HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 Addendum to Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan Update FEIR
ADDENDUM TO THE SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK
(SWIP) SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2009091089)
JURUPA PROJECT
Prepared For:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Prepared By:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
JANUARY 2024
Table of Contents
SWIP Specific Plan Update i Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Purpose of the Addendum ..................................................................................................................... 1
2 Description of Proposed Project ............................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Project Setting and Location ....................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Construction Schedule ................................................................................................................ 8
2.4 Project Approvals ........................................................................................................................ 8
3 SWIP Specific Plan Update Environmental Impact Analysis Summary ................................................ 27
4 Jurupa Project Environmental Impact Analysis and Project Approvals ............................................... 29
4.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................. 30
4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ......................................................................................... 35
4.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 38
4.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 55
4.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 63
4.6 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................... 69
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Climate Change) .......................................................................... 74
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 81
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 89
4.10 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................................. 95
4.11 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................... 97
4.12 Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 98
4.13 Population and Housing .......................................................................................................... 112
4.14 Public Services ......................................................................................................................... 114
4.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 117
4.16 Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 119
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................. 125
4.18 Wildfire.................................................................................................................................... 131
4.19 Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 134
4.20 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 136
5 Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation ....................................................................... 139
6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 143
7 References .......................................................................................................................................... 145
Table of Contents
SWIP Specific Plan Update ii Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map .................................................................................................................. 9
Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 11
Exhibit 3: SWIP Specific Plan Update .......................................................................................................... 13
Exhibit 4: Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................................................... 15
Exhibit 5: Conceptual Elevations ................................................................................................................. 17
Exhibit 6: Conceptual Landscape Plan ........................................................................................................ 19
Exhibit 7: Conceptual Grading Plan ............................................................................................................. 21
Exhibit 8: Conceptual Utility Plan ................................................................................................................ 23
Exhibit 9: Project Photometric Plan ............................................................................................................ 25
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Construction-Related Emissions.................................................................................................... 43
Table 2: Operational Emissions ................................................................................................................... 44
Table 3: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates ................................................................................................ 48
Table 4: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions ......................................................................... 49
Table 5: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions ........................................................................... 49
Table 6: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................... 52
Table 7: Chronic Hazard Assessment .......................................................................................................... 52
Table 8: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................... 75
Table 9: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 76
Table 10: Typical Construction Noise Levels ............................................................................................... 99
Table 11: Project Construction Noise Levels ............................................................................................. 100
Table 12: Existing and Project Traffic Noise Levels ................................................................................... 103
Table 13: Opening Year Project Traffic Noise Levels ................................................................................ 104
Table 14: Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels ................................................................................... 105
Table 15: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels .................................................................... 109
Table 16: Summary of Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................ 120
Table 17: Energy Usage ............................................................................................................................. 134
Table of Contents
SWIP Specific Plan Update iii Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B. Air Quality and Health Risk Assessments
C. Biological Resources Assessment
D. Cultural Resources Assessment
E. Geotechnical Investigation
F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
G Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
H Acoustical Assessment
I Traffic/VMT Memorandum
Purpose of the Addendum
SWIP Specific Plan Update 1 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
1 PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.); the CEQA Guidelines
(Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and
procedures for implementing CEQA as set forth by the City of Fontana (City). The City is the lead agency
under the CEQA.
Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare
an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the
conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.”
Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or
Negative Declaration is only required when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous
EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
The Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan was originally created by the City on December 6, 1983
and was intended to develop the City’s industrial uses south of Interstate 10 (I-10). The SWIP Specific Plan
originally encompassed approximately 1,800 acres. 1 Since the adoption of the SWIP Specific Plan, changes
1 City of Fontana. (2011). Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan Update and Annexation Public Review Draft Program Environmental
Impact Report.
Purpose of the Addendum
SWIP Specific Plan Update 2 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
have occurred within the general project area and market conditions. Therefore, the City determined that
the SWIP Specific Plan should be revised to update land uses, regulations, and development standards
(SWIP Specific Plan Update). In addition, the SWIP Specific Plan Update would promote orderly and
compatible growth in newly annexed areas as well as older portions within the SWIP Specific Plan area.
Therefore, on May 8, 2012, the City adopted Resolution No. 2012-035, certifying the Final Program EIR
(FEIR) for the SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation (Approved Project), State Clearinghouse (SCH)
No. 2009091089, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. In 2005, the City of Fontana
proposed the annexation of approximately 2,920.9 acres (+/- 4.6 square miles) of unincorporated land
within its sphere of influence (SOI). This annexation action concluded in 2007 and included 32 separately
identified unincorporated “islands.” Of these, seven were located within the proposed boundaries of the
SWIP Specific Plan.
The SWIP Specific Plan Update is a comprehensive policy and regulatory guidance document for the
private use and development of all properties within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. By providing the
necessary regulatory and design guidance, the SWIP Specific Plan Update ensures that future
development implements the goals and policies of the City of Fontana General Plan (General Plan).
According to Table 1-1, Build-Out, of the SWIP Specific Plan, the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is
comprised of approximately 3,111 acres in the southwestern portion of the City within San Bernardino
County (County), and is comprised of nine land use districts, one of which is the Jurupa North Research
and Development District (JND)2, which is 515.1 acres in size. As it relates to the JND, the FEIR analyzed
4,879,460 square-feet (sf) of new industrial use, and 392,934 sf of existing development to remain for
build out within the JND.
The City has received an application for the Jurupa Project (Project) for the development of an
approximately 384,817 SF industrial warehouse building on 16.305 net acres of land located within the
JND, at 13942, 13946, 13956, and 14018 Jurupa Avenue and 11153, 11167, and 11191 Calabash Avenue,
located to the east of Calabash Avenue, west of Buena Vista Drive (private road), and north of Jurupa
Avenue. The Project site is primarily vacant with the exception of an approximately 5,000 sf office building
(currently utilized for industrial purposes related to the existing industrial uses given to the site), including
a paved area within a ±2.33 net acre parcel (APN No. 0236-161-18) the middle of the Project Site.
Additionally, along the perimeter of the Project site there are segments of existing perimeter fencing and
sparse vegetation and trees which are to be removed in accordance with the City’s municipal code
(Section 28-63).
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze any potential differences between the impacts identified for
the Project site in the FEIR for the Approved Project and those that would be associated with development
of the Project as proposed herein. As identified above, pursuant to provisions of CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines, the City is the “Lead Agency” charged with the responsibility of deciding whether to approve
development on the Project site. As part of its decision-making process, the City is required to review and
consider whether the Project would create new significant impacts or more severe significant impacts
than those previously disclosed, analyzed and mitigated for in the FEIR. Additional CEQA review beyond
2 City of Fontana. (2018). Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan – Land Use Map. Available at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29671/SWIP-Land-Use-Plan-Map (accessed September 2023).
Purpose of the Addendum
SWIP Specific Plan Update 3 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
this Addendum would only be triggered if the Project created new significant impacts or more severe
significant impacts than those disclosed, analyzed and mitigated for in the FEIR. New threshold guidelines
did not constitute “new information” requiring additional environmental review.3 CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164(a) states that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document for the Project, if the City
finds that major revisions to the FEIR are not necessary and that none of the conditions described in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of subsequent or supplemental EIR (SEIR) are
triggered.
As detailed herein, the Project would not result in any new significant impacts and/or more severe impact
that were not disclosed, analyzed and mitigated for in the FEIR. As demonstrated in this Addendum, the
potential impacts associated with the Project would either be the same or less than those described in
the FEIR. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project would
be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed
in the FEIR, nor has any new information regarding the potential for new or more severe significant
environmental impacts been identified. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA
Guidelines, this Addendum to the previously certified FEIR is the appropriate environmental
documentation for the Project. In taking action on any of the approvals, the decision-making body must
consider the whole of the data presented in the FEIR and the previously adopted Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP), as augmented by this Addendum.
3 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301.
Purpose of the Addendum
SWIP Specific Plan Update 4 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 5 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 Project Setting and Location
The Project site is in the southwestern portion of the City in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino
County, California; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Location Map. The Project site is a 16.305 net acre site
(APNs 0236-161-16, -17, -18 -19, -20, -21, and -22), with Rose Avenue to the north, Jurupa Avenue to the
south, Calabash Avenue to the west, and Buena Vista Drive (private road) to the east; refer to Exhibit 2,
Project Vicinity Map. Refer to Exhibit 3, SWIP Specific Plan Update for the location of the Project within
the SWIP boundary.
The Project site is predominately raw land and developed with an approximately 5,000 sf office building
(currently utilized for industrial purposes related to the existing industrial uses given to the site), including
segments of perimeter fencing and sparse vegetation. The Project site is overall flat and partially utilized
for truck parking or related activities. The following uses surround the Project site:
North: Residential, Truck Parking Yard, Industrial Development
South: Jurupa Avenue and Residential
East: Buena Vista Drive (private road), and Industrial uses
West: Calabash Avenue, Industrial and Truck Parking Yard
The Project site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning classification are as follows:
General Plan Land Use: Light Industrial (I-L)
Zoning: Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan
Specific Plan Designation: Jurupa North Research and Development District (JND)
Table 7-2 of the SWIP Specific Plan shows the allowable land uses and permit requirements for the JND.
“Warehousing Facilities” and “Logistics and Distribution Facilities” are permitted uses by right within the
JND.4
2.2 Project Description
The Project proposes to develop an industrial warehouse building with approximately 369,817 square feet
(sf) of warehouse space, and approximately 15,000 sf of two-story office space for a total of approximately
384,817 sf; refer to Exhibit 4, Conceptual Site Plan.
The Project is speculative in nature; the end user(s) and their hours of operation are unknown at this time.
However, to be conservative, it has been assumed that the building would operate 24 hours per day/7
days per week for the Addendum’s analyses referenced herein. Additionally, the Project does not include
the production, use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous materials. Finally, the Project will be
subject to a condition of approval providing that there shall be no refrigerated uses on-site, unless a future
4 City of Fontana. (2012). SWIP Specific Plan, Table 7-2 – Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements, pages 7-6 to 7-7. Available at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29312/Southwest-Industrial-Specific-Plan---Combined-Document (accessed
September 2023).
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 6 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
tenant who proposes to have such uses conducts an update of the CEQA document and any applicable
studies/memorandums to amend the condition.
As stated above, the proposed building would be 384,817 sf. Ingress and egress would be provided via
one 48 foot-wide driveway and two 35 foot-wide driveways on Calabash Avenue, and one 40 foot-wide
driveway on Jurupa Avenue. A 30 foot-wide fire lane will surround the building’s northern, eastern, and
western sides and will allow for onsite movement for workers and emergency vehicles alike. The building
will be provided with 177 automobile parking stalls, 82 trailer parking stalls, and 42 dock doors. The
proposed warehouse building is anticipated to have a building height of approximately 50 feet, which is
below the allowed 60-foot building height; refer to Exhibit 5, Conceptual Elevations. The Project site
would have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.54, which is below the maximum allowable 0.55 FAR.
2.2.1 Access
Regional
Regional access to the Project site is provided via I-10 at Etiwanda and Cherry Avenue, I-15 at Jurupa
Avenue, and via State Route (SR)-60 at Mulberry Avenue/Country Village Road.
Local
Local access to the Project site is provided via Calabash Avenue which is a two-lane undivided roadway
trending in a north-south direction and Jurupa Avenue which is a four to six-lane divided roadway,
trending in an east-west direction.
Project Site
As noted above, the Project site’s ingress and egress would be provided via one 48 foot-wide, and two
35 foot-wide driveways on Calabash Avenue and one 40 foot-wide driveway on Jurupa Avenue. The
48 foot-wide driveway along Calabash Avenue would allow for full access movement for both vehicles and
trucks, while the driveway on Jurupa Avenue would be restricted to right-in-right-out movements due to
the existing median (the westerly portion of the existing median is raised, and the easterly portion is
striped) in Jurupa Avenue, which will be extended/reconstructed along the project frontage into a raised,
landscaped median as part of the Project.
2.2.2 Parking
As stated above, the Project is anticipated to provide 177 standard (9’x19’ and 12’ x 19’) vehicle parking
stalls, 82 trailer (12’ x 70’) parking stalls. The proposed building will also include 42 dock doors located on
the eastern boundary.
2.2.3 Landscaping
The Project is required to provide a minimum of 15 percent landscaping to the Project site (excluding the
building footprint, driveways, non-irrigated portions of parking lots, and hardscapes, pursuant to Section
7-5(A)-1 of the SWIP Specific Plan Update) which totals approximately 26,714 sf required. The Project is
anticipated to landscape ±66,298 sf of the Project site, which is well above the minimum requirement as
required by Table 7-5: Landscape Standards of the SWIP Specific Plan Jurupa North Research and
Development District Section Update; refer to Exhibit 6, Conceptual Landscape Plan.
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 7 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
As stated above, the Project will also reconstruct/extend the existing median along the project’s frontage
along Jurupa Avenue into a raised, landscaped median. The species, sizing, and area of the offsite landscaping
to be installed within the raised median will be subject to the City’s plan check approval process.
2.2.4 Site Excavation, Demolition, and Grading Activities
The Project site is relatively flat, with the northern portion of the Project site at a slightly higher elevation
(934 feet above mean sea level) than the southern portion at approximately 920 feet above mean sea
level (AMSL).
The Project would include demolition of the existing on-site structure. Demolition activities would be
completed in accordance with the City’s Building Demolition Requirements. The Project’s anticipated soil
cut is anticipated at 55,129 cubic yards (cy) and soil fill is also anticipated at 55,129 cy. As such, the Project
would not require the import or export of soil; refer to Exhibit 7, Conceptual Grading Plan.
2.2.5 Site Drainage
The Project’s proposed drainage infrastructure consists of a network of catch basins, manholes and
underground retention systems located throughout the Project site to capture, treat, and discharge
stormwater. Stormwater would be conveyed via several proposed 12” - 30” high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) pipes. Depending on the size of the storm event, the stormwater is either (1) entirely conveyed
into the retention systems where it is treated by percolating into the soil, or (2) the 85th percentile
percolates into the soil with the excess being discharged directly into the proposed public storm drain
pipeline in Calabash Avenue and the existing 60” public storm drain line in Jurupa Avenue; refer to
Exhibit 8, Conceptual Utility Plan.
2.2.6 Off-site Improvements
As stated above in Section 2.1, the Project is bound by Calabash Avenue to the west, Jurupa Avenue to
the south, and Buena Vista Drive (private road) to the east. Along both the Calabash Avenue and
Jurupa Avenue street frontages, the Project will be required to construct sidewalk, parkway landscaping,
street lights, fire hydrants (as needed by water provider), underground aerial dry utility facilities or
relocate power poles (as applicable), curb and gutter, and asphalt resurfacing (as conditioned by the City).
The Project will be required to signalize the intersection of Jurupa Avenue and Calabash Avenue; the cost
for the traffic signal improvements will be fee-credit eligible against the City’s Circulation DIF Fee due prior
to issuance of final Certificate of Occupancy. The Project will be conditioned to make all required right-of-
way and corner cutoff land dedications necessary to achieve each public street’s corresponding ultimate
right-of-way half-width from street centerline: Calabash Avenue (34’) and Jurupa Avenue (50’). All
required public off-site improvements within the public right-of-way will be in accordance with the City’s
applicable standards.
Within Calabash Avenue, the Project will be required to construct a variable-width storm drain main from
the Project’s north property line to the corresponding existing line in Jurupa Avenue. The sizing/type of
the storm drain main will be in accordance with the City’s current Master Storm Drain Plan.
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 8 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
2.3 Construction Schedule
The Project is anticipated to be constructed in one phase. Construction activities are anticipated to begin
in the third quarter of 2024 and are anticipated to be completed during the second quarter of 2025.
2.4 Project Approvals
The City is the Lead Agency as set forth in CEQA Statute Section 21067 and is responsible for reviewing
and approving the Addendum to the SWIP Specific Plan FEIR. In addition to the Addendum, the City will
consider the following discretionary approvals for the Project:
A Design Review Project (DRP) No. DRP23-020 permit for the proposed site and building
improvements.
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. TPM23-013 to consolidate seven (7) parcels to form one (1)
parcel.
Project Site
Source: Bing Maps
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map
City of Fontana
Jurupa Project
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 10 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
urupa Ave
Westward Dr
urupa Ave
Calabash
Ave
Buena
Vista
Dr
ose Ave
Jurupa Ave Jurupa Ave
Po
Driftwoo
d
D
Oakwoo
d
D mewood
Dr
Jurupa Ave Jurupa Ave
Banana
Ave
Banana
Ave
Apricot
Ave
Rancho Ct
Durian Ave
Jurupa Ave
Banana nwood
Ave
lmond
AveValevistaBurl
Dr
Jurupa Ave
Parcels
Project Site
Source: County of San Bernardino. (2023). San Bernardino County GIS Parcel Viewer
Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity Map
City of Fontana
Jurupa Project
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 12 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Project Site
Source: City of Fontana Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP Specific Plan: Land Use Plan
Exhibit 3: SWIP Specific Plan Update
City of Fontana
Jurupa Project
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 14 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: HPA, Inc. (2023). Overall Site Plan
Exhibit 4: Conceptual Site Plan
City of Fontana
Jurupa Project
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 16 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: HPA, Inc. (2023). Conceptual Building Elevations
Exhibit 5: Conceptual Elevations
City of Fontana
Jurupa Project
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 18 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: Hunter Landscape. (2023). Landscape Plan
Exhibit 6: Conceptual Landscape Plan
City of Fontana
Jurupa Project
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 20 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: Thienes Engineering. (2023). Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit 7: Conceptual Grading Plan
City of Fontana
Jurupa Project
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
SWIP Specific Plan Update 22 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: Thienes Engineering. (2023). Conceptual Utility Plan
Exhibit 8: Conceptual Utility Plan
City of Fontana
Jurupa Project
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
SWIP Specific Plan Update 24 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: Gregg Electric Inc. (2023). Site Lighting Plan
Exhibit 9: Project Photometric Plan
City of Fontana
Jurupa Project
B
U
E
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
D
R
I
V
E
J U R U P A A V E N U E
42
D
O
C
K
D
O
O
R
S
BUILDING
384,817 S.F.
C
A
L
A
B
A
S
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
30
'
W
I
D
E
F
I
R
E
L
A
N
E
30
'
W
I
D
E
F
I
R
E
L
A
N
E
30' WIDE FIRE LANE
VAN
PARKINGNO
PARKINGNO
PARKIN
GNO
PARKINGNO
VAN
PARKIN
GNO
EVCHARG
I
N
GONL<
A0BULA
T
O
R
<EVCHARGINGONL<
EVCHARGINGONL<
EVCHARG
I
N
GONL<
EVCHARGIN
GONL<
EVCHARGI
N
GONL<
EVCHARG
I
N
GONL<
EVCHARGINGONL<
EVCHARGINGONL<
1.7 1.5 1.1
2.4 2.1 1.4
2.0 2.6 2.7 2.5 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.1
1.0 1.5 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.0
1.1 1.8 2.5 2.4 1.7 2.2 3.2 3.6 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.2 1.7 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.5
1.2 1.8 2.5 2.3 1.4 1.8 2.9 4.1 5.1 5.0 4.2 2.8 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.0
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 1.7 1.0 2.6 4.1 5.6 5.8 4.7 2.9 2.0 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.1
1.2 1.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.0 2.2 3.6 5.0 5.3 4.5 3.0 2.1 1.8 2.2 2.2 1.7
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.0 1.8 3.0 3.6 3.7 3.5 2.8 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.1 1.4
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.5
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.0 1.4
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.6 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.1 2.1 1.3
1.2 1.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.1 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.8 4.7 6.3 6.1 4.2 2.3 1.3
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.4 2.0 2.5 2.1 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.8 5.2 7.5 7.3 4.6 2.4 1.3
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.6 1.4 2.0 2.5 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.9 4.9 6.5 6.4 4.4 2.5 1.5
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.4 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.8 3.7 4.1 4.1 3.5 2.6 1.8
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.5 1.9
1.2 1.8 2.6 2.3 2.3 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.1 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.8 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.2 2.5 1.9
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.2 1.3 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.9 4.5 5.6 5.5 4.1 2.6 1.6
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.5 1.4 2.0 2.4 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.8 5.2 7.4 7.2 4.6 2.5 1.4
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.4 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.8 5.0 7.0 6.8 4.5 2.5 1.5
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.0 2.8 4.0 4.6 4.5 3.7 2.6 1.7
1.2 1.8 2.6 2.3 2.3 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.1 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.5 1.9
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.1 1.3 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.5 1.9
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.4 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.0 2.8 4.2 5.0 4.9 3.9 2.6 1.7
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.4 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.8 5.1 7.2 7.0 4.6 2.5 1.5
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.8 2.8 5.1 7.3 7.1 4.6 2.5 1.5
1.2 1.8 2.6 2.3 2.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.0 2.8 4.3 5.2 5.1 4.0 2.6 1.7
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.3 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.1 2.5 1.9
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.4 2.1 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.5 1.9
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.1 2.8 3.9 4.4 4.4 3.7 2.6 1.8
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.8 5.0 6.8 6.7 4.5 2.5 1.5
1.2 1.8 2.6 2.3 2.3 1.6 2.1 2.5 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.8 5.2 7.4 7.2 4.6 2.4 1.4
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 1.9 1.3 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.9 2.9 4.6 5.8 5.7 4.2 2.6 1.6
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.4 1.6 2.1 2.5 2.1 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.8 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.3 2.5 1.8
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.0 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.5 1.9
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.8 3.6 3.9 3.9 3.4 2.5 1.8
1.2 1.8 2.6 2.3 2.3 1.5 2.1 2.5 2.1 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.8 4.7 6.2 6.1 4.3 2.5 1.5
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 1.8 1.3 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.6 2.6 5.0 7.3 7.1 4.4 2.3 1.3
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.4 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.6 2.5 4.4 6.1 5.9 4.0 2.1 1.2
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.8 3.2 3.2 2.7 1.7 1.1
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.0
1.2 1.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.4 2.1 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.5
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 1.7 1.3 2.0 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.4
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.2 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.3
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.0
1.2 1.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.1
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.4 2.0 2.4 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.3
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 1.6 1.3 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 1.8 1.2
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.3 1.7 1.1
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.7 2.2 2.6 2.3 1.6 1.0
1.2 1.8 2.6 2.3 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.5 2.8 2.7 2.5 1.6 1.1
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 1.6 1.0
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.6 2.1 2.5 2.5 1.7 1.0
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.3 1.4 1.7 2.6 2.6 1.9 1.2
1.1 1.8 2.5 2.4 1.8 1.6 2.6 2.8 2.2 1.4
1.0 1.6 2.3 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.9 3.0 2.3 1.4
1.1 1.5 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.4 3.1 3.3 2.4 1.4
2.0 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.7 1.9 1.8 1.4 2.6 3.0 3.3 2.4 1.3
2.9 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.4 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.4 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.1 1.0
2.7 3.5 3.8 3.9 3.4 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.4 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.1 2.6 2.7 2.2 1.2
1.0 1.7 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.2 1.9 1.2
1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.1
1.0 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.3 0.6 0.8 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 0.8 0.3 1.0 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.4 0.6 0.4 1.2 1.9 2.1 1.8 1.1 0.6 1.0
0.9 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.2 0.6 0.7 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.9 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.2 0.5 0.4 1.0 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.0 0.3 1.8
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL
A
0
AWL
A
0
A WL
A
0
A
WL
A
0
A
WL
A
0
A WL
A
0
A
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL18FTA
WL
A
0
A
WL
A
0
A
WL
A
0
A
WL
A
0
A
PL18FTA
PL24[2A
PL24[2A
PL24[2A
PL24[2A
PL24[2A
PL24[2A
PL183ILA
PL1
8
3
I
L
A
PL1
8
3
I
L
A
Calculation SummaryLabel CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min
Site Illuminance Fc 2.23 7.5 1.0 2.23 7.50SouthIlluminanceFc1.29 2.1 0.3 4.30 7.00
SITE LIGHTING STATISTICS
SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR ACTUAL POLE BASE HEIGHTS
BUG RATINGDESCRIPTIONS<0BOL CO0PLIES WITHCAL GREEN .10.8
PL183IL B1U0G2 <EST<PE 3 18,000 LU0EN LSI SLICE SL0LED18LSIL3070CRIIL ,000KLED CUTOFF WINTEGRAL LOUVER AND NO UPTILT
PL18FT B3U0G3 <EST<PE FT 18,000 LU0EN LSI SLICE SL0LED18LSILFT070CRI ,000KLED CUTOFF AND NO UPTILT
B2U0G1WL A0 <EST<PE A0 ,000 LU0EN LSI SLICE SL0LED LSILA0070CRI ,000KLED CUTOFF WITH NO UPTILT
B3U0G3WL18FT <EST<PE FT 18,000 LU0EN LSI SLICE SL0LED18LSILFT070CRI ,000K LED CUTOFF WITH NO UPTILT
PL24[2 BU0G3 <ESTWIN T<PE W 24,000 LU0EN LSI SLICE SL0LED24LSILW070CRI ,000K LED CUTOFF AND NO UPTILT
POLEHEIGHT
2' S4R STL POLE
2' S4R STL POLE
2' S4R STL POLE
AT 34' AFF
BASE
2' HIGH CONC BASE IN AUTOPARKING 4' HIGH CONC BASE INTRUCK <ARD
2' HIGH CONC BASE IN AUTOPARKING 4' HIGH CONC BASE IN
TRUCK <ARD
2' HIGH CONC BASE IN AUTOPARKING 4' HIGH CONC BASE IN
TRUCK <ARD
NA
FI;TURE LEGEND
AT 34' AFF NA
CAL GREEN BUG TABLE
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
SWIP Specific Plan Update 26 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
SWIP Specific Plan Update 27 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
3 SWIP SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The environmental impact findings of the FEIR are summarized below.
