HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 Beech Logistics Center IS MND
California Environmental Quality Act
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Design Review Project No. 22-035 (DRP 22-035)
Master Case No. 22-059 (MCN 22-059)
Beech Avenue Logistics Center
Fontana, California
Lead Agency City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335 Contact: George Velarde
CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92602
Contact: David Ornelas Applicant AIREF Beech Logistics Center LP
4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 625 Newport Beach, CA 92660 October 2023
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Fontana Page i
Section Name Page
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Document Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Overview ............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .............................................................. 1-1
2.0 Environmental Setting 2-1
2.1 Project Setting .................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Planning Context .............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................................. 2-2
3.0 Project Description 3-1
3.1 Proposed Discretionary Approvals .................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Project Improvements ...................................................................................................... 3-6
3.3 Construction Characteristics ............................................................................................ 3-7
3.4 Operational Characteristics ............................................................................................ 3-11
3.5 Summary of Requested Actions ..................................................................................... 3-11
4.0 Initial Study Checklist 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. 4-7
4.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 4-9
4.4 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 4-18
4.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-22
4.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................ 4-25
4.7 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................... 4-29
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 4-34
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................. 4-38
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................ 4-42
4.11 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................. 4-46
4.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-47
4.13 Noise .............................................................................................................................. 4-48
4.14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................. 4-57
4.15 Public Services ............................................................................................................... 4-58
4.16 Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 4-61
4.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 4-62
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Fontana Page ii
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 4-68
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems......................................................................................... 4-70
4.20 Wildfire .......................................................................................................................... 4-73
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................................................. 4-74
5.0 References 5-1
5.1 Persons Contributing to Initial Study/MND Preparation ................................................. 5-1
5.2 References ........................................................................................................................ 5-1
6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6-1
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Fontana Page iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Name and Number Page
Figure 2-1 Regional Map .................................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................... 2-4
Figure 2-3 Surrounding Land Uses and Development ....................................................................... 2-5
Figure 2-4 City of Fontana General Plan Land Use Map ................................................................... 2-6
Figure 2-5 City of Fontana Zoning Map ............................................................................................. 2-7
Figure 2-6 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................. 2-8
Figure 2-7 USGS Topographic Map ................................................................................................... 2-9
Figure 3-1 Conceptual Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-2 Architectural Elevations .................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-3 Conceptual Landscape Plan .............................................................................................. 3-5
Figure 3-4 Conceptual Utility Plan ..................................................................................................... 3-9
Figure 3-5 Conceptual Grading Plan ................................................................................................ 3-10
Figure 4-1 Noise Receiver Locations ............................................................................................... 4-49
LIST OF TABLES
Table Name and Number Page
Table 3-1 Construction Schedule Assumptions .................................................................................... 3-7
Table 3-2 Construction Equipment Assumptions .................................................................................. 3-8
Table 3-3 Summary of Project Approvals/Permits.............................................................................. 3-12
Table 4-1 Overall Construction Emissions Summary ......................................................................... 4-11
Table 4-2 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions ........................................................................... 4-12
Table 4-3 Localized Construction-Source Emissions ......................................................................... 4-13
Table 4-4 Localized Significance Summary of Operations ................................................................. 4-13
Table 4-5 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................... 4-36
Table 4-6 Project Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary (Daytime) ................................... 4-50
Table 4-7 Project Construction Noise Level Summary (Nighttime) ................................................... 4-50
Table 4-8 Project Stationary Noise Summary ..................................................................................... 4-51
Table 4-9 Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Level Summary (Interim) ........................................... 4-52
Table 4-10 Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Level Summary (Long-Term) ................................ 4-53
Table 4-11 Opening Year Traffic Noise Level Summary (Interim) .................................................. 4-54
Table 4-12 Opening Year Traffic Noise Level Summary (Long-Term) ........................................... 4-55
Table 4-11 Project Construction Vibration Levels ............................................................................ 4-56
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
LIST OF TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Appendix Document Title
City of Fontana Page iv
A Air Quality Impact Analysis
B1 Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment
B2 Interim Conditions Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment
C Biological Resources Investigation
D Cultural Resources Study
E Energy Analysis
F Geotechnical Investigation
G Paleontological Assessment
H Greenhouse Gas Analysis
I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
J Preliminary Hydrology Study
K Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
L1 Noise Impact Analysis
L2 Interim Conditions Noise Impact Analysis
M1 Traffic Analysis
M2 Interim Conditions Traffic Analysis
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND UNITS OF MEASURE
City of Fontana Page v
§ Section
AB Assembly Bill
AB 32 Assembly Bill 32
AB 939 Assembly Bill 939
AB 1493 Assembly Bill 1493
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
amsl Above Mean Sea Level
APN Assessor Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
bgs below the ground surface
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBSC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFS Cubic Feet per Second
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CPEP Clean Power and Electrification Pathway
CO Carbon Monoxide
CSU California State University
c.y. Cubic Yards
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted Decibels
dBA Leq equivalent decibels
DIF Development Impact Fees
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
e.g. exempli gratia, meaning “for example”
EMFAC Emission Factors Model
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
et seq. et sequentes, meaning "and the following"
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND UNITS OF MEASURE
City of Fontana Page vi
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFPD Fontana Fire Protection District
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FPD Fontana Police Department
FUSD Fontana Unified School District
FWC Fontana Water Company
GCC Global Climate Change
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GPD Gallons per Day
Greene California Senate Bill 50
HHD Heavy-heavy duty
HMBEP Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan
I-# Interstate #
I-L Light Industrial (General Plan land use designation)
i.e. that is
IEPR Integrated Energy Policy Report
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Authority
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
kWh kilowatt-hour
kBTU thousand British thermal units
lb/day pounds per day
Leq Equivalent Continuous Sound Level
LDA light duty auto
M-1 Light Industrial (City of Fontana Zoning Map designation)
MATES IV Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MEIR Maximally Exposed Individual Receptor
MEISC Maximally Exposed Individual School Child
MEIW Maximally Exposed Individual Worker
MHD Medium-heavy duty
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MRZ-3 Mineral Resource Zone 3
MT/yr Metric Tons per year
MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND UNITS OF MEASURE
City of Fontana Page vii
n.d. No Date
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOD Notice of Determination
NOI Notice of Intent
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 Ozone
ONT Ontario International Airport
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter (2.5 microns or smaller)
PM10 Fine Particulate Matter (10 microns or smaller)
Qyfl Quaternary Holocene young alluvial fan sediments
RECs Recognized Environmental Conditions
RP-1 Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1
RP-4 Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB 32 Senate Bill 32
SB 1078 Senate Bill 1078
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Government
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SF/s.f. Square Foot or Square Feet
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SLF Sacred Lands File
SOX Sulfur Oxides
SR-# State Route #
SRA Source Receptor Area
SRA State Responsibility Area
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TEA-21 The Transportation Act for the 21st Century
U.S.A.C.E. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND UNITS OF MEASURE
City of Fontana Page viii
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 DOCUMENT PURPOSE
This document is a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including all criteria, standards, and procedures of CEQA (California
Public Resource Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the City of Fontana’s Local Guidelines for
Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7). This
MND is an informational document intended for use by the City of Fontana, any Trustee and/or Responsible
agencies, and members of the general public in evaluating the physical environmental effects of the
proposed Beech Avenue Logistics Center Project (hereinafter referred to as “Project” and as described in
further detail in Section 3.0 of this MND).
This MND was compiled by the City of Fontana, serving as the Lead Agency for the proposed Project
pursuant to CEQA Section 21067 and CEQA Guidelines Article 4 and Section 15367. “Lead Agency”
refers to the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.
The construction and operation of the proposed Project is considered to be a “project” under CEQA and, as
a result, the Project is subject to the City of Fontana’s environmental review process. The primary purpose
of CEQA is to ensure that decision-makers and the public are aware of the environmental implications of a
specific action or project and to determine whether the proposed project will have the potential to cause
significant adverse impacts on the environment. As part of the proposed Project’s environmental review
process, the City of Fontana prepared an Environmental Assessment (Initial Study), which is included
herein in Section 4.0.
1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project consists of an application submitted to the City of Fontana by AIREF Beech Logistics Center
LP (hereinafter “Project Applicant”) for a Design Review Project (DRP 22-035). The application is referred
to by the City of Fontana as Master Case No. 22-059. The Project provides for the development of an
approximately 168,760 square feet (s.f.) industrial commerce center building on an approximately 8.4-acre
property located at north of Foothill Boulevard and west of Beech Avenue. Refer to Section 3.0, Project
Description, for a comprehensive description of the proposed Project.
1.3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
1.3.1 CEQA Objectives
CEQA, a statewide environmental law contained in Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., applies
to most public agency decisions to carry out, authorize, or approve actions that have the potential to
adversely affect the environment. The overarching goal of CEQA is to protect the physical environment.
To achieve that goal, CEQA requires that public agencies inform themselves of the environmental
consequences of their discretionary actions and consider alternatives and mitigation measures that could
avoid or reduce significant adverse impacts when avoidance or reduction is feasible. It also gives other
public agencies and the general public an opportunity to comment on the information.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 1-2
1.3.2 CEQA Requirements for a Mitigated Negative Declaration
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is a written statement by the Lead Agency that briefly describes
the reasons why a project that is not exempt from the requirements of CEQA will not have a significant
effect on the environment and, therefore, does not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). The CEQA Guidelines allow for the preparation of a MND in
lieu of an EIR if the Initial Study prepared for a project identifies potentially significant environmental
effects, but: 1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant would
avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and
2) there is no reasonable evidence, in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency, that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment.
1.3.3 Initial Study Findings
Section 4.0 of this document contains the Initial Study (IS) that was prepared for the proposed Project
pursuant to CEQA and City of Fontana requirements. The IS determined that implementation of the
proposed Project would not result in significant environmental effects to the following environmental
resource areas: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology
and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land
use/planning, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation,
utilities/service systems, and wildfire. The IS determined that the proposed Project would result in
potentially significant effects to the resource areas of biological resources and tribal cultural resources, but
the Project Applicant has agreed to implement mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the effects
to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. The IS determined that with the incorporation
of mitigation measures there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency
(City of Fontana) that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the findings
of the IS, the City of Fontana determined that an MND is appropriate for the proposed Project pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b).
1.3.4 Format and Content of Mitigated Negative Declaration
The following components comprise the MND in its entirety:
1) This document, including all sections. Section 4.0 comprises the completed Environmental
Assessment Checklist (“Initial Study” or “IS”) and its associated analyses which document the
reasons to support the findings and conclusions of the IS. Section 5.0 comprises the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which lists all mitigation measures imposed on the
proposed Project to ensure that the physical effects to the environment that result from
implementation of the Project are reduced to less-than-significant levels. The MMRP also indicates
the required timing for the implementation of each mitigation measure and identifies the parties
responsible for implementing and monitoring each mitigation measure.
2) Sixteen technical reports that evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed Project are
attached as Technical Appendices A-M and are hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15150. Each of the appendices listed below are available for review at
the City of Fontana Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 8353
Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335 and the City’s website (www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-
Documents).
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 1-3
Appendix A “Beech Logistics Center Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Fontana” prepared
by Urban Crossroads and dated November 16, 2022.
Appendix B1 “Beech Logistics Center Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment, City of Fontana”
prepared by Urban Crossroads and dated November 16, 2022.
Appendix B2 “Beech Logistics Center Focused Health Risk Assessment” prepared by Urban
Crossroads and dated August 28, 2023.
Appendix C “Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Beech Avenue Project Located in the City
of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California” prepared by ELMT Consulting
and dated November 30, 2021.
Appendix D “Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project” prepared by Brian F.
Smith and Associates and dated September 20, 2022.
Appendix E “Beech Logistics Center Energy Analysis, City of Fontana” prepared by Urban
Crossroads and dated November 16, 2022.
Appendix F “Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Warehouse, Beech Avenue, North of
Foothill Boulevard, Fontana, California” prepared by Southern California
Geotechnical and dated December 7, 2021.
Appendix G “Paleontological Assessment for the Beech Avenue Project” prepared by Brian F.
Smith and Associates and dated September 20, 2022.
Appendix H “Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Fontana” prepared by
Urban Crossroads and dated November 16, 2022.
Appendix I “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Northwest Corner of Beech Avenue and
Foothill Boulevard, Fontana, California” prepared by Path Forward Partners, Inc.
and dated July 12, 2022.
Appendix J “Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for AIREF Beech Logistics Center
LP” prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. and dated April 11, 2022.
Appendix K “Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for AIREF Beech Logistics Center
LP” prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. and dated April 11, 2022.
Appendix L1 “Beech Logistics Center Noise and Vibration Analysis, City of Fontana” prepared
by Urban Crossroads and dated January 9, 2023.
Appendix L2 “Beech Logistics Center Focused Noise Assessment” prepared by Urban
Crossroads and dated August 24, 2023.
Appendix M1 “Beech Logistics Center Traffic Analysis” prepared by Urban Crossroads and
dated January 17, 2023.
Appendix M2 “Beech Logistics Center Focused Traffic Assessment” prepared by Urban
Crossroads and dated August 22, 2023.
3) All plans, policies, regulatory requirements, and other documentation that is incorporated by
reference in this document pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 1-4
1.3.5 Mitigated Negative Declaration Processing
The City of Fontana Community Development Department, Planning Division directed and supervised the
preparation of this MND. Although prepared with the assistance of the consulting firm T&B Planning,
Inc., the content contained within and the conclusions drawn by this MND reflect the sole independent
judgment of the City of Fontana.
A Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND will be distributed to the following entities for review:
1) organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing to the City of
Fontana; 2) owners of contiguous property shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; 3) Responsible
and Trustee Agencies (public agencies that have a level of discretionary approval over some component of
the proposed Project); and 4) the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. The NOI
identifies the location(s) where the MND, Initial Study, MMRP, and associated Technical Appendices are
available for public review.
Following the public review period, the City of Fontana will review any comment letters received and
determine whether any substantive comments were provided that may warrant revisions to the MND
document. If substantial revisions are not necessary (as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(b)),
then the MND will be finalized and forwarded to City of Fontana decision-makers for review as part of
their deliberations concerning the proposed Project. If the Project is approved, the City of Fontana will
adopt findings relative to the Project’s potential environmental effects, as disclosed in this MND, and a
Notice of Determination (NOD) will be filed with the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 2-1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 PROJECT SETTING
2.1.1 Project Location
Figure 2-1, Regional Map, and Figure 2-2, Vicinity Map, depict the location of the Project Site, which is
generally located in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The Project Site is specifically
located north of Foothill Boulevard and west of Beech Avenue.
2.1.2 Surrounding Land Uses and Development
The land uses surrounding the Project Site are described below and illustrated on Figure 2-3, Surrounding
Land Uses and Development.
North:
To the north of the Project Site is the Pacific Electric Trail. Farther north are single-family residential land
uses. The area north of the Pacific Electric Trail is zoned “Single-Family Residential (R-SF).”
South:
The area immediately to the south of the Project Site is zoned “General Commercial (C-G). This land is
primarily vacant undeveloped with the exception of the Forty Winks Motel, located to the southwest of the
Project Site. Farther south is Foothill Boulevard and then a mix of commercial and residential land uses.
West:
Immediately west of the Project is the eShipping Distribution Services warehouse. The area to the west is
zoned “Light Industrial (I-L).” Farther west are more industrial land uses.
East:
To the east of the Project Site is vacant undeveloped land that is zoned I-L. Farther east is land zoned
“Public Facility (P-PF)” which contains a large storage tank. To the northeast, north of the Pacific Electric
Trail, are residential land uses on land zoned “Medium Density Residential (R-M).” To the southeast is the
Fontana Nursery, a wholesale plant nursery.
2.2 PLANNING SETTING
2.2.1 General Plan Land Use & Zoning Designations
The prevailing planning document for the Project Site is the City of Fontana General Plan. The City of
Fontana General Plan designates the Project Site for “Light Industrial (I-L)” land uses as shown in Figure
2-4, City of Fontana General Plan Land Use Map. The Light Industrial land use designation provides for
employee-intensive uses, including business parks, research and development, technology centers,
corporate and support office uses, clean industry, supporting retail uses, truck and equipment sales and
related services, and warehouses (City of Fontana, 2018a, pp. 15.26-15.27).
The City of Fontana Zoning Map applies the “Light Industrial (M-1)” zoning designation to the Project Site
(see Figure 2-5, City of Fontana Zoning Map). Land uses within the M-1 zone are subject to the standards
set forth in the Fontana Municipal Code, Article VII, Industrial Zoning Districts. The M-1 zone 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
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 2-2
of raw materials, or businesses which generate high volumes of truck traffic (City of Fontana, 2022, Section
30-522).
2.3 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1), the physical environmental condition for purposes of
establishing the setting of a MND is the environment as it existed at the time the Lead Agency commences
the environmental analysis for a project. The City of Fontana began the environmental review for the Project
in June 2022; therefore, the environmental setting for the proposed Project is defined as the physical
environmental conditions on the Project Site and in the vicinity of the Project Site as they existed as of that
approximate date.
2.3.1 Land Use
Under existing conditions, the Project Site is vacant and undeveloped. The Project Site, however, is fully
disturbed having been routinely disced. The Project Site contains several trees scattered across the property.
Figure 2-6, Aerial Photograph, depicts the existing conditions at the Project Site.
2.3.2 Aesthetic and Topographic Features
The Project Site is perceived as flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 1,271 to 1,290 feet above
mean sea level (amsl), and gradually slopes from north to south (ELMT, 2021, p. 4). Figure 2-7, USGS
Topographic Map, illustrates the general topographic character of the Project Site. The Site does not
contain unique topographic or aesthetic features, such as rock outcroppings or native trees. Light poles are
located to the north the Project Site along the Pacific Electric Trail. (Google Earth, 2022)
2.3.3 Site Access and Circulation
The Project Site does not have paved access under existing conditions. Access to the Project Site is
provided from an unpaved segment of Beech Avenue, extending north from Foothill Boulevard.
