HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix A - NOP of Draft EIR and Scoping Meeting1
City of Fontana
Planning Division
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR and Scoping Meeting
Date: September 30, 2022
To: Public Agencies and Interested Parties
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Meeting
Project Title: Poplar South Distribution Center
The City of Fontana, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Poplar South Distribution Center project (the “project”). In accordance
with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has issued this Notice of Preparation (NOP) to provide
responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other interested parties with information describing the proposed
project and its potential environmental effects.
The purpose of this notice is to:
1) serve as the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Office of Planning and
Research (OPR), Responsible Agencies, public agencies involved in funding or approving the project,
and Trustee Agencies responsible for natural resources affected by the project, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15082.
2) advise and solicit comments and suggestions regarding the preparation of the EIR, environmental
issues to be addressed in the EIR, and any other related issues, from interested parties, including
interested or affected members of the public; and
3) advertise a public meeting to solicit comments from public agencies and interested parties regarding
the scope of study in the EIR.
Project Location
The 19.08-acre project site consists of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 0237-171-01 through -19,
0237-172-01 through -12, -19, -22, -23, -26, -27, -28, -30 through -33. The site surrounds the existing Rose Avenue
and is located south of Santa Ana Avenue, west of Catawba Avenue, north of Jurupa Avenue, and east of Poplar
Avenue. The project site is located in the southern portion of the city of Fontana, south of Interstate 10 (I-10)
(see Figure 1, Regional Location, Figure 2, Local Vicinity, and Figure 3, Aerial View). The project site is currently
developed with approximately 41 existing single-family residential units and accessory structures (inclusive of 42
parcels with one vacant parcel). Rose Avenue runs east west through the center of the site.
The site is located in an area zoned as Specific Plan (SP) for the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan (SWIP) and
is designated as Residential Trucking District (RTD) in the SWIP. The project site is designated as Residential
Trucking (R-T), industrial-supporting residential with density of 2 dwelling units per acre, by the City’s General
Plan. The surrounding areas are designated within the SWIP as East Industrial District (SED) and General Industrial
(I-G) within the City’s General Plan. Surrounding areas are developed with warehousing and distribution uses.
T
FONTANA
C'.AI.I FORN I A
2
Project Description
The project includes a Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, General Plan Amendment, and Specific Plan
Amendment for the development of the proposed project. Additionally, the Rose Avenue right-of-way will
need to be abandoned via the Parcel Map.
The proposed project re-envisions the project site with a new warehouse totaling approximately 490,565 square
feet (SF), parking, landscaping, and related improvements. To allow for the development, the project would
include a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment for the site to change from Residential
Trucking (R-T) to General Industrial (I-G) land use within the City’s General Plan, and Residential Trucking District
(RTD) to Slover East Industrial District (SED) within the SWIP. With the land use change, the site would be
compatible with the surrounding vicinity and the project would be similar to surrounding uses.
The warehouse building would include 10,000 SF of office space. The building would include 56 dock positions
and a parking lot with 98 trailer parking stalls and 210 auto parking stalls. The project would include 62,000 SF
of landscaping that would be provided along the northern, eastern, and western property lines and around the
perimeter of the building. Additionally, landscaping would be provided along the southern property lines at the
site entrances. Offsite road and utility infrastructure improvements would also be constructed.
The project is speculative; no tenant has been identified but the building is assumed to used for a dry storage
warehouse. Typical operational characteristics include employee and customers traveling to and from the site,
delivery of materials and supplies to the site, truck loading and unloading and related beeping of backup alarms
from the trucks, and manufacturing activities. The project is anticipated to operate 7 days a week 24 hours a
day.
The project would be constructed on a site that is currently zoned and developed with residential; therefore,
the project is required to comply with the Housing Accountability Act (Senate Bill [SB] 330) which addresses the
displacement and replacement of housing. The EIR will include evaluation of "replacement housing" in
accordance with SB 330. SB 330 requires in part, that where a development project results in reducing the
number of housing units allowed under existing zoning, the City must identify where the equivalent number of
homes could be accommodated in the City. The proposed Project would result in the "loss" of approximately 38
residential units that are allowed by the current General Plan and zoning (2 du/ac). An equivalent number need
to be accommodated elsewhere in the city.