No Impact: The FEIR determined that no impact would occur with respect to the following environmental
topic areas below. These impacts were included in the FEIR’s “Effects Found Not To Be Significant
(EFNTBS)” section (Section 8.0).
Agricultural and Forestry Resources (EFNTBS items 1a through 1e);
Geology and Soils (EFNTBS items 3a (4) and 3e);
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (EFNTBS items 4b and 4c);
Hydrology and Water Quality (EFNTBS items 5g and 5j);
Mineral Resources (EFNTBS items 6a and 6b);
Noise (EFNTBS item 7a); and
Transportation and Traffic (EFNTBS items 9a and 9b).
Less Than Significant Impact: The FEIR identified less than significant impacts in the following
environmental topic areas:
Aesthetics, Light and Glare (Impacts 4.1-2, 4.1-4, and 4.1-5);
Air Quality and Climate Change (Impact 4.2-3);
Biological Resources (EFNTBS item 2a);
Cultural Resources (Impact 4.4-4);
Geology and Soils (EFNTBS items 3a (1), 3a (2), 3a (3),3b, 3c, and 3d);
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (EFNTBS item 4a);
Hydrology and Water Quality (EFNTBS items 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5h, and 5i);
Land Use and Planning (Impacts 4.6-1 and 4.6-2);
Population and Housing (EFNTBS items 8a and 8b);
Public Services, Utilities, and Infrastructure (Impact 4.8-10); and
Traffic and Circulation (Impacts 4.9-2 and 4.9-3).
Less Than Significant Impact with Incorporation of Mitigation: The FEIR identified impacts that could be
mitigated to less than significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures in the following
environmental topic areas:
Aesthetics, Light and Glare (Impact 4.1-3);
Air Quality and Climate Change (Impact 4.2-5);
Biological Resources (Impacts 4.3-1, 4.3-2, 4.3-3, and 4.3-4);
Cultural Resources (Impacts 4.4-1, 4.4-2, and 4.4-3);
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Impacts 4.5-1, 4.5-2, 4.5-3, 4.5-4, 4.5-5, and 4.5-6);
Noise (Impacts 4.7-1 and 4.7-2); and
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
SWIP Specific Plan Update 28 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Public Services, Utilities, and Infrastructure (Impacts 4.8-1, 4.8-2, 4.8-3, 4.8-4, 4.8-6, 4.8-7, 4.8-8, and
4.8-9).
Significant and Unavoidable Impact: The FEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts in the
following environmental topic areas:
Aesthetics, Light and Glare (Impact 4.1-1)
Air Quality and Climate Change (Impacts 4.2-1, 4.2-2, and 4.2-4);
Noise (Impact 4.7-3);
Public Services, Utilities, and Infrastructure (Impact 4.8-5); and
Traffic and Circulation (Impact 4.9-1).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 29 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4 JURUPA PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND PROJECT
APPROVALS
The scope of the City’s review of the Project is set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. This review is
limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated with the Project when compared to the
Approved Project as set forth in the FEIR. This Addendum also reviews new information, if any, of
substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable due diligence at the time the FEIR was certified. This evaluation includes a determination as
to whether the changes proposed for the Project would result in any new significant impacts or more
severe significant impact.
Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 does not stipulate the format or content of an Addendum, the
topical areas identified in the City of Fontana Environmental Information Form5 were used as guidance
for this Addendum. In addition, Section 15164(e) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “A brief explanation
of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an
addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the Project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation
must be supported by substantial evidence.” This comparative analysis provides the City with the factual
basis for determining whether any changes in the Project, any changes in circumstances, or any new
information since the FEIR was certified would require additional environmental review or preparation of
an SEIR.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the City has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence
in the light of the whole record, that implementation of the Project does not propose substantial changes
to the Approved Project, no substantial changes in circumstances would occur which would require major
revisions to the FEIR, and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the
certification of FEIR that would result in either new significant effects or an increase in the severity of
previously analyzed significant effects.
A MMRP was adopted as a part of the FEIR that minimized impacts associated with implementation of the
Approved Project. The previously adopted mitigation measures applicable to the Approved Project will be
imposed as conditions of the Project, and the MMRP, as applicable to the Approved Project, is contained
in Appendix A to this Addendum EIR.
5 City of Fontana. ND. Environmental Information Form. Retrieved at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2177/Environmental-
Information-Form-PDF (accessed September 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 30 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.1 Aesthetics
4.1.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The FEIR concluded that although the SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation includes various design
features to minimize impacts to scenic vistas and would comply with existing local requirements, impacts
related to the buildout of future development associated with the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would
remain significant and unavoidable. The long-term buildout of industrial, commercial, and office uses
throughout the SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation area would result in a significant alteration in
views of the Jurupa Mountains to the south and the San Gabriel/San Bernardino Mountains to the
northwest. For this reason, the FEIR concluded that impacts to scenic vistas would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Impacts associated with light/glare, scenic resources, and long-term visual character were determined to
be less than significant. Impacts associated with the short-term visual character of the Specific Plan
Update area were determined to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure
(MM) 4.1-3a.
4.1.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project would not have a more severe or substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista than what was originally analyzed in the FEIR. The dominant scenic views from the Project
site and the surrounding area include the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest, the San Bernardino
National Forest to the north, the San Jacinto Mountains to the southeast, and the Jurupa Mountains to
the south. The Project site is located in the JND, which is described in the FEIR in the following manner:
“The Jurupa North Research and Development District is 515.1 acres in size and is one of the largest
districts in the SWIP Specific Plan Update. This district is bounded by the Slover West Industrial,
Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial, and Slover East Industrial Districts to the north, Mulberry Avenue
to the west, Jurupa Avenue to the south, and Citrus Avenue to the east. This district can generally be
characterized as having a range of smaller warehousing, distribution, industrial, and residential parcels
west of Cherry Avenue, with larger warehousing, distribution, industrial, and undeveloped
(former agricultural) parcels east of Cherry Avenue. Of all the districts, the JND contains the largest
number of undeveloped parcels, with the majority occurring along the Jurupa Avenue frontage. A number
of single-family residential units also exist within the southeastern corner of this district, along Jurupa and
Citrus Avenues. These vacant parcels afford improved views of the Jurupa Mountains to the south.”
According to requirements within the SWIP Specific Plan Update, the maximum structure height within
the Slover Central Industrial and Jurupa South Districts would be 100 feet. All other districts, (where the
most uninterrupted, panoramic views of the Jurupa Mountains occur) would have a maximum structure
height of 60 feet. Because the Project site is located in the JND, the maximum allowed building height
would be 60 feet. The proposed building would be well below the maximum allowed building height, at
approximately 50’ feet in height; refer to Exhibit 5, Conceptual Elevations. Furthermore, the proposed
building would adhere to the SWIP Table 7.3 Intensity and Dimensional Standards and would be sited a
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 31 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
minimum of 30 feet plus from Jurupa Avenue which further reduce the visual impacts to the residential
community to the south of Jurupa Avenue.
Since the proposed building would be in compliance with both the allowed building height and setback
requirements, the Project’s encroachment into the viewshed would not be significant. In addition, similar
scale industrial uses are established and planned within the immediate vicinity of the Project site.
Therefore, the change in views of the Project site from the surrounding area would not cause a significant
impact on a scenic vista. Impacts are less than significant without mitigation.
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects on a scenic vista or a substantial increase in the
severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the FEIR would occur. Additionally, no
new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the
time the FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
No feasible mitigation measures were determined to be applicable in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact on a scenic vista(s). As such, it is determined
that construction and operation activities associated with the Project would have a less than significant
impact on scenic vistas. However, because the FEIR concluded that the overall development of the SWIP
would cause a Significant and Unavoidable impact relative to scenic vistas, a determination of Significant
and Unavoidable impact is made for the Project in this regard. The FEIR determined that no feasible
mitigation measures are applicable to minimize this impact.
The Project would be designed consistent with the guidelines and standards within the SWIP Specific Plan
Update. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to
aesthetics and scenic vistas.
Threshold (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
No New or More Severe Impact: The FEIR determined that future development that is consistent with
the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not result in any adverse scenic resource impacts. Therefore, no
adverse impacts on scenic resources, including resources within a State scenic highway, would result from
the Project’s implementation.
Consistent with the FEIR findings, there are no rock outcroppings or historic building within a State- or
County-designated scenic highway in the vicinity of the Project site.6 The area surrounding the Project site
is fully developed (no vacant, undeveloped parcels exist in the immediate vicinity). No new impacts
relative to adverse aesthetic impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified
significant impact evaluated in the FEIR would occur. According to the FEIR, future development within
6 Caltrans. (2019). Scenic Highways. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-
livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed October 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 32 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would involve the removal of heritage, significant, or specimen trees.
This is consistent with the Project, as trees could be removed as part of the Project site construction and
development activities. As noted in the FEIR, Chapter 28 Article III of the City of Fontana Municipal Code
(FMC) establishes regulations for the protection and preservation of heritage trees, significant trees, and
specimen trees on public and private property. Project development involving tree removal would be
subject to the provisions of FMC Chapter 28 Article III. In particular, FMC Section 28-64, Permit Required
for Removal of Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees, specifies no person shall remove or cause the
removal of any heritage, significant, or specimen tree unless a Tree Removal Permit is first obtained.
Impacts in this regard are considered less than significant following compliance with the provisions of the
FMC.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant
impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact on a scenic resource(s). Except for the trees on
the Project site that would be removed, and which would be subject to the applicable tree removal
requirements set forth in FMC Section 28-64, there would be no significant impacts to scenic resources.
The Project would be designed consistent with the guidelines and standards within the SWIP Specific Plan
Update. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures, outside of the General Plan goals and
policies and FMC regulations, are required for issues related to aesthetics.
Threshold (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project would change the site appearance from an existing structure
truck parking areas and sparse vegetation, to a warehouse building with associated truck and vehicle
parking, landscaping, perimeter fencing and other associated amenities. The Project site is surrounded by
land zoned for industrial uses with a General Plan land use designation for industrial use (Light Industrial
(I-L)) to the west, north, and east, and with Jurupa Avenue adjacent to the south. Accordingly, no new
impacts relative to adverse aesthetic impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously
identified significant impact evaluated in the FEIR would occur.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes MM 4.1-3a to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the SWIP
Specific Plan Update. However, FEIR MM 4.1-3a would not be applicable to the Project, as the Project site
is not located immediately adjacent to residentially zoned properties.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 33 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
No applicable mitigation measures identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would be designed consistent with the guidelines and standards within the SWIP Specific Plan
Update and therefore, would have a less than significant impact on the visual character or quality of the
public views of the site and its surroundings.
Additionally, the FEIR recommended that MM 4.1-3a, should be included as a condition of approval for
development projects located in or immediately adjacent to residentially zoned properties. Thus,
Mitigation Measure 4.1-3a would not be applicable to the Project, since the Project site is not located in
or immediately adjacent to residentially zoned properties.
Threshold (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the land use and development regulations provided in the
SWIP Specific Plan Update, all future development would be required to comply with the lighting
requirements of the FMC (Chapter 30), to reduce the potential for light and/or glare effects to occur.
Consistent with the FMC and the SWIP Specific Plan Update development regulations, and as applicable,
all exterior lighting shall be adequately controlled and shielded to prevent glare and undesirable
illumination to adjacent properties or streets. Adequate lighting levels shall be provided to ensure a safe
environment, while not creating areas of intense light or glare. Light fixtures and poles shall also be
designed and placed in a manner consistent and compatible with overall site and building design, and
high-intensity security lighting fixtures shall not be substituted for site or landscape lighting or general
building exterior illumination but shall be limited to loading and storage locations or other similar service
areas. In addition, all lighting provided to illuminate parking areas or buildings shall be positioned so as to
direct light away from adjoining properties.
These regulations are considered to be either design measures or existing regulations pursuant to CEQA
standards. Incorporation of such features into the Project would ensure proper design, installation, and
operation of all exterior lighting, thereby reducing the potential for glare effects or light spillover onto
adjacent properties. Per FMC Section 30-544, the Project has prepared a photometric plan that indicates
the amount of light emanating from the proposed light fixtures; refer to Exhibit 9, Project Photometric
Plan. As such, consistency with the FMC and lighting requirements of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would
ensure that potential impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant. Consistent
with the FEIR, no mitigation measures are required.
Accordingly, no new or more severe impacts relative to adverse aesthetic impacts previously identified
significant impact evaluated in the FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified is
available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 34 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impacts from light or glare. No significant impacts
associated with light and glare are identified in the FEIR. The Project would be designed consistent with
the applicable guidelines and standards within the FMC and SWIP Specific Plan Update. Therefore, no new
and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to aesthetics.
Overall Aesthetics Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would
not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to aesthetics. Therefore, the preparation of a
SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 35 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
4.2.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The FEIR identified that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not impact or conflict
with Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, a Williamson Act contract, or
with the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As
such, the FEIR found that no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures were required.
4.2.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation EIR, there
is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Important within Specific Plan Update
boundaries. The only area where these types of farmland occur are located within the northwestern
portion of the City. The Project site area is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land.7 Thus, no impacts
would occur related to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
to non-agricultural use. No Project-specific mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project site has a zoning of Jurupa North Research and Development
District (JND), which does not permit agricultural uses. There are currently no Williamson Act contracts
for any parcels within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. Therefore, no impacts to existing agricultural
zoning or Williamson Act Contracts are expected.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. No
Project-specific mitigation measures are required.
7 Department of Conservation. (2021). California Important Farmland: 1984-2016. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/ (accessed October 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 36 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (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))?
No New or More Severe Impact: As noted in Threshold 4.2(b) above, the Project is not zoned for forest
land, timberland, or timberland zone timberland production. The Project’s proposed warehouse facility
would be permitted by right in the JND area. Thus, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would not cause the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland
production. No Project-specific mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No New or More Severe Impact: Due to the location of the Project site and the lack of natural resources,
including forest land, the Project would not convert forestland to non-forest land. As such, no impacts
related to the loss of forest land would occur. Consistent with the FEIR’s findings, no significant impacts
to agricultural resources would occur from Project implementation. No mitigation measures are
necessary.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in the loss of forest land. No Project-specific mitigation measures are
required.
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: Due to the location of the Project site and the lack of natural resources,
including farmland, the Project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural land. As such, no impacts
related to the loss of farmland would occur. Consistent with the FEIR’s findings, no significant impacts to
agricultural resources would occur from Project implementation. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 37 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in the loss of farmland. No Project-specific mitigation measures are required.
Overall Agricultural and Forestry Resources Impacts Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact to agricultural or forestry resources. No
significant impacts to agricultural resources are identified in the FEIR. The Project is located within the
boundaries of the SWIP Specific Plan Update; therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are
required for issues related to agricultural or forestry resources.
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed
by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to agricultural resources.
Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 38 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.3 Air Quality
4.3.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The FEIR concluded that although development facilitated by the SWIP Specific Plan would comply with
the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
regulations, and implement FEIR MMs 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f and FEIR MMs 4.2-2a through 4.2-2l, impacts
related to air quality concerning both short and long-term air quality as well as consistency with the Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and increases in criteria pollutions would remain significant and
unavoidable (see Impact 4.2-1 and Impact 4.2-2 of the FEIR, pages 4.2-25 through 4.2-32). The SWIP FEIR
concluded a less than significant impact related to carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots. This technical study
evaluates construction and operational impacts associated with the proposed Project relative to impacts
identified in the FEIR.
This section is prepared in part utilizing the following technical studies:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. December 2023. Air Quality Assessment and Health Risk
Assessment.
These technical studies are provided as Appendix B to this Addendum EIR and findings are summarized
below.
4.3.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No New or More Severe Impact: As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and
submit a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates the means to attain the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The State Implementation Plan must integrate federal, state, and local plan
components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas,
using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under State law,
the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas
designated as nonattainment regarding the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Air quality
attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards
by the earliest practical date.
The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the
SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), to reduce emissions of
criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted
the 2016 and 2022 AQMPs (AQMPs). The AQMPs establish a program of rules and regulations directed at
reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving the CAAQS and NAAQS. The AQMPs are a regional and
multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the EPA. The pollutant control strategies in the AQMPs
are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s
2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainability Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission
inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 39 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general
plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMPs.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
Consistency Criterion No. 1: The 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 AQMPs.
Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMPs or
increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase.
According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to
determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans,
and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with CAAQS and NAAQS.
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Table 1 and
Table 2 in threshold (b) below, the Project would not exceed the short-term construction standards or
long-term operational standards and would therefore not violate any air quality standards. Thus, no
impact is expected, and the Project would be consistent with the first criterion.
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on
SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local
governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is consistent with the land use
designation and development density presented in the General Plan and therefore would not exceed the
population or job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the AQMP. Thus, no impact would
occur, as the Project is also consistent with the second criterion. Additionally, the FEIR identified impacts
during construction as a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality. MMs 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f
were identified in the FEIR to reduce air emissions from implementation of the Approved Project.
In addition, in accordance with South Coast AQMD Rule 2305, the Project operator would be required to
pay a mitigation fee if the Project does not generate enough Warehouse Actions and Investments to
Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Points. The Project operator may be required to implement additional emission
reduction strategies. Compliance with Rule 2305 would reduce emissions below what is currently
analyzed.
The FEIR identified that long-term construction and air quality operational activity, due to buildout of the
SWIP SP, would create significant and unavoidable impacts regardless of the implementation of FEIR
MMs 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f, 4.2-2a through 4.2-2l. However, implementation of these FEIR MMs would
reduce air emissions from construction and operational activities of the Approved Project and ensure that
the Project would not conflict with AQMP. With the implementation of FEIR MMs 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f,
4.2-2a through 4.2-2l, impacts would be reduced. However, consistent with the FEIR, the Significant and
Unavoidable impact would remain.
Mitigation Program
As noted above, the FEIR includes measures 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f and 4.2-2a through 4.2-2l to reduce
potential impacts associated with the implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Project. Note: FEIR MMs
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 40 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.2-2a and 4.2-2b do not apply since the Project is not considered a “large-scale” Project. Finally, FEIR
MMs 4.2-2h and 4.2-2i do not apply since the Project does not include residential or commercial uses.
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
4.2-1a All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to
reduce emissions. The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction
equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per the manufacturer’s
specification. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City
verification.
4.2-1b Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, all applicants shall submit construction plans
to the City of Fontana denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use.
Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction
equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible
for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by
the SCAQMD as well as City Planning Staff.
4.2-1c All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD
Rule 1113.
4.2-1d Projects that result in the construction of more than 19 single-family residential units, 40
multifamily residential units, or 45,000 square feet of retail/commercial/industrial space
shall be required to apply paints either by hand or high volume, low pressure (HVLP)
spray. These measures may reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) associated with the
application of paints and coatings by an estimated 60 to 75 percent. Alternatively, the
contractor may specify the use of low-volatility paints and coatings. Several of currently
available primers have VOC contents of less than 0.85 pounds per gallon (e.g., dulux
professional exterior primer 100 percent acrylic). Top coats can be less than 0.07 pounds
per gallon (8 grams per liter) (e.g., Lifemaster 2000-series). This latter measure would
reduce these VOC emissions by more than 70 percent. Larger projects should incorporate
both the use of HVLP or hand application and the requirement for low volatility coatings.
4.2-1e All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108.
4.2-1f Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans for future
development projects within the project area, future developments shall include a dust
control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications. The dust control
plan shall include measures to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403.
Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts.
Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts.
All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting
the surrounding areas.
Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to
surrounding areas.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 41 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut.
Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions, and as often as
needed on windy days or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust
and minimize the release of visible emissions from the construction site.
Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to
stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation.
Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites.
Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt
dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by
trucks departing project sites.
Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight-fitting tarp.
Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
Provide for permanent sealing of all graded areas, as applicable, at the earliest
practicable time after soil disturbance.
Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment.
Use electric equipment whenever practicable.
Shut off engines when not in use.
4.2-2c All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be
left idling for prolonged periods pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations,
Section 2485, which limits idle times to not more than five minutes.
4.2-2d The City shall require that both industrial and commercial uses designate preferential
parking for vanpools.
4.2-2e The proposed commercial and industrial areas shall incorporate food service.
4.2-2f All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to
post both bus and MetroLink schedules in conspicuous areas.
4.2-2g All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be requested
to configure their operating schedules around the MetroLink schedule to the extent
reasonably feasible.
4.2-2j All residential, commercial, and industrial structures shall be required to incorporate light
colored roofing materials.
4.2-2k Prior to approval of future development projects within the project area, the City of
Fontana shall conduct project-level environmental review to determine potential vehicle
emission impacts associated with the project(s). Mitigation measures shall be developed
for each project as it is considered to mitigate potentially significant impacts to the extent
feasible. Potential mitigation measures may require that facilities with over
250 employees (full or part-time employees at a worksite for a consecutive six-month
period calculated as a monthly average), as required by the Air Quality Management Plan,
implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. [NOTE: This MM has
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 42 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
been satisfied through the preparation of this Addendum, an Air Quality/Health Risk
Assessment (Appendix B)]
4.2-2l New warehouse facilities or distribution centers that generate a minimum of 100 truck
trips per day, or 40 truck trips with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or TRU
operations exceeding 300 hours per week shall not be located closer than 1,000 feet from
any existing or proposed sensitive land use such as residential, a hospital, medical offices,
day care facilities, and/or fire stations (pursuant to the recommendations set forth in the
CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook). [NOTE: This MM has been satisfied through
the preparation of this Addendum, an Air Quality/Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B)]
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact pertaining to conflict with or obstructing
implementation of the AQMP. Implementation of FEIR MMs 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f, 4.2-2c through 4.2-2g,
and 4.2-2j through 4.2-2l would further reduce construction and operational emissions to a level of less
than significant. The Project’s impacts would be consistent with development in the area and would be in
compliance with applicable AQMP measures. Therefore, no new or more severe impact relative to air
quality emissions from the previously identified significant impact evaluated in the FEIR would occur with
implementation of the proposed Project. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that
was not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified is available that would
change the significance determination in the FEIR.
Threshold (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
Construction Emissions
No New or More Severe Impact: Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term
emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area
include O3-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated
emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur,
but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the
SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.
Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road paving,
motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of
construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are
largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well
as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.
The duration of construction activities associated with the Project is estimated to last approximately ten
months. Construction-generated emissions associated the Project were calculated using the
CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use
development projects, based on typical construction requirements. Predicted maximum daily
construction-generated emissions for the Project are summarized in Table 1: Construction-Related
Emissions. It is noted that due to technology improvements for construction equipment, emissions from
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 43 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Project construction activities would likely be lower than those shown in Table 1 if construction were to
occur in later years.
Table 1: Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Year 2024 3.74 36.05 34.41 0.06 6.94 4.15
Year 2025 54.35 13.48 23.61 0.04 3.09 1.07
SCAQMD Significance
Threshold
75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed Significance? No No No No No No
Notes: SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other
construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions
percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs. Refer
to Appendix A of the Air Quality Assessment for Model Data Outputs which is provided as Appendix B to this Addendum EIR.
Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2023). Air Quality Assessment. page 24 – Table 8.
Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive
dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from
construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out
requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust
emissions. Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPP) 1 requires the implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust
control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5 concentration. Table 1 shows all criteria pollutant
emissions would remain below their respective thresholds. While impacts would be considered less than
significant, the Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1113 required by PPP 1 and
PPP 2.
Operational Emissions
The Project’s operational emissions would be associated with area sources (e.g., landscape maintenance
equipment, architectural coatings, off-road equipment, etc.), energy sources, and mobile sources
(i.e., motor vehicle use). Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants are from motor vehicle use and
area sources. Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 2:
Operational Emissions. Table 2 shows the emissions associated with the potential development allowed
under the SWIP Specific Plan. These emissions are specific proportion for the Project site, which is within
the Jurupa North Research and Development (JND) (West) area of the SWIP Specific Plan. Table 2 indicates
that the Project’s emissions would be less than what is allowed for under the JND West designation.
It should be noted that existing uses consist of a truck driving school facility, which will be removed as
part of the Project. Emissions associated with existing uses have been estimated based on CalEEMod
default data and have been subtracted from the proposed Project’s emissions for the net new emissions
total. Table 2 shows that the Project’s net operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds
for any criteria air pollutants. Therefore, long-term operational emissions would result in a less than
significant impact.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 44 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table 2: Operational Emissions
Source Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Jurupa North Research and Development (JND) (West) – Project Site
Area Source Emissions 6.48 0.08 9.45 0.00 0.02 0.01
Energy Emissions 0.06 1.11 0.93 0.01 0.08 0.08
Mobile Emissions 6.11 94.27 98.46 0.86 37.64 10.83
Total JND Project Site Emissions 12.65 95.46 108.84 0.87 37.74 10.92
Existing
Area Source Emissions 0.14 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Emissions 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile Emissions 1.21 2.27 21.04 0.06 4.86 1.26
Total Existing Emissions 1.35 2.33 21.31 0.06 4.87 1.27
Proposed Project
Area Source Emissions 11.53 0.14 16.73 0.00 0.03 0.02
Energy Emissions 0.11 2.00 1.68 0.01 0.15 0.15
Mobile Emissions 2.27 15.56 32.85 0.17 9.93 2.73
Total Project Emissions 13.91 17.70 51.26 0.18 10.11 2.90
Net Emissions (Project Minus Existing) 12.56 15.37 29.95 0.12 5.24 1.63
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Ibid. page 25 – Table 9
In addition, Rule 2305 requires the Project operator to directly reduce NOX and particulate matter
emissions or otherwise facilitate emission and exposure reductions of these pollutants in nearby
communities. Alternatively, warehouse operators can choose to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the
mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling
infrastructure in communities nearby.
Warehouse owners and operators are required to earn Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce
Emissions (WAIRE) Points each year. WAIRE points are a menu-based system earned by emission
reduction measures. Warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes
truck trip data and emission reduction measures. WAIRE points can be earned by completing actions from
a menu that can include acquiring and using natural gas, Near-Zero Emissions and/or Zero-Emissions on-
road trucks, zero-emission cargo handling equipment, solar panels or zero-emission charging and fueling
infrastructure, or other options. Therefore, the Project operator would be required to implement
additional emission reduction strategies. Conservatively, this analysis does not take credit for these
potential reductions. Compliance with Rule 2305 would reduce emissions below what is currently
analyzed.
In addition, the Project would implement FEIR MMs 4.2-2c through 4.2-2g, 4.2-2j, 4.2-2k, and 4.2-2l to
reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible at a Project level. The Project would also be required
to adhere to PPPs 3 through 6 to further reduce impacts concerning but not limited to, air quality impacts.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 45 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Cumulative Short-Term Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for the CAAQS and nonattainment for O3
and PM2.5 for the NAAQS. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to
Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution notes that projects that result in emissions that do not
exceed the project specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less than
significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. The
mass-based regional significance thresholds published by the SCAQMD are designed to ensure compliance
with both NAAQS and CAAQS and are based on an inventory of projected emissions in the SCAB.
Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the project’s
contribution to the cumulative air quality impact in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. As
shown in Table 1 above, Project construction-related emissions by themselves would not exceed the
SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the Project would not generate a
cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during construction.
The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMPs
pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be utilized during
construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with
adopted emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the
SCAB, which would include related projects. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would
further reduce Project construction-related emissions. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions,
combined with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate local air quality.
The Project’s construction-related emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution
to significant cumulative air quality.
Cumulative Long-Term Emissions
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.
The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size
to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions
contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the
operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore,
a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
As shown in Table 2, the Project’s net operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As a
result, operational emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and
regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project
basis. Project operations would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
nonattainment criteria pollutant.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 46 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Plans, Policies, and Programs
Plans, Policies, and Programs include existing requirements based on local, state, or federal regulations
or laws are frequently required independently of CEQA review. Typical requirements include compliance
with the provisions of the Building Code, CalGreen Code, local municipal code, SCAQMD Rules, etc.
Because PPPs are neither Project specific nor a result of development of the Project, they are not
considered to be project design features or mitigation measures.
PPP 1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading
Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to comply with
South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rules 402 and 403 to
minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. The measures include, but are
not limited to, the following:
Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months
will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or
chemically stabilized.
All material transported off site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered
to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will
be minimized at all times.
Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets
will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked
onto the paved surface.
PPP 2 Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113, the Project applicant shall require by contract
specifications that the interior and exterior architectural coatings (paint and primer
including parking lot paint) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating
of 50 grams per liter or less.
PPP 3 Diesel powered construction equipment is required to turn off when not in use per
Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2449.
PPP 4 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency
Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24,
Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate
improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Official, or designee
shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. The Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards (Section 110.10) require buildings to be designed to have 15 percent
of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of
rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing additional rooftop solar
panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 47 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
PPP 5 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building
Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or designee shall
ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirements
include, but are not limited to:
Design buildings to be water efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance
with Section 5.303 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code
Part 11.
Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1
(nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling
containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with Section 5.410
(nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE),
nonresidential construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3 (nonresidential
electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
PPP 6 The Project tenants shall comply with the SCAQMD Indirect Source Rule (Rule 2305). This
rule is expected to reduce NOX and PM10 emissions during construction and operation.
Emission reductions resulting from this rule were not included in the Project analysis.
Compliance with Rule 2305 is enforced by the SCAQMD through their reporting process
and is required for all warehouse projects greater than 100,000 square feet.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
PPPs 1 through 6 and FEIR MMs 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f are applicable for construction, and FEIR MMs
4.2-2c through 4.2-2g, and 4.2-2j through 4.2-2l are applicable for operations [see MMs in threshold (a)
above].
Conclusion
Although the Project would result in no new or more severe impacts or conflict with long term air quality
and the Project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact, because the FEIR concluded that the
overall development of the SWIP would cause a Significant and Unavoidable impact relative to the long
term air quality, a determination of Significant and Unavoidable impact is made for the Project in this
regard.
No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact
evaluated in the FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was
not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified is available that would
impact the prior finding of no significant impact under this issue area.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 48 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Localized Construction Significance Analysis
The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family residences located approximately 140 feet
(43 meters) to the south of the Project site on the opposite side of Jurupa Avenue. To identify impacts to
sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in
response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD
provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for
guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with
Project-specific emissions.
Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the
maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 3: Equipment-Specific
Grading Rates, is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. The
appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Central San Bernardino Valley (SRA 34)
since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-
up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5 acres in size. Project construction is
anticipated to disturb a maximum of 4.0 acres in a single day during the grading phase. As the LST guidance
provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1-, 2-, and 5-acres in size and the thresholds increase with size
of the site, the LSTs for a 4-acre threshold were interpolated and utilized for this analysis.
Table 3: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase
Equipment
Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating
Hours
per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Grading
Tractors 2 0.5 8 1
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 2 1 8 2
Total Acres Graded per Day 4
Source: Ibid. page 29 – Table 10
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be
included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod
“on-site” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family
residences located 140 feet (43 meters) south of the Project site. LST thresholds are provided for distances
to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, LSTs for 43 meters were interpolated
and utilized in this analysis. Table 4: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, shows the results
of localized emissions during construction. This table represents the worst-case scenario and are based
on peak earthwork volumes anticipated. As shown, localized Project construction emissions would not
exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 49 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table 4: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions
Construction Activity Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition (2024) 24.89 21.74 3.75 1.39
Site Preparation (2024) 35.95 32.93 6.71 4.10
Grading (2024) 34.29 30.17 3.84 2.28
Building Construction (2024) 11.22 13.12 0.50 0.46
Building Construction (2025) 10.44 13.04 0.43 0.40
Paving (2025) 7.45 9.98 0.35 0.32
Architectural Coating (2025) 0.88 1.14 0.03 0.03
Maximum Emissions 35.95 32.93 6.71 4.10
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 4 acres at 43 meters) 259 1,918 30 8
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: Ibid. page 30 – Table 11
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only
if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling
at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). Since the Project is a warehouse, the operational phase
LST protocol is conservatively applied to both the area source and some portions of the mobile source
emissions. As the nearest receptors are located approximately 140 feet (43 meters) from the Project site,
LSTs for 43 meters in SRA 34 were interpolated and utilized in this analysis. Although the Project site is
approximately 16.305 acres, the 5-acre LST threshold was conservatively assumed for the Project, as the
LSTs increase with the size of the site. Therefore, the 5-acre LSTs are conservative for evaluation of a
16.305-acre site.
The LST analysis only includes on-site sources. However, the CalEEMod outputs do not separate on- and
off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in
Table 5: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, conservatively include all on-site Project-related
stationary sources and five percent of the Project-related vehicle emissions since a portion of mobile
sources could include trucks idling on-site.
Table 5: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions
Activity Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site and Mobile Source Emissions1 7.086 24.895 1.353 0.613
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 5 acres at 43 meters) 293 2,214 9 3
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
1. Conservatively assumes 10 percent of mobile emissions are on-site.
Source: Ibid. page 30 – Table 12
Table 5 shows that the maximum daily emissions of these pollutants during operations would not result
in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, significant impacts
would not occur concerning LSTs during operational activities.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 50 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to provide
sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or explain why such
information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno [Friant Ranch, L.P.] [2018] Cal.5th,
Case No. S219783). The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which
defines a major stationary source (in extreme ozone nonattainment areas such as the SCAB) as emitting
10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR)
Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or modified sources. The NSR Program8 was created by the FCAA
to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent
with attainment of health-based NAAQS. The NAAQS establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an
adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the
SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts would
occur.
NOX and ROG are precursor emissions that form ozone in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight
where the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the influence of
meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so ozone may be formed at a distance downwind
from the sources. Breathing ground-level ozone can result in health effects that include: reduced lung
function, inflammation of airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking
a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence
from observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily ozone concentrations are associated with
increased asthma attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of
morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that ozone
can make asthma symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers.
According the SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP, ozone, NOX, and ROG have been decreasing in the SCAB since 1975
and are projected to continue to decrease in the future. Although vehicle miles traveled in the SCAB
continue to increase, NOX and ROG levels are decreasing because of the mandated controls on motor
vehicles and the replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower-emitting vehicles. NOX emissions from
electric utilities have also decreased due to the use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. The 2022
AQMP demonstrates how the SCAQMD’s control strategy to meet the 8-hour O3 standard in 2037. In
addition, since NOX emissions also lead to the formation of PM2.5, the NOX reductions needed to meet the
O3 standards will likewise lead to improvement of PM2.5 levels and attainment of PM2.5 standards. The
SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NOX reductions prove to be much more effective in
reducing ozone levels and will also lead to significant improvement in PM2.5 concentrations. NOX-emitting
stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM)
facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters,
engines, burners, flares) and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane. The 2016 AQMP
identifies robust NOX reductions from new regulations on RECLAIM facilities, non-refinery flares,
8 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) [i.e., PSD (40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 51.165 (b)), Non-attainment NSR (40 CFR 52.24, 40 CFR 51.165,
40 CFR part 51, Appendix S)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 51 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
commercial cooking, and residential and commercial appliances. Such combustion sources are already
heavily regulated with the lowest NOX emissions levels achievable but there are opportunities to require
and accelerate replacement with cleaner zero-emission alternatives, such as residential and commercial
furnaces, pool heaters, and backup power equipment. The AQMD plans to achieve such replacements
through a combination of regulations and incentives. Technology-forcing regulations can drive
development and commercialization of clean technologies, with future year requirements for new or
existing equipment. Incentives can then accelerate deployment and enhance public acceptability of new
technologies.
As previously discussed, Project emissions would be less than significant and would not exceed SCAQMD
thresholds (refer to Table 1 and Table 2). Localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby sensitive
receptors were also found to be less than significant (refer to Table 4 and Table 5). The LSTs represent the
maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the
most stringent applicable CAAQS or NAAQS. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the
ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The
CAAQS and NAAQS establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to
protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. Information on health
impacts related to exposure to ozone and particulate matter emissions published by the U.S. EPA and
CARB have been summarized above and discussed in the Regulatory Framework section. As shown above,
Project-related emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds or the LSTs, and therefore would not
exceed the ambient air quality standards or cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing
violations of air quality standards. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to criteria
pollutant levels in excess of the health-based ambient air quality standards.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an
intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or
NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily
when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent
in the last 20 years. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation
of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with
the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in
exceedances of the CO standard.
The SCAB was re-designated as attainment for CO in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s
AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the
SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most
congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately
100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO
concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm NAAQS. The Project considered herein
would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s
CO Hotspot Analysis. As CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue
intersection even though it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 52 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
hotspots would not be experienced at any Project area intersections resulting from 658 additional vehicle
trips attributable to the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Carcinogen Risk
Table 6: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment shows the unmitigated health risk for Project construction and
operations. Based on Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Risk Assessment
Guidelines, the exposure duration for a resident is 30 years, beginning with the third trimester; the
exposure duration for workers is 25 years. Operations would commence following construction. As such,
construction would not overlap with operations. The analysis calculates risk based on exposure to
construction concentrations during the initial ten months of the exposure duration and operational
concentrations for the remainder of the exposure duration. Without the incorporation of mitigation
measures, the worst-case carcinogenic risk from construction and operations at the Maximally Exposed
Individual Receptor (MEIR) would be 0.35 and 0.60 in one million, respectively. As such, unmitigated
cancer risk would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 10 in one million incremental threshold.
Table 6: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment
Exposure Scenario
Cancer Risk (per Million)1,2 Significance
Threshold
(per Million)
Mitigated
Risk Exceeds
Threshold? Construction Operations
Residential Receptors – South across Jurupa Avenue 0.35 0.60 10 No
Student Receptors – Henry J. Kaiser High School 0.002 0.053 10 No
Student Receptors – Chaparral Elementary School 0.004 0.017 10 No
Worker Receptors – Adjacent to the east 0.02 0.14 10 No
1. Refer to Appendix A of Appendix B for modeling data.
2. The reported annual pollutant concentration is at the closest maximally exposed individual receptors (MEIR) to the project site.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2023). Health Risk Assessment. Page 19 – Table 3.
Non-Carcinogen Hazard
The significance thresholds for TAC exposure also require an evaluation of non-cancer risk stated in terms
of a hazard index. Non-cancer chronic impacts are calculated by dividing the annual average concentration
by the REL for that substance. The REL is defined as the concentration at which no adverse non-cancer
health effects are anticipated. RELs are designed to protect sensitive individuals within the population.
According to OEHHA, the REL for DPM is 5 and the target organ is the respiratory system.9
Chronic non-carcinogenic impacts are shown in Table 7: Chronic Hazard Assessment. A chronic hazard
index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. The hazard index is calculated by dividing the chronic
exposure by the reference exposure level. The chronic hazard was calculated based on the highest annual
average concentration. The highest maximum chronic index from the Project would be 0.0015. Therefore,
non-carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits and a less than significant impact
would occur.
Table 7: Chronic Hazard Assessment
Exposure Scenario Concentration (μg/m3) Chronic Hazard
Construction
9 Ibid. page 19
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 53 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Resident (MEIR)1 0.0032 0.0006
Student – Henry J. Kaiser High School 0.0002 0.0001
Student – Chaparral Elementary School 0.0005 0.0001
Worker (MEIW)2 0.0076 0.0015
Operations
Resident (MEIR)1 0.0008 0.00016
Student – Henry J. Kaiser High School 0.0006 0.00010
Student – Chaparral Elementary School 0.0002 0.00004
Worker (MEIW)2 0.0016 0.00032
SCAQMD Threshold N/A 1.0
Threshold Exceeded? No No
1. The maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) would be the residences located approximately 140 feet to the south of the Project site.
2. The maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW) would be located approximately 540 feet to the east of the Project site.
Source: Ibid. page 20 – Table 5
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
PPPs 1 through 6 and FEIR MMs 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f are applicable for construction, and FEIR MMs
4.2-2c through 4.2-2g, and 4.2-2j through 4.2-2l are applicable for operations [see MMs in threshold (a)
above].
Conclusion
Air quality impacts related to the Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the FEIR. No new
impact relative to air quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant
impact evaluated in the FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance
that was not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified is available that
would alter the FEIR’s significance finding.
Threshold (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people.
Construction
Odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 to
prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air
contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to
any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort,
repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural
tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
Construction equipment emissions, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from
architectural coatings and paving activities, may generate odors. However, these odors would be
temporary, are not expected to affect a substantial number of people and would disperse rapidly.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 54 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Therefore, Project construction activities would not result in objectionable odors that would adversely
affect a substantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant.
Operations
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses
include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants,
chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project
would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.
Therefore, Project operations would not result in odors that would adversely affect people.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project; therefore, no new and/or
refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to air quality.
Overall Air Quality Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed
by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified
impacts, with respect to air quality. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 55 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
4.4.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The FEIR concluded that future development occurring within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would
not adversely affect, either directly or through habitat modification, any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species, any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community upon the
implementation of the following mitigation measures: 4.3-1a through 4.3-1h. Similarly, the FEIR
determined that future development would not affect any wetlands and drainages with implementation
of MM 4.3-3a, or habitat conservation plans upon the implementation of the following mitigation
measures: 4.3-1a through 4.3-1f.
4.4.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
This section is prepared in part utilizing the following technical study:
ELMT Consulting, Inc. October 2023. Biological Resources Assessment (BRA).
This technical study is provided as Appendix C to this Addendum EIR and findings are summarized below.
Prior to conducting the habitat assessment/field investigation, a literature review and records search was
conducted for special-status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the
Project site. Previously recorded occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species and their
proximity to the Project site were determined through a query of the following sources:
California Department (CDFW’s) Quick View Tool in the Biogeographic Information and
Observation System (BIOS),
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5;
California Native Plan Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular
Plants of California;
Calflora Database;
Compendia of special-status species published by CDFW; and
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species listings.
Threshold (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New or More Severe Impact: The BRA found that no State- and/or federally-listed threatened or
endangered species or plant communities are documented in the immediate vicinity of the Project site
and that no USFWS-designated Critical Habitat occurs on-site.