The Project Site is located approximately 0.1-mile north of Foothill Boulevard. Foothill Boulevard is an
east-west oriented roadway that connects to Interstate 15 (I-15) approximately 3.4 miles west of the Project
Site and connects to Interstate 215 (I-215) approximately 9.6 miles east of the Project Site. I-15, and I-215
are part of the State highway system operated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
2.3.4 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, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north
and east, and the San Diego Air Basin to the south. The SCAB is within the jurisdiction of 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. The climate of the SCAB is characterized as semi-
arid and more than 90% of the SCAB’s rainfall occurs from November through April. During the dry
season, which also coincides with the months of maximum photochemical smog concentrations, the wind
flow is bimodal, characterized by a daytime onshore sea breeze and a nighttime offshore drainage wind.
(Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 9 and 10)
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 2-10
In the Project region, the SCAB does not attain State and/or federal standards established for one-hour and
eight-hour Ozone (O3) concentrations and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) concentrations. Local air
quality in the vicinity of the Project Site has exceeded air quality standards for one-hour and eight-hour
ozone concentrations and particulate matter concentrations within the last three years, as recorded at the
nearest air monitoring station to the Project Site (Central San Bernardino Valley 1 monitoring station source
receptor area [SRA] 34) (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 21). Refer to Table 2-4 in the Project’s air quality
report (refer to Technical Appendix A) for a summary of air quality conditions in the vicinity of the Project
Site over the last three years.
The SCAQMD, as part of preparation of the report titled “Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South
Coast Air Basin (MATES V),” calculated excess cancer risk levels from air pollution across the SCAB.
The census tract that contains the Project Site is calculated to have an excess carcinogenic risk of 590 in
one million persons, which is in the 87th percentile in the SCAB (SCAQMD, 2022). The Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) ranks the census tract that contains the Project Site
in the 93rd percentile for pollution burden which, based on the census tract’s demographic characteristics,
places the area in the 96th percentile of communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple
sources of pollution (OEHHA, 2022). Information about specific air pollutants and their effects on human
health are contained in the Air Quality Impact Analysis and Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment
provided as Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively, to this Initial Study/MND.
2.3.5 Geology
There are no known active or potentially active earthquake faults on the Project Site or in the immediately
surrounding area, and the Project Site is not located within an “Alquist-Priolo” Special Studies Zone (SCG,
2021, p. 9). Notwithstanding, and similar to other properties throughout southern California, the Project
Site is located within a seismically active region and is subject to ground shaking in the event of seismic
activity along active faults in the region.
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test excavations on the Project Site; nearby monitoring well
data suggests that groundwater is located more than 400 feet below the ground surface (bgs) in the Project
Site vicinity (SCG, 2021, pp. 5 and 6).
2.3.6 Soils
The Project Site contains native alluvial soils extending from the ground surface to a depth of at least 25
feet below existing ground surface. The near surface soils, within the upper 2.5 to 4.5 feet, were noted to
be medium dense to dense silty fine sands and silty fine to coarse sands with varying cobble content. The
soils at a depth greater than 4.5 feet were noted to be medium dense to very dense fine to coarse sands with
little fine to coarse gravel and occasional to abundant cobbles. At one of the test excavations, gravelly fine
to coarse sands were noted extending from the ground surface to 15 feet bgs. (SCG, 2021, p. 5)
2.3.7 Hydrology
The Project Site is located in the Santa Ana River watershed, which drains an approximately 2,650 square-
mile area. The Santa Ana River, which is the principal surface flow water body within the region, starts in
the San Bernardino Mountains, approximately 23 miles northeast of the Project Site, and flows
southwesterly for approximately 96 miles across San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties before
spilling into the Pacific Ocean.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 2-11
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
No. 06071C8651H, the Project Site is located within “Flood Zone X (unshaded)” which corresponds with
areas of minimal flood hazard (i.e., less than 0.2-percent annual chance of flood) (FEMA, 2008).
Under existing conditions, runoff from the Project Site drains from north to south and sheet flows to an
existing storm drain grate inlet at Beech Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Existing 36- and 42-inch-diameter
storm drains are located within the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way between Hemlock Avenue and Sultana
Avenue, which connect to a 66-inch storm drain west of Hemlock Avenue. (JLC, 2022a, pp. 1 and 2).
2.3.8 Noise
The primary sources of noise in the Project Site vicinity are vehicle traffic along Foothill Boulevard and
noise generated by nearby businesses. Based on 24-hour noise measurements collected by the consulting
firm Urban Crossroads, 24-hour daytime energy average noise levels in the Project area range between 51.2
dBA Leq and 71.5 dBA Leq and nighttime energy average noise levels range from 50.7 dBA Leq to 67.3 dBA
Leq, which are noise levels typically associated with urban areas. (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, pp. 7, 22)
2.3.9 Utilities and Service Systems
Under existing conditions, the Project area receives domestic water service from the Fontana Water
Company (FWC). Wastewater generated in the Project area is collected by the City of Fontana’s local
sanitary sewer system, for conveyance to larger regional conveyance facilities and ultimately to wastewater
treatment facilities (RP-1 or RP-4) operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). A 21-inch-
diameter sewer line and 16-inch-diameter water line are located beneath Beech Avenue.
The Mid-Valley Landfill in the City of Rialto is the facility that processes solid waste collected in the City
of Fontana. The Mid-Valley Landfill is permitted to accept 7,500 tons of waste per day and is designed to
accommodate up to 8,280 tons per day (City of Fontana, 2018b, p. 5.12-20).
2.3.10 Vegetation
Under existing conditions, the Project Site supports one (1) land cover type classified as “Disturbed,” which
supports primarily early successional or ruderal plant species and trees associated with historic agricultural
activities. Routine weed abatement and other human activity on the Project Site inhibits the establishment
of plant populations. Plant species observed on the Project Site include horseweed (Erigeron canadensis),
Mediterranean grass (Schismus arabicus), jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), golden crownbeard (Verbesina
encelioides), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca). In addition, a collection
of stunted gum trees (Eucalyptus sp.), remnant agricultural windrows that have been cut down in recent
years and allowed to resprout, are present in the northwest corner of the Project Site. Mature gum trees are
also present at the northeast and southeast corners of the Project Site. No native plant communities or
natural communities of special concern were observed during field investigations on the Project Site.
(ELMT, 2021, p. 4)
2.3.11 Wildlife
Wildlife species observed on the Project Site included thirteen (13) bird species and two (2) mammal
species. No fish, amphibian, or reptile species were observed during the field investigation. No listed or
special status wildlife species were observed on the Project Site during field surveys. Refer to Attachment
D of Technical Appendix C for the detailed list of species observed on the Project Site. (ELMT, 2021, pp.
4-7)
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 3-1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project evaluated by this MND is located within the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California. The Project consists of an application for a Design Review Project (DRP 22-035). Copies of
the entitlement application for the proposed Project are herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15150 and are available for review at the City of Fontana Community Development
Department, Planning Division public counter, located at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, California 92335.
A detailed description of the proposed Project is provided in the following sections. Additional actions that
would be necessary to implement the proposed Project are listed in Table 3-2, Matrix of Project
Approvals/Permits, at the end of this section.
3.1 PROPOSED DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS
3.1.1 Design Review Project (DRP 22-035)
DRP 22-035 proposes a development plan for the Project Site that provides for the construction and
operation of an industrial commerce center 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 22-035 complies with applicable design standards
from Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article V (Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability
Standards).
A. Site Plan
As shown on Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan, the proposed industrial commerce center building is
generally rectangular-shaped with a north-south orientation and provides approximately 168,760 s.f. of total
floor area, including 153,760 s.f. of warehouse space and up to 15,000 s.f. of office space (including ground
floor and mezzanine). The office space would be located in the southeast corner of the building.
The Project provides approximately 123 passenger vehicle parking spaces distributed on the north and south
sides of the Project Site. A gate secured truck court – used for the loading and unloading of goods and
short-term trailer parking – with 23 loading docks (also called “bays”) and approximately 53 truck trailer
parking stalls is located on the east side of the proposed building. Because the Project Applicant is pursuing
the Project on a speculative basis, meaning the future occupant(s) of the building is not known at the time
of writing this MND, the number of automobile and trailer parking spaces are identified as approximate to
acknowledge the possibility of minor parking lot striping revisions in the future to accommodate the needs
of future building occupant(s). A 14-foot-tall solid screen wall is provided along the southern and eastern
boundary of the truck court; an 8-foot-tall tubular steel fence is provided along the northern/northeastern
boundary of the truck court; a 6-foot-tall tubular steel fence is provided along the southern Project Site
boundary and an existing wrought-iron fence along the western Project Site boundary will be retained.
Bicycle parking spaces (“racks”) would be provided abutting the proposed office space in conformance
with Fontana Zoning and Development Code Article XI, Division 5, Division 5, 30-714, Table 30-714,
Bicycle Parking Facilities, which requires one space for every 30,000 s.f. of gross floor area.
Vehicular access to the Project Site would be provided by two (2) driveways that would connect to Beech
Avenue. As part of the Project, Beech Avenue would be extended from Foothill Boulevard to just south of
the Pacific Electric Trail, where it will terminate in a cul-de-sac.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 3-2
B. Architecture
Figure 3-2, Architectural Elevations, depicts the architecture proposed for the Project. The proposed
building would feature a varied roofline for visual interest and to reduce the perceived bulk and scale of the
building; the maximum height of approximately 45 feet, 6 inches above finished floor elevation (including
architectural projections). The building would be constructed with painted concrete tilt-up panels and low
reflective, blue-glazed glass. Articulated building elements, including parapets, wall recesses, mullions and
aluminum canopies, are proposed as decorative elements – primarily at the building entrance and along the
sides of the building facing Foothill Boulevard and Beech Avenue. The exterior color palette for the
proposed building is comprised of various shades of gray, with blue and black accents.
Prior to the issuance of building permits to construct the Project, the Project Applicant/Developer or Project
Site owner would be required to submit construction documents/plans to the City of Fontana for review and
approval. The construction documents/plans would be required to comply with the City of Fontana
Building Code, which is based on the California Building Code and is included in Chapter 5 of the Fontana
Municipal Code.
C. Landscaping
The conceptual landscape plan for the Project Site is illustrated on Figure 3-3, Conceptual Landscape Plan.
Proposed landscaping is ornamental in nature and would feature trees, shrubs, and drought-tolerant accent
plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers. As shown on Figure 3-3, trees and groundcover are proposed
to be massed along the Project Site’s frontage with the extended Beech Avenue. Landscaping would also
occur along the boundary of the Project Site, around the building and at the building entrance, and in and
around the parking areas.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit to construct the Project Site, the Project Applicant/Developer or
Project Site owner 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 (City of Fontana, 2022, Sections 28-91 through 28-115).
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 3-6
3.2 PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
3.2.1 Public Roadway Improvements
Under existing conditions, no public streets abut the Project Site. As part of the Project, Beech Avenue
would be extended from Foothill Boulevard to just south of the Pacific Electric Trail where it would end in
a cul-de-sac. The Project Applicant would construct the western half of the street plus one lane on the east
side of the street; the total paved vehicle travel way width would vary between 53 and 61 feet. Also, the
Project provides for the construction of: 1) curb and gutter on the east side of the street, 2) a paved berm on
east side of the street (at the edge of the paved travel way), 3) a sidewalk on the west side of the street, and
4) a landscaped parkway on the west side of the street. Also, the Project provides for the construction of
an off-set cul-de-sac where Beech Avenue terminates south of the Pacific Electric Trail.
The City of Fontana has plans for a Capital Improvement Program project to the segment of Foothill
Boulevard between Hemlock Avenue and Almeria Avenue. The planned project would widen Foothill
Boulevard to a 6-lane configuration and install a traffic signal at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and
Beech Avenue. The City has not secured funding for the planned improvements to Foothill Boulevard and
the timing for completion of the improvement project is unknown. To improve safety and operations at the
Foothill Boulevard and Beech Avenue intersection in the interim, the Project Applicant will install turn
pockets and specialized raised medians that will prohibit left turns from the northbound and southbound
legs of the intersection. The interim improvements will be removed when the City’s planned Foothill
Boulevard improvement project is completed, at which time full turning access from all legs of the Foothill
Boulevard and Beech Avenue intersection will be restored.
3.2.2 Utility Improvements
A. Water Infrastructure
The Fontana Water Company (FWC) would provide water service to the Project. As depicted on Figure 3-
4, Conceptual Utility Plan, the Project proposes to connect to the existing 16-inch water main within Beech
Avenue right-of-way for indoor, outdoor (i.e., landscape irrigation), and fire protection (i.e., indoor fire
protection, fire hydrant) services. All proposed water facilities would be designed and constructed in
accordance with FWC standards.
B. Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
The City of Fontana would provide wastewater conveyance services to the Project Site. As shown on
Figure 3-4, the Project would connect to the existing 21-inch-diameter main within the Beech Avenue right-
of-way. All proposed wastewater facilities would be designed and constructed in accordance with the
City’s standards.
C. Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure
The Project’s proposed on-site storm drain system consists of a network of catch basins, gutters,
underground storm drain pipes and underground infiltration system. First flush stormwater runoff flows
(i.e., typically the first ¾-inch of initial surface runoff after a rainstorm, which contains the highest
proportion of waterborne pollution) and the required peak storm retention volume would be collected by
the proposed network of on-site catch basins and routed through a hydrodynamic separator before flowing
into the underground infiltration system (to be located underneath the truck court/ trailer parking area on
the east side of the Project Site). The hydrodynamic separator is a stormwater treatment device that
separates and removes floatables (e.g., trash, debris, and oil) and settleable particles, like sediment, from
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 3-7
stormwater runoff. The stormwater that flows into the underground infiltration system would ultimately
percolate into the ground. This system holds stormwater runoff until it gradually exfiltrates into the
underlying soil that contains several layers of filtering media atop native soils. Pollutant removal occurs
through the infiltration of runoff and the adsorption of pollutants into the soil. This practice has high
pollutant removal efficiency. Stormwater runoff captured after the first flush would bypass the underground
infiltration basin and would be routed through a system of storm drain pipes to the southeast corner of the
Project Site. Stormwater runoff would be discharged from the Project Site into a new storm drain segment
within the Beech Avenue right-of-way that would extend from the southeast corner of the Project Site and
would connect to the existing storm drain within the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way (at Beech Avenue).
The proposed stormwater drainage system for the Project Site is depicted on Figure 3-4.
D. Dry Utilities
The Project provides for the removal of all wooden power poles and guy poles within the Beech Avenue
right-of-way north of Foothills Boulevard and south of the Pacific Electric Trail and the undergrounding of
the associated above-ground electricity distribution lines. This work would be performed in coordination
with Southern California Edison (SCE).
The Project also entails the removal of one existing streetlight at the intersection of Beech Avenue and
Foothill Boulevard and the construction of four new streetlights on the west side of Beech Avenue between
Foothill Boulevard and the Pacific Electric Trail.
3.3 CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS
Based on information provided by the Project Applicant, Project construction is estimated to begin in April
2023 and occur over a period of approximately 13 months, as summarized in Table 3-1. Project
construction would begin with site preparation, then mass-grading and installation of underground
infrastructure. 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. Project
construction activities and equipment would be required to comply with the applicable sustainability
standards established by Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article V (Industrial Commerce Centers
Sustainability Standards).
Table 3-1 Construction Schedule Assumptions
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Days
Site Preparation 04/01/2023 04/10/2023 6
Grading 04/11/2023 05/10/2023 22
Building Construction 05/11/2023 01/31/2024 190
Paving 01/21/2024 04/20/2024 65
Architectural Coating 02/01/2024 04/30/2024 64
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-3)
Construction workers would travel to the Project 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. The construction equipment fleet anticipated to be used
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 3-8
during Project construction is listed in Table 3-2, Construction Equipment Assumptions. Fontana Municipal
Code Section 18-63(b)(7) allows by right for construction activities to occur up to 11 hours per day Monday
through Friday (between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.) and for nine hours on Saturdays (between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m.), with allowances outside these time periods only upon approval by the City building inspector.
Notwithstanding, for analysis purposes, this MND assumes that construction equipment will be in operation
on the Project Site a maximum of eight hours per day. As is typical on construction sites, construction
equipment is not in continuous use and some pieces of equipment are used only periodically during the
construction work day. Thus, eight hours of daily use for each piece of equipment is a reasonable and
conservative assumption.
Table 3-2 Construction Equipment Assumptions
Activity Equipment Number Hours Per Day
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 5 8
Crawler Tractors 6 8
Grading
Excavators 1 8
Graders 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Crawler Tractors 3 8
Building Construction
Cranes 2 8
Forklifts 4 8
Generator Sets 2 8
Crawler Tractors 4 8
Welders 2 8
Paving
Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-4)
The proposed grading activities for the Project would result in physical disturbance to the entire Project
Site. In addition, the Project would require minor off-site grading within the Beech Avenue right-of-way
segment between Foothills Boulevard and the Pacific Electric Trail to facilitate construction of the street
(as described earlier in this section). Prior to the start of grading, all existing vegetation and debris would
be removed from the Project Site. Proposed earthwork activities associated with the Project would result in
approximately 18,084 cubic yards of cut and 26,848 cubic yards of fill, resulting in the need of 8,764 cubic
yards of imported fill soils. When grading is complete, the building pad would sit approximately 1,285 feet
above mean sea level (amsl) and the property would have a gentle slope from north to south. After grading,
the highest point of the Project Site would be its northern portion (approximately 1,285 feet amsl) and the
lowest point of the property would be its southern portion (approximately 1,283 amsl). The Project
Applicant proposes to construct retaining walls at the northern and southern boundaries of the Project Site.
The conceptual grading plan for the Project is illustrated on Figure 3-5, Conceptual Grading Plan.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 3-11
3.4 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 MND
assumes that the Project would be operational 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and would not 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. Exterior loading and parking areas on the
Project Site would be illuminated at night. Lighting would be subject to compliance with Fontana 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.
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 required to be zero emission, as necessitated
by Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-73(a). 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 analysis in this MND, 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 141 employees
(168,760 s.f. ÷ 1,195 s.f./employee = 141 employees).