EIR Scope
The City of Fontana has determined that an EIR is required for the project based on its scale and potential to
cause significant environmental effects; therefore, no Initial Study will be prepared (see State CEQA Guidelines,
Sections 15060 and 15081). The following environmental topics will be analyzed in the EIR:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forest Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
The EIR will assess the effects of the project on the environment, identify potentially significant impacts, identify
feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant environmental impacts, and discuss
3
potentially feasible alternatives to the project that may accomplish basic objectives while lessening or eliminating
any potentially significant project-related impacts.
Opportunity for Public Review and Comment
This Notice is available for review on the City’s website at:
https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-Documents.
The City of Fontana would like to receive your input on the scope of the information and analysis
to be included in the EIR. Due to time limits, as established by CEQA, your response should be sent
at the earliest possible date, but no later than thirty (30) days after publication of this notice.
Please submit your comments by 5:00 p.m., Monday, October 31, 2022, by mail or e-mail to:
Alejandro Rico Phone: (909) 350-6558
Associate Planner Email: arico@fontana.org
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Please include the name, phone number, and address of a contact person in your response.
Scoping Meeting
The City of Fontana will hold a public scoping meeting, where agencies, organizations, and members
of the public will receive a brief presentation on the Project and will have the opportunity to provide
comments on the scope of the information and analysis to be included in the EIR.
The meeting will be held on:
Date and Time: October 12, 2022 at 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm
Place: Virtual Meeting (Zoom)
Access meeting at: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83481328742?pwd=NU5pK2YvTVdCejBjOWdFSCt4YnZkQT09 Call in: +1 (669) 444-9171 Webinar ID: 834 8132 8742 Passcode: 135620
Attachments:
Figure 1 – Regional Location
Figure 2 – Local Vicinity
Figure 3 – Aerial View
Figure 4 – Conceptual Site Plan
4
Figure 1 Regional Location
0
I
" •
Rancho
Cucamonga CJ
Ontario
1 \,4'111,1C,;i,9 ,1.,, ~ .... ., 'w
• ~
0.5 2Mi!es
I
.... '""'
F nr ,n
'""'
• Project Site
PEDLE Y
1-J,.t1... t.
OcJIC 1• f .... ,.
Fontana
~
i , .,_,, .. \
"' .,
c"'
" l
I
"
Riolto
..,,.,1,:.,.a1,
Dl3ultlln"gl&i-
~"-""'"-""11 ,..i ... .. ....,
1.-.it•
.... , -,..,,
1 T
,.,,,_ .. , .....
I
,,,,✓
L.~
N
A
5
Figure 2 Vicinity Map
l
f
• p • F~ >
~ "' p J E -)•-"'
~ l
~NY~11uo,
D Projecl Site
~ I
~ "" ...
AO ,1,:.
l J --i _;L ... Slov•r Ave ---
• • ~ > "' • .. 2 3 .. ? 0 .. V
f
Sonto Ana Ave r • t=J
Jurupo Av~ CHl°"""II,...
r-• > < • .
i 1 , ....... ., u
" • • I
--........... --
' --~ r • ' !
~~~
p • > -o,-• N0~4Hil k t .. High Sthool C p 0 -" 0 o,~ , l-lld> Sd•o(il
i
~IINVlr,enut
1
£ !
N
A
6
Figure 3 Aerial View
7
Notice of Preparation
Figure 4 Conceptual Site Plan
u..,
>-·
/il
'>-------<---+----+---+----+-------<-----<-+----+---+----+-------<---+----+---+----+-----+---+----+---t----+-----l'I 44' 20' I 1,196'--0"' "'
"' "'
4 0,565 SF u..,
::>
<(
<(
C0
3:
<(
1--
<(
u
9':2'-8"-611Rflldt~GW~ tS'H tua(TUf.iESITEl fENCE
October 31, 2022
Sent via email
Alejandro Rico
Associate Planner
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Email: arico@fontana.org
Phone: (909) 350-6558
RE: Comments on Notice of Preparation of an Environment Impact Report for the Poplar
South Distribution Center, SCH # 2022090102
Mr. Rico,
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (“the
Center”) regarding the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the
Poplar South Distribution Center (“the Project”). The Center urges the City of Fontana (“City”)
to undertake a thorough and comprehensive environmental review of the Project as required
under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), prior to considering approval.