Special-Status Plant Species
No special-status plant species were observed on-site during the habitat assessment conducted by ELMT
biologists. The Project site has been subject to anthropogenic disturbances from historic agricultural
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 56 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
activities and on-site and surrounding development. These disturbances have eliminated the suitability of
the habitat to support special-status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project
site. Based on habitat requirements for specific special-status plant species and the availability and quality
of habitats needed by each species, the BRA determined that the Project site does not provide suitable
habitat for any of the special-status plant species known to occur in the area and are presumed to be
absent from the Project site. No focused surveys were recommended.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
No special-status wildlife species were observed onsite during the habitat assessment conducted by ELMT
biologists. The Project site consists of developed and undeveloped land that has been subject to a variety
of anthropogenic disturbances and is surrounded by existing development. These disturbances have
eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred onsite which has reduced potential foraging
and nesting/denning opportunities for wildlife species.
Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of onsite habitats, it
was determined that the Project site has a low potential to provide minimal foraging and perching
opportunities for Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii). Further it was determined that the Project site does
not provide suitable habitat for any of the other special-status wildlife species known to occur in the area
since the Project site have been heavily disturbed from on-site disturbances and surrounding
development.
Cooper’s hawk is not federally, or state listed as endangered or threatened. In order to ensure impacts to
the Cooper’s hawk do not occur from implementation of the Project, a pre-construction nesting bird
clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. With implementation of the pre-
construction nesting bird clearance survey, impacts to the Cooper’s hawk would be less than significant.
Special-Status Plant Communities
According to the CNDDB, one (1) special-status plant communities has been reported in the Guasti and
Fontana USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles: Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. Based on the results of the
field investigation, Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub does not occur within or adjacent to the Project
site. Therefore, no special-status plant communities would be impacted from Project implementation.
Critical Habitats
The BRA determined that the Project site is not located with federally designated Critical Habitat. The
nearest designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 1.1 miles southeast of the Project site for
coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Therefore, the loss or adverse
modification of Critical Habitat from site development will not occur and consultation with the USFWS for
impacts to Critical Habitat will not be required for implementation of the Project.
DSF Suitability Assessment
In addition to the habitat assessment, ELMT biologists conducted a Delhi Sands flower-loving fly
(Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis; [DSF]) suitability assessment. The suitability assessment
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 57 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
determined that as a result of previous land uses and on-site development, surface soils have been heavily
mixed with alluvial soils (Tujunga loamy sand) and compacted.
In addition, the southwest corner of the site, which is the only portion of the site that occurs adjacent to
mapped Delhi Sands soils, supports existing paved sidewalks and a grass lawn. Further, the Project site is
surrounded by existing developments and no longer has connectivity to areas upwind containing Delhi
Sands soils, areas subjected to Aeolian processes, or areas supporting DSF populations. Therefore, all soils
within the boundaries of the Project site were rated as “unsuitable quality” with a habitat quality rating
of 1 and it was determined that the site does not support Delhi Sand soils needed to provide suitable
habitat for DSF and DSF is presumed absent from the Project site.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes MMs 4.3-1a through 4.3-1h to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation
of the Approved Project. FEIR MMs 4.3-1e and 4.3-1h do not apply to the Project because no habitat or
USFWS-designated Critical habitat occurs on-site and no federally- and/or state-listed threatened or
endangered species were located in the immediate vicinity of the Project site.
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
Although species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS are determined to be absent from the Project site, the
FEIR requires that the following measures be implemented in order to further reduce potentially significant
impacts on special status species and maintain a less than significant level.
4.3-1a The City of Fontana Planning Division shall require that all future project applicants
prepare a Biological Assessment prior to the issuance of grading permits. The Biological
Assessment shall include a vegetation map of the proposed project area, analysis of the
impacts associated with plant and animal species and habitats, and conduct habitat
evaluations for burrowing owl, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, San Diego pocket mouse,
western mastiff bat, western yellow bat, and San Diego desert woodrat. If any of these
species are determined to be present, then coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and/or California Department of Fish and Game shall be conducted to determine
what, if any, permits or clearances are required prior to development. [NOTE: This MM
has been satisfied through the preparation of this Addendum, and Biological Resources
Assessment (Appendix C)]
4.3-1b Any future land disturbance for site-specific developments within the project site shall be
conducted outside of the State-identified bird nesting season (February 15 through
September 1). If construction during the nesting season must occur, the site shall be
evaluated by a City-approved biologist prior to ground disturbance to determine if nesting
birds exist on-site. If any nests are discovered, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate
buffer zone around the nest, depending on the species and type of construction activity.
Only construction activities approved by the biologist shall take place within the buffer
zone until the nest is vacated.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 58 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.3-1c Prior to any ground disturbance, trees scheduled for removal shall be evaluated by a City-
approved biologist for roosting bats. If a roost is present the biologist will develop a plan
to minimize impacts to the bats to the greatest extent feasible. [NOTE: This MM has been
satisfied through the preparation of this Addendum, and Biological Resources Assessment
(Appendix C)].
4.3-1d The City shall encourage the preservation of natural habitat in conjunction with private
or public development projects. [NOTE: This mitigation measure applies to the Project but
is implemented by the City].
4.3-1f Local CEQA procedures shall be applied to identify potential impacts to rare, threatened
and endangered species [NOTE: This MM has been satisfied through the preparation of
this Addendum, and Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix C)].
4.3-1g Evidence of satisfactory compliance shall be provided by Project Applicant with any
required State and/or Federal permits, prior to issuance of grading permits for individual
projects [NOTE: This MM has been satisfied through the preparation of this Addendum,
and Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix C)].
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact on a status or listed species with
implementation of FEIR MMs 4.3-1a, 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1d, 4.3-1f and 4.3-1g. Similar to the FEIR findings,
the Project is not anticipated to result in a less than significant impact to species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species by the CDFW or USFWS.
Threshold (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New or More Severe Impact: The FEIR found that future development within the Specific Plan Update
area would not adversely affect any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community upon the
implementation of recommended mitigation measures. The BRA evaluated for the presence of
jurisdictional waters, i.e., Waters of the U.S. as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or streambed and associated riparian habitat as
regulated by the CDFW. Evaluation of potential federal jurisdiction followed the regulations set forth in
33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328 and the USACE guidance documents and evaluation of
potential State jurisdiction followed guidance in the Fish and Game Code and A Review of Stream
Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds.
No discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, or wetland features/obligate plant species that would
be considered jurisdictional by the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW were observed within the Project site. Based
on the proposed site plan, Project activities would not result in impacts to USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW
jurisdictional areas and regulatory approvals would not be required. Consistent with the FEIR findings, no
drainages are located on-site, and no aspect of the Project site presents evidence of jurisdictional waters.
Therefore, implementation of FEIR MM 4.3-3a is not required and a less than significant impact would
occur.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 59 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
The FEIR included MM 4.3-3a to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Approved
Project. However as noted above, the Project would not impact an identified jurisdictional water and
therefore, FEIR MM 4.3-3a is not applicable.
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None apply to the Project.
Conclusion
The Project’s impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be less than
significant. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project. No riparian
habitat exists on-site and the Project would not impact to Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW jurisdictional
areas. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: Consistent with the FEIR and as noted above in Threshold (b) of
Section 4.4 Biological Resources, the BRA concluded that the Project site has no discernible drainage
courses, inundated areas, or wetland features/obligate plant species that would be considered
jurisdictional by the USACE, Regional Board, or CDFW. Furthermore, Project implementation would not
impact jurisdictional waters under the USACE, Regional Board, or CDFW jurisdictional areas and regulatory
approvals will not be required. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not
known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified is available that would change
the finding of less than significant impact under this threshold.
Mitigation Program
As stated above, the FEIR included MM 4.3-3a to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation
of the Approved Project. However as noted above, the Project would not impact an identified
jurisdictional water and therefore, FEIR MM 4.3-3a is not applicable.
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None apply to the Project.
Conclusion
The Project would result in a less than significant impact on wetlands including, but not limited to, vernal
pool, coastal, etc., and no Project-specific mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 60 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
No New or More Severe Impact: Refer above to thresholds (a and b). The FEIR concluded that the Specific
Plan Update area does not function as a wildlife movement corridor, since the area is mostly developed,
with most of the land converted to industrial, commercial, and residential uses. It is noted that the Jurupa
Mountains, located south of the Specific Plan Update area, provide habitat for many species of plants and
animals. However, it functions as an ecological island and does not provide for significant movement to
the urbanized north.
Consistent of the FEIR findings, the Project site would be confined to existing areas that have been heavily
disturbed and are isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages. In addition, there are no riparian
corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the site
to a recognized wildlife corridor or linkage. As such, implementation of the proposed Project is not
expected to impact wildlife movement opportunities. Therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors or linkages
are not expected to occur.
Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of onsite habitats, the
BRA determined that Project site has a low potential to provide minimal foraging and perching
opportunities for Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii). Although the Cooper’s hawk species is not federally
or state listed as endangered or threatened, a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be
conducted prior to ground disturbance to ensure that impacts to Cooper’s hawk are minimized.
Furthermore, the Project would implement FEIR MM 4.3-1g to further reduce impacts.
In regard to trees, eucalyptus trees were observed on the northern of the Project site bordering the
existing developed areas. The trees are in varying levels of health, are not at least 10 feet apart, and have
been impacted by anthropogenic disturbances. As a result, these eucalyptus trees do not constitute a
windrow, and would not qualify as “heritage tree,” “significant tree,” “specimen tree,” and/or windrow
under the FMC. A tree removal permit will not be required.
In regard to wildlife nursery sites, the FEIR concluded that the removal or alteration of nonnative habitats
within the Specific Plan Update area could result in the temporary or permanent displacement of plants,
vegetation types, small mammals, reptiles, and other animals. These factors could disrupt the behavioral
and reproductive patterns of wildlife. Unlike the FEIR, the BRA determined that the habitat requirements
for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site habitat in the Project site does not provide
suitable habitat for special-status plant or wildlife species and are presumed to be absent from the Project
site. Because the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for wildlife, the site is also considered to
not be suitable for use by raptors for foraging purposes. The Project site and immediate surrounding areas
do not contain habitat suitable for nesting birds in general, including the trees on site. As such,
implementation of the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Pursuant to FEIR MM 4.3-1b, the Project Applicant would nevertheless conduct a pre-construction
clearance survey within three days of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure
that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey
should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 61 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey,
construction activities should stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer. The size of the no-disturbance
buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding
anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and
duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These
factors will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction
to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers;
and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor should
be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that
nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and
left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities
within the buffer area can occur.
Overall, implementation of the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
Refer to FEIR MMs 4.3-1a, 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1d, 4.3-1f and 4.3-1g in threshold (a) above.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact on fish and wildlife and their habitat with
implementation of Refer to FEIR MMs 4.3-1a, 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1d, 4.3-1f and 4.3-1g above. No Project-
specific mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances related to protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and
Threshold (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No New or More Severe Impact: Refer to Thresholds (a-d). According to the FEIR, the Specific Plan Update
developments would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, or local
policies/ordinances upon implementation of recommended mitigation. Additionally, the FEIR concluded
that development in the Specific Plan Update area could involve the removal of heritage, significant, or
specimen trees; the FEIR concluded that for protection and preservation of heritage trees, significant
trees, and specimen trees on public and private property, the Project should comply with Chapter 28
Article III of the Municipal Code, in particular, Code Section 28-64, Permit Required for Removal of
Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees, which specifies no person shall remove or cause the removal of
any heritage, significant, or specimen tree unless a Tree Removal Permit is first obtained. Impacts in this
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 62 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
regard are considered less than significant following compliance with the provisions of the Municipal
Code.
Moreover, the FEIR concluded that neither the City nor the County has adopted a federal or state habitat
conservation plan that provides any requirements or guidance for the Specific Plan Update area. Buildout
of the Specific Plan Update would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan. Although a
recovery plan was released in 1997 for Delhi sands flower-loving fly (DSF) that includes the Specific Plan
Update area, an assessment of the recovery of DSF in 2008 indicated that much of the Jurupa Recovery
Unit may no longer provide conservation value for DSF.
As discussed in thresholds (a-d) above, the Project site would not conflict with federal, state, regional, or
local policies pertaining to biological resources and jurisdiction waters and does not contain suitable
habitat for the DSF. In addition, the City’s municipal code (Section 28-63) does not apply to the Project
because the on-site trees do not qualify for “heritage tree,” “significant tree,” “specimen tree,” and/or
windrow status. Consistent with the FEIR, impacts in this regard are considered less than significant with
FEIR MM 4.3-1g implemented. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not
known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified is available that would change
the finding of less than significant impact under this threshold.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Approved
Project. FEIR MMs 4.3-1e and 4.3-1h do not apply to the Project because no habitat or USFWS-designated
Critical habitat occurs on-site and no federally- and/or state-listed threatened or endangered species were
located in the immediate vicinity of the Project site.
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
Refer to FEIR MMs 4.3-1a, 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1d, 4.3-1f and 4.3-1g in threshold a above.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to conflict with plans, policies,
and ordinances. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project; therefore,
no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Overall Biological Resources Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to biological resources. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 63 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.5 Cultural Resources
4.5.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The FEIR determined that although the likelihood for adverse impacts to historical and archaeological
resources within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area are not likely to occur, in order to maintain any
potential unforeseeable impacts to a less than significant level, FEIR MMs 4.4-1a, 4.4-1b, 4.4-2a through
4.4-2c, and 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b were recommended. In addition, the FEIR complied with Senate Bill (SB) 18
which involved consultation with a total of eight tribes, from whom two responses were received (Soboba
Band of Luiseño Indians and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians).
4.5.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
This section is prepared in part utilizing the following technical study:
BCR Consulting, LLC. October 2023. Cultural Resources Assessment.
This technical study is provided as Appendix D to this Addendum EIR and findings are summarized below.
Research was conducted, and data was gathered from the South-Central Coast Information Center
(SCCIC). The records search included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources,
as well as a review of known cultural resources, and survey and excavation reports generated from
projects completed within one-half mile of the Project site. In addition, a review was conducted of the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and
documents and inventories from the California Office of Historic Preservation including the lists of
California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, Listing of National Register
Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures.
According to the FEIR, the Historical/Archaeological Records Search prepared for the SWIP Specific Plan
Update concluded that the likelihood of encountering potentially significant historic-period resources
within boundaries is low. Although a total of nine historic-period resources were documented as part of
the Historical/Archaeological Records Search, it was determined that all nine were either unlikely to be
impacted by the Approved Project or did not merit listing in the NRHP or California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR). The FEIR determined that the SWIP Specific Plan Update area was highly disturbed due
to industrial, residential and agricultural land uses and that the site has had more than 20 previous cultural
resources studies that have taken place. As a result of these studies, no archaeological resources or Native
American sites were found within the boundaries. Thus, the FEIR determined that the likelihood of
encountering potentially significant prehistoric archaeological remains within Specific Plan Update area is
also low; however, the following mitigation measures were recommended: MM 4.4-1a, 4.4-1b, 4.4-2a,
4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c.
The results of the Cultural Resources Assessment are summarized herein and included as Appendix D to
this Addendum.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 64 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
Threshold (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
No New or More Severe Impact: Data from the SCCIC revealed that 11 cultural resource studies have
taken place resulting in the recording of six cultural resources (all historic-period buildings) within a half-
mile radius of the Project site. The Project site has never been subject to a previous cultural resources
study and no cultural resources have been previously identified within its boundaries. In addition, the BCR
determined during a site visit that ground disturbances were severe and resulted from a variety of natural
and artificial factors, including excavation for paving, and for construction of utility services and modern
and historic-period developments. No cultural resources (including historic-period buildings or prehistoric
or historic-period archaeological resources) were identified.
Due to a lack of archaeological resources located within the Project site, BCR Consulting recommends that
no additional cultural resources work, or monitoring is necessary for any Project activities. However, if
previously undocumented cultural resources are identified during earthmoving activities, a qualified
archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find and divert earthmoving
activities, if necessary, in accordance with FEIR MM’s 4.4-1b, 4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c and Standard Condition
of Approval No. 1.
No new or more severe impact relative to historical or archaeological resources from previously identified
significant impacts evaluated in the FEIR would occur. Furthermore, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified is
available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant impact with mitigation under this
threshold.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR included MMs 4.4-1a, 4.4-1b, 4.4-2a through 4.4-2c to reduce potential impacts to historical and
archeological resources associated with the implementation of the Approved Project.
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
4.4-1a A qualified archaeologist shall perform the following tasks, prior to construction activities
within project boundaries:
Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for historic
resources, a field survey for historical resources within portions of the project site not
previously surveyed for cultural resources shall be conducted.
Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for historic
resources, the San Bernardino County Archives shall be contacted for information on
historical property records.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 65 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for sacred
land resources, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted for
information regarding sacred lands.
All historical resources within the project site, including archaeological and historic
resources older than 50 years, shall be inventoried using appropriate State record
forms and guidelines followed according to the California Office of Historic
Preservation’s handbook “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.” The
archaeologist shall then submit two (2) copies of the completed forms to the San
Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for the assignment of
trinomials.
The significance and integrity of all historical resources within the project site shall be
evaluated, using criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines for important
archaeological resources and/or 36 CFR 60.4 for eligibility for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places.
Mitigation measures shall be proposed and conditions of approval (if a local
government action) recommended to eliminate adverse project effects on significant,
important, and unique historical resources, following appropriate CEQA and/or
National Historic Preservation Act’s Section 106 guidelines.
A technical resources management report shall be prepared, documenting the
inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project site,
following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by
the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a),
December 1989. One copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, shall be
submitted to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for
permanent archiving.
[NOTE: This MM has been satisfied through the preparation of this Addendum, and
Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D)]
4.4-1b If any historical resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer shall
retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take appropriate
measures to protect or preserve them for study.
4.4-2a A qualified archaeologist shall perform the following tasks, prior to construction activities
within project boundaries:
Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for
prehistoric resources, a field survey for prehistoric resources within portions of the
project site not previously surveyed for cultural resources shall be conducted.
Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for sacred
land resources, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted for
information regarding sacred lands.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 66 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
All prehistoric resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms
and two (2) copies of the completed forms shall be submitted to the San Bernardino
County Archaeological Information Center.
The significance and integrity of all prehistoric resources within the project site shall
be evaluated using criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines for important
archaeological resources.
If human remains are encountered on the project site, the San Bernardino County
Coroner’s Office shall be contacted within 24 hours of the find, and all work shall be
halted until a clearance is given by that office and any other involved agencies.
All resources and data collected within the project site shall be permanently curated
at an appropriate repository within the County.
[NOTE: This MM has been satisfied through the preparation of this Addendum, and
Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D)]
4.4-2b If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the
developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to
take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of
the archaeologist, the City of Fontana shall:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant
modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites
within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the area’s archaeological heritage.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval (if a local
government action) to eliminate adverse Project effects on significant, important, and
unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory,
evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the Project area. Submit one
copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County
Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving.
4.4-2c Where consistent with applicable local, State and federal law and deemed appropriate by
the City, future site-specific development projects shall consider the following requests
by the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians and/or other
tribes as appropriate:
• In the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction
for future development, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and
a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to
assess the find. Work on the overall Project may continue during this period;
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 67 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• Initiate consultation between the appropriate Native American tribal entity (as
determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards) and
the City/Project Applicant;
• Transfer cultural resources investigations to the appropriate Native American entity
(as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards)
as soon as possible; and
• Utilize a Native American Monitor from the appropriate Native American entity (as
determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards)
where deemed appropriate or required by the City, during initial ground-disturbing
activities, cultural resource surveys, and/or cultural resource excavations.
Standard Condition of Approval No. 1
Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the
immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural 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.
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.
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.
Conclusion
The Project would result in a less than significant impact on a historic or archaeological resource with
implementation of FEIR MMs 4.4-1a, 4.4-1b, 4.4-2a, 4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c along with Standard Condition of
Approval No. 1. Furthermore, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and
could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior
finding of less than significant impact with mitigation under this threshold.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 68 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outsides of dedicated cemeteries?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the FEIR, the Project site is not located within a known or
suspected cemetery and there are no known human remains within the Project site. No conditions exist
that suggest human remains are likely to be found within the boundaries of the Project site. Due to the
level of past disturbance in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area, it is not anticipated that human remains,
including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or
ground-disturbing activities.
The Project-specific Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D) confirmed that the Project site is not
likely to contain human remains. However, consistent with the FEIR, if human remains are found, those
remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. The California Health and
Safety Code (HSC) Sections 7050.5-7055 describes the general provisions for human remains. Specifically,
HSC Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during
excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in
Section 5097.98 of the PRC would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner,
notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and consultation with the individual
identified by the NAHC to be the “most likely descendant.”
If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any
area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been called
out, and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the
treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with State regulations, which detail the
appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts in this regard would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
Refer to Standard Condition of Approval No. 1 in threshold (b) above.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact pertaining to the disturbance of human remains
with adherence to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Standard Condition of Approval No. 1. The
CRA did not find new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project regarding historical or
archaeological resource, or human remains; therefore, no MMs are required, but the Project must comply
with any applicable state regulation pertaining to human remains, including Standard Condition of
Approval No. 1.
Overall Cultural Resources Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed
by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to cultural resources.
Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 69 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not result in significant
impacts relative to geology and soils, and no mitigation was identified as necessary to reduce potential
impacts.
4.6.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
This section is prepared in part utilizing the following technical study:
Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. July 17, 2023. Geotechnical Investigation.
This technical study is provided as Appendix E to this Addendum EIR and findings are summarized below.
Threshold (a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk 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?
Faulting and Seismicity
No New or More Severe Impact: The Alquist-Priolo Zones Special Studies Act defines active faults as those
that have experienced surface displacement or movement during the last 11,000 years. According to the
General Plan EIR, although several earthquake faults exist within and in proximity to the City, none exist
beneath the SWIP Specific Plan Update area boundaries, including the Project site. The nearest fault to
the Project site is the Cucamonga Fault, which traverses through the northern portion of the City,
approximately eight miles north of the Project site. Consistent with the General Plan EIR, the California
Department of Conservation (DOC) shows on their interactive map Data Viewer that the Project site is not
located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone.10
The intensity of ground shaking would depend upon the magnitude of the earthquake, distance to the
epicenter, and the geology of the area between the epicenter and the Project site. The Project would be
subject to adherence to standard engineering practices and design criteria relative to seismic and geologic
hazards, in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) which went into effect on
January 1, 2023. The CBC includes detailed design requirements related to structural design, soils and
foundations, and grading to ensure that public safety risks due to seismic shaking are minimized to levels
below significant.
