey (CGS), 2015. Fault Activity Map of California. Available on-line at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/
CNRA, 2021 California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), 2021. Draft California Climate Adaptation Strategy.
October 18, 2021. Available on-line at: https://resources.ca.gov/-/media/CNRA-
Website/Files/Initiatives/Climate-Resilience/SAS-Workshops/Draft-CA-Climate-Adaptation-Strategy-
ada.pdf
DOJ, 2021 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), 2021. Massachusetts v. EPA. August 10, 2021. Available on-line at:
https://www.justice.gov/enrd/massachusetts-v-epa
DTSC, n.d. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2019. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous
Substances Law Code Excerpts. Available on-line at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/sites/31/2019/06/HSC-2018-Full-Doc.pdf
DTSC, n.d. DTSC, n.d. Official California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4.5. Available on-line
at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/title22/
DWR, 2020 California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2020. Statewide map of SGMA Basin
Prioritization Results. May 1, 2020. Available on-line at: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-
Management/Basin-Prioritization
DWR, n.d. DWR, n.d., Adjudicated Area Map Viewer, Available on-line at:
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/index.jsp?appid=adjbasin
DWR, n.d. DWR, n.d. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Available on-line at:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management
EPA, 2009 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2009. Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction
and Demolition Materials Amounts. Available on-line at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-
09/documents/estimating2003buildingrelatedcanddmaterialsamounts.pdf
EPA, 2017 EPA, 2017. Learn About SmartWay. Available on-line at: https://www.epa.gov/smartway/learn-about-
smartway
EPA, 2020 EPA, 2020. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary: Title I. October 13, 2020. Available on-line at:
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/1990-clean-air-act-amendment-summary-title-i
EPA, 2020a, EPA, 2020a. Summary of Clean Water Act. September 9, 2020. Available on-line at:
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act
EPA, 2021 EPA, 2021. Summary of the Noise Control Act. September 28, 2021. Available on-line at:
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-noise-control-act
EPA, 2021a EPA, 2021a. Summary of the CERCLA (Superfund). September 28, 2021. Available on-line at:
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-comprehensive-environmental-response-
compensation-and-liability-act
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 7-6
Cited As: Citation:
EPA, 2021a EPA, 2021a. Summary of the Clean Air Act. September 28, 2021. Available on-line at:
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act
EPA, 2021b EPA, 2021b. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary: Title II. November 22, 2021. Available on-
line at: https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/1990-clean-air-act-amendment-summary-title-ii
EPA,2021b EPA, 2021b. Summary of RCRA. July 28, 2021. Available on-line at: https://www.epa.gov/laws-
regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act
EPA, 2021c EPA, 2021c. Summary of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. October 22, 2021. Available on-
line at: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-occupational-safety-and-health-act
EPA, 2021d EPA, 2021d. TSCA Summary. September 9, 2021. Available on-line at: https://www.epa.gov/laws-
regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act
FAA, 2017 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2017. Part 77 Regulations. Available on-line at:
https://www.faa.gov/airports/central/engineering/part77/
FEMA, 2008 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2008. FIRM MAp 06071C8654H. Available on-
line at:
https://map1.msc.fema.gov/bundle/06071C8654H.zip?LOC=b8e5b6007a0ddc06e6a1ff3206e46b19
FEMA, 2021 FEMA, 2021. Executive Order 11988. October 20, 2021. Available on-line at:
https://www.fema.gov/glossary/executive-order-11988
FEMA, 2021 FEMA, 2021. National Flood Insurance Program - Program Description. January 8, 2021. Available
on-line at: https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance
FHWA, 2017 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2017. Highway Traffic Noise. June 6, 2017. Available on-
line at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/
FindLaw, n.d. FindLaw, n.d. PRC Section 5097.5. Available on-line at: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-
resources-code/prc-sect-5097-5.html
FTA, 2006 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
Available on-line at:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf
FWC, 2021 Fontana Water Company (FWC), 2021. Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Available on-line
at: https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-
Final.pdf
Google Earth Pro,
2021
Google Earth Pro. (2021). Google Earth Pro.
IAPMO, 2016 International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), 2016. 2016 California
Plumbing Code. Available on-line at: http://epubs.iapmo.org/2016/CPC/#p=48
IEUA, 2020a Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), 2020a. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1. Available on-
line at: https://www.ieua.org/facilities/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-1/
IEUA, 2020b IEUA, 2020b. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4. Available on-line at:
https://www.ieua.org/facilities/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-4/
NAHC, n.d. Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), n.d. State Laws and Codes. Available on-line at:
http://nahc.ca.gov/codes/state-laws-and-codes/
NPS, 2021a National Parks Service, (NPS), 2021a. The National Historic Preservation Program: Overview. March
30, 2021. Available on-line at: https://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nhpa.htm
NPS, 2021b NPS, 2021b. National Register of Historic Places FAQ. May 6, 2021. Available on-line at:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/faqs.htm
NPS, 2021c NPS, 2021c. National Historic Landmarks Program. February 2, 2021. Available on-line at:
https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1582/index.htm
NPS, 2021d NPS, 2021d. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. March 30, 2021. Available
on-line at: https://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nagpra.htm
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 7-7
Cited As: Citation:
NPS, n.d. NPS, n.d. CA Administrative Code, Title 14, Seciton 4308. Available on-line at:
https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/627/files/california%20code%20of%20regulations.doc
NRCS, n.d. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), n.d. Soil Map Viewer. Available on-line at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
OHP, n.d. California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), n.d. California Register of Historical Resources.