Because the Project would add even more warehousing to an area already overwhelmed by
warehouse impacts, the EIR must thoroughly analyze cumulative impacts and ensure the Project
is compliant with all the land use policies designed to protect the residents of Fontana, including
those that arose from the Fontana settlement. Additionally, because the Project would demolish
41 units of housing in the midst of a housing crisis that is particularly acute in the City of
Fontana, the EIR must contain evidence showing that a plan has been developed to replace that
housing with the capacity for least an equivalent amount of housing elsewhere. The EIR must
also fully disclose and analyze the Project’s potential impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions and adopt best practice measures to mitigate them.
The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the
protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law.
The Center has over 1.7 million members and online activists throughout California. The Center
has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water
quality, and overall quality of life for people in San Bernadino County.
Under CEQA, an EIR must provide decision-making bodies and the public with detailed
information about the effect a proposed project is likely to have on the environment, list ways in
CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Because life 1s good.
Alaska. Arizona . California . Florida. Minnesota . Nevada . New Mexico. New York . Oregon . Vermont. Washington, DC
1212 Broadway, Suite 800. Oakland, CA 94612 . Phone: 510-844-7100. Fax: 510-844-7150
2
which the significant effects of a project might be minimized and indicate alternatives to the
project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.2.) The proposed Project is a high-traffic warehouse facility
totaling 490,565 square acres that will displace 41 units of housing. (NOP at 1-2.) The EIR must
fully disclose the impacts of this land use change so that the public can fully understand the
publicly borne costs associated with the Project.
I. The EIR Must Carefully Assess and Mitigate the Project’s Cumulative
Impacts on its Heavily Burdened Surroundings.
With the rapid increase in global trade, the Ports of LA and Long Beach have become a
primary entryway for goods, processing over 40 percent of all imports into the United States, and
accounting for 20 percent of diesel particulate pollutants in southern California—more than from
any other source. (Minkler, et al. 2012.) These goods are often ‘transloaded’ before leaving
Southern California, meaning that they spend some time in warehouse storage facilities before
they reach their final destination. (Betancourt 2012, p. 2.) This has resulted in a massive
expansion of warehouse development in Southern California.
Nowhere has this growth been more drastic than in San Bernardino County, and
particularly in Fontana. (Betancourt 2012.) The number of warehouses in San Bernardino and
Riverside counties has grown from 162 in 1975 to 4,299 in 2021, according to a recent mapping
project from the Robert Redford Conservancy for Southern California Sustainability at Pitzer
College. (Rode 2022.) The approximately 840 million square feet of new warehouse facilities—
and the roads and railyards that serve them – has permanently altered the landscape of the Inland
Valley area, creating a logistics hub so massive that it is now visible from space. (Pitzer 2022.)
The Project is in San Bernardino County within the City of Fontana. The surrounding
area is a mix of residential, school, and industrial uses. The project site is within two miles of
Jurupa Vista Elementary School, Citrus High School, and Jurupa Hills High School and within
one mile of a residential neighborhood. The surrounding community, which is two-thirds
Hispanic, is already highly burdened by environmental toxins. According to CalEnviroScreen
4.0, CalEPA’s screening tool that identifies the California communities most affected by
pollution and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects, the Project’s
census tract is more polluted than 97 percent of the state’s census tracts, making it among the
most polluted areas in the state. (OEHHA 2021.) Residents here suffer from some of the highest
exposures statewide to ozone, fine particulate matter, diesel particulate matter, and hazardous
waste.