10 Department of Conservation. (2021). Data Viewer DOC Maps. Available at Data Viewer (ca.gov) (accessed September 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 70 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Liquefaction and Landslides
No New or More Severe Impact: The Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E) concluded that the Project
site is not located within a zone identified as having a potential for liquefaction by the State, as the
quadrangle has not yet been assessed. Additionally, the Project site is not located in a zone identified as
having a potential for liquefaction by the County. Lastly, soil liquefaction is not likely to occur at this site
primarily because the groundwater level is deep. Because the SWIP Specific Plan Update area and
surrounding area are characterized by relatively flat topography, there are no land features in the vicinity
capable of producing landslides.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe new impact on a geologic and soil resources. The
Project is consistent with the FEIR. Project implementation would not expose people or structures to
abnormal seismic ground shaking, ground failure or liquefaction, or landslides; therefore, no impact would
occur from Project implementation.
Threshold (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No New or More Severe Impact: The FEIR concluded that the construction associated with future
development in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would produce loose soils, which would be subject to
erosion during on-site grading and excavation. Grading and trenching for construction may expose soils
to short-term wind and water erosion. The Project would be required to comply with all requirements set
forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities
(e.g., implementation of Best Management Practices [BMPs] through preparation of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan [SWPPP]), reducing potential impacts to less than significant levels. Compliance
with the NPDES is a condition of approval which would be verified through the building plan check process.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no, or no more severe, new impacts as it pertains to erosion or loss of topsoil.
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project. In addition to measures
noted in the FEIR and as required by standard City plan check processes, the Project Applicant would
comply with the NPDES. This measure would be reviewed and checked as part of the City’s grading and
building plan check process. A less than significant impact to erosion or loss of topsoil would occur with
adherence to the above recommendations.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 71 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: Refer to the Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, threshold (a) (i-iv) discussion
above. It is not anticipated that the Project site would become unstable as a result of the Project, or
potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
No mitigation measures were recommended.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more serve impact on geologic and soil resources. There are no new
potentially significant impacts associated with the Project; therefore, no new mitigation measures are
required for issues related to on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse.
Threshold (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code,
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
No New or More Severe Impact: The FEIR concluded that impacts associated with expansive soils were
less than significant. Construction associated with development within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area
could produce finer-grained soils that are moderately to highly expansive which may be present in the
southern portions of the City. The FEIR concluded that although the potential for expansive soils exists,
future developments in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would comply with 2022 CBC standards to
minimize any potential for hazards due to expansive soils.
The geotechnical investigation found that the subsurface conditions at the site were relatively uniform
across the exploration locations. Undocumented fills were found to be up to 3 feet below existing grades
and would need to be removed and recompacted to support foundations and floor slabs. The natural soils
onsite have moderate to high strength and low compressibility characteristics and have a low potential
for expansion. Therefore, no design considerations related to expansive soils are considered warranted
for this site. Consequently, impacts in this regard are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to expansive soil. There are no
new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project; therefore, no new mitigation measures
are required for issues related to expansive soils.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 72 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewer are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
No New or More Severe Impact: Consistent with the SWIP Specific Plan Update, development within the
Specific Plan Update area would be served by sewer facilities. Appendix E concluded cesspools or septic
systems could be encountered during grading due to the existing building on-site. Any encountered
cesspools or septic systems would be removed in their entirety as no septic tanks would be used as part
of the Project. Consistent with the SWIP Specific Plan Update, the Project would connect to the existing
sewer system for wastewater services. Additionally, the resulting excavation of the cesspools or septic
tanks would be backfilled with properly compacted fill soils. As a result, no impacts associated with the
use of septic tanks would occur as part of the Project’s implementation.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. There are no new
potentially significant impacts associated with the Project regarding septic tanks or wastewater disposal
systems; therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
No New or More Severe Impact: The FEIR concluded that future developments within SWIP Specific Plan
Update area boundaries would not directly or indirectly result in significant impacts on a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The Project site is not located in a
paleontological sensitive area.11 However, the general SWIP Specific Plan Update area is known to be
underlain in some areas by Pleistocene alluvial units which are considered to be of high paleontological
sensitivity. As such, excavation activities associated with the development of the Project site could have
the potential to impact the paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene alluvial units when excavating at depths
below five feet. FEIR MMs 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b were incorporated into the FEIR that would require an
analysis of potential impacts to paleontological resources on a site-specific basis. If it is determined
through these analyses that significant paleontological resources may be affected by future projects, a
mitigation program would be prepared to minimize impacts. However, the Project site is not underlain by
older alluvium, and therefore, impacts would be less than significant without mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR included MM 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources
associated with the implementation of the Approved Project.
11 San Bernardino County General Plan. Figure 6-4A, Paleontological Resource Areas – Valley Region.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 73 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
As previously identified, FEIR MMs 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b are applicable to the Project.
Conclusion
The Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning paleontological resources. No Project-
specific MMs are required.
Overall Geology and Soils Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed
by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified impacts
with respect to geology and soils. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 74 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Climate Change)
4.7.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The SWIP FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan would result in less than
significant impacts with mitigation impacts relative to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions but significant and
unavoidable impacts to cumulative GHG emissions. This analysis evaluates construction and operational
impacts associated with the Project relative to thresholds provided in the FEIR, as well as the updated
Environmental Checklist Form.
4.7.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
This analysis evaluates construction and operational impacts associated with the Project relative to
thresholds provided in the FEIR, as well as the updated Environmental Checklist Form.
This section is prepared utilizing the following technical study:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. January 2024 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment.
This technical study is provided as Appendix F to this Addendum EIR and findings are summarized below.
Background
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s
surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation
is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space.
This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The
frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a
much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes
through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that
otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the
atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a
habitable climate on earth.
The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and
nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate
change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that
these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs
exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse
effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change
or global warming.
GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are
pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have
relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to
several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 75 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and
cannot be pinpointed, more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake,
vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions,
approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the
last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the
atmosphere.
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established a State goal of
reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, which would require a reduction of
approximately 173 MMT net CO2e below “business as usual” emission levels. SB 97, a companion bill,
directed the California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency) to certify and adopt guidelines for
the mitigation of GHGs or the effects of GHG emissions. SB 97 was the State Legislature’s directive to the
Resources Agency to specifically establish that GHG emissions and their impacts are appropriate subjects
for CEQA analysis. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was enacted in June 2005 and calls for an 80 percent
reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 was signed into law in 2016 and establishes an interim GHG
emission reduction goal for the State to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by the
year 2030. The CARB 2022 Scoping Plan sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce
anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. The
transportation, electricity, and industrial sectors are the largest GHG contributors in the State. The 2022
Scoping Plan plans to achieve the AB 1279 targets primarily through zero-emission transportation
(e.g., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks). Additional GHG reductions are achieved through
decarbonizing the electricity and industrial sectors. Lastly, SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions
goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the
Project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of
Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-30-15.
Threshold (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment.
Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would result in direct emissions of GHG from construction equipment and the transport of
materials and construction workers to and from the Project site. The GHG emissions only occur during
temporary construction activities and would cease once construction is complete. The total GHG
emissions generated during the construction of the Project are shown in Table 8: Construction
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Table 8: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category MTCO2e
2024 Construction 262
2025 Construction 199
Total Construction Emissions 461
30-Year Amortized Construction 15
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2023). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. page 23 – Table 2
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 76 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
As shown, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 461 MTCO2e throughout the course
of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over a 30-year period
and then added to the operational emissions.12 The Project’s amortized construction emissions would be
15 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.
It is also noted that in response to the increase in warehouse development in California, the State of
California Department of Justice issued a memorandum in March 2021, entitled Warehouse Projects: Best
Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act
(Memorandum). The Memorandum encourages warehouse projects to implement certain best practices,
one of which recommends that construction equipment not in use for more than three minutes be turned
off.
Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions
such as Project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any
landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-
site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the
Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive
refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.
GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 9: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
As shown in Table 9, the Project would generate approximately 4,137 MTCO2e annually from both
construction and operations of the Project without incorporation of applicable SWIP mitigation measures.
The FEIR included Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a, which requires project design features that would reduce
the Project’s GHG emissions. Additionally, as noted in the FEIR MMs 4.2-2c, 4.2-2d, 4.2-2e, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2g,
and 4.2-2j (see Section 4.3, Air Quality) would require future tenants to post signs limiting truck idling,
include preferential parking for vanpools, incorporate food service, configure their operating schedules
around the MetroLink schedule, and to incorporate light colored roofing materials. With incorporation of
these SWIP measures, the net Project-related GHG emissions would be reduced to 2,909 MTCO2e per year
(refer to Table 9) and would not exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold.
Table 9: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source
MTCO2e per Year
Existing Project
Unmitigated
Project With SWIP
EIR Mitigation 1
Net New
Emissions
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years - 15 15 15
Area Source 0 8 8 8
Energy – Electricity 8 257 0 -8
Energy – Natural Gas 11 396 396 385
Waste 2 113 113 111
Water and Wastewater 3 216 216 213
12 Ibid. page 23
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 77 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Emissions Source
MTCO2e per Year
Existing Project
Unmitigated
Project With SWIP
EIR Mitigation 1
Net New
Emissions
Mobile 910 3,132 3,095 2185
Total 934 4,137 3,843 2,909
City of Fontana Project Threshold - - - 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? - - - No
1. Includes incorporation of FEIRs Mitigation Measures 4.2-5a, 4.2-2c, 4.2-2d, 4.2-2e, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2g, and 4.2-2j, which include transportation
demand management measures to reduce mobile source emissions and includes the installation of solar panels on the building rooftop.
Source: Ibid. page 24 – Table 3
The FEIR identified mitigation measures that would further reduce GHG emissions, as previously identified
(MM 4.2-5a). The Project-related unmitigated GHG emissions are above the 3,000 MTCO2e per year
threshold but would be mitigated with implementation of FEIR MM 4.2-5a. Furthermore, the Project
would also comply with PPPs 1 through 6 to ensure that impacts concerning GHG are further reduced.
Therefore, the Project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts to climate change as a
result of the generation of GHG emissions.
Plans, Policies, and Program
Existing requirements based on local, state, or federal regulations or laws are frequently required
independently of CEQA review. Typical requirements include compliance with the provisions of the
Building Code, CalGreen Code, local municipal code, SCAQMD Rules, etc. Because PPPs are neither Project
specific nor a result of development of the Project, they are not considered to be project design features
or mitigation measures.
The Project would comply with PPPs 1 through 6 located in Section 4.2 Air Quality.
PPP 7 Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based
irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Landscape Water
Use Efficiency requirements (Chapter 28, Article IV of the FMC).
Mitigation Program
The FEIR included measures to reduce impacts from both short-term and long-term impacts:
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
4.2-5a Prior to the issuance of building permits, future development projects shall demonstrate
the incorporation of project design features that achieve a minimum of 28.5 percent
reduction in GHG emissions from business as usual conditions. Future projects shall
include:
Energy Efficiency
Design buildings to be energy efficient and exceed Title 24 requirements by at least
5 percent.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 78 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Site and design building to take
advantage of daylight.
Use trees, landscaping and sun screens on west and south exterior building walls to
reduce energy use.
Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements.
Provide information on energy management services for large energy users.
Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and
control systems (e.g., minimum of Energy Star rated equipment).
Implement design features to increase the efficiency of the building envelope
(i.e., the barrier between conditioned and unconditioned spaces).
Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street, and other outdoor lighting.
Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
Renewable Energy
Install solar panels on carports and over parking areas. Ensure buildings are designed
to have “solar ready” roofs.
Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
Create water-efficient landscapes with a preference for a xeriscape landscape palette.
Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture based
irrigation controls.
Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances
(e.g., EPA WaterSense labeled products).
Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated
surfaces) and control runoff.
Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles.
Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic
character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining
storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive
imported water at the site).
Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and
location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other
innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project.
Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives.
Solid Waste Measures
Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to,
soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard).
Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and
adequate recycling containers located in public areas.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 79 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling
services.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles.
Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking
spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and
unloading and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a website or
message board for coordinating rides).
Create local “light vehicle” networks, such as neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV)
systems.
Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero-
emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located
alternative fueling stations).
Promote “least polluting” ways to connect people and goods to their destinations.
Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large
developments.
Incorporate bicycle-friendly intersections into street design.
For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to
promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide
facilities that encourage bicycle commuting (e.g., locked bicycle storage or covered or
indoor bicycle parking).
Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and
other destination points.
Conclusion
The Project would result in a less than significant impact relating to climate change as a result of the
generation of GHG emissions with implementation of the FEIR MM 4.2-5a and with adherence to PPPs 1
through 6, located in Section 4.2 Air Quality. No Project-specific MMs are required.
Threshold (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The proposed Project’s emissions would be below SCAQMD’s 10,000 MTCO2e annual threshold for
industrial uses and the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e annual threshold with implementation of FEIR MM 4.2-5a.
Additionally, the Project would be consistent with applicable GHG reduction laws and regulations
including, but no limited too AB 32, SB 32, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, and SCAG’s RTP/SCS; refer to the
background discussion above. The Project would not have a significant and unavoidable impact on an
applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. GHG emissions are within the
emissions disclosed in the SWIP Specific Plan Project FEIR. Therefore, this significance finding is consistent
with the determination made in the FEIR for impacts related to climate change.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 80 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Measures from the Final EIR
As previously identified, FEIR MM 4.2-5a is applicable to the Project.
Conclusion
With implementation of FEIR MMs 4.2-5a, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases resulting in a less
than significant impact. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and no new and/or refined
mitigation measures are required.
Overall Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed
by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified
impacts, with respect to GHG. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 81 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not result in significant
impacts relative to hazards and hazardous materials with implementation of the below referenced FEIR
MMs.
This section is prepared in part utilizing the following technical studies:
Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. July 28, 2023. Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment.
Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. September 5, 2023. Phase II Environmental
Site Investigation Report.
These technical studies are provided as Appendix G to this Addendum EIR and findings are summarized
below.
4.8.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project’s construction activities would involve the transport, use,
and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking which are typical
with construction sites. Additional hazardous materials would be needed for fueling and servicing
construction equipment on the site. These types of materials are not considered to be acutely hazardous.
All storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials would be conducted accordingly to applicable
federal and State requirements and regulations. These regulations include: the federal Occupational
Safety and Health Act and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act; Title 8 of the California Code of
Regulations (CalOSHA), and the State Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management
Regulatory Program. Therefore, the routine, transport, and use of hazardous materials during
construction would be less than significant.
Project operations would not involve the use of acutely hazardous materials for truck and trailer parking
and/or repairs. The routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be limited to
materials and solvents used for maintenance and operation of the facility, including the upkeeping of
landscaping and cleaning products. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal,
State, and local regulations, as permitted by the Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino
County Fire Department and CalOSHA to ensure proper use, storage, and disposal of any hazardous
substances. The Project’s operation activity would result in a less than significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No new impact
or increase in the severity of an identified impact would therefore occur with implementation of the
Project.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 82 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes MMs 4.5-1a through 4.5-1d to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation
of the Approved Project. The following mitigation measures were identified from the FEIR to reduce
impacts from hazards through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Mitigation from the FEIR
4.5-1a The City shall require that new proposed facilities involved in the production, use, storage,
transport or disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from land uses
that may be adversely impacted by such activities. Conversely, new sensitive facilities,
such as schools, child-care centers, and senior centers, shall not to be located near
existing sites that use, store, or generate hazardous materials [NOTE: This mitigation
measure applies to the Project but is implemented by the City].
4.5-1b The City shall assure the continued response and capability of the San Bernardino County
Fire Department/Fontana Fire Protection District to handle hazardous materials incidents
in the City and along the sections of freeways that extend across the City [NOTE: This
mitigation measure applies to the Project but is implemented by the City].
4.5-1c The City shall require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable
quantity to submit an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the San
Bernardino County Fire Department – Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with
the Fontana Fire Protection District [NOTE: This mitigation measure applies to the Project
but is implemented by the City].
4.5-1d The City shall identify roadways along which hazardous materials are routinely
transported. If essential facilities, such as schools, hospitals, childcare centers or other
facilities with special evacuation needs are located along these routes, identify
emergency response plans that these facilities can implement in the event of an
unauthorized release of hazardous materials in their area. [NOTE: This mitigation measure
applies to the Project but is implemented by the City].
Conclusion
With Implementation of FEIR MMs 4.5-1a through 4.5-1d, the Project’s impacts concerning significant
hazards from routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project; therefore, no new and/or
refined mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact:
Phase I and Phase II Results
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 83 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The environmental and health effects of different chemicals are unique to each chemical and depend on
the extent to which an individual is exposed. The Phase I Assessment indicated the presence of one
Recognized Environmental Condition (REC), Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HREC) and
one De Minimis Condition. The REC is associated with the potential presence of petroleum products at
unpaved areas at advance driving school located at APN 0236-161-18. The HREC is associated with
historical industrial operations at the former Creative Stone Manufacturing/Coronado Stone Products
Facility which include the use of hazardous substances and petroleum products. Lastly, the De Minimis
conditions are associated oil-like and grease-like staining in at the Advance School of Driving. Additionally,
in 2003, a citizen reported to the San Bernardino County Health Department that the company released
one gallon of motor oil on the ground.
The Phase II Environmental Site Investigation (ESI) evaluated five areas of concerns associated with
asphalt-paved area, unpaved areas, unknown aboveground storage tank (AST), concrete patch, and septic
system at APN 0236-161-18. The Phase II ESI soil sample testing concluded that no VOCs, PAHs, herbicides,
pesticides, TPH, or metals were detected at levels exceeding the applicable screening levels, except
arsenic. Arsenic concentrations were below the average regional background level. No metals were
detected above California Title 22 TTLC levels, indicating soil does not qualify as hazardous waste.
Additionally, the Phase II ESI soil vapor sample testing concluded that 16 VOCs were detected above
laboratory report limits. However, no chemicals tested were present in soil at levels above
commercial/industrial screening criteria or above the arsenic background level. No chemicals tested were
present in soil vapor at levels above commercial/industrial screening criteria. One VOC, PCE, was present
in soil vapor samples at concentrations at or above residential screening levels at SV-1, SV-2, and SV-4.
Soil vapor point SV-1 was in the unpaved area on the north side of the property, soil vapor point SV-2 was
located along the western side of the Site adjacent to the former AST, and soil vapor point SV-4 was next
to a concrete patch north of the existing commercial building where underground pipes reportedly
directed wastewater to the septic system. No other soil vapor concentrations exceeded applicable
residential screening levels.
To address impacts concerning the foreseeable or accidental release of hazards or hazardous materials,
the Project would implement a Soil Management Plan (SMP) that outlines specific soil handling and
management procedures to be followed during Project buildout. The SMP would summarize the results
of the Phase II ESI prepared for this Project and would include recommended measures to mitigate
potential risks to the environment and to protect construction workers and nearby residents, workers and
pedestrians from potential exposure to hazardous substances that may be encountered during
construction activities that includes, but is not limited to, soil excavation and grading activities.
The SMP would also identify procedures to identify and manage unanticipated conditions such as USTs,
sumps or pipelines that may be identified during excavation activities. The SMP should specify basic health
and safety considerations to be addressed by the general contractor or subcontractors responsible for
worker health and safety, through the preparation of a detailed health and safety plan (prepared by the
project general contractor).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 84 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
As noted in threshold (a) above, the Project would also comply with existing federal, State, and local
regulations. Additionally, any business or facility which uses, generates, processes, produces, packages,
treats, stores, emits, discharges, or disposes of hazardous material (or waste) would require a hazardous
materials handler permit from the Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino County Fire
Department, as described previously.
Therefore, adherence to the recommendations listed in the Phase I and Phase II reports and applicable
federal, State, and local regulatory framework would ensure that impacts concerning the creation a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment are less than
significant.
The FEIR also recommended mitigation measures to address hazardous materials, when developing
portions of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. The Project would adhere to FEIR MMs 4.5-1a through
4.5-1d and MMs 4.5-2a through 4.5-2c to minimize hazardous materials impacts during construction.
In accordance with MM 4.5-1b and in case of accidental release of hazardous materials into the
environment, the City shall assure that the continued response and capability of the Fontana Fire
Protection District and San Bernardino County Fire Department handle all hazardous materials incidents
in the City and along I-10. Short-term and long-term construction activities within the Specific Plan Update
area will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. No new impact or increase in the
severity of an identified impact would therefore occur with implementation of the Project.
Mitigation Program
As noted above, the FEIR contains mitigation measures that would help reduce impacts pertaining to
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials
into the environment. Note: FEIR MM 4.5.2d would not apply because the Project would not require the
relocation of electrical transformers. FEIR MMs 4.5-2e through 4.5-2f also do not apply to the Project since
1) a railroad alignment is not located near the Project; and 2) a Caltrans right-of-way would not be
disturbed.
Mitigation from the FEIR
Refer to FEIR MMs 4.5-1a though 4.5-1d in threshold a above.
4.5-2a A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared in accordance with American
Society of Testing and Materials Standards and Standards and Practices for All
Appropriate Inquiries prior to issuance of a Grading Permit for future development within
the project site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall investigate the potential
for site contamination, and will identify Specific Recognized Environmental Conditions
(i.e., asbestos containing materials, lead-based paints, polychlorinated biphenyls, etc)
that may require remedial activities prior to land acquisition or construction. [NOTE: This
MM has been satisfied through the preparation of the Phase I and II Reports
(Appendix G)]
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 85 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.5-2b Prior to potential remedial excavation and grading activities within the site (if remediation
is required), impacted areas shall be cleared of all maintenance equipment and materials
(e.g., solvents, grease, waste-oil), construction materials, miscellaneous stockpiled debris
(e.g., scrap metal, pallets, storage bins, construction parts), above ground storage tanks,
surface trash, piping, excess vegetation and other deleterious materials. These materials
shall be removed off-site and properly disposed of at an approved disposal facility. Once
removed, a visual inspection of the areas beneath the removed materials shall be
performed. Any stained soils observed underneath the removed materials shall be
sampled. In the event concentrations of materials are detected above regulatory cleanup
levels during demolition or construction activities, the project applicant shall comply with
the following measures in accordance with Federal, State, and local requirements:
Excavation and disposal at a permitted, off-site facility;
On-site remediation, if necessary; or
Other measures as deemed appropriate by the County.
4.5-2c Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, a Certified Environmental
Professional shall confirm the presence or absence of ACMs and LBPs prior to structural
demolition/renovation activities. Should ACMs or LBPs be present, demolition materials
containing ACMs and/or LBPs shall be removed and disposed of at an appropriate
permitted facility.
Conclusion
The Project would result in a less than significant impact as it pertains to upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials with implementation of FEIR MMs 4.5-1a through 4.5-1d and
4.5-2a through 4.5-2c. No Project-specific mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No New or More Severe Impact: There is one school located within one-quarter mile of the Project site.