3.5 SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTIONS
The City of Fontana has primary approval responsibility for the proposed Project. As such, the City is the
Lead Agency for this MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. The City will consider the
information contained in this MND and this MND’s Administrative Record in its decision-making
processes. In the event of approval of the Project, the City would conduct administrative reviews and issue
ministerial permits to implement the Project. A list of the primary actions under City jurisdiction and the
jurisdiction of other agencies is provided in Table 3-3, Summary of Project Approvals/Permits. This MND
covers all federal, State, local government and quasi-government approvals that may be needed to construct
or implement the Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed in Table 3-3, or elsewhere in this MND
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(d)).
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 3-12
Table 3-3 Summary of Project Approvals/Permits
Public Agency Approvals and Decisions
City of Fontana
Proposed Project – City of Fontana Discretionary Approvals
City of Fontana Planning Commission
• Approve or deny DRP 22-035.
• Approve or reject this MND along with appropriate CEQA
Findings.
Subsequent City of Fontana 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.
• Issue Grading Permits.
• Issue Building Permits.
• Issue Encroachment Permits.
• Approve Road Improvement Plans.
• Accept public-right-of way dedications.
• Approvals for sewer and storm drain infrastructure.
• Approve Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).
Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
Fontana Water Company • Approvals for the design of on and off-site water
infrastructure.
Southern California Edison • Approvals required to remove power poles, underground
powerlines, and relocate other facilities.
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.
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-1
4.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1. Project Title: Beech Avenue Logistics Center 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Fontana, Community Development Department, Planning
Division, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: George Velarde, (909) 350-6569
4. Project Location: North of Foothill Boulevard, south of the Pacific Electric Trail, and west of Beech Avenue
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: AIREF Beech Logistics Center LP, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 625, Newport Beach, CA 92660
6. General Plan Designation: Light Industrial (I-L) 7. Zoning: Light Industrial (M-1)
8. Description of the Project: Refer to Section 3.0 of this Mitigated Negative Declaration 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: To the north of the Project Site is the Pacific Electric Trail. Farther north and northeast are single-family residential land uses. The area immediately to the south of the Project Site is primarily vacant undeveloped with the exception of the Forty Winks Motel, located to the southwest of the Project Site. Farther south is Foothill Boulevard and then a mix of commercial and residential land uses. Immediately west of the Project is the eShipping Distribution Services warehouse. Farther west are more industrial land uses. To the east of the Project Site is vacant undeveloped land and farther east is developed land which contains a large storage tank. To the southwest is the Fontana Nursery, a wholesale plant nursery.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Fontana Water Company, Southern California Edison, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (refer to Table 3-2 of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration).
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? The City of Fontana is required to consult with interested California Native American tribes regarding the Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52).
The City contacted California Native American Tribes with traditional use areas that encompass or are in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project received requests for consultation from one tribe. The City concluded consultation on June 1, 2023.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-4
4.1 AESTHETICS
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant Impact
No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Less than Significant Impact. Under existing conditions, the Project Site does not serve as a scenic vista
or contribute to a scenic vista; the Project Site is undeveloped, routinely disced, and contains several trees
scattered throughout the property (Google Earth, 2022). Furthermore, the City of Fontana’s General Plan EIR
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).
Scenic resources visible (at least partially) from public viewpoints adjacent to the Project Site include the San
Gabriel Mountains (approximately 4.2 miles to the north) and the Jurupa Hills (approximately 4.7 miles to the
south) (Google Earth, 2022). Under existing conditions, views of the San Gabriel Mountains are clearly visible
from Foothill Boulevard while views of the Jurupa Hills are partially obscured from the Pacific Electric Trail
by trees located on the Project Site and to the south of the Project Site.
Due to the Project Site’s setback from Foothill Boulevard, which is more than 600 feet, the Project would not
substantially obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains, as the Mountains would remain prominently visible
above the Project. The Project would block views of the Jurupa Hills from the Pacific Electric Trail segment
that abuts the Project Site; however, this impact would not be considered substantial because: 1) views of the
Jurupa Hills already are partially obscured from the Pacific Electric Trail segment that abuts the Project Site
under existing conditions; and 2) views of the Jurupa Hills are not unique to this area; the Jurupa Hills are
prominently visible throughout the City.
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. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) No Impact. 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
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-5
historic buildings (Caltrans, 2021). There is no potential for the proposed Project to adversely impact the
viewshed within a scenic highway corridor. No impact would occur.
c) No Impact. 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’s 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 Section 3.0, Project Description. 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 be inconsistent with
applicable design regulations within the Fontana Zoning and Development Code that govern scenic quality,
including the specific industrial site plan design (e.g., building orientation, open space, lighting) and building
design guidelines (e.g., design theme, scale, building materials and color, architectural compatibility,
landscaping) contained within Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30, Article III, Division 7. No impact
would occur.
d) Less than Significant Impact. Under the existing conditions, the Project Site contains no sources of
artificial lighting; but, artificial lighting (i.e., pole mounted light fixtures) is present along the Project Site’s
frontage with the Pacific Electric Trail. Additionally, the eShipping Distribution services industrial building
that is adjacent to the west side of the Project Site contains sources of exterior lighting and street lights are
present along Foothill Boulevard. Accordingly, artificial lighting already is common to the Project area.
The Project would introduce new light sources to the Project Site as necessary for security, safety, and
wayfinding. The Project’s lighting elements would include building-mounted fixtures (security lighting and
upward/downward facing decorative lighting oriented toward the building) and pole-mounted fixtures in the
Project’s truck docking areas and at the Project’s driveway entries along Beech Avenue. The proposed Project
would be required to adhere to the lighting requirements as set forth in the 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 painted 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 low-reflective and proposed landscaping would provide a buffer between all proposed glass
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-6
surfaces and the public right of way. Thus, glare impacts from proposed building elements would be less than
significant.
For the reasons given above, implementation of the Project would not result in a significant source of light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. Accordingly, impacts would be less than
significant.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-7
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant Impact
No Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) No Impact. According to Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program mapping information available
from the California Department of Conservation, the Project Site is classified as “Other Land” (CDC, 2022).
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.
b) No Impact. The Project Site is zoned “Light Industrial (M-1)” and is not used for agriculture under
existing conditions. Based on information disclosed in the City’s General Plan EIR, the Project Site is not
subject to a land conservation (Williamson Act) contract (City of Fontana, 2018b, p. 7-10). As a result, the
Project will not result in conflict with existing agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts. The Project
would result in no impact.
c) No Impact. 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.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-8
d) No Impact. The Project Site does not contain a forest and is not designated as forest land. Thus,
implementation of the proposed 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.
e) No Impact. “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
4.2(a), the Project Site does not contain any soils mapped by the Department of Conservation as “Farmland.”
Additionally, as described above in Responses 4.2(c) and 4.2(d), 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.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-9
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant Impact
No Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The analysis in this section is based on Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA), Mobile Source Health Risk
Assessment (HRA), and Focused HRA reports prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads, Inc.; which
evaluate potential criteria and hazardous air pollutant emissions that could result from the Project’s
construction and operation. The Project’s AQIA and HRA are included in their entirety as Appendices A, B1
and B2 to this MND, respectively, and their findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is principally responsible for air pollution control,
and works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation
commissions, local governments, as well as State and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary,
mobile, and indirect sources to meet State and federal ambient air quality standards.
Currently, State, and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. It should be noted
that emissions of ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NOX). volatile organic compounds (VOC), and carbon dioxide
(CO) have been decreasing in the SCAB since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease due to increased
regulatory requirements. Additionally, the overall trends of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) in the air also
have improved since 1975. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 21-32)
In response to local air quality conditions, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has
adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the State and federal ambient air quality
standards. AQMPs are regularly updated to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to
minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. The current AQMP, the 2016
AQMP, was adopted by the SCAQMD in March 2017 and the Project’s consistency with the 2016 AQMP is
discussed below. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2,
and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). The Project’s consistency with
these criteria is discussed below.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-10
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 California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As evaluated under Response
4.3(b), the Project would not contribute air pollutant volumes to the SCAB that would contribute to
or exacerbate existing air quality violations. Additionally, as evaluated under Response 4.3(c), the
Project would not generate localized criteria pollutant emissions that would increase the frequency
or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, and/or delay the
timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the 2016
AQMP. Accordingly, the Project is determined to be consistent 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 2016 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 2016 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 2016 AQMP. The Project would be consistent with the
City of Fontana’s General Plan land use designation for the subject property and, therefore, the
Project would be consistent with the growth assumptions used in the 2016 AQMP and would not
exceed the AQMP’s long-term emissions projections.
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 2016
AQMP, or the exceedance of growth assumptions in the 2016 AQMP. As such, impacts would be less-than-
significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project has the potential to generate air pollution during both
construction activities and long-term operation. For a detailed description of the health effects of air pollutants
refer to Section 2.4 of the Project’s AQIA. In general, air pollutants have adverse effects to human health
including, but not limited to, respiratory illness and carcinogenic effects; however, based on available modeling
it is not feasible to correlate regional criteria pollutant emissions from development projects of the scale of the
proposed Project to adverse health effects on a SCAB-wide level (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 11-17, 58).
The potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse health effects from toxic air contaminant emissions
is addressed in Response 4.3(c).
The following analysis is based on the applicable significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD for
regional criteria pollutant emissions (as summarized in Table 3-1 of the Project’s AQIA). This analysis
assumes that the proposed Project would comply with applicable, mandatory regional air quality standards,
including: SCAQMD Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust;” SCAQMD Rule 431.2, “Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels;”
SCAQMD Rule 1113, “Architectural Coatings;” SCAQMD Rule 1186, “PM10 Emissions from Paved and
Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations;” SCAQMD Rule 1186.1, “Less-Polluting Street Sweepers,” and
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-11
Title 13, Chapter 10, Section 2485, Division 3 of the California Code of Regulations “Airborne Toxic Control
Measure.”
The Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule, ISR), although the
air pollutant emissions reductions associated with compliance with the ISR cannot be quantified in the air
pollutant calculations presented herein. The ISR applies to warehouse operators and owners of warehouses
with at least 100,000 square feet of indoor floor space within a single building that can be used for warehousing
activities. In general, the ISR establishes the Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions
(WAIRE) Program, which is a points system that is based upon the actual number of trucks that come to and
leave the warehouse. Each year the operator of the Project will be obligated to determine how many points the
warehouse is required to achieve using a formula set out in the ISR. If the required number of points are not
achieved, the Project’s operator would be required to pay a fee to the SCAQMD, which would use collected
funds to improve air quality. Although compliance with Rule 2305 is not mitigation and the SCAQMD has not
published a nexus study showing how the use of collected funds has a nexus to the warehouse’s air quality
impacts, the ISR program is intended to reduce air quality effects associated with the warehouse industry,
including the proposed Project, throughout the SCAB.
Impact Analysis for Construction Emissions
For purposes of the construction emissions analysis, construction was expected to occur between April 2023
and April 2024. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) accounts for the implementation and
enforcement of California’s progressively more restrictive regulatory requirements for construction equipment
and the ongoing replacement of older construction fleet equipment with newer, less- polluting equipment.
According to the CalEEMod, construction activities that occur in the near future are expected to generate more
air pollutant emissions than the same activities that may occur farther into the future. Thus, in the event that
the Project’s construction period occurs later than expected by this analysis, Project-related construction
emissions would not exceed the values presented herein. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 39) The Project’s
construction characteristics and construction equipment fleet assumptions used in the analysis were previously
described in Section 3.0, Project Description.
The calculated maximum daily emissions associated with Project construction are presented in Table 4-1,
Overall Construction Emissions Summary. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix
3.1 of the Project’s AQIA.
Table 4-1 Overall Construction Emissions Summary
Year Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2023 1.25 25.40 50.90 0.08 9.89 4.72
2024 13.80 8.77 14.30 0.02 0.51 0.21
Winter
2023 0.98 17.70 32.20 0.05 1.31 0.45
2024 13.80 24.90 43.40 0.06 1.60 0.58
Maximum Daily Emissions 13.80 25.40 50.90 0.08 9.89 4.72
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-5)
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-12
As shown in Table 4-1, the Project’s daily construction emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
nitrogen oxides (NOX) carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria thresholds. The SCAQMD considers any project-specific criteria
pollutant emissions that exceed applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds also to be cumulatively
considerable. To put it another way, if a project does not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds, then
SCAQMD considers that project’s air pollutant emissions to not be cumulatively considerable. Thus, because
Project construction would not exceed the SCAQMD regional criteria significance thresholds, implementation
of the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, including
any pollutants for which the SCAB does not attain applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards
during construction.
Impact Analysis for Operational Emissions
Operation of the Project is expected to generate air pollutant emissions from the operation of motor vehicles
(including trucks), operation of equipment, maintenance activities, and the consumption of energy resources.
Long term operational emissions associated with the Project are presented in Table 4-2, Summary of Peak
Operational Emissions. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.2 of the Project’s
AQIA.
Table 4-2 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 1.48 7.09 19.78 0.09 2.15 0.50
Area Source 5.27 0.07 7.33 0.00 0.01 0.01
Energy Source 0.07 1.14 0.95 0.00 0.09 0.09
Project Maximum Daily Emissions 6.82 8.30 28.06 0.09 2.25 0.60
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Mobile Source 1.40 7.46 16.69 0.08 2.15 0.50
Area Source 4.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Source 0.07 1.14 0.95 0.00 0.09 0.09
Project Maximum Daily Emissions 5.53 8.60 17.64 0.08 2.24 0.59
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-8)
As summarized in Table 4-2, Project‐related operational emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5
would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria thresholds. Because Project operations would not exceed the
SCAQMD regional criteria significance thresholds, implementation of the Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, including any pollutants for which the SCAB
does not attain applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards. The Project’s long‐term emissions of
VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The following provides an analysis of the Project’s potential to expose
sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project
construction and long-term operation. The following analysis is based on the applicable significance
thresholds established by the SCAQMD.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-13
Localized Emissions Impact Analysis
As summarized in Table 4-3, Localized Construction-Source Emissions, localized emissions of NOX, CO, and
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds during peak Project
construction activities. Accordingly, Project construction would not expose any sensitive receptors to
substantial concentrations of criteria pollutants. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4-3 Localized Construction-Source Emissions
Construction Activity Year Scenario Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 2023
Summer 25.20 48.30 9.52 4.64
Winter n/a n/a n/a n/a
Maximum Daily Emissions 25.20 48.30 9.52 4.64
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 273 1,798 16 8
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading 2023
Summer 11.00 19.00 2.35 1.03
Winter n/a n/a n/a n/a
Maximum Daily Emissions 11.00 19.00 2.35 1.03
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 189 1,142 10 5
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-11)
The Project’s estimated operational localized emissions are presented in Table 4-4, Localized Significance
Summary of Operations. As shown, the Project’s calculated long-term operational emissions would not exceed
the localized thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Accordingly, long-term operation of the Project would
not result in the exposure of any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be
less than significant.
Table 4-4 Localized Significance Summary of Operations
Scenario Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Summer 2.51 11.98 0.19 0.12
Winter 2.50 4.89 0.18 0.11
Maximum Daily Emissions 2.51 11.98 0.19 0.12
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 273 1,798 5 2
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-13)
CO “Hot Spots” Impact Analysis
A CO “hot spot” is an isolated geographic area where localized concentrations of CO exceeds 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 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
SCAQMD’s 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
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-14
traffic congestion at the intersection, which exceeded 5,500 vehicles in the peak hour. 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, ambient CO concentrations in the Project vicinity range between 1.2 and 1.7
parts per million (8-hour and 1-hour concentrations, respectively) – less than a quarter of the ambient CO
concentrations recorded at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection – and local intersections
would not exceed 5,000 vehicles in the peak hour. Further, data from several air districts/studies 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 – while the Project is calculated to generate 52 vehicles in the peak hour. The Project
would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot based on the referenced studies.
(Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 22, 53-55; Urban Crossroads, 2023b, p. 31) 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.
Diesel Particulate Emissions Impact Analysis
This section evaluates the potential health risk impacts to sensitive receptors and nearby workers associated
with the development of the proposed Project, more specifically, health risk impacts as a result of exposure to
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) including diesel particulate matter (DPM). Detailed air dispersion model
outputs and risk calculations are presented in Appendices 2.1 through 2.4 of the Project’s HRA report.
Project Construction Analysis
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction DPM source emissions (i.e.,
maximally exposed individual receptor, MEIR) is located approximately 157 feet northeast of the Project Site
at an existing residence located at 7920 Lemon Pepper Avenue. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer
risk attributable to Project construction DPM source emissions is calculated at 1.55 in one million, which is
less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks
were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. All other receptors in the
vicinity of the Project Site would experience less risk than what is identified for the MEIR due to increased
distance from the Project Site and/or prevalent local wind patterns. (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 22) The
Project’s construction would not directly cause or cumulatively contribute to the exposure of nearby sensitive
receptors to substantial DPM emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.
Project Operation Analysis – Interim
The Project provides for the construction of improvements to the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Beech
Avenue that will be in place until the City completes permanent improvements to the intersection (which will
include widening the intersection and installation of a traffic signal). The interim improvements provided by
the Project will restrict the ability of trucks exiting the Project from turning left at Foothill Boulevard; all
outbound trucks will be forced to make a right turn to travel westbound toward Cherry Avenue. This analysis
evaluates potential health risks from Project-related truck traffic under the local traffic patterns that will exist
during interim conditions.
The residential land use (MEIR) with the greatest potential exposure to Project operation DPM source
emissions under interim (near-term) conditions is located approximately 157 feet northeast of the Project Site
at an existing residence located at 7920 Lemon Pepper Avenue. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer
risk attributable to Project DPM source emissions is estimated at 0.63 in one million, which is less than the
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-15
SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated
to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. All other residential receptors
in the vicinity of the Project Site would experience less risk than what is identified for the MEIR due to
increased distance from Project-related heavy trucking activities and/or prevalent local wind patterns. (Urban
Crossroads, 2023c, p. 3) Accordingly, operation of the Project would not directly cause or contribute in a
cumulatively-considerable manner to the exposure of residential receptors to substantial DPM emissions under
interim conditions prior to the completion of the City’s planned Foothill Boulevard improvement project.
Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
The employment land use with the greatest potential exposure (maximally exposed individual worker, MEIW)
to DPM source emissions from Project operations under interim conditions is located approximately 744
southeast of the Project Site. At the MEIW, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project DPM
source emissions is estimated at 0.02 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold
of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not
exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. All other employment land uses in the vicinity of the
Project Site would experience less risk than what is identified for the MEIW due to increased distance from
Project-related heavy trucking activities and/or prevalent local wind patterns. (Urban Crossroads, 2023c, pp.
3) Accordingly, operation of the Project would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively-considerable
manner to the exposure of worker receptors to substantial DPM emissions under interim conditions prior to
the completion of the City’s planned Foothill Boulevard improvement project. Therefore, the Project would
result in a less-than-significant impact.
The school land use with the greatest potential exposure (maximally exposed school child, MEISC) to Project
operation DPM source emissions under interim conditions is located approximately 1,650 feet northwest of
the Project Site at Hemlock Elementary School. At the MEISC, the maximum incremental cancer risk
attributable to Project DPM source emissions is estimated at <0.01 in one million, which is less than the
SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated
to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. All other school child
receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site would experience less risk than what is identified for the MEISC
due to increased distance from Project-related heavy trucking activities and/or prevalent local wind patterns.
(Urban Crossroads, 2023c, p. 3) Accordingly, operation of the Project would not directly cause or contribute
in a cumulatively-considerable manner to the exposure of school child receptors to substantial DPM emissions
under interim conditions prior to the completion of the City’s planned Foothill Boulevard improvement project.
Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
Project Operation Analysis – Long-Term
Upon the City’s completion of the planned Capital Improvement Program project to the segment of Foothill
Boulevard between Hemlock Avenue and Almeria Avenue, a traffic signal will be installed at the intersection
of Foothill Boulevard and Beech Avenue and full turning access from all legs of the intersection will be
available. This analysis evaluates potential health risks from Project-related truck traffic under the local traffic
patterns that will exist under long-term (permanent) conditions.
During Project operation, the residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operation DPM
source emissions (MEIR) is located approximately 157 feet northeast of the Project Site at an existing residence
located at 7920 Lemon Pepper Avenue. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to
Project DPM source emissions is estimated at 0.51 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s
significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01,
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-16
which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. All other residential receptors in the
vicinity of the Project Site would experience less risk than what is identified for the MEIR due to increased
distance from Project-related heavy trucking activities and/or prevalent local wind patterns. (Urban Crossroads,
2022b, p. 22) Accordingly, long-term operation of the Project would not directly cause or contribute in a
cumulatively-considerable manner to the exposure of residential receptors to substantial DPM emissions.
Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
During Project operation, the employment land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operation
DPM source emissions (maximally exposed individual worker, MEIW) is located approximately 744 southeast
of the Project Site. At the MEIW, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project DPM source
emissions is estimated at 0.03 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10
in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed
the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. All other employment land uses in the vicinity of the Project Site
would experience less risk than what is identified for the MEIW due to increased distance from Project-related
heavy trucking activities and/or prevalent local wind patterns. (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, pp. 22-23)
Accordingly, long-term operation of the Project would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively-
considerable manner to the exposure of worker receptors to substantial DPM emissions. Therefore, the Project
would result in a less-than-significant impact.
During Project operation, the school land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operation DPM
source emissions (maximally exposed school child, MEISC) is located approximately 1,650 feet northwest of
the Project Site at Hemlock Elementary School. At the MEISC, the maximum incremental cancer risk
attributable to Project DPM source emissions is estimated at <0.01 in one million, which is less than the
SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated
to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. All other school child
receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site would experience less risk than what is identified for the MEISC
due to increased distance from Project-related heavy trucking activities and/or prevalent local wind patterns.
(Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 22) Accordingly, long-term operation of the Project would not directly cause or
contribute in a cumulatively-considerable manner to the exposure of school child receptors to substantial DPM
emissions. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
Maximum Construction and Operational Exposure
The receptor with maximum exposure to health risks from Project construction and operational activities is a
residence located at 7920 Lemon Pepper Avenue, which is located approximately 157 feet northeast of the
Project Site. At this receptor location, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project DPM
source emissions from Project construction plus Project operations is estimated at 1.80 in one million, which
is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks
were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. All other
school child receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site would experience less risk than what is identified for
this receptor due to increased distance from Project-related heavy trucking activities and/or prevalent local
wind patterns. (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 23) As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health
or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction and operational activity.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-17
d) Less than Significant Impact. The Project could produce odors during proposed construction activities
resulting from construction equipment exhaust, application of asphalt, and/or the application of architectural
coatings; however, standard construction practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated
impacts. Furthermore, any odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent
in nature, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction. In addition,
construction activities on the Project Site would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which
prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p.
59). Accordingly, the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people during construction, and short-term impacts would be less than significant.
During long-term operation, the Project would include a warehouse distribution land use, which is not typically
associated with objectionable odors. The temporary storage of refuse associated with the proposed Project’s
long-term operational use could be a potential source of odor; however, Project-generated refuse is required to
be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste
regulations, thereby precluding any significant odor impact. Furthermore, the proposed Project 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. 59) As such, long-term
operation of the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-18
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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 Wildlife or U. S. 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 resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation
Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
A Biological Resources Investigation was prepared for the Project by ELMT Consulting (ELMT). This report
documents the existing biological resources on the Project Site and evaluates the potential impacts to these
resources that may occur as a result of Project implementation. This report is included as Appendix C to this
MND and its findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Special-Status Plants
No special-status plants were observed on or immediately adjacent to the Project Site by ELMT biologists.
Furthermore, due to the disturbed nature of the Project Site and lack of natural plant communities thereon, the
Site does not have potential to support special-status plant species known to occur in and around the City of
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-19
Fontana. Accordingly, development of the Project would result in no impact to special-status plant species
(ELMT, 2021, p. 7).
Special-Status Wildlife
No special-status wildlife species were observed on or immediately adjacent to the Project Site by ELMT
biologists. The Project Site has been subject to human disturbances from historic agricultural activities, routine
weed abatement, and foot and vehicle traffic associated with the surrounding development. These disturbances
have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred on-site and reduced the potential foraging
and nesting/denning opportunities for wildlife species. EMLT biologists determined that the Project Site has
moderate potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus),
and Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae); however, none of these species are listed as federal or State
threatened or endangered species. The Project Site does not provide suitable habitat for any other special-status
species known to occur in the area, including the burrowing owl, since the Project Site has been heavily
developed from surrounding development (ELMT, 2021, pp. 7-8). Accordingly, development of the Project
would result in less than significant impact to special-status wildlife species.
Notwithstanding the analysis above, the Project Site could be used by nesting avian species that are protected
by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC Sections 3503.5 to
3513). Pursuant to the MBTA and CFGC, take of a protected species individual, their egg(s), or their nest is
prohibited and the Project Applicant would be required to comply with MM BR-1, below, to ensure compliance
with the respective regulations. MM BR-1 would reduce potential impacts to the nesting birds to less than
significant levels by ensuring that pre-construction surveys are conducted to determine the presence or absence
of nesting birds on or adjacent to the Project Site prior to the commencement of construction activities. If
active bird nests are present, this mitigation measure provides performance criteria that requires avoidance of
the nests until it can be determined the nest is no longer active or that the juveniles from the occupied nests are
capable of surviving independently of the nest.
Mitigation
MM BR-1 Vegetation-clearing and ground disturbance shall be prohibited during the migratory bird nesting
season (February 1 through August 31), 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 3 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
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
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-20
Wildlife Service and shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Fontana. 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.
Although ELMT biologists determined the Project Site did not contain suitable habitat for the burrowing owl,
the species is mobile and the mitigation measures listed below are applied out of an abundance of caution to
ensure that substantial adverse effects to the species do not occur.
MM BR-2 Within 30 days prior to grading, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey on site and make
a determination regarding the presence or absence of the burrowing owl. The determination
shall be documented in a report and shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted by the City of
Fontana prior to the issuance of a grading permit and subject to the following provisions:
a) In the event that the pre-construction survey identifies no burrowing owls on the
property a grading permit may be issued without restriction.
b) In the event that the pre-construction survey identifies the presence of the burrowing
owl on the Project Site, then prior to the issuance of a grading permit and prior to the
commencement of ground-disturbing activities on the property, the qualified biologist
shall passively or actively relocate any burrowing owls. Passive relocation, including
the required use of one-way doors to exclude owls from the site and the collapsing of
burrows, will occur if the biologist determines that the proximity and availability of
alternate habitat is suitable for successful passive relocation. Passive relocation shall
follow CDFW relocation protocol and shall only occur between September 15 and
February 1. If proximate alternate habitat is not present as determined by the biologist,
active relocation shall follow CDFW relocation protocol. The biologist shall confirm
in writing that the species has fledged the Project Site or been relocated prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
b) No Impact. The habitat observed on the Project Site is not classified as a riparian habitat or as a sensitive
natural community in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (ELMT, 2021, p. 6). Accordingly,
implementation of the Project would result in no impacts to a riparian habitat or sensitive natural community.
c) No Impact. The Project Site does not contain any discernable drainage courses, inundated areas, or
wetland features or obligate plant species considered jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board, or CDFW observed within the Project Site (ELMT, 2021,
p. 6). Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the direct or indirect removal, filling, or
hydrological interruption of any State- or federally-protected wetlands. No impact would occur.
d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site does not contain natural,
surface drainage or ponding features (ELMT, 2021, p. 4); 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
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-21
adjacent to the Project Site (ELMT, 2021, p. 6). Accordingly, there is no potential for the Project to impede
the use of a native wildlife nursery site. 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.
No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed on the Project Site by ELMT biologists
(ELMT, 2021, p. 5). Notwithstanding, if active nests are present within or adjacent to the Site during
construction, the Project could result in substantially adverse direct effects to biological resources (i.e., avian
species and their nests) that are protected by the MBTA and CFGC. Implementation of MM BR-1 would
reduce potential impacts to nesting migratory birds to less than significant levels by ensuring that pre-
construction surveys are conducted to determine the presence or absence of nesting bird on or adjacent to the
Project Site prior to the commencement of construction activities. If active nests are discovered, this mitigation
measure provides performance criteria that requires avoidance of the nests until it can be determined the nest
is no longer active or that the juveniles from the occupied nests are capable of surviving independently of the
nest.
Mitigation
MM BR-1 shall apply; refer to Response 4.4(a).
e) No Impact. 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 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. Based on the findings of the arborist, the removal of any heritage, significant, or
specimen trees 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. Tree species observed on-site include a collection of stunted gum
trees (Eucalyptus sp.) in the northwest corner and mature gum trees at the northeast and southeast corners
(ELMT, 2021, p. 4). None of the trees observed on the Project Site meet the Municipal Code’s definition of
heritage, significant, or specimen tree. Furthermore, the Project’s landscape plan provides for the planting of
138 trees on the Project Site. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in a conflict with
the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. No impact would occur.
f) No Impact. 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. No impact would occur.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-22
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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 resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
A Cultural Resources Study was prepared for the Project by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) to
identify potential archaeological and historical resources that may be affected by the proposed Project. This
report includes the findings from an archaeological pedestrian survey; a cultural records search and sacred
lands search, and an inventory of all recorded archaeological and historical resources located on the Project
Site and within proximity of the Project Site. This report is included as Appendix D to this MND and its
findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
a) No Impact. According to archival research, 17 historical resources have been recorded within a one-mile
radius of the Project Site; none of which are located on the Project Site. Moreover, no historical resources
were observed within the Project Site during the pedestrian survey conducted by BFSA. (BSFA, 2022a, pp.
1.0-18 and 3.0-1) Due to the lack of historic development or occupation within the Project Site, there is
minimal potential for historic archaeological resources to be encountered during construction of the Project
(BSFA, 2022a, p. 4.0-1). Accordingly, the Project would result in no impact to a historical resource as defined
by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. BFSA conducted a cultural resources inventory of the
Project Site, which included a records search with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at
California State University (CSU) Fullerton and an intensive pedestrian survey of the Site. According to
archival research, no prehistoric archaeological resources have been recorded within the Project Site or within
a one-mile radius of the Project Site. Moreover, no prehistoric archaeological resources were observed within
the Project Site during the pedestrian survey conducted by BFSA. (BSFA, 2022a, pp. 1.0-18 and 3.0-1) Due
to the lack of known prehistoric archaeological resources in the vicinity of the Project Site and the extensive
nature of past ground disturbances on the Project Site, the likelihood of discovering buried prehistoric
archaeological resources on the Project Site is considered minimal. (BSFA, 2022a, p. 4.0-1) Accordingly, the
Project would result in no impact to a known archaeological resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5.
Notwithstanding the analysis provided above there is the potential that construction activities for the Project
could uncover buried/masked archaeological resources previously unknown to exist on the Project Site. As a
standard condition of approval the City of Fontana requires all development projects to implement an
archaeological resources monitoring and protection program during ground disturbing construction activities
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-23
to prevent the inadvertent destruction of buried/masked archaeological resources. As such, the Project
Applicant would be required to comply with MM CR-1. Implementation of MM CR-1 would ensure that, in
the event of discovery, archaeological resources present on the Project Site are adequately protected, recorded,
and preserved, thereby reducing potential impacts to a less than significant level.
MM CR-1 In the event that suspected cultural resources are discovered during Project construction
activities:
a) Upon discovery of any cultural, tribal cultural, or archaeological resources, cease
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.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site does not contain a known cemetery. In the event that
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
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-24
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.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-25
4.6 ENERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
An Energy Analysis was prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads to quantify anticipated energy usage
associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project, determine if the usage amounts are
efficient, typical, or wasteful for the land use type, and identify any potential methods of avoiding or reducing
inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. This report is included as Appendix E to this
MND and its findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
a) Less than Significant Impact. As demonstrated by the analysis below, construction and operation of the
Project would result in a less than significant environmental impact related to energy consumption.
Energy Use During Construction
The Project’s construction process would consume electricity and fuel. Project-related construction activities
would represent a “single‐event” demand and would not require on‐going or permanent commitment of energy
resources. Project-related construction activities are estimated to consume approximately 75,861 kWh of
electricity, approximately 50,913 gallons of diesel fuel from operation of construction equipment, 10,568
gallons of diesel fuel from construction vendor and hauling trips, and 11,075 gallons of fuel from construction
worker trips (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, pp. 28-33). The amount of energy and fuel use anticipated by the
Project’s construction activities are typical for the type of construction proposed, because there are no aspects
of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or unnecessarily energy-intensive. Furthermore,
construction equipment would be required to conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to
promote equipment fuel efficiencies. For example, CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(3) Idling,
limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and
wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. As supported by the
preceding discussion, the Project’s construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient,
wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, pp. 36 and 37).
Energy Use Project Operations
Project operations are estimated to consume 117,394 gallons of fuel on an annual basis. The number of daily
trips and miles traveled by Project traffic are consistent with other warehouse uses of similar scale and
configuration. That is, the Project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive
and wasteful vehicle trips and/or vehicle miles traveled, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy
consumption. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, pp. 35, 37) That is, the Project does not propose uses or operations
that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and/or vehicle miles traveled, nor associated
excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-26
State regulatory actions, and related transition of passenger vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g.,
electricity, natural gas, bio fuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per mile
traveled. Further, the location of the Project Site proximate to regional and local arterial roadways is expected
to minimize the Project vehicle miles traveled within the region. Based on the foregoing, Project transportation
energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary (Urban
Crossroads, 2022c, pp. 37-38).
Building operations and site maintenance activities associated with the Project would result in the consumption
of electricity and could result in the consumption of natural gas. Although the Project does not propose natural
gas service for building operations, this analysis conservatively assumes natural gas usage for the building.
Natural gas would be utilized for on-site cargo handling equipment. Natural gas would be supplied to the
Project by Southern California Gas Company; electricity would be supplied to the Project by Southern
California Edison (SCE). Energy demands resulting from Project operations are estimated at 4,215,528 kilo-
British thermal units (kBTU) per year of natural gas and 1,031,246 Kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year of electricity
(Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 38). The Project includes contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving
building materials and design features. In addition, the Project is required to comply with Fontana Municipal
Code Chapter 9, Article V (Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards), which includes numerous
standards applicable to the Project related to energy-efficiency, renewable energy, and clean energy use,
including a requirement for the proposed building to be constructed with a solar-ready roof and appropriate
electrical equipment that will facilitate the future installation of photovoltaic panels on the building’s rooftop.
Uses proposed by the Project are not inherently energy intensive, and the Project energy demands in total
would be comparable to, or less than, other industrial projects of similar scale and configuration. Additionally,
the Project would be required to comply with Title 24 standards, which would ensure that the Project’s energy
demand would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary (Urban Crossroads, 2022c,
pp. 38-39).
b) Less than Significant Impact. The following section analyzes the Project’s consistency with the
applicable State and local regulations.
Consistency with State Energy Regulations
Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR)
Electricity would be provided to the Project by SCE. SCE’s Clean Power and Electrification Pathway (CPEP)
white paper builds on existing state programs and policies. No component of the Project would interfere with,
nor obstruct implementation the goals presented in the 2021 IEPR. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 41)
State of California Energy Plan
The Project Site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway
system. The Project Site facilitates access to and takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems. The Project
supports urban design and planning goals identified under the State of California Energy Plan and, therefore,
is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the State of
California Energy Plan. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 42)
California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards
The Project would design building shells and building components, such as windows; roof systems: electrical
and lighting systems: and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems to meet 2022 Title 24 Standards.