Therefore, the people living near the project site would face environmental impacts not
just from this project, but from this project’s cumulative effects with the surrounding warehouse
development. The EIR must analyze and mitigate this cumulative impact. CEQA requires a lead
agency consider whether the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects
would be “cumulatively considerable.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (a).) The incremental
effects of an individual project are cumulatively considerable if the effects are significant when
“viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.” (Id., §§ 15065, subd. (a)(3), 15355, subd. (b).) To
perform this analysis, a lead agency must “use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it
reasonably can.” (Id., § 15144; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond
3
(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 96.) Where, as here, a community already bears a high pollution
burden, the relevant question is “whether any additional amount” of pollution caused by the
project “should be considered significant in light of the serious nature” of the existing problem.
(Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at 718.) Absent this analysis, piecemeal
approval of multiple projects with related impacts could lead to severe environmental harm. (San
Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 720.)
Pursuant to a recent settlement with the Attorney General’s Office, the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has committed to revise its CEQA guidance for
analyzing cumulative air quality impacts. (AGO 2022; SCAQMD 2022.) SCAQMD staff have
proposed an approach for new guidance that would consider existing burdens associated with
nearby pollution sources and quantify cumulative air quality impacts and the effects on human
health. The purpose of this new approach is to consider the impacts of concentrating polluting
land uses, like warehouse projects, in disadvantaged areas, thereby encouraging local
governments to site future projects in areas where they will have the least impact on human
health. (AGO 2022.) Accordingly, the City may soon be required to conduct additional analysis
for cumulative air quality impacts. Should SCAQMD release its updated rules, the City must
update its cumulative air quality analysis.
This Project will certainly add to and compound the environmental and health problems
of people living in the area. Should the Project proceed, the Project should be designed to avoid
serious harm to adjacent residents.
II. The EIR Must Comply with all Terms of the Fontana Settlement Agreement
and Relevant Land Use Plans
Because of the harmful public health impacts suffered by Fontana residents from
unchecked warehouse development, Fontana has a number of land use policies designed to
protect residents from these cumulative effects. The EIR must thoroughly analyze the Project’s
consistency with the relevant land use plans, including the City of Fontana's General Plan and
Municipal Code.
Fontana’s General Plan has several policies protecting residents from excessive impacts
from industrial land uses. (City of Fontana GPU 2018.) Especially important are the dozens of
policies in the City’s Environmental Justice element, which are required by SB 1000 and
designed to reduce the unique and compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities such
as Fontana. (City of Fontana Appendix Six 2018.) Included in these policies are requirements
that large industrial projects undergo a Health Fontana Advisory Project Review process and
minimize noise encroachment into adjoining residential neighborhoods. (City of Fontana
Appendix Six 2018.)
Additionally, the EIR must demonstrate consistency with the mitigation measures in the
final EIR for Fontana’s General Plan. For example, the Fontana General Plan contains 24
mitigation measures related to air quality, most of which should apply to the Project. (City of
Fontana GP Update FEIR 2018, Table 2-2, pp. 2-4 – 2-6.) Those measures set requirements for
building efficiency standards, on-site equipment, and preferential vanpool parking, among
4
others. The EIR should clarify whether those requirements have been incorporated into the
Project design, and, if not, explain why the Project is inconsistent with these mitigation
measures.
Further, the EIR must demonstrate consistency with Fontana’s Municipal Code.
Ordinance No. 1891, which was adopted as part of the settlement agreement with the Attorney
General, sets stringent environmental standards for all future warehouse development in Fontana.
(City of Fontana 2022.) The ordinance includes a host of measures that were designed to mitigate
impacts and protect Fontana residents and the air basin from the most deleterious effects of
warehouse development. Among other requirements, the ordinance mandates that all on-site
motorized equipment be zero emission, that solar panels on-site supply 100 percent of the
power needed to operate non-refrigerated portions of the facility, and that anti-idling signs
reflect a 3-minute idling restriction. The EIR must adopt all of these mitigation measures.