Chapparal Elementary School is located approximately 0.18 miles south of the Project site. The Project’s
emission, use, and handling of hazards and hazardous material would be minimal with implementation of
FEIR MMs 4.5-1a through 4.5-1d, and 4.5-2a through 4.5-2c to ensure that impacts to Chapparal
Elementary School are minimized. In addition, the Project would comply with all applicable federal, State,
and local regulations concerning the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste. Therefore, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact
evaluated in the FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was
not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified is available that would
change the impact finding.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR included measures in the FEIR to mitigate impacts associated with hazardous emissions within
one-quarter mile from a school.
Mitigation from the FEIR
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 86 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Refer to FEIR MM’s 4.5-1a through 4.5-1d, and 4.5-2a through 4.5-2c in thresholds a and b above.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact to as it pertains to emission or hazardous
materials release near a school. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the
Project; therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (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 create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the FEIR, there are various hazardous material sites
recorded within Federal, State, and local records databases. Potential hazards to construction workers
and the public may occur as a result of construction activities on existing sites that could be contaminated.
Future development of any of these documented hazardous materials sites would require prior
remediation and cleanup under the supervision of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in
order to meet Federal, State, and local standards.
Langan submitted a public records request to the DTSC via email on January 11, 2021. DTSC responded
which indicated that the Project did not contain any records of being on a list of hazardous material sites.
Furthermore, a record search of the DTSC EnviroStor database did not identify the Project site on their
hazardous materials site list.
As noted in threshold (b) above, the Project would implement FEIR MMs 4.5-2a through 2c to reduce
impacts from existing and potential hazards and hazardous materials. With implementation of FEIR
MM 4.5-2a through 4.5-2c, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Refer to FEIR MMs 4.5-2a through 4.5-2c in thresholds b above.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. There are no new potentially significant impacts
associated with the Project with implementation of FEIR MMs 4.5-2a through 4.5-2c. No Project-specific
mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the project area; and
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not
located within two miles of a public or private airport. The closest airport to the Project site is the Ontario
International Airport, located approximately 4.7 miles west. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 87 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area since the
Project is not within two miles of an airport. Impacts would be less than significant, and no Project-specific
mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New or More Severe Impact: The City’s Emergency Operations Plan anticipates that all major streets
within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would serve as evacuation routes. Construction activities
associated with the Project could temporarily impact street traffic adjacent to the Project site during the
construction phase due to roadway improvements within the right-of-way. This could reduce the number
of lanes or temporarily close certain street segments. Any such impacts would be limited to the
construction period and would affect only adjacent streets or intersections. Thus, FEIR MMs 4.5-6a and
4.5-6b would be implemented. FEIR MM 4.5-6a would require that Project prepare a Traffic Control Plan
during the construction phase prior to issuance of grading permits. FEIR MM 4.5-6b would require that
the City disclose temporary closures and alternative travel routes, in order to ensure adequate access for
emergency vehicles when construction of future projects would result in temporary lane or roadway
closures. Thus temporary street closures would not affect emergency access in the vicinity of the Project
site.
Furthermore, the Project would be required to provide sufficient emergency access, as required by the
City’s Zoning Code. Additionally, the City’s Emergency Operations Plan complies with and relies on the
City’s Hazardous Materials Response Plan. Project features to ensure sufficient emergency access include
access via one 40-foot-wide driveway located on the southern portion of the Project site along Jurupa
Avenue and two 35-foot wide driveways and one 48-foot-wide driveway located on the western portion
of the Project site along Calabash Avenue. An internal 30-foot-wide fire lane would also be included to
allow the emergency access throughout the Project site.
As such, the Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan and/or the emergency
evacuation plan and less than significant impacts would occur. Accordingly, no new or more severe impact
from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the FEIR would occur.
Mitigation Program
FEIR MMs 4.5-6a and 4.5-6b were identified to reduce impacts for the Approved Project.
Mitigation from the FEIR
4.5-6a Prior to the issuance of grading permits, future developers shall prepare a Traffic Control
Plan for implementation during the construction phase. The Plan may include the
following provisions, among others:
• At least one unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions on surrounding
roadways.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 88 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• At any time that only a single lane is available, the developer shall provide a
temporary traffic signal, signal carriers (i.e., flagpersons), or other appropriate traffic
controls to allow travel in both directions.
• If construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway segment, the
developer shall provide appropriate signage indicating detours/alternative routes.
4.5-6b Prior to construction, the City of Fontana Engineering Department shall consult with the City
of Fontana Police Department to disclose temporary closures and alternative travel routes,
in order to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction of future
projects would result in temporary lane or roadway closures [NOTE: This mitigation measure
applies to the Project but is implemented by the City].
Conclusion
With implementation of the FEIR MMs 4.5-6a and 4.5-6b, the Project impacts to any applicable airport
land use plans and emergency plan would be less than significant. There are no new potentially significant
impacts associated with the Project, and no Project-specific mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
The Project would not expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
The Project site is not within or located adjacent to land designated as a very high fire hazard severity
zone. The Project is located in an urbanized area and is surrounded by development on all sides. Thus,
impacts related to wildland fires would not occur. Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the FEIR was certified is available that would change the impact finding.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new impact from wildland fires. There are no new anticipated potentially
significant impacts associated with the Project; therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are
required.
Overall Hazards-Related Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed
by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified impacts,
with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 89 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not result in significant
impacts relative to hydrology and water quality, and no mitigation is necessary to reduce potential
impacts.
4.9.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
No New or More Severe Impact: As stated in the FEIR, development on the SWIP Specific Plan Update
area would be subject to NPDES requirements during both construction and operations. The NPDES
program would require that future development projects within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area
implement BMPs that adequately minimize potential off-site water quality impacts. Construction-related
BMPs would be identified based on site-specific conditions during preparation of a SWPPP for each future
development project. Long term operational BMPs would be identified through issuance of an NPDES
permit through the RWQCB and would include water quality features to ensure that runoff is treated prior
to discharge into the storm drain or regional conveyance facilities. Therefore, adherence with existing
state water quality requirements would ensure that impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant, and no
Project-specific mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
No New or More Severe Impact: The FEIR found that the Approved Project would not cause a significant
increase in impervious surfaces and therefore would not substantially impact groundwater supplies or
interfere with groundwater recharge. No groundwater extraction would occur as part of the Approved
Project. The Project site is located within the service area of the FWC. 13 The use of groundwater for the
Approved Project is discussed later in this Addendum under Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems.
As discussed in that section, the Project would have sufficient water supplies (groundwater is one of the
sources) available to serve the Project. Additionally, the FEIR planned for the Approved Project area
13 FWC. ND. Fontana Water Company Service Area Map. Retrieved from: https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/Service_Area_FONTANA.pdf (accessed October 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 90 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
(including the Project site) to be developed predominantly with industrial uses. The Project would be
warehousing, which is not a water-intensive use. The Project’s proposed utility infrastructure consists of
catch basins, manholes, and underground retention systems located throughout the site to capture, treat,
and discharge stormwater. Storm drains/chambers would convey stormwater via several proposed 12” -
30” high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes. Depending on the size of the storm event, the stormwater is
either (1) entirely conveyed into the retention systems where it is treated by percolating into the soil,
and/or (2) the 85th percentile percolates into the soil with the excess being discharged directly into the
proposed public storm drain line (size TBD) in Calabash Avenue and the existing 60” public storm drain
line in Jurupa Avenue; refer to Exhibit 8, Conceptual Utility Plan.
The FWC’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) also found that there would be sufficient water
supplies, of which groundwater is greater than 50 percent, to meet demands in the FWC service area
through the year 2045. See Table 6-1, Historical and Projected Water Supplies in Normal Years, AFY and
Table 6-11. Water Supplies – Actual (DWR Table 6-8 Retail) of the FWC’s UWMP for detailed information
(https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-
Final.pdf).
Per Table 6-1, historical percentage groundwater of the total supply varied between 52.8 percent and
93.5 percent, between 1995 and 2020. Projected percent groundwater of the total supply is reduced and
varies between 47.2 percent and 49.8 percent from 2025 to 2045.
The Project would consume water at a rate of approximately 5.4 acre-feet per year, based on FWC water
consumption rates (0.33 acre-feet, per acre, per year for industrial use).14. As summarized in the Approved
Project’s Water Supply Assessment (WSA), the water supplies (including groundwater) available to the
FWC will be sufficient to meet all present and future water supply requirements in the FWC’s services area
with the Approved Project for at least the next 20 years (City of Fontana 2009). Therefore, the supply
would meet the demand of a less water-intensive project, like the Project.
Based on the above discussion, FEIR finding of a less than significant impact, and the type of development
proposed for this Project (warehouse), it is anticipated that the Project would not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality, nor would it substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basins. No new impact or increase in the severity of an identified impact would therefore occur with
implementation of the Project.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
14 Inland Empire Utilities Agency. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at: https://www.ieua.org/download/urban-water-
management-plan-2015/ (accessed October 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 91 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to groundwater. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the FEIR was certified is available that would change the impact determination. Accordingly, the Project
would not significantly impact local groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold (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;
No New or More Severe Impact: The FEIR found erosion and siltation impacts to be less than significant.
The Project is located in an already urbanized area where drainage is directed to a network of City and
County-operated stormwater drainage facilities. Portions of the Project site are paved and other portions
are highly compacted. The Project site also contains an existing building that would be demolished.
Thus, development of the Project site would result in an increase in the quantity of impervious surface.
The Project would implement infiltration basin(s) system(s) to help maintain existing water infiltration
rates. There are no water features located on the Project site. The Project would require improvements
to the existing facilities as well as placement of new drainage structures. This would ensure that the
drainage infrastructure is adequate to serve future development and minimize impacts related to erosion
or siltation. Substantial erosion and siltation on- or off-site are not anticipated to occur. Impacts would be
less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant and no Project-specific mitigation measures are needed.
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site;
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the FEIR, the Project site is not located within a FEMA
designated 100-year floodplain. The Project is located in FEMA Zone D. Zone D are areas that in which
flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.15 As stated previously, the Project would increase the
amount of impervious surface compared to existing conditions, but would introduce an improved
drainage system to capture the rate of surface runoff. The Project would introduce landscaped pervious
surfaces as well as a grass areas and water catch basins with storm drains. These features would reduce
the rate and amount of surface flow as they capture and absorb surface water. With implementation of
15 FEMA. (2021). FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address. Available at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor.
(accessed October 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 92 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the Project and associated drainage improvement/features, on-site and off-site flooding impacts would
be reduced, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no Project-specific
mitigation measures are needed.
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provided substantial additional
resources of polluted runoff; or
No New or More Severe Impact: Refer to Responses to (c) i and ii above. The Project would include an
improved drainage system, and catch basins with storm drains, pursuant to State regulations. A less than
significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provided substantial additional resources of polluted runoff.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no Project-specific mitigation measures are needed.
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
No New or More Severe Impact: As previously noted, the Project site is not located within a
FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the Project would not be constructed within a 100-year
floodplain. The Project includes increased landscaped pervious surfaces and water catch basins with storm
drains to collect runoff and manage flood flows. Refer to Responses to (c) i, ii, and iii. Less than significant
impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 93 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact from erosion or siltation. Based on the FEIR
findings, the Project site is not located in an area prone to the previously mentioned natural or manmade
disasters. Thus, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river. A less than significant impact is
anticipated from Project implementation.
Threshold (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
No New or More Severe Impact: The FEIR determined that the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is not
located in the immediate vicinity of a body of water. In addition, the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is
generally void of land features capable of producing mudflow. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impacts as it pertains to flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, or risk the release of pollutants due to Project inundation. Based on the FEIR findings, the
Project site is not located in an area prone to the previously mentioned natural or manmade disasters. No
pollutants would be released due to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No Project-specific
mitigation measures are needed.
Threshold (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project is underlain by the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater
Basin – Chino Subbasin. The basin is not subject to a Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan because
it is adjudicated and exempted from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The City, and
therefore Project site, are subject to the Santa Ana Watershed Authority’s Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan for the Santa Ana River Watershed called the One Water One Watershed Plan (OWOW)
Update 2018. The OWOW Plan describes how collaborative watershed planning, water and land
management, and project implementation supports improved sustainability, resilience, and quality of life
throughout the Santa Ana River Watershed through 2040.16 The Project is also subject to the 2020 Urban
Water Management Plan for the San Gabriel Valley Water Company – Fontana Water Company Division,
prepared in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The purpose of the UWMP is
to provide a planning tool for FWC for developing and delivering municipal water supplies to FWC’s water
service area.
16 Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. (2018). One Water One Watershed Plan Update 2018. Available at: https://www.sawpa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/OWOW-Plan-Update-2018-1.pdf (accessed October 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 94 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The FEIR identified the FWC as the main water provider in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. As shown
in Table 4.8-1, Fontana Water Company Historical Water Usage and Production (1988-2008) of the FEIR,
the FWC’s historical production of water has met usage demands for the SWIP Specific Plan Update area
and surrounding service area. According to the FWC’s 2020 UWMP, water supply is forecast to meet water
demand for the FWC coverage area through 2045. See Tables 7-4 through 7-6 of the FWC’s UWMP for
detailed information (https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FWC-2020-UWMP-
June-2021-Final.pdf). Piping for the distribution of potable water is available within the local roadways
surrounding and within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area and is sufficient to meet current water supply
needs.
The Project will meet applicable local and regional water consumption and water quality goals of the FWC,
San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, and the City.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impacts as it pertains to any conflicts with water quality
and groundwater plans. Based on the FEIR findings, FWC prepared an UWMP in 2005 which included
water demand projections in their service area through 2025. Although projections indicated that FWC
would need to seek additional sources of water to serve its service area, the Project would not conflict
with any water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Project site is
proposing a less water-intensive use than the Approved Project. Additionally, proposed underground
infiltration systems would help recharge groundwater. A less than significant impact is anticipated.
Overall Hydrology and Water Quality-Related Impacts Conclusion
Development of the Project would not result in a new or more severe impact to as it pertains to conflict
with relevant hydrology and water quality plans, policies, and regulations. With regard to CEQA Statute
Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not
result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified impacts, with respect to hydrology
and water quality. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 95 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
According to the FEIR, development within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would not divide an
established community. The SWIP Specific Plan Update proposes to implement a range of industrial,
commercial, public, and residential uses, similar to what exists within the SWIP Specific Plan Update
boundaries today. The FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not
result in significant impacts relative to land use and planning, and no mitigation is necessary to reduce
potential impacts.
4.10.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Physically divide an established community?
No New or More Severe Impact: Consistent with the FEIR, the Project would not divide an established
community. The Project proposes to implement a warehouse building on predominately paved and
disturbed land. The Project would be similar and consistent with surrounding uses. Existing development
within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is already divided by the existing local roadway network,
including I-10, and the Project is not anticipated to create additional physical barriers between these uses.
Therefore, there are no new or more severe impacts.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to physically dividing a community.
No new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the FEIR would
occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have
been known at the time the FEIR was certified is available that would change the impact determination.
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: No potentially significant impacts related to land use and planning are
identified in the FEIR. The Project is located within the limits of the JND. The Project would not require an
amendment to the SWIP Specific Plan Update, because “Logistics and Distribution Facilities” and
“Warehousing Facilities” are permitted uses by right within the JND. As such, the Project’s proposed
industrial uses would be consistent with applicable land use plans, including the General Plan.
Additionally, the Project would be designed consistently with the SWIP development standards for the
JND area. Lastly, the Project would be consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS goals. Therefore, the Project
would not 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.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 96 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
As stated above, the Project’s proposed uses are permitted by right within the JND. Therefore, the Project
would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation. No Project-specific mitigation measures are required.
Overall Land Use Impacts Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact to as it pertains to conflict with land use plans,
policies, and regulations. The Project would be consistent with the SWIP Specific Plan Update and the
General Plan, and the Project would not 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.
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed
by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified impacts,
with respect to land use and planning. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 97 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.11 Mineral Resources
4.11.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The FEIR concluded that according to the General Plan, it is not anticipated that the SWIP Specific Plan
Update area would contain known deposits of precious gemstones, ores, or unique, or rare minerals
within the SWIP Specific Plan Update vicinity and development projects would not result in significant
impacts relative to mineral resources, and no mitigation measures were implemented.
4.11.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (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; and
Threshold (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No New or More Severe Impact: Consistent with the FEIR conclusions, the Project site is not located in an
area known to contain mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State.17 Additionally, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resources recovery site delineated on the General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use
plan. No new or more severe impact relative to mineral resources not already evaluated in the FEIR would
occur with implementation of the Project. A less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Overall Mineral Resources Impacts Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact to mineral resources. Therefore, no new and/or
refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to mineral resources. With regard to CEQA
Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would
not result in any new or more severe impacts from previously identified impacts, with respect to mineral
resources. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR analysis is not warranted.
17 Department of Conservation. (2022). Mineral Land Classification. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc (accessed October 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 98 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.12 Noise
4.12.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The SWIP EIR considered noise from construction activities as well as noise from operations, including
vehicle traffic and the exposure of employees to noise in the previously approved project area, as well as
potential exposure of nearby residents and other sensitive receptors to noise. With implementation of
mitigation measures, all noise impacts were determined to be less than significant with the exception of
long-term mobile noise and cumulative noise impacts, which would remain significant and unavoidable.
4.12.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
This section is prepared in part utilizing the following technical study:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. January 2024. Acoustical Assessment.
This technical study memorandum is provided as Appendix H to this Addendum EIR and findings are
summarized below.
Threshold (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?
Noise levels associated with the proposed Project would increase over existing noise levels. This increase
was identified in the FEIR as a significant unavoidable impact associated with the Specific Plan. According
to the FEIR, implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan may result in a long-term increase in ambient noise
levels associated with traffic noise and adjacent stationary sources. However, impacts associated with
implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts disclosed in the FEIR.
Construction
On-Site Construction Noise. Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on
the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by
construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach
high levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods
surrounding the construction site. However, it is acknowledged that construction activities would occur
throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at a single point near sensitive receptors.
Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, infrastructure improvements,
building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Such activities could require dozers, excavators,
and concrete saws during demolition; dozers and tractors during site preparation; excavators, graders,
dozers, tractors, and scrapers during grading; tractors, pavers, and rollers during infrastructure
improvements; cranes, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, and
a pavement scarifier during paving; and air compressors during architectural coating. Typical operating
cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation
followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would
be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 99 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Typical noise levels associated with individual construction
equipment are listed in Table 10: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Table 10: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 50 feet from Source
Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 140 feet from Source1
Air Compressor 80 71.1
Backhoe 80 71.1
Compactor 82 73.1
Concrete Mixer 85 76.1
Concrete Pump 82 73.1
Concrete Vibrator 76 67.1
Crane, Mobile 83 74.1
Dozer 85 76.1
Generator 82 73.1
Grader 85 76.1
Impact Wrench 85 76.1
Jack Hammer 88 79.1
Loader 80 71.1
Paver 85 76.1
Pneumatic Tool 85 76.1
Pump 77 68.1
Roller 85 76.1
Saw 76 67.1
Scraper 85 76.1
Shovel 82 73.1
Truck 84 75.1
1. Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA2 = dBA1+20Log(d1/d2)
Where: dBA2 = estimated noise level at receptor; dBA1 = reference noise level; d1 = reference distance; d2 = receptor location distance
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2023). Acoustical Assessment. page 21 – Table 7.
The FMC does not establish quantitative exterior construction noise standards however, Section 18-63
states that construction activities may only take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on
weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, except in the case of urgent
necessity or otherwise approved by the City. While the FMC does not establish quantitative construction
noise standards, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential
uses and 90 dBA (8-hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts.18 All
motorized equipment used in such activity shall be equipped with functioning mufflers as mandated by
the state. Standard construction provides 25 dBA of exterior-to-interior noise attenuation with windows
closed and 15 dBA with windows open.19 Therefore, it can be assumed that exterior noise levels of 80 dBA
would equal 55 dBA when measured from the interior with windows closed.
Project Construction Noise Levels
The noise levels calculated in Table 11: Project Construction Noise Levels, show the exterior construction
noise for the Project conservatively without accounting for attenuation from existing physical barriers and
improvements in the technology of construction equipment, which today generate less noise.
Construction noise has been calculated with FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The
nearest noise-sensitive receptors are single-family residences approximately 140 feet to the south along
18 Ibid. page 22
19 Ibid. page 22
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 100 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Jurupa Avenue. Construction equipment was assumed to operate simultaneously to represent a worst-
case noise scenario as construction activities would routinely be spread throughout the construction site
and would operate at different intervals.
FTA’s construction threshold is an 8-hour Leq, which accounts for the percentage of time each individual
piece of equipment operates under full power in that period. Additionally, construction equipment would
move throughout the site during that period. Following FTA methodology, when calculating construction
noise, all construction equipment is assumed to operate simultaneously at the center of the active
construction zone to represent an average distance throughout the day. During construction, equipment
would operate throughout the site and not all the equipment would be operating at the point closest to
the sensitive receptors and considering the distance between the center of the project site and the
sensitive receptors is a reasonable assumption.
Table 11: Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction Phase Land Use Direction Distance
(feet)1
Worst Case Modeled
Exterior Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Noise
Threshold
(dBA Leq)2
Exceeded?
Demolition Residential South 650 64.2 80 No
Site Preparation Residential South 650 65.4 80 No
Grading Residential South 650 65.9 80 No
Building Construction Residential South 650 67.1 80 No
Paving Residential South 650 64.2 80 No
Architectural Coating Residential South 650 51.4 80 No
1. Following FTA methodology, the average distance from the construction area to the sensitive receptor is used. Construction equipment
would operate throughout the project site and not at a fixed location for extended periods of time. Thus, the distance used in the RCNM
model was approximately 650 feet to the nearest sensitive receptors to the south of the construction zone.
2. Federal Transit Administration noise threshold is 80 dBA Leq for residential uses.
Source: Ibid. page 23 – Table 8
Table 11 shows that the construction noise levels would not exceed the applicable FTA construction
threshold. The highest exterior noise level at residential receptors would occur during the building
construction phase and would be 67.1 dBA which is below the FTA’s 80 dBA threshold. Construction
equipment would operate throughout the project site and the associated noise levels would not occur at
a fixed location for extended periods of time. Although sensitive uses may be exposed to elevated noise
levels during Project construction, these noise levels would be acoustically dispersed throughout the
Project site and not concentrated in one area near surrounding sensitive uses. Construction noise would
therefore have a less than significant impact.
Cumulative Construction Noise
The Project’s construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels. Construction noise would be periodic and temporary noise impacts that would cease upon
completion of construction activities. The Project would contribute to other proximate construction
project noise impacts if construction activities were conducted concurrently. As discussed above, Project
construction noise levels would not be significant, and the Project would not represent a noticeable
increase over the ambient conditions. Therefore, the Project’s construction noise would not represent a
substantial noise increase in excess of City standards and would not be cumulatively considerable.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 101 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Construction activities at other planned and approved projects near the Project site would be required to
comply with applicable City rules related to noise and would take place during daytime hours on the days
permitted by the applicable Municipal Code, and projects requiring discretionary City approvals would be
required to evaluate construction noise impacts, comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval,
and implement mitigation, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts. Construction noise impacts are by
nature localized. Based on the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts
would be limited to the Project site and vicinity. Therefore, Project construction would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts, assuming such a cumulative
impact existed, and impacts in this regard are not cumulatively considerable.