The Project also is required by State law to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet or exceed Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards. On this basis, the Project is determined to be consistent with, and would not
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-27
interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. (Urban
Crossroads, 2022c, p. 42)
California Code Title 24, Part 11, CALGreen
CCR, Title 24, Part 11: CALGreen is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential,
commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on January 1, 2009, and is administered by the California
Building Standards Commission. CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved
update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards; the Project will be required to comply
with these Standards. The Project would consistent with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct
implementation of CCR, title 24, Part 11, CALGreen. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 42)
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; however, is indirectly applicable to the Project because passenger cars and light duty trucks traveling
to and from the Project Site are required to comply with the legislation’s fuel efficiency requirements. No
feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under AB 1493. (Urban
Crossroads, 2022c, p. 42)
Advanced Clean Cars Program
The Advanced Clean Cars Program is indirectly applicable to the Project because model year 2017-2025
passenger car vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site are required by law to comply with the legislation’s
fuel efficiency requirements. On this basis, the Project is determined to be consistent, with, and would not
interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program.
California Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078)
Established under SB 1078, the California Renewable Portfolio Standards do not directly apply to the Project
as SB 1078 is a statewide measure that establishes a renewable energy mix. Energy directly or indirectly
supplied to the Project Site by electric corporations is required by law to comply with SB 1078. On this basis,
the Project is determined to be consistent, with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct
implementation of California Renewable Portfolio Standards. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 42)
Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350)
The proposed Project would use energy from SCE, which has committed to diversify their portfolio of energy
sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. No feature of the Project would interfere with
implementation of SB 350. Additionally, the Project would be designed and constructed to implement the
energy efficiency measures required of new industrial developments.
Consistency with Local Energy Regulations
As previously noted, the Project is subject to mandatory compliance with Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9,
Article V (Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards), which includes numerous standards related
to energy-efficiency, renewable energy, and clean energy use. Compliance with the Industrial Commerce
Centers Sustainability Guidelines would be assured through City staff review of construction drawings prior
to issuance of building permits and by final inspections prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy. No
component of the Project would conflict with the City’s Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability
Guidelines or interfere with the City’s implementation of the Standards.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-28
Conclusion
As supported by the preceding analysis, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency and a less than significant impact would occur.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-29
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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 Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
A Geotechnical Investigation was prepared for the Project by Southern California Geotechnical (SCG) to
evaluate the geotechnical conditions of subject property, identify any geologic hazards, and provide
recommendations for the future development of the Project. In addition, a Paleontological Assessment was
prepared for the Project by BFSA to evaluate the potential for the Project Site to contain significant, non-
renewable paleontological (fossil) resources. These reports are included as Appendices F and G to this MND
and their findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-30
a.i) No Impact. There are no known active or dormant earthquake faults on the Project Site and the Project
Site is located outside of any Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone (SCG, 2021, p. 9). Because there are no
known faults extending through the Project Site, there is no potential for implementation of the Project to
directly or indirectly expose people or structures to adverse effects related to rupture of a known earthquake
fault. No impact would occur.
a.ii) Less than Significant Impact. 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 considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the southern California
area and is considered adequately mitigated to protect public health, safety, and welfare if buildings are
designed and constructed in conformance with applicable building codes and sound engineering practices. As
a mandatory Project condition of approval, the proposed building would be required to be constructed in
accordance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) (Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations) and the Fontana Municipal Code (Chapter 5, which adopts the CBSC without amendments). The
CBSC and Fontana Municipal Code provide standards that have been specifically tailored for California
earthquake conditions and regulate the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location,
and maintenance of all buildings and structures in order to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public
welfare. In addition, the CBSC (Chapter 18) 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 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 such a geotechnical
report for the Project Site which is included as Appendix F to this MND. The geotechnical report included
recommendations for design, construction, and grading considerations based on the specific geological
conditions observed at the Project Site and the Project’s specific land use and 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
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.
a.iii) Less than Significant Impact. According to the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlay, the
Project Site is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility (SCG, 2019, p. 11; San Bernardino
County, 2007). 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.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-31
a.iv) No Impact. The Project Site is relatively flat and there are no steep slopes or recorded landslides in the
immediate vicinity of the Project Site (CGS, 2023). Further, no slopes are located on or adjacent to the Project
Site (Google Earth, 2022). The Project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to seismic-related
landslides. No impact would occur.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The analysis presented below demonstrates that implementation of the
Project would result in a less than significant impact related to erosion.
Construction-Related Erosion Impacts
Grading and construction activities associated with the Project would expose soils to potential short-term
erosion by wind and water. The Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s
General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is
required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or
excavation, that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. In addition, the Project Applicant would be
required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program.
Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves
the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-
related activities. The Project’s 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 Applicant would be required to implement
erosion control measures to minimize water- and windborne erosion 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 measures would ensure that the
Project’s implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during
construction activities. Therefore, erosion impacts associated with Project construction activities would be
less than significant.
Post-Development Erosion Impacts
Upon Project build-out, the Project Site would be covered by an industrial commerce center building,
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 a storm drain system.
Accordingly, the amount of erosion that occurs on the Project Site would be minimal upon Project buildout
and minimized relative 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/Developer or Project Site owner would be
required to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which is a site-specific post-
construction water quality management program designed to minimize the release of potential waterborne
pollutants. The WQMP 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 preliminary WQMP for the Project, which is provided as
Technical Appendix K to this MND, is a site-specific post-construction water quality management program
designed to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including sediment. Compliance with the
WQMP will be required as a condition of approval for the Project, as would the long-term maintenance of
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-32
erosion and sediment control features. The preliminary WQMP for the Project incorporates design features
that would be effective at removing silt and sediment from storm water runoff, including non-structural source
control BMPs (such as vacuum sweeping of parking lots as part of routine maintenance), structural source
control BMPs (such as utilizing efficient irrigation systems that minimize overspray), and preventive, low
impact development BMPs (such as the use of permeable surfaces across the site, catch basin inserts, and an
underground infiltration system). The WQMP 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.
c) Less than Significant Impact. As noted under Response 4.7(a), the Project Site is not located within a
landslide zone. Additionally, the Project Site and surrounding areas are fully developed and do not have natural
or manufactured slopes. The Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable that would
result in on- or off-site landslides. No impact would occur.
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil move downslope on a
liquefied soil layer. Lateral spreading is a regional event. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable soil
zone must be laterally continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along the sloping ground. The
Project Site’s potential for lateral spreading is considered low due to the site’s relatively flat topography,
distance from slopes, and no potential for liquefaction (as noted under Response 4.7(a)), as well as the
relatively deep groundwater table beneath the Project Site (SCG, 2021, pp. 6 and 11). The Project would not
be located on a geologic unit or soil that would result in lateral spreading. No impact would occur.
Based on the conditions encountered at subsurface testing locations at the Project Site, the geotechnical
investigation determined that removal and re-compaction of the near surface native soils would result in
shrinkage of 0 to 10 percent (SCG, 2021, p. 13). However, the geotechnical report prepared for the Project
indicates that the Project 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 (SCG, 2021, pp. 14 and 15). As described in Response 4.7(a), the City will condition the Project
Applicant to comply with the site-specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in
the Project Site’s geotechnical report, which would preclude potential soil hazards. Based on the foregoing,
potential impacts related to soil shrinkage/subsidence and collapse would be less than significant.
d) No Impact. The near-surface soils consist of sands, silty sands, and gravelly sands with no appreciable
clay content. These materials were visually classified by SCG as non-expansive (SCG, 2019, p. 13).
Accordingly, the Project would not create substantial risks to life or property from exposure to expansive soils.
No impact would occur.
e) No Impact. The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems. No impact would occur.
f) Less than Significant Impact. According to the paleontological resource assessment prepared for the
Project (Technical Appendix G), the Project Site is underlain by late Holocene-aged young alluvial fan deposits
(Qyf5), mostly composed of sand, which have low paleontological sensitivity (BSFA, 2022b, p. 5). The closest
know fossil localities to the Project Site were Pleistocene fossils (i.e., mastodon, bison, and camel) recorded
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-33
approximately four miles south of the Project Site at depths of five feet below the surface (BSFA, 2022b, p.
7). Based on the Project’s distance from significant fossil localities yielded by older, Pleistocene-aged alluvial
deposits, the Holocene deposits at the Project Site can be considered to have a low potential to yield significant
paleontological resources (BSFA, 2022b, p. 8). Accordingly, the Project’s potential to directly or indirectly
destroy unique paleontological resources buried beneath the ground surface is less than significant.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-34
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
A Greenhouse Gas Analysis was prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads to quantify the greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions that would result from Project-related construction and operational activities. This report is
included as Appendix H to this MND and its findings are incorporated into the analysis presented herein.
a) Less than Significant Impact. While estimated Project-related GHG emissions can be calculated, the
direct impacts of such emissions on global climate change (GCC) and global warming cannot be determined
on the basis of available science because GCC is a global phenomenon and not limited to a specific locale such
as the Project Site and its immediate vicinity. Furthermore, there is no evidence that would indicate that the
emissions from a project the size of the proposed Project could directly or indirectly affect the global climate.
Because global climate change is the result of GHG emissions, and GHGs are emitted by innumerable sources
worldwide, the proposed Project would not result in a direct impact to global climate change; rather, Project-
related impacts to global climate change only could be potentially significant on a cumulative basis. Therefore,
the analysis below focuses on the Project’s potential to contribute to global climate change in a cumulatively
considerable way. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 16)
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 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Board developed an Interim CEQA
GHG Significance Threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (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 proposed 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
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-35
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 proposed 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,
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 never formally adopted by the SCAQMD; however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has
since been adopted or proposed by the SCAQMD. 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. 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, and further analysis would be required to determine whether
the Project’s contribution to GHG impacts would be cumulatively considerable.
The Project’s annual GHG emissions are summarized in Table 4-5, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The
methodology used to calculate the Project’s GHG emissions is described in detail in Technical Appendix H.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-36
Table 4-5 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e Annual construction-related emissions amortized over 30 years 23.43 3.33E-04 6.67E-04 0.01 23.68
Mobile Source 1,041.00 0.07 0.11 1.53 1,077.00
Area Source 3.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.52
Energy Source 387.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 388.00
Water Usage 54.90 1.28 0.03 0.00 95.90
Waste 15.27 1.53 0.00 0.00 53.40
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.22 23.22
Total CO2e (All Sources) 1,664.72
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, Table 3-6)
As shown above, the Project is estimated to result in emissions 1,664.72 MTCO2e of GHG annually, which
would not exceed the significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the Project would not
generate substantial GHG emissions – either directly or indirectly – that would have a significant impact on
the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with applicable regulations, policies, plans,
and policy goals that would reduce GHG emissions, as described below. The City of Fontana does not have
any GHG-reduction plans, policies, or regulations applicable to the Project; therefore, the analysis below
addresses the Project’s consistency with applicable State GHG-reduction plans, policies, and regulations.
The Project would provide for the construction and operation of an industrial commerce center building that
would include contemporary, energy-efficient/energy-conserving design features and operational procedures,
including those required by the City’s “Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards” (Fontana
Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article V). Industrial commerce center 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. 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.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan identifies strategies to reduce California’s GHG
emissions in support of AB32, which required the State to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
CARB updated the Scoping Plan in 2017 to identify additional measures that would achieve the emissions
reductions goals of SB 32, which requires the State to reduce its GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990
levels by 2030. According to research conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and supported
by the CARB, California, under its existing and proposed GHG reduction policies (i.e., CARB Scoping Plan),
is on track to meet the year 2030 reduction target established by SB 32 (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 37). As
explained in point-by-point detail in Section 3.7 of Appendix H, the Project would not conflict with applicable
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-37
measures of the CARB Scoping Plan and would not preclude/obstruct implementation of the Scoping Plan or
achievement of the GHG emissions goals of SB 32 (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, pp. 56-62).
In April 2015, Governor Edmund Brown Jr. signed EO B-30-15, which advocated for a statewide GHG-
reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 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 and the State has not yet released its implementation plan for achieving the year 2050 GHG
reduction goals. Rendering a significance determination for year 2050 GHG emissions relative to EO B-30-15
would be speculative because EO B-30-15 established a goal more than three decades into the future; no agency
with GHG subject matter expertise has yet 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.
Based on the foregoing analysis, 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. Impacts would be less than significant.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-38
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Path Forward Partners, Inc. (Path Forward, 2022),
to determine the presence/absence of on-site hazards and hazardous materials. This report is included as
Appendix I to this MND and their findings are incorporated in the analysis presented herein.
a & b) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would involve the use or
disposal of hazardous materials as part of its construction or routine operations, or have the potential to generate
or accidentally release toxic materials or substances during construction or operation that could adversely affect
people or the environment. The analysis below addresses the potential for hazardous materials effects
associated with the existing condition of the Project Site, constructing the proposed Project, and/or operating
the Project.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-39
Impacts Associated with Existing Site Conditions
The Project Site is undeveloped and, based on historic aerial photographs, appears to have been used on and
off for agriculture from at least 1938 until approximately 2002 (Path Forward, 2022, pp. 7-9). Based on a
review of historic regulatory agency hazardous materials databases, historic aerial photographs, interviews
with current property owners, and a reconnaissance of the Project Site, Path Forward determined that the
Project Site does not contain any recognized environmental conditions (RECs) (Path Forward, 2022, pp. 7-12).
Although the property was used for agriculture for several decades, Path Forward did not observe any evidence
of use or storage of agricultural chemicals on the property and no evidence of agricultural chemical
investigation or enforcement was found on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Envirostor database for the Project Site or surrounding properties (which also were historically used for
agriculture) (Path Forward, 2022, pp. 12-13). The types of pesticides most commonly associated with adverse
human health effects (organochlorides such as DDT and dieldrin) were banned from agricultural use in the
early 1970s. Given the rate of degradation for organochloride pesticides, the amount of time that has passed
since these pesticides could have, theoretically, been applied to the site, the Project Site likely only contains
trace concentrations of pesticides – if any at all – and Path Forward concluded that potential historic agricultural
chemical use on the Project Site represented a de minimis hazard to the public and the environment (Path
Forward, 2022, p. 13).
Based on the foregoing information, there are no existing conditions or features on the Project Site that would
represent a substantial hazard to the public or the environment.
Temporary Construction-Related Activities
Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractor) would operate on the subject property during construction
of the Project. Heavy equipment is typically fueled and maintained by petroleum-based substances such as
diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which is considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled.
Also, 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 proposed Project than would occur on any other
similar construction site. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal,
State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction‐related
materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
US Department of Transportation regulations listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 49, Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act); California Department of Transportation standards; California Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), SCAQMD, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
and the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH),
better known as Cal/OSHA. With mandatory compliance to 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. Impacts would be less than significant.
Long-Term Operational Activities
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-
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-40
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 requires businesses to plan and prepare for possible chemical
emergencies. Any business that occupies the commerce center 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 and no mitigation is
required.
c) No Impact. The Project Site is not located within 0.25-mile of an existing school. Furthermore, as
described above under Responses 4.9(a) and 4.9(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.
d) No Impact. 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. The Project Site is
listed on hazardous materials databases including the Employment and Compliance History Online (ECHO),
Facility Index Systems (FINDS), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Non-Generator (RCRA
NonGen/NLR) databases; however, none of these databases are regulated by Government Code Section
65962.5 (Path Forward, 2022, pp. 11-12). Accordingly, no impact would occur.
e) No Impact. The Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within two miles of a
public use airport. The nearest public use airport is the Ontario International Airport, approximately 7.1 miles
southwest of the Project Site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a safety or noise hazard for
people working at the Project Site.
f) No 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, the proposed Project would be required to
maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. As part of the City’s discretionary review
process, the City of Fontana 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 the Project would not substantially
impede emergency response times in the local area. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-41
impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan, and no impact would occur.
g) No Impact. The Project Site is not located within a State Responsibility Area or a very high fire hazard
severity zone and is not located adjacent to wildlands (City of Fontana, 2018a, p. 11-4; CAL FIRE, 2007;
Google Earth, 2022). 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.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-42
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
A Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
were prepared for the Project by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (JLC, 2022a; JLC, 2022b). The
Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study identifies drainage patterns and off-site flow tributary to the
Project Site and evaluates post-development runoff conditions. The hydraulic calculations are intended to be
used to design the Project’s storm drain system. The purpose of the Preliminary WQMP is to help identify
pollutants of concern, establish the BMPs for the Project to minimize the release of pollutants of concern, and
establish long term maintenance responsibilities for the Project’s water quality features. These reports are
included as Appendices J and K, respectively, to this MND and their findings are incorporated into the analysis
presented herein.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-43
a) Less than Significant Impact. As demonstrated in the analysis below, the Project would not violate any
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established regulations under the NPDES program to control direct storm water discharges. In California, the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is
responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial
pollutant discharges, which include construction activities. The SWRCB works in coordination with the
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality.
The City of Fontana, including the Project Site, is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.
The Project has the potential to result in water quality impacts during short-term construction activities. The
grading/excavation required for Project implementation would temporarily result in exposed soils that may be
subject to wind and water erosion. Although erosion occurs naturally in the environment, improperly managed
construction activities can lead to substantially accelerated rates of erosion that are considered detrimental to
the environment. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction of
the Project in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures. Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa
Ana RWQCB and the City of Fontana (Municipal Code Chapter 5 [Section 5-14] and Chapter 23 [Article IX]),
the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm
Water Permit (NPDES Permit). The NPDES Permit is required for all projects that include construction
activities, such as clearing, soil stockpiling, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one (1) acre of total
land area, as is the case with the proposed Project. Compliance with the NPDES Permit involves the preparation
and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) for construction-related
activities, including grading. The SWPPP will specify the BMPs that the Project Applicant would be required
to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are prevented,
minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property.
Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers,
geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding. Mandatory
compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the Project’s construction does not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements.