III. The EIR Must Replace Demolished Housing with Safe, Healthy Housing.
The City of Fontana, like many cities in Southern California, is suffering from an
affordable housing crisis. Cities already struggle to identify suitable infill parcels for housing
development. When cities do not prioritize quality, infill affordable housing, developers turn to
sprawl development, which results in multi-hour commutes, damaged ecosystems, and dirty air.
Because the City has failed to meet its affordable housing targets, the California
Department of Housing and Community Development has the City on its list of “affected cities,”
which subjects it to the requirements of the Housing Crisis Act.1 Therefore, Fontana is prohibited
from enacting a development policy or standard – including an amendment to a general or
specific plan – that reduces the site’s residential development capacity unless it concurrently
allows more housing in another parcel such that there is no net loss of residential capacity (Gov.
Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A), subd. (i)(1).) The Project would amend the General Plan to
change the site’s land use designation from “Residential Trucking” to “General Industrial.”
(NOP at 2.)
Because the project area is currently zoned for 38 dwelling units, the EIR must include
plans to replace this housing capacity. The replacement housing must be in an area where the
residents will be protected from environmental health risks as much as possible. Therefore, the
EIR should include a plan for housing capacity in residential neighborhoods that are far from
warehouses and other industrial uses.
IV. The EIR Must Fully Analyze and Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The EIR must carefully consider the project’s effects on statewide goals for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Where a project will generate greenhouse gas emissions either directly
or indirectly, the EIR should describe the expected increase in emissions and discuss mitigation
measures. (Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30, 41; Cleveland National
Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 430-
34; Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002; 21083.5.) Major warehouse projects have the documented effect
1 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/docs/affected-cities.pdf
5
of substantially increasing construction, operation, and vehicle-related emissions, all of which
produce climate change-causing greenhouse gases. (Betancourt et al. at 4-5; USEPA 2018.) The
EIR must carefully and completely address both the impacts on emissions from construction and
operation of the plant, and those from vehicle miles traveled by trucks transporting goods to and
from the warehouse and commuting employees.
To mitigate the known environmental harms of warehouse projects, the EIR should
identify specific measures that the developers will take to minimize any increase in greenhouse
gas emissions caused by the Project. These measures should include sustainability measures, like
ensuring roofs are white to minimize the need for air conditioning and including rooftop solar for
energy production. (AGO 2021; Betancourt et al. at 6.) Moreover, the Project should incorporate
features to minimize greenhouse gas emissions, like zero-emissions off-road vehicles and
construction equipment, electric vehicle charging stations, and a plan to adopt zero-emissions
heavy trucks. (AGO 2021; id.) Mitigation measures must be “fully enforceable through permit
conditions, agreements, or other measures” so “that feasible mitigation measures will actually be
implemented as a condition of development.” (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City
of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261.) Mitigation measures should be designed so
benefits are realized by the local community and could include funding zero emission public
transit, solar installations on residential homes, or providing publicly accessible electric vehicle
charging infrastructure.
Finally, the EIR must fully describe the greenhouse gases the warehouse’s construction
will produce and outline all feasible mitigation measures that will be taken to address them.
Construction of such a large warehouse will require substantial quantities of construction
materials, such as concrete. Cement and concrete manufacture is extremely energy intensive and
produces a large amount of greenhouse gas emissions. (Masanet et al. at 89.) Concrete
manufacturing accounts for roughly 3 percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions. (Id.)
This and other sources of greenhouse gas and particulate emissions—such as dust and emissions
from heavy machinery used during construction—should be thoroughly examined and mitigated
in the EIR.
V. The EIR Must Fully Analyze and Mitigate Air Quality Impacts.
Warehouse projects are well-documented sources of air quality degradation that can
create serious, negative health outcomes for surrounding communities. (Betancourt 2012, pp. 4-
5.) Particulate emissions from diesel vehicles that carry freight to and from warehouses
contribute to “cardiovascular problems, cancer, asthma, decreased lung function and capacity,
reproductive health problems, and premature death.” (Id. at 5.)