Operations
Implementation of the Project would create new sources of noise in the project vicinity. The major noise
sources associated with the project including the followings:
Mechanical equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.);
Slow moving trucks on the Project site, approaching and leaving the loading areas;
Activities at the loading areas (i.e., maneuvering and idling trucks, equipment noise);
Parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and
Off-Site Traffic Noise.
Each noise source is discussed in more detail below.
On-Site Operational Noise Sources
Mechanical Equipment. Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term operation of the Project
site would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air
conditioning [HVAC] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet.20 The
HVAC equipment would be roof mounted and would be located as close as approximately 175 feet from
the nearest residential uses to the south. At this distance, HVAC equipment noise would be approximately
41.1 dBA based on distance attenuation alone (using the inverse square law of sound propagation)21 and
would not exceed the City’s acceptable residential nighttime exterior noise standard of 65 dBA. Operation
of mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land
use noise levels. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to
mechanical equipment noise levels.
Truck and Loading Dock Noise. During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the
trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting braking activities; backing up
toward the docks; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. Loading or
unloading activities would occur on the east façade of the proposed warehouse building in the eastern
portion of the Project site. Truck access to the site would occur via one 48-foot-wide driveway and two
35-foot-wide driveways located along Calabash Avenue, and one 40-foot wide driveway along Jurupa
Avenue.
20 Ibid. page 24.
21 Ibid. page 24.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 102 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Typically, heavy truck operations generate a noise level of 70 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.22 As the closest
residences would be located approximately 300 feet south of the proposed truck loading area, truck and
loading noise would be approximately 54.4 dBA,23 which is below the City’s most stringent nighttime noise
standards of 65 dBA for residential uses. It should also be noted that the loading dock doors would be
surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would
serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This
would attenuate noise emanating from interior loading activities to negligible noise levels outside of the
warehouse building, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all
hours of the day. As described above, noise levels associated with trucks and loading/unloading activities
would not exceed the City’s standards and impacts would be less than significant.
Truck Back-Up Alarms. Medium and heavy-duty trucks reversing into loading docks would produce noise
from back-up alarms (also known as back-up beepers). Back-up beepers produce a typical volume of
97 dBA at one meter (3.28 feet) from the source. The nearest sensitive receptors (single-family
residences) would be located approximately 300 feet south of the truck loading area where trucks would
be reversing and maneuvering into the loading area. At this distance, exterior noise levels from back-up
beepers would be approximately 57.0 dBA, which is below the City’s acceptable residential nighttime
exterior noise standard of 65 dBA. Back-up beeper noise levels (57.0 dBA at the nearest sensitive uses)
would be attenuated to at least 42.0 dBA (assuming a windows open condition) within the nearest
residences and would be below the City’s 65 dBA nighttime exterior noise level standard. Further, it is
noted that back-up beeper noise is short in duration and would occur intermittently throughout the
day/night. Therefore, back-up beeper noise would not exceed the City’s applicable noise standards and
impacts would be less than significant.
Parking Noise. The Project would provide a total of 177 standard auto parking spaces, 82 trailer stalls, and
42 dock door parking spaces. Parking stalls would be located to the east and west of the proposed
warehouse building. According to the Traffic/VMT Memorandum for the Project, the Project would
generate up to 69 trips during the peak hour. For the purpose of providing a conservative, quantitative
estimate of the noise levels that would be generated from the vehicles entering and exiting the parking
lot, the methodology recommended by FTA for the general assessment of stationary transit noise sources
was used.
Using FTA’s reference noise level of 92 dBA SEL at 50 feet from the noise source, the Project’s highest
peak hour vehicle trips would generate noise levels of approximately 44.8 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the
parking lot. The closest sensitive receptor is located at least 175 feet from the parking lot. Conservatively
assuming that all vehicles would park at a location nearest to sensitive receptors rather than dispersed
throughout all available parking spaces and based strictly on distance attenuation, parking lot noise at the
nearest receptor would be 33.9 dBA, which is below the City’s most stringent nighttime noise standards
of 65 dBA for residential uses. Parking lot noise would be consistent with the existing noise in the vicinity
and would be partially masked by background noise from traffic along area roadways. Noise associated
22 Ibid. page 24.
23 Based on the inverse square law of sound propagation and assuming a minimum 5 dBA reduction from the proposed 10-foot-high perimeter
screen wall along the northern boundary of the Project site.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 103 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
with parking lot activities is not anticipated to exceed the City’s noise standards during operation.
Therefore, noise impacts from parking lots would be less than significant.
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Implementation of the Project would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments.
According to the Project’s traffic data the proposed Project would result in approximately 658 daily trips.
In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5-dBA increase
is readily noticeable. Generally, traffic volumes on Project area roadways would have to approximately
double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in
ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA are considered to be less than significant.
Traffic noise levels for roadways primarily affected by the Project were calculated using the FHWA’s
Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Traffic noise modeling was conducted for conditions
with and without the Project, based on traffic volumes from the Project’s Traffic Study. As indicated in
Table 12: Existing and Project Traffic Noise Levels, existing plus Project traffic-generated noise levels on
Project area roadways would range between 65.0 dBA CNEL and 72.7 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the
centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of 0.1 dBA CNEL along Etiwanda Avenue
to Mulberry Avenue.
Table 12: Existing and Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Existing Existing Plus Project Project Change
from Existing
Conditions
Significant
Impact? ADT dBA CNEL1 ADT dBA CNEL1
Etiwanda Avenue
I-10 Ramps to Airport Drive 36,100 72.7 36,350 72.7 0.0 No
Jurupa Avenue
Etiwanda Avenue to Mulberry Avenue 20,400 69.4 20,700 69.4 0.1 No
Almond Avenue to Cherry Avenue 26,100 70.7 26,400 70.8 0.0 No
Mulberry Avenue
Marlay Avenue to Jurupa Avenue 23,500 70.8 23,550 70.8 0.0 No
Santa Ana Avenue to Slover Avenue 7,600 65.0 7,600 65.0 0.0 No
Cherry Avenue
Slover Avenue to Aliso Drive 32,100 71.5 32,350 71.5 0.0 No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level
1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline.
Source: Ibid. page 26 – Table 9
The Opening Year “Opening Year Without Project” and “Opening Year With Project” scenarios are
compared in Table 13: Opening Year Project Traffic Noise Levels. Table 13 shows that Opening Year
Without Project traffic noise levels would range from 65.1 dBA CNEL to 72.8 dBA CNEL and between 65.7
dBA CNEL and 73.3 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline under Opening Year With Project conditions.
As shown in Table 13, the Project would result in a maximum increase of 0.6 dBA CNEL along several
roadway segments. Although the traffic noise levels are above the 65 dBA CNEL exterior nighttime noise
standard along these roadways, the Project would result in an increase of 0.5 and 0.6 dBA CNEL which is
well below the barely noticeable criterion of 3.0 dBA CNEL. Therefore, traffic noise impacts from the
proposed Project would be less than significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 104 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table 13: Opening Year Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Opening Year Without
Project
Opening Year Plus
Project Project Change
from Existing
Conditions
Significant
Impact? ADT dBA CNEL1 ADT dBA CNEL1
Etiwanda Avenue
I-10 Ramps to Airport Drive 37,500 72.8 37,750 73.3 0.5 No
Jurupa Avenue
Etiwanda Avenue to Mulberry Avenue 21,200 69.5 21,500 70.1 0.6 No
Almond Avenue to Cherry Avenue 27,100 70.9 27,400 71.5 0.6 No
Mulberry Avenue
Marlay Avenue to Jurupa Avenue 24,400 71.0 24,450 71.5 0.5 No
Santa Ana Avenue to Slover Avenue 7,900 65.1 7,900 65.7 0.6 No
Cherry Avenue
Slover Avenue to Aliso Drive 33,400 71.7 33,650 72.3 0.6 No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level
1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline.
Source: Ibid. page 27 – Table 10
As described above, the Project would not represent a substantial noise level increase or exceed City noise
standards. The FEIR determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a significant
unavoidable impact. According to the FEIR, Specific Plan implementation may result in a long-term
increase in ambient noise levels associated with traffic noise and adjacent stationary sources. However,
impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts
disclosed in the FEIR. Accordingly, no new impact relative to noise or a substantial increase in the severity
of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the FEIR would occur. Although the FEIR identified
a significant unavoidable impact, the currently Project would have a less than significant impact after
implementation of FEIR MMs 4.7-1a and 4.7-1b. Implementation of FEIR MMs 4.7-2a and 4.7-3b are
accomplished through preparation of this noise analysis and are therefore no longer required. FEIR
MM 4.7-3a is not applicable, due to the Project not being located within the 65 dBA CNEL overlay zone
residential and noise sensitive land uses, and not being located adjacent to railroad tracks, as outlined in
the General Plan.
Cumulative Operational Noise
Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise. Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected
to increase over existing conditions with the development of the proposed Project and other foreseeable
projects. Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways
due to buildout of the proposed Project and other projects in the vicinity. Cumulative increases in traffic
noise levels were estimated by comparing the Existing and Opening Year Without Project scenarios to the
Opening Year Plus Project scenario. The traffic analysis considers cumulative traffic from future growth
assumed in the transportation model, as well as cumulative projects.
A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the
combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The following criteria is
used to evaluate the combined and incremental effects of the cumulative noise increase.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 105 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Combined Effect. The cumulative with Project noise level (“Opening Year With Project”) would
cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over “Existing” conditions occurs and
the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use. Although
there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed Project in combination with other
related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the Project has an
incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the
proposed Project.
Incremental Effects. The “Opening Year With Project” causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise over the
“Opening Year Without Project” noise level.
A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been
exceeded, and the resultant noise level exceeds the Normally Acceptable land use compatibility noise
standard. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source
increases. Consequently, only the proposed Project and growth due to occur in the general area would
contribute to cumulative noise impacts.
Table 14: Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels identifies the traffic noise effects along roadway
segments in the Project vicinity for “Existing,” “Opening Year Without Project,” and “Opening Year With
Project,” conditions, including incremental and net cumulative impacts. Table 14 shows the combined and
incremental effect criterion would not be exceeded along any of the Project roadway segments. The
proposed Project would not result in long-term mobile noise impacts based on project-generated traffic
as well as cumulative and incremental noise levels. Therefore, the proposed Project, in combination with
cumulative background traffic noise levels, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. The
proposed Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.
Table 14: Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment Existing
Opening
Year
Without
Project
Opening
Year
With
Project
Combined Effects Incremental Effects
Cumulativ
ely
Significant
Impact?
Difference In dBA
Between Existing and
Opening Year With
Project
Difference In dBA
Between Opening
Year Without Project
and Opening Year
With Project
Etiwanda Avenue
I-10 Ramps to Airport Drive 72.7 72.8 73.3 0.6 0.5 No
Jurupa Avenue
Etiwanda Avenue to Mulberry Avenue 69.4 69.5 70.1 0.7 0.6 No
Almond Avenue to Cherry Avenue 70.7 70.9 71.5 0.8 0.6 No
Mulberry Avenue
Marlay Avenue to Jurupa Avenue 70.8 71.0 71.5 0.7 0.5 No
Santa Avenue to Slover Avenue 65.0 65.1 65.7 0.7 0.6 No
Cherry Avenue
Slover Avenue to Aliso Drive 71.5 71.7 72.3 0.8 0.6 No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; WB = westbound; EB = eastbound
1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source-
to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.
Source: Ibid. page 33 – Table 12
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 106 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Cumulative Stationary Noise. Stationary noise sources of the proposed Project would not result in an
incremental increase in non-transportation noise sources in the Project vicinity. Furthermore, as discussed
above, operational noise caused by the proposed Project would be less than significant. Similar to the
proposed Project, other planned and approved projects would be required to mitigate for stationary noise
impacts at nearby sensitive receptors, if necessary. As stationary noise sources are generally localized,
there is a limited potential for other projects to contribute to cumulative noise impacts.
No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would combine with the operational noise
levels generated by the Project to increase noise levels above acceptable standards because each project
must comply with applicable City regulations that limit operational noise. Therefore, the Project, together
with other projects, would not create a significant cumulative impact, and even if there was such a
significant cumulative impact, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to
significant cumulative operational noises.
Given that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, operational noise impacts from on-site
activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the Project site and vicinity. Thus, cumulative
operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with Project specific noise impacts, would
not be cumulatively significant.
Mitigation Program
The following MMs were identified in the FEIR to reduce impacts pertaining to the generation of noise
levels in excess standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies. Note that FEIR MMs 4.7-3a does not apply to the Project since the Project site is not
located within a 65 dBA CNEL overlay zone in the General Plan and is not located adjacent to railroad
tracks.
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
4.7-1a The following measures shall be implemented when construction is to be conducted
within 500 feet of any sensitive structures or has the potential to disrupt classroom
activities or religious functions.
• The City shall restrict noise-intensive construction activities to the days and hours
specified under Section 18-63 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code. These days and
hours shall also apply to any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials
to or from the site.
• All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control
devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided
on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust.
• The City shall require that the contractor maintain and tune-up all construction
equipment to minimize noise emissions.
• Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance
to the sensitive use structures.
• All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible
distance to the sensitive use structures.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 107 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• If construction noise does prove to be detrimental to the learning environment, the
City shall allow for a temporary waiver thereby allowing construction on Weekends
and/or holidays in those areas where this construction is to be performed in excess
of 500 feet from any residential structures.
• The construction contractor shall provide an on-site name and telephone number of
a contact person. Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of
the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow
for surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the City
or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate,
take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party.
In the event that construction noise is intrusive to an educational process, the
construction liaison will revise the construction schedule to preserve the learning
environment.
4.7-1b Should potential future development facilitated by the proposed project require off-site
import/export of fill material during construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least
disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways (Interstate 10, Interstate 15,
State Route 60, Sierra Avenue, Beech Avenue, Jurupa Avenue, and Slover Avenue).
Construction trucks should, to the extent practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m.
and p.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).
4.7-2a No new industrial facilities shall be constructed within 160 feet of any existing sensitive
land use property line without the preparation of a dedicated noise analysis. This analysis
shall document the nature of the industrial facility as well as “noise producing” operations
associated with that facility. Furthermore, the analysis shall document the placement of
any existing or proposed noise-sensitive land uses situated within the 160-foot distance.
The analysis shall determine the potential noise levels that could be received at these
sensitive land uses and specify very specific measures to be employed by the industrial
facility to ensure that these levels do not exceed those City noise requirements of 65 dBA
CNEL. Such measures could include, but are not limited to, the use of enclosures for noisy
pieces of equipment, the use of noise walls and/or berms for exterior equipment and/or
on-site truck operations, and/or restrictions on hours of operations. No development
permits or approval of land use applications shall be issued until the noted acoustic
analysis is received and approved by the City Staff. [NOTE: This MM has been satisfied
through the preparation of this Addendum, and Acoustical Assessment (Appendix H)]
4.7-3b Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a developer shall contract for a site-specific noise
study for the parcel. The noise study shall be performed by an acoustic consultant
experienced in such studies and the consultant’s qualifications and methodology to be
used in the study must be presented to City staff for consideration. The site-specific
acoustic study shall specifically identify potential noise impacts upon any proposed
sensitive uses (addressing General Plan buildout conditions), as well as potential project
impacts upon off-site sensitive uses due to construction, stationary and mobile noise
sources. Mitigation for mobile noise impacts, where identified as significant, shall
consider facility siting and truck routes such that project-related truck traffic utilizes
existing established truck routes. Mitigation shall be required if noise levels exceed
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 108 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
65 dBA, as identified in Section 30-182 of the City’s Municipal Code. [NOTE: This MM has
been satisfied through the preparation of this Addendum, and Acoustical Assessment
(Appendix H)]
Standard Condition of Approval No. 2
As discussed in the FEIR, short-term noise impacts associated with excavation, earthmoving, and
construction activities would be considered less than significant if: 1) construction activities are limited to
daytime hours; 2) construction equipment is equipped with noise control filters, as appropriate; and
3) construction activity is monitored to ensure that noise reduction specifications and guidelines are met;
and 5) The construction contractor will use the following source controls at all times:
a. Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on
Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays unless it is approved by the building
inspector for cases that are considered urgently necessary as defined in Section 18-63(7) of the
Municipal Code.
b. For all noise-producing equipment, use types and models that have the lowest horsepower and
the lowest noise generating potential practical for their intended use.
c. The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is
properly operating (tuned-up) and lubricated, and that mufflers are working adequately.
d. Have only necessary equipment onsite.
e. Use manually-adjustable or ambient-sensitive backup alarms. When working adjacent to
residential use(s), the construction contractor will also use the following path controls, except
where not physically feasible, when necessary:
i. Install portable noise barriers, including solid structures and noise blankets, between the
active noise sources and the nearest noise receivers.
ii. Temporarily enclose localized and stationary noise sources.
iii. Store and maintain equipment, building materials, and waste materials as far as practical from
as many sensitive receivers as practical.
Conclusion
Implementation of FEIR MMs 4.7-1a, 4.7-1b, 4.7-2a, 4.7-3b and the above referenced Standard Condition
of Approval No. 2 would reduce construction and operational noise levels to less than significant levels.
No Project-specific mitigation measures are required. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified is
available that would change the significance determination in the FEIR. However, although the Project
would result in no new or more severe noise impacts and the Project is anticipated to have a less than
significant impact, because the FEIR concluded that the overall development of the SWIP would cause a
Significant and Unavoidable impact relative to long-term ambient noise increase, a determination of
Significant and Unavoidable impact is made for the proposed Project in this regard.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 109 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (b) Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Construction Vibration
Construction can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction
procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread
through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. Construction on the Project site would
have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground-borne vibration, depending on the
specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.
The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general,
the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 in/sec) appears to be
conservative. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage.
Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human
perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary
buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks)
at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and
underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond
similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed
with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec
is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.
Table 15: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels lists vibration levels at 25 feet for typical
construction equipment. Vibration levels at 15 feet, the distance from the Project boundary to the nearest
existing structure, which is a metal garage structure, is also included in Table 15. Ground-borne vibration
generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with
increases in distance. As indicated in Table 15, based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy
construction equipment operations that would be used during the Project construction range from 0.0065
to 0.1915 in/sec PPV at 15 feet from the source of activity.
Table 15: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity
at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle Velocity
at 15 Feet (in/sec)1
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.1915
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.1915
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.1635
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0753
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.0065
1. Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment
adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.
Source: ibid. page 30 – Table 11
As noted above, the nearest structure to the Project construction site is located approximately 15 feet
away from the Project’s boundary. Table 15 shows that at 15 feet the vibration velocities from
construction equipment would not exceed 0.1915 in/sec PPV, which is below the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV
threshold for building damage and below the 0.4 in/sec PPV annoyance threshold. It is also acknowledged
that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 110 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
point closest to the nearest structure. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with Project construction
would be less than significant.
Operational Vibration
The Project would include truck movement activity at the Project site. These movements would generally
be low-speed (i.e., less than 15 miles per hour) and would occur over new, smooth surfaces. For
perspective, Caltrans has studied the effects of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and
notes that “heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest earthborn vibrations of normal
traffic.” Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic-generated vibrations are along freeways and state
routes. Their study finds that “vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (five meters from the centerline
of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 inches per second, with the worst combinations of heavy
trucks and poor roadway conditions (while such trucks were moving at freeway speeds). This level
coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic
buildings).24 Since the Project’s truck movements would be at low speed (not at freeway speeds) and
would be over smooth surfaces (not under poor roadway conditions), Project-related vibration associated
with truck activity would not result in excessive ground-borne vibrations; no vehicle-generated vibration
impacts would occur. In addition, there are no sources of substantial ground-borne vibration associated
with the Project, such as rail or subways. The Project would not create or cause any vibration impacts due
to operations.
Mitigation Program
FEIR MMs 4.7.1a and 4.7-1b and the previously noted Standard Condition of Approval No. 2 would reduce
impacts pertaining to the generation of noise levels in excess standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
Refer to FEIR MMs 4.7-1a, 4.7-1b, 4.7-2a, 4.7-3b and Standard Condition of Approval No. 2 in threshold
(a) above.
Conclusion
Implementation of FEIR MMs 4.7-1a, 4.7-1b, 4.7-2a, 4.7-3b, and the Standard Condition of Approval No. 2
previously noted would ensure that a less than significant impact would occur concerning groundborne
vibration and groundborne noise levels. No Project-specific mitigation measures are required.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant
impact under this issue area.
Threshold (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
24 Ibid. page 31
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 111 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The nearest airport to the Project site is the Ontario International Airport located approximately 4.5 miles
to the west. The Project is not within 2.0 miles of a public airport or within an airport land use plan.
Additionally, there are no private airstrips located within the Project vicinity. Therefore, the Project would
not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport- or airstrip-related noise
levels and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
Overall Noise Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed
by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified
impacts, with respect to noise. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 112 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.13 Population and Housing
4.13.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
According to the FEIR, development of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would not result in any impacts
to existing residential units on-site. Should future development proposals result in the potential for
displacement of residential uses, each development application would be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis for impacts. In addition, any potential impacts to existing on-site housing within the SWIP Specific
Plan Update area is anticipated to occur over a long period of time, and the construction of replacement
housing would not be required. As such, the FEIR concluded that impacts in this regard would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures were recommended.
4.13.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or
indirectly?
No New or More Severe Impact: Population and housing growth has continuously been on the rise in the
City. Population and housing have grown from approximately 210,167 residents and 56,294 household
units in 2021, to 213,851 residents and 58,270 household units in 2023.25 This is an increase of
approximately 1.75 percent for the population and 3.51 percent for household units.
As reported by the California Department of Finance (DOF), the vacancy rate is a measure of the
availability of housing in a community. It also demonstrates how well the available units meet the market
demand. A low vacancy rate suggests that residents may have difficulty finding housing within their price
range and a high supply of vacant units may indicate either the existence of a high number of desired
units, or an oversupply of units. A healthy vacancy rate is generally accepted at seven or eight percent. A
low vacancy rate is about two percent. The City has a low vacancy rate at 2.1 percent.