Available on-line at: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238
Ontario, 2011 Ontario, 2011. Ontario Airport ALUCP. Available on-line at: https://www.ontarioplan.org/alucp-for-
ontario-international-airport/
OPR, 2017 California Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 2017. General Plan Guidelines. Available on-line
at: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf
OPR, 2017 OPR, 2017. Technical Advisory: AB 52 and Tribal Cultural Resources in CEQA. Available on-line at:
http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Technical-Advisory-AB-52-and-Tribal-Cultural-
Resources-in-CEQA.pdf
OPR, 2019 OPR, 2019. Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. Available on-line at:
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_FINAL_TEXT_122818.pdf
OSHA, 2002 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 2002. Hearing Conservation. Available on-
line at: https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/osha3074.pdf
OSHA, n.d. OSHA., n.d. California State Plan. Available on-line at:
https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/california.html
OSHA, n.d. OSHA. n.d. Trucking Industry. Available on-line at: https://www.osha.gov/trucking-industry
RWQCB, 2019 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 2019. Santa Ana River Basin Plan. June 2019.
Available on-line at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/
SAWPA, 2019 Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA), 2019. One Water One Watershed Plan 2.0.
Available on-line: https://www.sawpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/OWOW-Plan-Update-2018-
1.pdf
SCAG, 2020 Southern California Association of Government (SCAG), 2020a. Connect SoCal. September 3, 2020.
Available on-line at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-
plan_0.pdf?1606001176
SCAG, 2020b SCAG, 2020b. Demographics and Growth Forecast Appendix. September 3, 2020. Available on-line
at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-
forecast.pdf?1606001579
SCAQMD, 2005 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2005. Rule 403. Available on-line at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4
SCAQMD, 2007 SCAQMD, 2007. Rule 1403. Available on-line at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-
book/reg-xiv/rule-1403.pdf
SCAQMD, 2017 SCAQMD, 2017. 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March 2017. Available on-line at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-
quality-management-plan/final-2016-aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15
SCAQMD, 2022 SCAQMD, 2022. MATES V Data Visualization Tool. Available on-line at:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/79d3b6304912414bb21ebdde80100b23?views=view_38
SCAQMD, n.d. SCAQMD, n.d. Authority. Available on-line at: https://www.aqmd.gov/nav/about/authority
SWRCB, 2014 California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2014. Federal, State and Local Laws,
Policy and Regulations. June 23, 2014. Available on-line at:
http://waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/encyclopedia/0a_laws_policy.shtml
SWRCB, 2016 SWRCB, 2016. A Compilation of Water Quality Goals. January 2016. Available on-line at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_goals/docs/wq_goals_text.pdf
SWRCB, 2017 SWRCB, 2017. Watershed Management. August 3, 2017. Available on-line at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/watershed/
Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project
Environmental Impact Report 7.0 References
City of Fontana SCH No. 2021120059
Page 7-8
Cited As: Citation:
SWRCB, 2021 SWRCB, 2021. Industrial General Permit. June 16, 2021. Available on-line at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/igp_20140057dwq.html
UNFCCC, n.d. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), n.d. The Paris Agreement.
Available on-line at: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
UNFCCC, n.d. UNFCCC, n.d. What is the Kyoto Protocol? Available on-line at: https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol
USCB, 2012 United States Census Bureau (USCB), 2012. 2010 Census Urbanized Area Reference Map: Riverside -
San Bernardino, CA. March 11, 2012. Available on-line at:
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua75340_riverside--
san_bernardino_ca/DC10UA75340_002.pdf
USDA, 1980 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1980. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County Southwestern
Part, California. January 1980. Available on-line at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/sanbernardinoCA1980/sanbernar
dinoCA1980.pdf
USFWS, 2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2020. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. April 16, 2020. Available
on-line at: https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/migratory-bird-treaty-
act.php
USFWS, 2017 USFWS, 2017. ESA Basics. February 2017. Available on-line at:
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESA_basics.pdf
Westlaw, n.d. Westlaw, n.d. Title 14, Section 4308. Available on-line at:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IA7131C80D48511DEBC02831C6D6C108E?viewType=
FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Def
ault)