Stormwater pollutants that may be produced during Project operation include pathogens (bacteria/virus),
metals, oil and grease, solvents, oxygen demanding compounds, and trash/debris (all from pavement runoff)
and phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment, metals, oil and grease, trash/debris, pesticides/herbicides, and organic
compounds (all from landscaping on-site) (JLC, 2022b, p. 2-4). The Project Applicant would be required to
implement a WQMP 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 WQMP is a site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed
to ensure the on-going protection of the watershed basin. The Project’s preliminary WQMP is included as
Technical Appendix K to this EIR. As identified in the preliminary WQMP, the Project is designed to include
structural source control BMPs (including a catch basin inserts, and underground infiltration chambers beneath
the truck yard) 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 for pollutants of concern before they are discharged into the municipal storm drain system. Technical
details of the proposed BMPs are provided in the Project’s preliminary WMQP. Compliance with the
preliminary WQMP would be required as a condition of Project approval pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-44
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. The Project Applicant 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 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 construction or long-
term operation. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be served with potable water from the Fontana Water
Company, and the Project Applicant does not propose the use of any wells or other groundwater extraction
activities. Therefore, the Project would not directly draw water from the groundwater table. Accordingly,
implementation of the proposed Project has no potential to substantially deplete or decrease groundwater
supplies and the Project’s 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 aquifer that underlies the Project Site and most of
the City and surrounding area (i.e., Chino Groundwater Basin). However, a majority of the groundwater
recharge in the Chino Groundwater Basin occurs within percolation basins (also known as “recharge basins”)
located in the northern and western portions of the Groundwater Basin (CBWM, 2017, Exhibit 3-7). The
Project Site is located in the northeastern portion of the Chino Groundwater Basin and would not physically
impact any of the major groundwater recharge facilities in the Basin and, therefore, 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 underground
infiltration chambers and permeable landscape areas. Accordingly, buildout of the Project with these design
features would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge of the Chino groundwater basin. Impacts
would be less than significant.
c.i) Less than Significant Impact. As previously addressed under Response 4.7(b), the Project has been
designed to minimize erosion and the Project Applicant would be required to implement a SWPPP during
construction and a WQMP during operation to ensure substantial erosion does not occur. Impacts related to
erosion or siltation would be less than significant.
c. ii & iii) Less than Significant Impact. The Project’s storm drain system is designed to reduce the peak
stormwater runoff flow rate and discharge volume to below existing conditions. Additionally, calculations
performed by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. demonstrate the Project would not create or contribute
runoff that would exceed the capacity of any existing or planned stormwater drainage system (JLC, 2022a, pp.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-45
3-6). Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
water runoff discharged from the site in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site or that would
exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system servicing the Project Site. Impacts would be
less than significant.
As discussed under the analysis of Response 4.10(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 WQMP to
ensure that Project-related construction activities and operational activities do not result in substantial amounts
of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.
c. iv) No Impact. According to the FEMA FIRM No. 06071C8651H, the Project Site is located within
“Flood Zone X (unshaded)” which corresponds with areas of minimal flood hazard (i.e., less than 0.2-percent
annual chance of flood) (FEMA, 2008). Accordingly, development on the Project Site would have no potential
to place housing, or other structures, within a 100-year floodplain or impede or redirect flood flows within a
100-year floodplain. No impact would occur.
d) No Impact. The Pacific Ocean is located more than 40 miles southwest of the Project Site; consequently,
there is no potential for the Project Site to be impacted by a tsunami, because tsunamis typically can only reach
up to a few miles inland. The Site also is not subject to a flood hazard or seiche zone because the nearest large
bodies of surface water are approximately 15.7 miles southwest of the Project Site (Prado Lake), approximately
17.6 miles south of the Project Site (Lake Mathews) and approximately 23.3 miles southeast of the Project Site
(Lake Perris), respectively, which are all too far away from the subject property to impact the property with a
flood hazard or seiche. (Google Earth, 2022) Accordingly, the Project would not risk release of pollutants
due to inundation. No impact would occur.
e) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response 4.10(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. 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 basin (DWR, n.d.).
Adjudicated basins are exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because
such basins already operate under a court-ordered water management plan to ensure their long-term
sustainability. No component of the Project would obstruct with or prevent implementation of the management
plan for the Chino Groundwater Basin. As such, the Project’s construction and operation would not conflict
with any sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-46
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) No Impact. Development of the Project would not physically disrupt or divide the arrangement of an
established community. The residential community to the north of the Project Site is separated from the Project
Site by the Pacific Electric Trail; the property to the east is separated from the Site by public right-of-way for
Beech Avenue; Foothill Boulevard forms the southern boundary of the Project Site; and an existing industrial
facility is located to the west of the Project Site (Google Earth, 2022). Due to the existing physical barriers
and development 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. No impact would occur.
b) No Impact. The Project is consistent with the property’s “Light Industrial (I-L)” General Plan designation
and would not conflict with any applicable policies from the General Plan. As disclosed in this MND,
implementation of the Project would not conflict with any applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the
AQMP, SCAG’s RTP/SCS or SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan, which rely on General Plan consistency
for general compliance with those regional plans, or other applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations.
As such, no impacts associated with potential conflicts with plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects would occur.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-47
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a & b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2),
which is an area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where
it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists (CDC, 1995). However, the mineral resource zone
classifications assigned by the DOC focus solely on geologic factors and the potential value and marketability
of a mineral resource, without regard to existing land use and ownership or the compatibility of surrounding
land uses. The City’s General Plan, which establishes the City’s plan for the highest and best use of the Project
Site in consideration of the local land use context, designates the Project Site for industrial land uses. This
means that the City has determined that planned industrial land uses on the Project Site are more valuable to
the region than potential mineral extraction uses. Additionally, due to constraints on and abutting the Project
site (e.g., the relatively small size and narrow dimensions of the Site, which present issues related to required
equipment setbacks and staging areas, and the residential land uses adjacent to the Site to the north) mineral
resources extraction would not be feasible on-site. Lastly, the City’s General Plan does not identify any
important mineral resource recovery sites on- or in the proximity of the Project Site. For the reasons described
above, the Project Site is determined to not contain a mineral resource of substantial value to the region and
development of the Project would not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource site.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-48
4.13 NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
A Noise Impact Analysis and Focused Noise Assessment were prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads
to evaluate Project-related long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts. These reports are
included as Appendices L1 and L2 to this MND and their findings are incorporated into the analysis presented
herein.
a) Less than Significant Impact. The analysis presented on the following pages summarizes the Project’s
potential construction noise levels and operational noise levels. The detailed noise calculations for the analysis
presented here are provided in Appendices 5.2 through 10.2 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (see
Appendix L).
Construction Noise Impact Analysis
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual recognizes
that construction projects are accomplished in several different stages and outlines the procedures for assessing
noise impacts during construction. Each stage has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be
completed during that stage. As a result of the equipment mix, each stage has its own noise characteristics;
some stages have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have higher impact noise levels than
others. Project construction activities are expected to proceed in five (5) stages, primarily during daytime
hours: 1) site preparation; 2) grading; 3) building construction; 4) paving; and 5) application of architectural
coatings. These activities would create temporary periods of noise when heavy construction equipment is in
operation and would cause a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. Project construction noise levels at
nearby, representative sensitive receptor locations are summarized in Table 4-6. Receptor locations are
illustrated on Figure 4-1, Noise Receiver Locations. The modeled noise-sensitive receiver locations include
existing homes, motels, and a park in the Project vicinity, and are representative of existing sensitive receptors
nearest the Project Site.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-50
Table 4-6 Project Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary (Daytime)
Receiver Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Highest Levels2
R1 59.2 62.2 60.2 62.2 56.2 62.2
R2 62.5 65.5 63.5 65.5 59.5 65.5 R3 54.4 57.4 55.4 57.4 51.4 57.4
R4 53.1 56.1 54.1 56.1 50.1 56.1
R5 54.9 57.9 55.9 57.9 51.9 57.9
R6 59.0 62.0 60.0 62.0 56.0 62.0
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 4-1. 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 Appendix L. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 10-2) As shown in Table 4-6, noise levels during peak Project construction conditions would range from 56.1 to 65.5
dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. The noise levels presented in Table 4-6 are expected to occur during
daytime hours when construction activities are allowed by right pursuant to City Municipal Code Section 18-
63(7); 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, 2023a, p. 49). 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 4-7, Project Construction Noise Level Summary (Nighttime). At all receiver locations, the Project’s
nighttime concrete pouring noise levels would not exceed the standards established by the City- and would be
less than the safety standards adopted by NIOSH – and impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4-7 Project Construction Noise Level Summary (Nighttime)
Receiver Location1
Concrete Pour Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Exterior Noise Levels2 Nighttime Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4
R1 47.0 65 No R2 48.8 65 No
R3 42.0 65 No R4 40.8 65 No
R5 42.9 65 No
R6 47.1 65 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 4-1. 2 Nighttime Concrete Pour noise model inputs are included in Appendix 10.2 of Appendix L. 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, 2023a, Table 10-4)
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-51
Operational Noise Impact Analysis – Stationary Noise
Stationary (on-site) noise sources associated with long-term Project operation are expected to include loading
dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck
movements. The daytime and nighttime stationary noise levels associated with Project operation at nearby
sensitive receptor locations (the same receptor locations used for the construction analysis, above) are
summarized in Table 4-8, Project Stationary Noise Summary.
Table 4-8 Project Stationary Noise Summary
Receiver Location1
Project Operational Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards (dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 49.2 49.2 70 65 No No R2 53.0 53.0 70 65 No No
R3 45.8 45.7 70 65 No No R4 44.5 44.5 70 65 No No
R5 45.4 45.3 70 65 No No
R6 44.0 43.9 70 65 No No
1 See Figure 4-1 for the receiver locations. 2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Tables 9-2 and 9-3 of Appendix L. 3 Exterior noise level standards, as shown on Table 4-1 of Appendix L. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 9-4)
The maximum daytime hourly noise levels at off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 44.0 to
53.0 dBA Leq, which would correspond to an increase above existing ambient noise levels of between 0.0 dBA
Leq (at receivers R4 and R5) and 3.8 dBA Leq (at receiver R2) (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, p. 43). The maximum
nighttime hourly noise levels at off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 43.9 to 53.0 dBA Leq,
which would correspond to an increase above existing ambient noise levels of between 0.0 dBA Leq (at
receivers R4 and R5) and 4.0 dBA Leq (at receiver R2) (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, p. 44). Neither the daytime
nor nighttime Project noise levels would exceed the applicable thresholds of significance (Urban Crossroads,
2023a, pp. 42-44). Project operational noise levels would be less than significant.
Operational Noise Impact Analysis – Traffic Noise
To evaluate off-site noise increases that could result from Project-related traffic, noise levels were modeled for
the following traffic scenarios:
• Existing plus Project: This scenario evaluates a theoretical condition where the Project is added to traffic conditions that exist today, without considering ambient growth or cumulative development projects. Traffic noise conditions under this scenario were evaluated under interim traffic patterns (with the temporary improvements at the Foothill Boulevard and Beech Avenue intersection provided by the Project) and under long-term traffic patterns that would exist upon the City’s completion of the planned Capital Improvement Program project to the Foothill Boulevard segment between Hemlock Avenue and Almeria
Avenue.
• Opening Year: This scenario refers to the existing traffic noise conditions with expected ambient growth and cumulative development projects added to reflect projected roadway noise conditions at the time the Project becomes operational in the year 2024. Traffic noise conditions under this scenario were evaluated under interim traffic patterns (with the temporary improvements at the Foothill Boulevard and Beech
Avenue intersection provided by the Project) and under long-term traffic patterns that would exist upon
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-52
the City’s completion of the planned Capital Improvement Program project to the Foothill Boulevard segment between Hemlock Avenue and Almeria Avenue.
Traffic noise contours and noise levels were established based on existing and projected future traffic
conditions on off-site roadway segments within the Project’s study area, and do not take into account the effect
of any existing noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. Refer to the Project’s Noise
Impact Analysis (see Technical Appendix L) for a detailed description of the methodology and thresholds of
significance used to evaluate the Project’s traffic-related noise effects.
Tables 4-9 (interim) and 4-10 (long-term) summarize existing noise levels along Project study area roadway
segments and noise levels with the addition of Project traffic. Under this analysis scenario, the Project would
result in a noise increase of between 0.0 to 0.3 dBA along study area intersections with interim traffic patterns
and between 0.0 to 0.2 dBA with long-term traffic patterns, which would not exceed the applicable significance
thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to off-site traffic noise would not result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels under Existing plus Project traffic conditions and Project-related
impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4-9 Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Level Summary (Interim)
Road Segment Receiving Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise Level Increase Threshold3 No Project With Project Project Increment Limit Exceeded?
Cherry Av. n/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Non-Sensitive 74.6 74.7 0.1 1.5 No
Cherry Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 74.4 74.5 0.1 1.5 No Redwood Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 66.4 66.4 0.0 1.5 No Hemlock Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 63.9 63.9 0.0 3.0 No Almeria Av. n/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 67.1 67.2 0.1 1.5 No Citrus Av. n/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 73.5 73.6 0.1 1.5 No
Citrus Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 73.9 74.0 0.1 1.5 No
Foothill Bl.
(SR-66) w/o Cherry Av. Sensitive 74.9 74.9 0.0 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Cherry Av. Non-Sensitive 74.9 75.2 0.3 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) w/o Hemlock Av. Sensitive 74.4 74.6 0.2 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Hemlock Av. Sensitive 74.6 74.8 0.2 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Beech Av. Sensitive 74.4 74.5 0.1 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) w/o Citrus Av. Non-Sensitive 74.5 74.6 0.1 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Citrus Av. Sensitive 74.4 74.4 0.0 1.5 No
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria? Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023d, Table 1)
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-53
Table 4-10 Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Level Summary (Long-Term)
Road Segment Receiving Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise Level Increase Threshold3 No Project With Project Project Increment Limit Exceeded?
Cherry Av. n/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Non-Sensitive 74.6 74.7 0.1 1.5 No
Cherry Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 74.4 74.5 0.1 1.5 No
Redwood Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 66.4 66.4 0.0 1.5 No
Hemlock Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 63.9 63.9 0.0 3.0 No
Almeria Av. n/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 67.1 67.2 0.1 1.5 No
Citrus Av. n/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 73.5 73.6 0.1 1.5 No
Citrus Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 73.9 74.0 0.1 1.5 No
Foothill Bl.
(SR-66) w/o Cherry Av. Sensitive 74.9 74.9 0.0 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Cherry Av. Non-Sensitive 74.9 75.1 0.2 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) w/o Hemlock Av. Sensitive 74.4 74.6 0.2 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Hemlock Av. Sensitive 74.6 74.8 0.2 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Beech Av. Sensitive 74.4 74.5 0.1 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) w/o Citrus Av. Non-Sensitive 74.5 74.6 0.1 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Citrus Av. Sensitive 74.4 74.4 0.0 1.5 No
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria? Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 7-5)
Tables 4-11 (interim) and 4-12 (long-term) presents a comparison of existing noise levels (with ambient
growth) along Project study area roadway segments and the noise levels that result with addition of Project
traffic. Under this Opening Year scenario, the Project would result in a noise increase of between 0.0 to 0.2
dBA to adjacent roadway segments with both interim and long-term traffic patterns, which would not exceed
the applicable significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to off-site traffic noise would not
result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels under Opening Year traffic conditions and
Project-related impacts would be less than significant.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-54
Table 4-11 Opening Year Traffic Noise Level Summary (Interim)
Road Segment Receiving Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise Level Increase Threshold3 No Project With Project Project Increment Limit Exceeded?
Cherry Av. n/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Non-Sensitive 75.2 75.2 0.0 1.5 No
Cherry Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 74.9 75.0 0.1 1.5 No
Redwood Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 66.7 66.7 0.0 1.5 No
Hemlock Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 64.3 64.3 0.0 3.0 No
Almeria Av. n/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 67.9 67.9 0.0 1.5 No
Citrus Av. n/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 73.9 73.9 0.0 1.5 No
Citrus Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 74.2 74.3 0.1 1.5 No
Foothill Bl.
(SR-66) w/o Cherry Av. Sensitive 75.6 75.6 0.0 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Cherry Av. Non-Sensitive 76.1 76.2 0.1 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) w/o Hemlock Av. Sensitive 74.8 75.0 0.2 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Hemlock Av. Sensitive 75.3 75.5 0.2 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Beech Av. Sensitive 75.1 75.2 0.1 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) w/o Citrus Av. Non-Sensitive 75.4 75.4 0.0 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Citrus Av. Sensitive 75.2 75.2 0.0 1.5 No
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use.
3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria? Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023d, Table 2)
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-55
Table 4-12 Opening Year Traffic Noise Level Summary (Long-Term)
Road Segment Receiving Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental Noise Level Increase Threshold3 No Project With Project Project Increment Limit Exceeded?
Cherry Av. n/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Non-Sensitive 75.2 75.2 0.0 1.5 No
Cherry Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 74.9 75.0 0.1 1.5 No
Redwood Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 66.7 66.7 0.0 1.5 No
Hemlock Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 64.3 64.3 0.0 3.0 No
Almeria Av. n/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 67.9 67.9 0.0 1.5 No
Citrus Av. n/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 73.9 73.9 0.0 1.5 No
Citrus Av. s/o Foothill Bl. (SR-66) Sensitive 74.2 74.3 0.1 1.5 No
Foothill Bl.
(SR-66) w/o Cherry Av. Sensitive 75.6 75.6 0.0 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Cherry Av. Non-Sensitive 76.1 76.2 0.1 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) w/o Hemlock Av. Sensitive 74.8 75.0 0.2 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Hemlock Av. Sensitive 75.3 75.5 0.2 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Beech Av. Sensitive 75.2 75.2 0.0 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) w/o Citrus Av. Non-Sensitive 75.4 75.4 0.0 1.5 No
Foothill Bl. (SR-66) e/o Citrus Av. Sensitive 75.2 75.2 0.0 1.5 No
1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use.
3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria? Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 7-6)
b) Less than Significant Impact. As demonstrated by the analysis below, implementation of the Project
would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise.