Air pollution and its impacts are felt most heavily by young children, the elderly,
pregnant women and people with existing heart and lung disease. People living in poverty are
also more susceptible to air pollution as they are less able to relocate to less polluted areas, and
their homes and places of work are more likely to be located near sources of pollution, such as
freeways or ports, as these areas are more affordable. (ALA 2022.) Some of the nation’s most
polluted counties are in Southern California, and San Bernadino County continually tops the list.
(ALA 2022.) According to the American Lung Association’s 2022 “State of the Air” report, San
Bernadino County is the ninth-worst ranked county in the state for both ozone pollution and
6
year-round particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution, with a “Fail” grade and an average number of
180 days per year with ozone levels in the unhealthy range. (Id.) Even more disturbing, the same
report found that San Bernadino County is one of only fourteen counties in the country that
received a “Fail” grade in all air quality metrics. (Id.)
The EIR must include best practice measures to mitigate impacts to air quality. The
California Office of the Attorney General has published a document entitled “Warehouse
Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act” to help lead agencies design warehouse projects to minimize and mitigate
environmental harms. (AGO 2021.) It contains the following best practices for siting and
designing warehouse facilities, along with recommended mitigation measures (not repeated here)
that should be incorporated into the Project:
• Creating physical, structural, and/or vegetative buffers that adequately prevent or
substantially reduce pollutant dispersal between warehouses and any areas where
sensitive receptors are likely to be present, such as homes, schools, daycare centers,
hospitals, community centers, and parks.
• Providing adequate areas for on-site parking, on-site queuing, and truck check-in that
prevent trucks and other vehicles from parking or idling on public streets.
• Screening dock doors and onsite areas with significant truck traffic with physical,
structural, and/or vegetative barriers that adequately prevent or substantially reduce
pollutant dispersal from the facility towards sensitive receptors.
• Posting signs clearly showing the designated entry and exit points from the public
street for trucks and service vehicles.
• Posting signs indicating that all parking and maintenance of trucks must be conducted
within designated on-site areas and not within the surrounding community or public
streets.
IV. Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Notice of Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report for the Poplar South Distribution Center. The environmental
effects of the Project will include direct and indirect impacts on land use, housing, greenhouse
gases, and air quality and will also add to cumulative environmental impacts. Evaluation of each
of these impacts, as well as analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and mitigation
measures, must be included in the EIR.
Given the possibility that the Center will be required to pursue legal remedies to ensure
that the City complies with its legal obligations including those arising under CEQA, we would
like to remind the City of its statutory duty to maintain and preserve all documents and
communications that may constitute part of the “administrative record” of this proceeding.
(§ 21167.6(e); Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733, 762-
65.) The administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications that
7
relate to any and all actions taken by the City with respect to the Project, and includes “pretty
much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or [] the agency’s compliance with
CEQA . . . .” (County of Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The
administrative record further includes all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or
received by the City’s representatives or employees, that relate to the Project, including any
correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the City’s representatives or employees
and the Applicant’s representatives or employees. Maintenance and preservation of the
administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies;
and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made.
Please add Center attorney Hallie Kutak (hkutak@biologicaldiversity.org) and me to your
notice list for all future updates to the Project and do not hesitate to contact the Center with any
questions at the number or email listed below.
Sincerely,
Frances Tinney
Legal Fellow
Center for Biological Diversity
1212 Broadway, Suite #800
Oakland, CA 94612
ftinney@biologicaldiversity.org
Tel: (510) 844-7117
8
References
American Lung Association (ALA), State of the Air 2022.
Betancourt, S. & Vallianatos, M. (2012). Storing Harm: The Health and Community
Impacts of Goods Movement Warehousing and Logistics. The Impact Project Policy
Brief Series. Available at: https://envhealthcenters.usc.edu/wpcontent/
uploads/2016/11/Storing-Harm.pdf.
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (online
edition, 2021). Available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-
40 [accessed July 6, 2022.]