Construction Analysis
Table 4-11, Project Construction Vibration Levels, summarizes Project construction vibration levels at the
modeled receiver locations. As shown, all receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project Site would be exposed
to vibration levels that fall below the City’s significance threshold (i.e., 0.3 in/sec peak particle velocity [PPV])
(Urban Crossroads, 2023a, p. 52). Accordingly, Project construction would not generate temporary, excessive
groundborne vibration or noise levels and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Operational Analysis
Under long-term conditions, expected operational activities at the Project Site would not include or require
equipment, facilities, or activities that would result in perceptible ground-borne vibration. Trucks would travel
to and from the Project Site on surrounding roadways; however, vibration and groundborne noise levels for
heavy trucks operating at the posted speed limits on smooth, paved surfaces – as is expected on the Project
Site and surrounding roadways is minimal. Accordingly, Project operation would not generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and impacts would be less than significant.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-56
Table 4-11 Project Construction Vibration Levels
Receiver1
Distance to Const. Activity (Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds PPV (in/sec)4
Thresholds Exceeded?5 Small bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded Trucks Large bulldozer Vibratory Roller
Highest Vibration Level
R1 88' 0.000 0.005 0.012 0.013 0.032 0.032 0.3 No
R2 130' 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.008 0.018 0.018 0.3 No
R3 772' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R4 852' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R5 737' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R6 332' 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.3 No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Figure 4-1. 2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary (Project site boundary).
3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 10-4 of Appendix L). 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Table 19, p. 38.
5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 10-6)
c) No Impact. The Project Site is not located within two miles of a public airport or within an airport land
use plan. The closest airport is the Ontario International Airport located roughly 6.6 miles southwest of the
Project Site. As such, the Project Site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations,
and therefore, no impact would occur.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-57
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project Applicant would develop the Project Site with employment
generating land uses. The Project Site is located in an area of Fontana that is already developing with
employment land uses and the Project Site is already 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 Project area (and the larger City of Fontana) and would not generate job growth
that substantially exceeds what was already anticipated by the City in their General Plan or by the Southern
California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2040 employment projections for the City of Fontana (which
are based on the assumption of buildout of the General Plan). 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 infrastructure beyond what is needed to service the Project (and
which is already anticipated by local master plans). Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not
induce direct or indirect substantial unplanned growth in the area and impacts would be less than significant.
b) No Impact. The Project Site does not contain any residential structures and no people live on the Project
Site under existing conditions. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not displace substantial
numbers of existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. No impact would occur.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-58
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which would cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
v) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a. i) Less than Significant Impact. Under existing conditions, the Project Site receives fire protection
services from the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) via Station 73 through a contract with the San
Bernardino County Fire Department. Station 73 is located at 8143 Banana Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335,
approximately 1.4 roadway miles to the west of the Project Site (Google Earth, 2022). The City of Fontana
Community Development Department, Planning Division forwarded the Project’s application materials to the
FFPD for review and comment and the City has determined that the Project can be adequately served by fire
protection services and that 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. Furthermore, the Project’s land uses are consistent with the City of Fontana
General Plan Land Use Map and the EIR for the City’s General Plan concluded that implementation of the
General Plan Land Use Map would neither result in significant adverse effects on the FFPD’s ability to provide
adequate fire protection services in the City nor preclude implementation of the FFPD’s Strategic Plan (City
of Fontana, 2018b, pp. 5.12-5 to 5.12-7).
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.
The Project would incorporate fire prevention and fire suppression design features to minimize the potential
demand placed on the FFPD. The proposed building 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
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-59
construction. The Project also would install fire hydrants on-site – and the FFPD will assign a condition of
approval to the Project 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 to facilitate fire suppression.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed Project would receive adequate fire protection service and would not
result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Impacts to fire protection facilities
would be less than significant.
a. ii) Less than Significant Impact. 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, and the City has determined that the Project would not
necessitate or result in the construction of new or physically altered police facilities. Furthermore, the Project’s
land uses are consistent with the City of Fontana General Plan Land Use Map and the EIR for the City’s
General Plan concluded that implementation of the General Plan Land Use Map would not result in significant
adverse effects on the FPD’s ability to provide adequate police protection services in the City (City of Fontana,
2018b, pp. 5.12-1 to 5.12-4). Additionally, and pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Section 21-122, the
Project would be subject to payment of DIF fees. 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 (City of Fontana, 2022, 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, the Project’s impacts to police protection services would be less than significant.
a. iii) Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project would not create a direct demand for
public school services, as the Project Site would contain non-residential uses that would not generate any
school-aged children requiring public education. The addition of employment-generating uses on the Project
Site would assist the City in achieving its goal to provide a better jobs/housing balance within the City
(allowing more City residents to work within the City rather than commute elsewhere). Thus, the Project is not
expected to draw a substantial number of new residents to the region and would therefore not indirectly
generate new school-aged students in the City requiring public education. 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 demand for additional public-school services, the Project Applicant would be
required to contribute development impact fees to the Fontana Unified School District in compliance with
California Senate Bill 50 (Greene), 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 a building permit. With mandatory payment of fees in accordance with
California Senate Bill 50, impacts to public schools would be less than significant.
a. iv) No Impact. 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. In addition, the Project
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-60
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. Accordingly,
implementation of the Project would not result in environmental effects related to the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities or the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood
or regional park. No impact would occur.
a. v) No Impact. The Project is not expected to result in a demand for other public facilities/services,
including libraries, 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.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-61
4.16 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) No Impact. 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. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the increased use or
substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park. No impact would occur.
b) No Impact. The Project does not include the construction of any new on- or off-site recreation facilities.
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 with implementation of the
proposed Project. No impact would occur.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-62
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
The California Natural Resources Agency adopted changes to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018 that
require vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to be used as the metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts as
of July 1, 2020. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), automobile delay, as measured by level of
service (LOS) and other similar metrics, no longer constitute 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”) that was prepared by Urban
Crossroads in conformance with the City of Fontana’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (October 21, 2020). The Traffic Study for the Project
is provided as Appendices M1 and M2 to this MND.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. 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.
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.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-63
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 under Response 4.17(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 provides for the extension of Beech Avenue to the Project
Site, including the installation of a sidewalk on the west side of the street. The Project provides on-site bicycle
parking facilities and no component of the Project would obstruct or prevent the use of the Pacific Electric
Trail segment that abuts the Project Site or existing transit stops along Foothill Boulevard in proximity to
Beech Avenue. 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.
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 alter the vehicular travel way for Foothill Boulevard and, thus, would not affect Foothill
Boulevard’s’ ability to serve adjacent land uses. The Project would extend Beech Avenue from Foothill
Boulevard to just south of the Pacific Electric Trail where it would end in a cul-de-sac on the eastern side of
the Project Site. As discussed in detail in in response 4.17(c) below, the Project would not introduce
incompatible uses or design hazards that would result in safety hazards to cars, pedestrians, or bicyclists. The
Project would not conflict with this General Plan policy.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-64
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 goals and policies of SCAG’s regional planning program. Further, the
Project would provide for the construction of a sidewalk along the western side of the extended Beech 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 Foothill Boulevard. The Project
would extend Beech Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to just south of the Pacific Electric Trail where it would
end in a cul-de-sac on the eastern side of the Project Site. The Project would provide for the construction of a
sidewalk along the western side of the extended Beech Avenue and the Project would not introduce any hazards
or obstacles within the right-of-way, thereby ensuring this sidewalk remains safe and accessible for pedestrians.
Lastly, ramps provided at Project driveway connecting to Beech 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.
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.
Truck traffic accessing/exiting the Project Site would utilize Foothill Boulevard, which is a designated City of
Fontana truck route. Project-related traffic would utilize Foothill Boulevard to access I-15 to the west or I-215
to the east. Accordingly, Project-related truck traffic is expected to solely utilize City truck routes between the
Project Site and the State highway system rather than utilizing 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 66 along Foothill Boulevard with a stop at Foothill Boulevard and Beech 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 66. 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.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-65
The Project’s site plan provides motor vehicle parking 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 0.1-mile north of Foothill Boulevard, a designated City of Fontana truck route, that
would provide direct access to/from the Site from I-15 and I-215. The Project would not conflict with this
General Plan policy.
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 2.7 miles north of I-10. The Project Site is located 0.1-mile north of Foothill
Boulevard, a city designated truck route, and 3.4 miles west of I-15. Although the Project Site is not within the
I-10 corridor, it is located in an area with easy access to regional transportation routes. Additionally, the Project
is consistent with the land use designation for the property. The Project would not conflict with this General
Plan policy.
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 City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicles Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment
(“Traffic Analysis Guidelines”) establish a “zero net increase” significance threshold for VMT within the City
of Fontana. Pursuant to the Traffic Analysis Guidelines, small development projects, which are defined as
projects that generate 500 or fewer net daily traffic trips, would clearly generate minimal VMT within the City
that would not substantially influence or increase VMT within the City. As described in detail under the
response 4.17(b), the Project is classified as a small development project for purposes of VMT evaluation
because it would generate fewer than 500 net daily traffic trips. Accordingly, 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 proposes to construct a sidewalk on the west side of the extended Beech Avenue segment and
would provide bicycle parking facilities, thereby preserving and promoting local opportunities for walking and
bicycling. The Project would not conflict with this objective from the Active Transportation Plan.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-66
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
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 proposes to construct a sidewalk along the west side of the extended Beech Avenue and would
provide bicycle parking facilities, thereby preserving and promoting local opportunities for walking and
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 proposes to construct a sidewalk along the west side of the extended Beech Avenue and the Project
would not introduce any hazards or obstacles within the right-of-way, thereby ensuring this sidewalk would be
safe and accessible for pedestrians. Lastly, ramps provided at Project driveway connecting to Beech 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.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project’s traffic was evaluated against screening criteria to determine
if it could be determined that the Project would not generate substantial vehicle miles traveled (VMT) – and,
therefore, be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) – or if additional analysis was needed to
determine the potential significance of Project-related VMT. The screening criteria used in the Project analysis
are established in the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. Pursuant to the Traffic Impact Analysis
Guidelines, development projects that include employment land uses and generate less than 500 actual daily
vehicle trips are considered to have a less than significant impact related to VMT. The Project is calculated to
generate 426 actual daily vehicle trips and, thus, would result in a less-than-significant environmental impact
related to VMT (Urban Crossroads, 2023b, pp. 11 and 31). Accordingly, and consistent with the evaluation
criteria established by the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, implementation of the Project would not
generate excessive VMT and, therefore, would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3(b). The Project would result in a less than significant impact related to VMT.
There are no San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) arterial roadways adjacent to 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, 2023b, pp. 6, 31). 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.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-67
c) Less than Significant Impact. The types of traffic generated during operation of the Project (i.e.,
passenger cars and trucks) would be compatible with the type of traffic observed along study area roadways
under existing conditions. All proposed improvements within the public right-of-way would be installed in
conformance with City design standards. If any component of Project construction would occur in the public
right-of-way and require the partial or full closure of a sidewalk and/or travel lane, all work would be required
to adhere to the applicable construction control practices that are specified in the State of California
Department of Transportation Construction Manual, dated January 2021 and published by Caltrans, to
minimize potential safety hazards. The City reviewed the Project’s application materials and determined that
no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced within the City public right-of-way through
implementation of the Project. Based on the foregoing information, the Project’s construction and operation
would not create or substantially increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Impacts
would be less than significant.
d) No Impact. The City reviewed the Project’s site plan drawings and confirmed that the Project would
provide adequate access to and from the Project Site and within the Project Site for emergency vehicle
response. 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 application materials and determined that no hazardous
transportation design features would be introduced through implementation of the Project. 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.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-68
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) 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)?
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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a.i & a.ii) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. To be eligible for the California
Register of Historic Places (Pub. Res. Code 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852), 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.
No prehistoric resource sites, features, places, or landscapes 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 were found on the Project Site (BSFA, 2022a, pp. 1.0-18 and 3.0-1). Furthermore, no substantial
evidence was presented to or found by the City of Fontana that led to the identification of any 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. The City consulted
with each tribe that requested consultation and consultation was closed on June 1, 2023. During the course of
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-69
the tribal consultation process, during which only one tribe responded to the City, no evidence indicating that
tribal cultural resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, are present on the Project Site or
have been found previously on the Project Site. Notwithstanding, due to the Project Site’s location in an area
where Native American tribes are known to have a cultural affiliation, the responding tribe indicated that there
is the possibility that prehistoric archaeological resources – including tribal cultural resources – could be
encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities. Were a tribal cultural resource, as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074, to be found on the Project Site during construction – and not protected
– a significant impact would occur. The responding tribe requested that a monitoring program be implemented
during grading as mitigation for this potential impact.
Implementation of MM CR-1 (previously identified under Section 4.5) 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.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-70
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunication facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, State, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would construct an on-site network of water and sewer pipes
and stormwater facilities that would run beneath Beech Avenue and connect to existing water, sewer, and storm
drain lines beneath Foothill Boulevard. The Project also would install connections to existing electricity, 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 Project Applicant
does not anticipate the need to provide natural gas service to the Project Site (although Project natural gas
usage was assumed in the air quality, energy, and greenhouse gas analyses presented earlier in the MND as a
conservative measure). The construction of proposed utility improvements has the potential to result in
environmental effects associated with short-term air pollutant emissions, noise emissions, water quality effects,
and traffic movement disruptions, as well as potential impacts to biological resources and cultural resources
that are an inherent part of the Project’s construction process. However, these impacts already were included
in the construction-level impact analysis provided under Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, 4.10, 4.13, and 4.17 of this
MND and, where significant construction-related impacts are identified under these sections, feasible and
enforceable mitigation measures are imposed by this MND to reduce the Project’s impacts to less than
significant levels. There are no significant environmental impacts specifically related to the construction of the
Project’s proposed utility connections/improvements.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-71
b) Less than Significant Impact. 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 7-8). FWC forecasts for
projected water demand are based on the population and growth projections of the Southern California
Association of Governments (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 of Fontana General Plan land use designation for the Project Site, the water demand associated
with the Project was considered in the demand anticipated by 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. The Project’s impact would be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project is calculated to generate 19,140 gallons per day (gpd) of
wastewater (2,200 gpd/acre × 8.4 acres = 18,480 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, 2022a).
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, 2022b). The wastewater generated by the Project would only represent
approximately 0.12 percent of the excess treatment capacity of RP-1 ([18,480 gpd ÷ 16 million gpd] × 100 =
0.12%) or approximately 0.46 percent of the excess treatment capacity of RP-4 ([18,480 gpd ÷ 4 million gpd]
× 100 = 0.48%); 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 would therefore result in less-than-significant impacts.
d) Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed 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) In August 2022, the peak daily disposal at the Mid-Valley Landfill was 4,389 tons, which
correlates to an excess daily disposal capacity of 3,111 tons (CalRecycle, 2022).
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., 168,760 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 366.2 tons of waste is expected to be generated during the Project’s
construction phase ([168,760 s.f. × 4.34 pounds per s.f.] ÷ 2,000 pounds per ton = 366.2 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
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-72
estimated to generate approximately 183.1 tons during its construction phase. The Project’s construction phase
is estimated to last for up to 347 days; therefore, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 0.53 tons
of solid waste per day (183.1 tons ÷ 347 days = 0.53 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 its 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. The Mid-Valley
Landfill has sufficient daily capacity to accept solid waste generated by the Project’s construction phase;
therefore, impacts to landfill capacity associated with the Project’s near-term construction activities would be
less than significant.
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
1.20 tons of solid waste per day ([[1.42 pounds ÷ 100 s.f.] × 168,760 s.f. ] ÷ 2,000 pounds = 1.20 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
from landfills; therefore, the Project would generate a maximum of 0.6 tons of solid waste per day requiring
landfilling (1.20 tons per day × 50% = 0.60 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. 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 during the Project’s long-term operational activities would be less than significant.
e) Less than Significant Impact. 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 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 (Public Resources Code § 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. (CA
Legislative Information, 2005) Additionally, 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 (CA Legislative Information,
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, impacts related to solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-73
4.20 WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary on ongoing impacts to the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a-d) No Impact. CAL FIRE adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps for State Responsibility
Areas (SRAs) in November 2007. The fire hazard model considers the wildland fuels; fuel is that part of the
natural vegetation that burns during the wildfire. The model also considers topography, especially the steepness
of the slopes; fires burn faster up-slope. Weather (temperature, humidity, and wind) has a significant influence
on fire behavior; the model recognizes that some areas of California have more frequent and severe wildfires
than other areas. Finally, the model considers the production of burning fire brands (embers) how far they
move, and how receptive the landing site is to new fires. All SRAs are rated moderate, high or very high fire
hazard. (CAL FIRE, 2022)
According to the CAL FIRE FHSZ maps for the Project area, the Project Site is not located in or near an SRA
or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (CAL FIRE, 2007; City of Fontana, 2018a, p. 11-4).
No impact would occur.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-74
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the
past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. All impacts to the environment, including impacts
to habitat for fish and wildlife species, fish and wildlife populations, plant and animal communities, rare and
endangered plants and animals, and historical and pre-historical resources were evaluated as part of this MND.
Throughout this MND, where impacts were determined to be potentially significant, mitigation measures have
been imposed to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, with incorporation of the
mitigation measures imposed throughout this MND, the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of
the environment and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed throughout this Initial Study/MND,
implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to result in effects to the environment that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. In all instances where the Project has the potential to
contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed
to reduce potential effects to less than significant levels.
Aesthetics
The Project represents an infill development Project in a mostly urbanized environment. Properties adjacent to
the Project Site are developed with residential and non-residential land uses and the new development on the
Project Site would have minimal effect to the existing character of the Project’s viewshed. All development
in the immediate vicinity of the Project would be required to comply with the development regulations and
design standards contained in the City’s Development Code, which would ensure that minimum standards
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-75
related to visual character and quality are met to preclude adverse aesthetic effects (e.g., size, scale, building
materials, lighting). Accordingly, the Project’s aesthetic impacts would not be cumulatively-considerable.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The Project would result in no impact on agricultural and forestry resources. Therefore, there is no potential
for the Project to contribute to a cumulatively-considerable impact under this topic.
Air Quality
Based on SCAQMD guidance, any direct exceedance of a regional or localized threshold also is considered to
be a cumulatively considerable effect, while air pollutant emissions below applicable regional and/or localized
thresholds are not considered cumulatively considerable. Neither construction nor operation of the Project
would result in an exceedance of any applicable regional or localized air pollution threshold established by the
SCAQMD; therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable adverse effect to air quality.
Biological Resources
The Project Site does not support any sensitive plant or wildlife species, riparian, or sensitive natural habitat,
or federally-protected wetlands; therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulatively-
considerable impact under these resources. Although the Project Site is highly disturbed and fragmented from
other open space areas under existing conditions, there is the potential that nesting birds could be present on
the Project Site prior to construction and there also is the potential that other development projects in the City
or the larger San Bernardino County area could support the bird nests. The Project’s potential impact to nesting
birds would be precluded through standard compliance with federal and State regulations that protect nesting
birds (and provided herein as MM BR-1). All development projects with the potential to impact nesting birds
would be required to comply with the same regulations as the Project; thereby avoiding substantial impacts.
The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to biological resources.
Cultural Resources
The Project Site does not contain historic or prehistoric archaeological resources and mandatory compliance
with State law would preclude impacts to human remains. There is minimal potential for the Project to disturb
unknown (i.e., buried or masked) historical or prehistoric archaeological resources – and the City would
condition the Project to implement a monitoring program to preclude impacts to buried or masked
archaeological resources; therefore, impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Energy
The Project’s construction and operation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful,
or otherwise unnecessary and would not obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
In addition, all cumulative projects would also be required to comply with the California Building Standards
Code, which establishes standards for energy efficiency and “green” construction and operations. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact to energy.
Geology and Soils
Potential effects related to geology and soils are inherently site-specific; therefore, there is no potential for the
Project to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact under this topic. Furthermore, all development
proposals would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations that are in place to
preclude adverse geology and soils effects, including effects related to strong seismic ground shaking, fault
rupture, soil erosion, and hazardous soil conditions (e.g., liquefaction, expansive soils, landslides).
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-76
Development of the Project Site would not impact any known paleontological resources, the Project Site is
underlain by late Holocene-aged young alluvial fan deposits with a low paleontological sensitivity. The
potential for the Project to contribute to the cumulative loss of important fossil resources in the region is low
and is not a cumulatively considerable impact.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As described in the preceding analysis, global climate change (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 also 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
preceding analysis reflects a cumulative impact analysis of the GHG emissions related to the Project. As
concluded under Responses 4.8(a) and (b), the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact
related to GHG emissions.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potential effects related to hazards and hazardous materials are inherently site-specific and related to conditions
that exist on an individual property or potential operations. Furthermore, federal, State, and local regulations
are in place to ensure proper handling, transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials and preclude
significant impacts under this topic.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction and operation of the Project and other projects in the Santa Ana River watershed have the
potential to result in water quality impacts, including erosion and sedimentation. However, in accordance with
applicable federal, State, and local regulations, all development projects would be required to implement plans
during construction and operation (e.g., SWPPP and WQMP) to preclude adverse effects to water quality,
which would avoid a cumulatively-considerable impact.
The Project and other projects in the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to comply with federal, State,
and local regulations in order to preclude flood hazards both on- and off-site. Compliance with federal, State,
and local regulations would require on-site areas to be protected, at a minimum, from flooding during peak
storm events (i.e., 100-year storm) and that proposed development would not expose downstream properties
to increased flooding risks during peak storm events. Accordingly, a cumulatively-considerable effect related
to flooding would not occur.
Land Use and Planning
The Project would not physically divide an established community, or conflict with applicable land
use/planning documents; therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulatively
considerable impact related to land use and planning.
Mineral Resources
Due to the development and urban land uses surrounding the Project Site, the area would not be compatible
with mineral extraction activities. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a
cumulatively-considerable impact under this topic.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-77
Noise
Noise levels diminish rapidly with distance; therefore, for a development project to contribute to a noise-related
cumulative impact it must be located in close proximity to another development project or source of substantial
noise. There are no construction projects in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site that would overlap with
Project-related construction activities. Accordingly, cumulatively-considerable impacts related to periodic
noise and construction-related vibration would not occur. Under long-term operating conditions, the Project
would comply with the City of Fontana noise ordinance and would not produce substantial noise or noticeable
vibration at the Project Site; all nearby development projects would similarly be required to comply with
applicable noise and vibration control regulations, which would avoid a cumulatively considerable impact.
Lastly, the analysis under Response 4.13(a) demonstrates that the Project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable impact related to transportation noise. The Project would not result in an adverse, cumulatively
considerable noise impact.
Population and Housing
The Project would not implement land uses that generate new residents and would not require the construction
of replacement housing. The Project would implement the City’s General Plan land use map and the City has
anticipated – and planned for – the growth that would occur on the Project Site. The Project would not result
in an adverse, cumulatively-considerable environmental effect related to population and housing.
Public Services
All development projects in the City of Fontana, including the Project, would be required to pay development
impact fees, a portion of which would be used by the City for the provision of public services, to offset the
incremental increase in demand for fire protection and police protection services. Furthermore, future
development would generate an on-going stream of property tax revenue and sales tax revenue, which would
provide funds that could be used by the City of Rialto for the provision of fire and police protection services.
The Project would not directly result in the introduction of new residents to the City and, therefore, would have
no potential to result in cumulatively-considerable impacts to resident-serving public facilities such as schools,
parks, libraries, and other public facilities or services.
Recreation
The Project would have no impact to recreation facilities. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to
contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact under this topic.
Transportation
The Project would not conflict with any City policies addressing the circulation network and would not
generate VMT that would have the potential to contribute to a substantial increase in the total citywide or
regional VMT. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not contribute to any adverse, cumulatively
considerable transportation effects.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Development activities on the Project Site would not impact any known tribal cultural resources. However,
there is the remote potential that such resources are buried beneath the surface of the Project Site and could be
impacted during construction. Other projects within region would similarly have the potential to impact
unknown, subsurface tribal cultural resources during ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, the potential for
development on the Project Site to impact subsurface tribal cultural resource deposits is a cumulatively
considerable impact. Application of MMs CR-1 though CR-4 would reduce the Project’s cumulative impacts
to less-than-significant levels.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 4-78
Utilities and Service Systems
Development of public utility infrastructure is part of an extensive planning process involving utility providers
and jurisdictions with discretionary review authority. The coordination process associated with the preparation
of infrastructure plans is intended to ensure that adequate public utility services and resources are available to
serve both individual development projects and cumulative growth in the region. Each individual development
project is subject to review for utility capacity to avoid unanticipated interruptions in service or inadequate
supplies. Coordination with the utility providers would allow for the provision of utility services to the Project
and other developments. The Project and other planned projects are subject to connection and service fees to
offset increased demand and assist in facility expansion and service improvements (at the time of need).
Because of the utility planning and coordination activities described above, cumulatively considerable impacts
to utilities and service systems would not occur.
Wildfire
The Project Site is not located in an SRA and is not subject to high wildfire hazards; therefore, no cumulatively-
considerable impacts associated with wildfire would occur as a result of development of the Project.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could
adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been discussed throughout this Initial Study.
In instances where the Project has potential to result in direct or indirect adverse effects to human beings (air
quality and associated effects on human health from air pollutants, and construction-related noise and potential
effects on hearing impairment), project design feature best practices and mitigation measures have been applied
to ensure impacts to not rise above a level of significance. With implementation of project design features
identified in this MND, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not involve any activities
that would result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 5-1
5.0 REFERENCES
5.1 PERSONS CONTRIBUTING TO INITIAL STUDY/MND PREPARATION
City of Fontana (Lead Agency)
George Velarde, Assistant Planner
T&B Planning, Inc. (Primary CEQA Consultant)
Tracy Zinn, AICP, Principal
David Ornelas, Senior Project Manager
Kristen Goddard, Senior Planner
Cristina Maxey, GIS/Graphics Manager
5.2 REFERENCES
Cited As Reference
BFSA, 2022a “Cultural Resources Study for the Beech Avenue Project” prepared by Brian F.
Smith and Associates and dated September 20, 2022.
BFSA, 2022b “Paleontological Assessment for the Beech Avenue Project” prepared by Brian F.
Smith and Associates and dated September 20, 2022.
Cal Fire, 2007 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Services, 2007. Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in SRA. November 7, 2007. Accessed October 31, 2022. Available
on-line:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6781/fhszs_map62.pdf
Cal Fire, 2022 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Services, 2022. FHSZ
Viewer. 2022. Accessed November 4, 2022. Available on-line:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
CA Legislative
Information, 2005
California Legislative Information, 2005. Public Resources Code 42911,
California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991. January 1, 2005.
Accessed November 2, 2022. Available on-line:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PR
C§ionNum=42911
CA Legislative
Information, 2011
California Legislative Information, 2011. Assembly Bill No. 341. October 2011.
Accessed November 2, 2022. Available on-line:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120A
B341
CalRecycle, n.d. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), n.d.
Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. No date. Accessed November 3, 2022.
Available on-line:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates
CalRecycle, 2018 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2018.
History of California Solid Waste Law, 1985-1989. 2018. Accessed November 3,
2022. Available on-line:
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/laws/legislation/calhist/1985to1989
CalRecycle, 2019 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2019.
SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055).
2019. Accessed November 3, 2022. Available on-line:
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 5-2
Cited As Reference
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=26
62
CalRecycle, 2022 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2022.
SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055).
September 20, 2022. Accessed November 3, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteInspection/Details/345856
Caltrans, 2021 California Department of Transportation, 2021. California State Scenic Highway
Map. April 27, 2021. Accessed October 26, 2022. Available on-line:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d80
7c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa
CAPCOA, 2008 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, 2008. CEQA & Climate
Change. January 2008. Accessed November 29, 2022. Available online:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf
CBWM, 2017 Chino Bain Watermaster, 2017. Chino Basin Optimum Basin Management
Program, 2016 State of the Basin Report. June 2017. Accessed November 1, 2022.
Available on-line:
http://www.cbwm.org/docs/engdocs/State_of_the_Basin_Reports/SOB%202016/
2016%20State%20of%20the%20Basin%20Report.pdf
CDC, 1995 California Department of Conservation, 1995. Mineral Land Classification of a
Part of Southwest San Bernardino County: The San Bernardino Valley Area,
California. 1995. Accessed November 2, 2022. Available on-line:
https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=OFR_94-08
CDC, 2022 California Department of Conservation, 2022. California Important Farmland
Finder. April 11, 2022. Accessed October 28, 2022. Available on-line:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
City of Fontana, 2018a City of Fontana, 2018a. General Plan Update 2015-2035. November 13, 2018.
Accessed October 26, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035
City of Fontana, 2018b City of Fontana. Fontana Forward, General Plan Update 2015-2035, Draft
Environmental Impact Report. June 8, 2018. Accessed October 26, 2022.
Available on-line:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-
Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update
City of Fontana, 2022 City of Fontana, 2022. Zoning and Development Code. October 28, 2022.
Accessed November 1, 2022. Available on-line:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code
County of San Bernardino,
2019
County of San Bernardino, 2019. County of San Bernardino Environmental Justice
and Legacy Communities Background Report. September 30, 2019. Accessed
November 29, 2022. Available online:
https://countywideplan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/68/2021/02/EJ-
Legacy_CWP_BackgroundReport_FinalDraft_20190930.pdf
DWR, n.d. California Department of Water Resources, n.d. Adjudicated Basin Annual
Reporting. No date. Accessed November 1, 2022. Available on-line:
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/index.jsp?appid=adjbasin
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 5-3
Cited As Reference
ELMT, 2021 “Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Beech Avenue Project Located in the City
of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California” prepared by ELMT Consulting
and dated November 30, 2021.
EPA, 2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Estimating 2003 Building-
Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts. 2009. Accessed
November 3, 2002. Available on-line:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-
09/documents/estimating2003buildingrelatedcanddmaterialsamounts.pdf
FWC, 2017 Fontana Water Company, 2017. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. December
2017. Accessed November 3, 2021. Available on-line:
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/San-Gabriel-
Fontana_Amended-Final-December-2017-1.pdf
FEMA, 2008 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008. National Flood Hazard Layer
Viewer. August 28, 2008. Accessed October 25, 2022. Available on-line:
https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d487
9338b5529aa9cd&extent=-117.47689872862553,34.109420606029104,-
117.47238725306184,34.11164136049611
Google Earth, 2022 Google Earth, 2022.
IUEA, 2022a Inland Empire Utilities Agency, 2022a. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1.
2022. Accessed November 3, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.ieua.org/facilities/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-1/
IUEA, 2022b Inland Empire Utilities Agency, 2022b. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4.
2022. Accessed November 3, 2022. Available on-line:
https://www.ieua.org/facilities/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-4/
JLC, 2022a “Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for AIREF Beech Logistics Center
LP” prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. and dated April 11, 2022.
JLC, 2022b “Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for AIREF Beech Logistics Center
LP” prepared by JLC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. and dated April 11, 2022.
Path Forward Partners,
2022
“Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Northwest Corner of Beech Avenue and
Foothill Boulevard, Fontana, California” prepared by Path Forward Partners, Inc.
and dated July 12, 2022.
San Bernardino County,
2007
San Bernardino County, 2007. San Bernardino County Land Use Plan GENERAL
PLAN Geologic Hazard Overlays, Map FH29. May 30, 2007. Accessed October
31, 2022. Available on-line:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH29C.pdf
SCAQMD, n.d. South Coast Air Quality Management District, n.d. Mates IV Carcinogenic Risk
Interactive Map. No date. Accessed October 25, 2022. Available on-line:
https://scaqmd-
online.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=470c30bc6daf4ef6a4
3f0082973ff45f
SoCalGeo, 2021 “Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Warehouse, Beech Avenue, North of
Foothill Boulevard, Fontana, California” prepared by Southern California
Geotechnical and dated December 7, 2021.
Urban Crossroads, 2022a “Beech Logistics Center Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Fontana” prepared
by Urban Crossroads and dated November 16, 2022.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 5-4
Cited As Reference
Urban Crossroads, 2022b “Beech Logistics Center Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment, City of Fontana”
prepared by Urban Crossroads and dated November 16, 2022.
Urban Crossroads, 2022c “Beech Logistics Center Energy Analysis, City of Fontana” prepared by Urban
Crossroads and dated November 16, 2022.
Urban Crossroads, 2022d “Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Fontana” prepared by
Urban Crossroads and dated November 16, 2022.
Urban Crossroads, 2023a “Beech Logistics Center Noise and Vibration Analysis, City of Fontana” prepared
by Urban Crossroads and dated January 9, 2023.
Urban Crossroads, 2023b “Beech Logistics Center Traffic Analysis” prepared by Urban Crossroads and
dated January 17, 2023.
Urban Crossroads, 2023c “Beech Logistics Center Focused Health Risk Assessment” prepared by Urban
Crossroads and dated August 28, 2023.
Urban Crossroads, 2023d “Beech Logistics Center Focused Noise Assessment” prepared by Urban
Crossroads and dated August 24, 2023.
Urban Crossroads, 2023e “Beech Logistics Center Focused Traffic Assessment” prepared by Urban
Crossroads and dated August 22, 2023.
USCB, 2012 United States Census Bureau, 2012. 2010 Census - Urbanized Area Reference
Map: Riverside-San Bernardino, CA. March 11, 2012. Accessed October 26, 2022.
Available on-line:
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua75340_river
side--san_bernardino_ca/DC10UA75340_002.pdf
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 6-1
6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact Mitigation Measure (MM) Responsible Party Monitoring Party Implementation Stage Level of Significance
Biological Resources Threshold a & d: The Project has the potential to impact nesting birds that are protected by federal and State regulations.
MM BR-1: Vegetation-clearing and ground disturbance shall be prohibited during the migratory bird nesting season (February 15 through August 31), 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 3 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 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 of Fontana. 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.
Project Applicant; Project Biologist City of Fontana Planning Department & Building and Safety Department
Within 3 days prior to initiating vegetation clearing or ground disturbance
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Threshold a: Although the Project Site does not contain suitable habitat for the burrowing owl, out of an
MM BR-2: Within 30 days prior to grading, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey on site and make a determination regarding the presence or absence of the burrowing owl. The determination shall be
Project Applicant, Project Biologist City of Fontana Planning Department & Building and Safety Department
Within 30 days prior to grading. Less than Significant Impact
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 6-2
Impact Mitigation Measure (MM) Responsible Party Monitoring Party Implementation Stage Level of Significance abundance of caution, the Project Site shall be surveyed prior to grading to ensure the Site is not occupied by the burrowing owl.
documented in a report and shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted by the City of Fontana prior to the issuance of a grading permit and subject to the following provisions: a) In the event that the pre-construction survey identifies no burrowing owls on the property a grading permit may be issued without restriction. b) In the event that the pre-construction survey identifies the presence of the burrowing owl on the Project Site, then prior to the issuance of a grading permit and prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities on the property, the qualified biologist shall passively or actively relocate any burrowing owls. Passive relocation, including the required use of one-way doors to exclude owls from the site and the collapsing of burrows, will occur if the biologist determines that the proximity and availability of alternate habitat is suitable for successful passive relocation. Passive relocation shall follow CDFW relocation protocol and shall only occur between September 15 and February 1. If proximate alternate habitat is not present as determined by the biologist, active relocation shall follow CDFW relocation protocol. The biologist shall confirm in writing that the species has fledged the Project Site or been relocated prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Cultural Resources & Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold a: The Project has the potential to impact tribal cultural resources that may be buried/masked on the Project Site.
MM CR-1: In the event that suspected cultural resources are discovered during Project construction activities: a) Upon discovery of any cultural, tribal cultural, or archaeological resources, cease 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.
Project Applicant, Project Construction Contractor, Project Archaeologist
City of Fontana Planning Department & Building and Safety Department
Prior to issuance of grading permit and ongoing during ground-disturbing construction activities
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Beech Avenue Logistics Center Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Fontana Page 6-3
Impact Mitigation Measure (MM) Responsible Party Monitoring Party Implementation Stage Level of Significance 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.