California Office of the Attorney General (AGO) (2022, April 18). Attorney General Bonta
Announces Innovative Settlement with City of Fontana to Address Environmental
Injustices in Warehouse Development. (Press Release). Available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-announces-innovative-
settlement-city-fontana-address
California Office of the Attorney General (AGO) (2021, March). Warehouse Projects: Best
Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality
Act. Available at: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-
best-practices.pdf
City of Fontana. (2022, April 12). Ordinance No. 1891. Available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-
docs/Final%20Signed%20Fontana%20Ordinance.pdf
City of Fontana. (2018). Fontana Forward-General Plan Update 2015-2035, Final Environmental
Impact Report.
City of Fontana. (2018b). Fontana Forward-General Plan Update 2015-2035, Appendix Six
Environmental Justice. Available at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete-Document---
Approved-General-Plan-Documents-11-13-2018
Manaset, E.; Price, L.; de la Rue du Can, S. (2005). Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
through Product Life Cycle Optimization, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologies Division. Available at:
https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2005/data/papers/SS05_Panel04_Paper08.pdf.
Minkler, Meredith, et al. (2012). Community-Based Participatory Research: A Strategy for
Building Healthy Communities and Promoting Health through Policy Change.
PolicyLink.
Pitzer College (2022), Warehouses Visible from Space, Webpage. Available at:
9
https://www.pitzer.edu/redfordconservancy/warehouses-visible-from-space/
Rode, Erin (2022). 3 Warehouses in works on N. Indian Canyon bring economic promise,
environmental concerns. Desert Sun. Available at:
https://www.desertsun.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.desertsun.com%2
Fstory%2Fnews%2F2022%2F07%2F10%2Fmassive-warehouses-proposed-palm-
springs-desert-hot-springs%2F7756215001%2F
SCAQMD (2022). CEQA Policy Development (NEW), Webpage. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqa-policy-development-(new).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2022, accessed Oct. 3, 2022). Sources of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-
gas-emissions.
October 11th, 2022
Via Email and U.S. Mail
City of Fontana
Attn: Alejandra Rico
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
arico@fontana.org
CARE CA
u [E ~ [E D w [E I ~-i
OCT 1 7 2022 ll!J
RE: Public Records Act Request and Request for Mailed Notice of Public Hearini:s and
Actions -Poplar South Distribution Center, Jurupa Ave and Poplar Ave Fontana, CA
92337
Dear Ms. Rico,
CARE CA is writing to request a copy of any and all records related to the project, the Poplar
South Distribution Center Project, located at Jurupa Avenue and Poplar Avenue in Fontana. The
project will be the construction of a new warehouse totaling approximately 490,565 square feet.
We are also writing to request copies of mailed notice of any and all hearings and/or actions
related to the Project.
Our request for mailed notice of all hearings includes hearings, study sessions and community
meetings related to the Project, certification of the MND (or recirculated DEIR), and approval of
any Project entitlements. This request is made pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections
21092.2, 21080.4, 21083.9, 21092, 21108 and 21152 and Government Code Section 65092,
which require local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request
for them with the clerk of the agency's governing body. Our request includes notice to any City
actions, hearings or other proceedings regarding the Project, Project approvals and any actions
taken, or additional documents released pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Our request for all records related to the Project is made pursuant to the California Public
Records Act. (Government Code§ 6250 et seq.) This request is also made pursuant to Article I,
section 3(b) of the California Constitution, which provides a constitutional right of access to
information concerning the conduct of government. Article I, section 3(b) provides that any
statutory right to information shall be broadly construed to provide the greatest access to
government information and further requires that any statute that limits the right of access to
information shall be narrowly construed.
We will pay for any direct costs of duplication associated with filling this request up to $200.
However, please contact me at (951) 540-1290 with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the
materials.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253.9, if the requested documents are in electronic
format and are 10 MB or less ( or can be easily broken into sections of 10 MB or less), please
email them to me as attachments.
501 Shatto Place, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90020
(877) 810-7 4 73 community@careca.org
My contact information is:
U.S. Mail
Jeff Modrzej ewski
CARE CA
501 Shatto Place, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA. 90020
Email
community@careca.org
Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeff Modrzej ewski
Executive Director
501 Shatto Place, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90020
(877) 810-7473 community@careca.org
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luisefio
V ICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSION ER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luisefio
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRET ARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
nahc@nahc.ca.qov
NAHC.ca.gov
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavia Newsom Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
September 30, 2022
Alejandro Rico, Associate Planner
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra A venue
Fontana, CA 92335
Re: 2022090611, Poplar South Distribution Center Project, San Bernardino County
Dear Mr. Rico:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation
(NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project
referenced above. The California En vironmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code
§ 21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code § 21084.1, states that a project that may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that
may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21084.1; Cal. Code
Regs., tit.14, § 15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines§ 15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in
light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on
the environment, an En vironmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources
Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs ., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(a)(l) (CEQA Guidelines§ 15064 (a)(l)).
In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are
historical resources within the area of potential effec t (APE).
CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of
20 14) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, "tribal
cultural re sources" (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides 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
§2 1084.2). Public agencies shall, when feqsible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural
resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice
of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on
or after July 1, 2015, If your project involves th e adoption of or amendment to a general plan or
a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1,
2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 ( Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).
Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements . If your project is also subject to the
federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal
consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ( 154
U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.
The NAHC recommends consultation w ith California Native American tribes that are
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early
as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and
best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as
well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.
Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with
any other applicable laws.
Page 1 of 5
AB 52
AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:
1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:
Within fourteen ( 14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public
agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or
tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have
requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.
Resources Code § 21080.3.1 ( d)).
d. A "California Native American tribe" is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is
on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18).
(Pub. Resources Code §21073).
2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe's Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a
Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall
begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native
American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.
(Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).
a. For purposes of AB 52, "consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4
(SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).
3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe
requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
· 4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources.
d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe
may recommend to the lead agency. {Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some
exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural
resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be
included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency
to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a
California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a
confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in
writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(l )).
6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a
significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of
the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource.
b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed
to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on
the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (b)).
Page 2 of 5
7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the
following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on
a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot
be reached. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).
8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any
mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2
shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring
and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3,
subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (a)).
9 .. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead
agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no
agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if
substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the
lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 {b). (Pub. Resources
Code §21082.3 (e)).
10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That, If Feasible, May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse
Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources :
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural
context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally
appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values
and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource.
ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
iii. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate
management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places.
d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code §21084.3 {b)).
e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally
recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect
a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold
conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code §815.3 (c)).
f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave
artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097.991).
11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or·
Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental
Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be
adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public
Resources Code § 21080.3. l and § 21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code
§21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise
failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources
Code §21080.3.l {d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code
§21082.3 {d)).
The NAHC's PowerPoint presentation titled, "Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices" may
be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content /uploads/20 l 5/ l0/AB52Triba1Consultation CalEPAPDF.pdf
Page 3 of 5
SB 18
SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and
consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of
open space. (Gov. Code §65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines," which can be found online at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09 14 05 Updated Guidelines 922.pdf.
Some of SB l 8's provisions include:
1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a
specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC
by requesting a "Tribal Consultation List." If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government
must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to
request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3
(a)(2)).
2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.
3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and
Research pursuant to Gov. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information
concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public
Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city's or county's jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3
(b)).
4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures
for preservation or mitigation; or
b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes
that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or
mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).
Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with
tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and
SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and "Sacred Lands
File" searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/.
NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments
To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation
in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends
the following actions:
1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center
(https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=3033 l) for an archaeological records search. The records search will
determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources.
b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE.
c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE.
d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report
detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey.
a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted
immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American
human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and
not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the
appropriate regional CHRIS center.
Page 4 of 5
3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the
Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for
consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the
project's APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the
project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation
measures.
4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources)
does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for
the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, § l 5064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines§ l 5064.5{f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a
certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources
should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions
for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally
affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions
for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health
and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.5,
subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines§ 15064.5, subds. (d) and {e)) address the processes to be
followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and
associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:
Cameron.Vela@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Cameron Vela
Cultural Resources Analyst
cc: State Clearinghouse
Page 5 of 5