The Project would not induce population growth through the introduction of housing because no housing
is associated with the development. SB 330, the Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning
and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that
renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or
an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance
of the evidence in the record. In this instance, SB 330 is not applicable because as previously noted, the
Project does not propose any housing and the Project site is not zoned for residential development. In
some cases, direct population growth can be created through the introduction of new businesses;
however, direct population growth associated with the Project is not anticipated because the community
has a need for employment and the Project’s workforce would likely be local residents. Additionally, the
Project would not involve any infrastructure improvements that would induce growth. Therefore, the
Project would not substantially induce population growth and impacts would be less than significant.
25 DOF. (2023). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 2021-2023 with 2020 Benchmark. Available at:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/
(accessed October 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 113 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would not induce population growth, indirectly or directly. A less than significant impact
would occur and no Project-Specific mitigation measures are needed.
Threshold (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New or More Severe Impact: The only building located onsite is a metal building that is used as an
office to support the Advance School of Driving Trucking School and is planned for demolition prior to
construction of the Project for safety reasons, and proposed uses would be consistent with planned uses
pursuant to the SWIP Specific Plan Update. As stated above, the Project would not be subject to SB 330
as the Project site does not contain residential uses. Therefore, the Project would not displace people or
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
There are no new or more severe potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed Project;
therefore, no Project-specific mitigation measures are required.
Overall Population and Housing Impacts Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact to as it pertains to population and housing.
With approval of the Project with regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new or more severe
impacts from the previously identified impacts, with respect to population and housing. Therefore,
preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 114 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.14 Public Services
4.14.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The FEIR concluded that there is potential for service needs to increase relative to fire protection, police
protection, schools with the development/redevelopment of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. To
offset potential impacts to a less than significant impact, the FEIR proposed MM 4.8-1a through 4.8-1i,
4.8-2a through 4.8-2c, 4.8-3a through 4.8-3f, referenced below. However, the FEIR concluded that impacts
to parks would remain significant and unavoidable, regardless of mitigation measures incorporated.
The FEIR also concluded that development of the SWIP Specific Plan Update Area would not significantly
increase the demand for library services that would require construction of additional library facilities.
Nonetheless, FEIR MM 4.8-4a was recommended.
4.14.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (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 could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for:
Fire protection, Police protection, Schools, Parks, and other Public Facilities?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project does not include or require construction of any new or
physically altered fire protection, police protection, school, park, or other public facilities. Prior to
commencement of construction activities, the Project plans would be reviewed by applicable local
agencies to ensure compliance with the FMC as well as all applicable regulations to ensure adequate site
signage, lighting, and other crime safety preventative measures. The City’s Police Department is located
approximately five miles northeast of the Project site at 17005 Upland Avenue, Fontana. The closest fire
station is San Bernardino County Fire Station 74 at 11500 Live Oak Avenue, Fontana, located
approximately one mile southeast of the Project site. Since the Project site is already served by the existing
fire station, is consistent with the City’s General Plan, and would be constructed pursuant to existing
California Fire Code regulations, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered
police and/or fire department facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. Furthermore,
the Project Applicant would pay Development Impact Fees (DIFs) that would be used to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives of the City’s Fire and Police
protection services.
The Project does not have a residential component and would therefore not directly introduce new
residents to the City that would require the provision of new or physically altered schools.
Furthermore, the Project would not be required to pay any Park DIFs since the Project is not residential.
However, the Project’s impact to Parks would be consistent with the significant and unavoidable impact
identified in the FEIR since it is not possible to determine whether future demand for park and recreation
services will trigger the need for new facilities or whether, in the absence of additional neighborhood and
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 115 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
community park facilities in proximity to the SWIP Specific Plan area, existing facilities outside of the SWIP
Specific Plan area would be accessed by new residents, accelerating their deterioration. Refer to Section
4.15, Recreation, for more information.
Construction of the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
or need for new or physically altered public facilities, and would not adversely affect service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives with payment of DIF’s, and compliance with applicable
local regulations. This would ensure that Project construction would result in a less than significant impact
to public services.
No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the
time the FEIR was certified is available. Although impacts to public facilities and services is anticipated to
be low, with implementation of the FEIR proposed mitigation measures, referenced below, the Project
would cause a less than significant impact to fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other
public facilities. Lastly, development fees would aid in offsetting any potential impacts.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project.
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
The FEIR MMs 4.8-1a through 4.8-1i, 4.8-2a through 4.8-2c, 4.8-3a through 4.8-3f, and 4.8-4a are listed in
the FEIR. Although the Project would be required to adhere to the following FEIR MMs, the following
mitigation measures will be implemented by the City.
4.8-1a The City shall continue to work towards a ratio of 1.4 sworn officers per 1,000 residents.
4.8-1b The Fontana Police Department shall continue to expand its Area Commander Program
to more effectively serve specific areas of the City.
4.8-1c The Fontana Police Department shall expand its Contact Stations to more effectively serve
outlying areas.
4.8-1d The Fontana Police Department shall continue its School Resource Officer Program on all
current and future middle school campuses.
4.8-1e The Fontana Police Department shall continue its extensive volunteer crime prevention
programs, including Citizen Volunteers, Explorers, Citizens on Patrol, Neighborhood
Watch, Police Reserves, and Community Emergency.
4.8-1f The Fontana Police Department shall continue its bilingual incentive program to more
effectively serve the Latino community.
4.8-1g The City shall maintain an average police and fire response time of four to five minutes.
4.8-1h The City shall continue to promote the establishment of Neighborhood Watch programs
in residential neighborhoods, aimed at encouraging neighborhoods to form associations
to patrol or watch for any suspicious activity.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 116 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.8-1i The City shall incorporate appropriate staffing levels in the annual budget process keyed
to City growth in population and employment.
4.8-2a The City shall maintain an average fire response time of four to five minutes.
4.8-2b The City shall continue to maintain an Insurance Service office (ISO) fire rating of Class 3.
4.8-2c The City shall ensure that new fire stations are built in areas of new development so that
response times are not eroded.
4.8-3a Planning and development in the City shall continue to be integrated with the needs of
school districts for new facilities.
4.8-3b The City shall continue to support local school districts in their efforts to obtain additional
funding sources, including special assessment districts and supplementary state and
federal funding.
4.8-3c The City shall establish and maintain effective joint use agreements with school districts
serving the community to achieve optimum, cost-effective use of school facilities.
4.8-3d The City shall continue to withhold building permits until verification that applicable
school fees have been collected by the appropriate school district.
4.8-3e The City shall collaborate with school districts in designing adjacent school/recreation
facilities to achieve maximum usability and cost-effectiveness for both the City and the
school districts.
4.8-3f The City shall collaborate with school districts in expanding educational opportunities and
programs that benefit from City facilities.
4.8-4a As part of future development and infrastructure projects within the Specific Plan Update
area, the City shall continue to explore options to provide additional library service,
through the Fontana Unified School district (FUSD) joint use agreements and/or City-
sponsored facilities using General Fund or other revenue sources.
Conclusion
Although the Project would result in no substantial adverse physical impacts associated with fire
protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities, and the Project is anticipated to
have a less than significant impact, because the FEIR concluded that the overall development of the SWIP
would cause a Significant and Unavoidable impact relative to Parks, a determination of Significant and
Unavoidable impact is made for the proposed Project in this regard.
Overall Public Services Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed
by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified impacts,
with respect to public services. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 117 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.15 Recreation
4.15.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The FEIR concluded that future development associated with the SWIP Specific Plan Update would result
in a significant and unavoidable impact due to future industrial, commercial, and office development. The
Approved Project could create employment opportunities within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. In
turn, this employment growth could lead to a population increase within the City and an associated
increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities. To offset potential impacts to a less than
significant impact, the FEIR proposed MM 4.8-5a through 4.8-5g.
4.15.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: As noted in Section 4.14, Public Services, above, the FEIR determined
that impacts to parks and recreation uses would be significant and unavoidable. Because the Project is by
right permitted within the JND, the FEIR has previously analyzed and accounted for this type of
development on the site and appropriate mitigation measures have been recommended to adequately
offset any impact caused to recreational facilities. As previously noted in Section 4.13, Population and
Housing, it is anticipated that the labor force would come mostly from within the City or immediately
surrounding communities. The Project is not anticipated to substantially 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. However, the Project is not expected to pay
Park Development fees since no park development fees are collected for industrial development.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. However, consistent with the FEIR, the Project’s impact
concerning the physical deterioration of existing neighborhood and regional parks would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes MMs 4.8-5a through 4.8-5g to reduce impacts to neighborhoods and regional
parks/facilities.
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
The Project would be required to adhere to the following FEIR MMs, which will be implemented by the
City:
4.8-5a A wide variety of parks and recreation facilities, including regional, community,
neighborhood and sub-neighborhood parks, shall be provided throughout the City.
4.8-5b The design of all parks shall meet the particular needs of the specialized populations they
serve, such as seniors, young adults, families, and children.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 118 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.8-5c Barrier-free access to all parks shall be provided.
4.8-5d The park standards for the City shall be two-acres per thousand residents for community
parks and three-acres per thousand for neighborhood parks.
4.8-5e Each park within the City shall provide a variety of activity options for users, including
active and passive uses.
4.8-5f The City shall reevaluate the design of each of its parks as part of the periodic update of
its Parks, Recreation, and Trails Master Plan.
4.8-5g Each park within the City shall be evaluated for safety on a periodic basis.
Conclusion
Although the Project’s impact concerning the deterioration of existing neighborhood and regional parks
would be less than significant, the overall impact would remain significant and unavoidable in accordance
with the Approved Project. According, no Project-specific specific mitigation is required.
Threshold (b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project does not propose nor would be required to construct/expand
recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur. However as noted in threshold 4.15(a) above,
the Project’s impact concerning recreational facilities would be consistent with the FEIR, resulting in a
significant and unavoidable impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
Refer to FEIR MMs 4.8-5a through 4.8-5g above.
Conclusion
There are no new or more severe potentially significant impacts concerning the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities associated with the Project. A less than significant impact would occur, and no
Project-specific mitigation measures are required.
Overall Recreation Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed
by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified impacts,
with respect to recreation. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 119 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.16 Transportation
4.16.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Although
not addressed as a separate threshold, the FEIR analyzed VMT as part of air quality and GHG modeling
and the FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan would result in less than significant
impacts with mitigation relative to GHG emissions but significant and unavoidable impacts from
cumulative GHG emissions. The FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan would
result in significant and unavoidable impacts relative to air quality for both short and long-term air quality
as well as consistency with the AQMP.
The FEIR concluded that the implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would lead to less than
significant impacts in relation to roadway hazards and emergency access. Common construction practices
such as public access restrictions, construction signage, and flagmen would be implemented to minimize
hazard risks. A Traffic Management Plan is required for all projects that propose construction activities in
a public right-of-way (MM 4.9-1a through 4.9-1nn). The Traffic Management Plan is reviewed by the City’s
Engineering department and must include provisions for construction safety and emergency access.
Implementation of a Traffic Management Plan was found to be sufficient to minimize impacts to both
hazards and emergency access.
The FEIR also concluded that the implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would cause an
increase in traffic that exceeded the load capacity of surrounding streets. A deficiency was identified in
10 roadway segments and 19 intersections within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. These potential
impacts were to be minimized to less than significant levels due to the roadway upgrades included in the
proposed mitigation measures. However, the majority of the improvements proposed in the mitigation
measures were unfunded or partially funded, therefore, their implementation remained unassured.
Impacts related to increased roadway traffic were instead considered to be significant and unavoidable.
This section is prepared in part utilizing the following technical study:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. December 2023. Traffic/VMT Memorandum.
This technical study memorandum is provided as Appendix I to this Addendum EIR and findings are
summarized below.
4.16.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Conflict with program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
As stated in the FEIR, the SWIP (including the Project) would be consistent with the goals and policies of
the General Plan. The SWIP includes an extensive range of circulation improvements, including pedestrian
and bicycle circulation facilities, consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Applicant
will pay DIFs that the City shall utilize to fund transportation improvements identified in the Approved
Project’s FEIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 120 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
On September 2021, the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) released the 11th Edition of the transportation
profession’s leading source of trip generation information— Trip Generation Manual. The 11th edition of
the Trip Generation Manual enhances the 10th Edition by providing the latest multimodal trip generation
data for urban, suburban, and rural location. In response to the 11th edition update, Kimley-Horn reviewed
and compared the Warehouse (ITE Code 150) rates using the 11th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation
Manual.
No New or More Severe Impact:
Trip Generation Comparison
The Traffic/VMT Memorandum (Appendix I) prepared for the Project concluded that the Project, based
on Jurupa North Research and Development (JND) (west) area land uses, would generate 888 daily
passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips with 88 PCE (67 inbound and 21 outbound) in AM peak hour trips and
92 PCE (25 inbound and 67 outbound) PM peak hour trips (refer to Table 16: Summary of Project Trip
Generation below). Table 16 includes a summary of the Projects’ trip generation rates, PCE factors, and
resulting trip generation rates compared to the forecast net trip generation by zone, as noted in Table
4.9-11 of the FEIR which forecasted that the JND (west) TAZ would produce 29,278 daily trips, 4,214 trips
(3,699 inbound and 515 outbound) in the morning peak hour, and 3,946 trips (537 inbound and
3,409 outbound) in the evening peak hour.
Table 16: Summary of Project Trip Generation
TRIP GENERATION RATES
ITE Land Use
ITE
Code Unit Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Warehousing 150 KSF 1.710 0.131 0.039 0.17
0 0.050 0.130 0.18
0
Jurupa North Research and Development (West) Trips – Project Site
Land Use Quantity Unit
TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Total Proposed JND (West) Trips 233.800 Acre 29,278
369
9 515
4,21
4 537
3,40
9
3,94
6
Project Site (Proportionate JND [West] Trips 16.310 Acre 2,042 258 36 294 37 238 275
Existing Site
Land Use Quantity Unit
TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Industrial Use (with PCE) -- -- 241 18 13 31 1 13 14
Proposed Project
Land Use Quantity Unit
TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Warehousing 384.817 KSF 658 50 15 65 19 50 69
Passenger Vehicles 79.57% 524 40 12 52 15 40 55
Trucks 20.43% 134 10 3 13 4 10 14
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 121 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
PROJECT TRIPS – PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS (PCE)
Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix 1 Daily
Vehicles
PCE
Factor Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Passenger Vehicles 79.57% 524 1.0 524 40 12 52 15 40 55
2-Axle Trucks 3.46% 23 2.0 46 3 1 4 1 3 4
3-Axle Trucks 4.64% 30 2.5 75 6 2 8 2 6 8
4+ Axle Trucks 12.33% 81 3.0 243 18 6 24 7 18 25
Total Truck PCE Trips 364 27 9 36 10 27 37
Total Proposed Project PCE Trips 888 67 21 88 25 67 92
Net New Trips (Proposed -- Existing Site) 647 49 8 57 24 54 78
Trip Differential (Proposed - JND [West] Project) -1,154 -191 -15 -206 -12 -171 -183
1Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition
PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent
KSF = Thousand Square Feet
When comparing the proposed Project trip generation to the average trip generation of the existing site,
the proposed project generates 647 net new trips on a daily basis, with 57 net new trips in the morning
peak hour and 78 net new trips in the evening peak hour. When comparing the proposed Project trip
generation to the estimated trip generation of the project site using JND (West) assumed land uses, the
proposed Project generates 1,154 fewer trips on a daily basis, with 206 fewer total trips in the morning
peak hour and 183 fewer total trips in the evening peak hour.
Based on the trip generation comparison, the proposed Project trip generation estimates are materially
less than the estimated trips for the proposed site based on the assumed land uses in the JND (West) area
of the SWIP Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project’s impact concerning trip generation rates would not
result in a new or more severe than what was identified in the FEIR.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR MMs (4.9-1a through 4.9-1h, 4.9-1i through 4.9-1cc, 4.9-1dd through 4.9-1hh, and 4.9-1ii through
4.9-1nn) were identified in the FEIR to reduce impacts pertaining to an existing program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
Forecast Existing with Project Conditions
FEIR MMs (4.9-1a through 4.9-1h) were intended to achieve acceptable operations at the deficient
roadway segments for forecast existing with the FEIR Approved Project conditions. However, these FEIR
MMs do not apply because the Project’s VMT Memo determined that the Project would generate fewer
trips in both AM and PM Peak hours than what the Approved Project previously estimated for the Project
site. This indicates that the LOS at applicable intersections would be improved with Project
implementation when compared to the Approved Project and therefore, no mitigation measures are
applicable. Nevertheless, the Applicant shall pay DIFs that the City shall utilize to fund transportation
improvements identified in the Approved Project’s FEIR.
FEIR MMs (4.9-1i through 4.9-1cc) were intended to achieve acceptable operations at the deficient
intersections for forecast existing with Approved Project conditions. However, these FEIR MMs do not
apply because the Project’s VMT Memo determined that the Project would generate fewer trips in both
AM and PM Peak hours than what the Approved Project previously estimated for the Project site. This
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 122 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
indicates that the LOS at applicable intersections would be improved with Project implementation when
compared to the Approved Project and therefore, no mitigation measures are applicable. Nevertheless,
the Applicant shall pay DIFs that the City shall utilize to fund transportation improvements identified in
the Approved Project’s FEIR.
Forecast Year 2030 with Project Conditions
FEIR MMs (4.9-1dd through 4.9-1hh) were intended to achieve acceptable operations at the deficient
roadway segments for the forecast year 2030 with Approved Project conditions. However, these FEIR
MMs do not apply because the Project’s VMT Memo determined that the Project would generate fewer
trips in both AM and PM Peak hours than what the Approved Project previously estimated for the Project
site. This indicates that the LOS at applicable intersections would be improved with Project
implementation when compared to the Approved Project and therefore, no mitigation measures are
applicable. Nevertheless, the Applicant shall pay DIFs that the City shall utilize to fund transportation
improvements identified in the Approved Project’s FEIR.
FEIR MMs (4.9-1ii through 4.9-1nn) were intended to achieve acceptable operations at the deficient
intersection for the forecast year 2030 with Approved Project conditions. However, these FEIR MMs do
not apply because the Project’s VMT Memo determined that the Project would generate fewer trips in
both AM and PM Peak hours than what the Approved Project previously estimated for the Project site.
This indicates that the LOS at applicable intersections would be improved with Project implementation
when compared to the Approved Project and therefore, no mitigation measures are applicable.
Nevertheless, the Applicant shall pay DIFs that the City shall utilize to fund transportation improvements
identified in the Approved Project’s FEIR.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not result in a new or more severe impact as it pertains to conflict with
a program, plan, ordinance, policy, or guideline. A less than significant impact would occur, and no Project-
specific Mitigation Measures are required.
However, although the Project would result in no new or more severe number of roadway and
intersection deficiencies upon implementation of the Project, because the FEIR concluded that the overall
development of the overall SWIP would cause a Significant and Unavoidable impact relative to roadway
and intersection deficiencies, a determination of Significant and Unavoidable impact is made for the
proposed Project in this regard.
Threshold (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
No New or More Severe Impact:
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was approved by California legislature in September 2013. SB 743 requires
changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically directing the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) to develop alternative metrics to the use of vehicular “Level of Service” (LOS)
for evaluating transportation projects. OPR has prepared a technical advisory (“OPR Technical Advisory”)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 123 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
for evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA and has recommended that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
replace LOS as the primary measure of transportation impacts. The Natural Resources Agency has adopted
updates to CEQA Guidelines to incorporate SB 743 that requires VMT for the purposes of determining a
significant transportation impact under CEQA.
As noted in Threshold 4.16(a) above, the Project would be developed within the JND (west) Traffic Analysis
Zone (TAZ). The Project’s VMT, based on applicable trip generation and VMT assumptions of 384,817 SF
of warehousing use, is 14,058 daily VMT. Compared to the 11th Edition VMT for the JND (west) area
(506,607 daily VMT), the project VMT contributed to only 2.8% of VMT. The corresponding VMT of the
proposed project has been adequately addressed in the SWIP Specific Plan EIR, and no further analysis is
required. Therefore, the VMT generated by the Project would not constitute a new or more severe impact
compared to the VMT for the JND (west) determined in the FEIR. However consistent with the FEIR,
project impacts related to increased VMT would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
No mitigation measures were identified.
Conclusion
Although the Project itself would result in less than significant impacts concerning VMT, consistent with
the FEIR, the Project’s VMT-related impact would remain significant and unavoidable. No Project-specific
mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
No New or More Severe Impact: Project construction activities could require the restriction of public
access in its duration. The Project would include standard construction safety measures that would
include, but limited to, appropriate signage and flagmen visible to approaching motorists and pedestrians
indicating access options and warnings. Because the Project would impact a public right-of-way, a Traffic
Management Plan (TMP) would be created and include further provisions to minimize risks during Project
construction. The TMP would be reviewed by the City’s Engineering department and would include
provisions for construction safety and emergency access. The FEIR concluded that implementation of a
Traffic Management Plan would be sufficient to minimize impacts to both hazards and emergency access.
Project geometric design features, including the entrances and internal driveway system, have been
designed to meet the standards for the turning radii of large trucks with trailers. This would also benefit
the access of emergency response vehicles. The Project area is fully paved and developed with residential
structures (currently utilized for industrial purposes related to the existing industrial uses given to the
site), including segments of perimeter fencing, some ancillary structures, and mature trees. Thus, no
agricultural activities occur in the Project area; therefore, there would be no incompatible use with farm
equipment.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 124 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The FEIR also did not find that Calabash Avenue and Jurupa Avenue operated at a deficient LOS, to which
the driveways would connect. The Project would, therefore, generate a less than significant traffic hazard
impact, and no mitigation would be required.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no or more severe new impact as it pertains to geometric design feature or
incompatible uses. No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified
significant impact evaluated in the FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified, or the
Approved Project was approved is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact
under this issue area.
Threshold (d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No New or More Severe Impact: Project features that would ensure sufficient emergency access include
one 48-foot-wide and two 35-foot wide driveways located along Calabash Avenue, and one 40-foot wide
driveway along Jurupa Avenue. Furthermore, the Project’s proposed 30 foot-wide fire lane would be
designed to allow the circulation of fire/emergency response vehicles throughout the Project site.
Additionally, The FEIR concluded that a TMP would be created via the City’s requirements for any projects
that include construction activities within the public right-of-way. The Project proposes to construct
access points within to a public right-of-way and would therefore be required to create a TMP. The Project
would maintain adequate emergency access and generate a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
None identified in the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no or more severe new impact as it pertains to emergency access. No new
impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in
the FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and
could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior
finding of no significant impact under this issue area.
Overall Transportation Impacts Conclusion
The Project would result in no or more severe new impact to transportation systems. With regard to CEQA
Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would
not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect
to transportation. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR analysis is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 125 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
4.17.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not result in significant
impacts relative to utilities and service systems. However, the implementation of the below referenced
mitigation measures was recommended.
4.17.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project is by right allowed in the SWIP’s JND. As such, the proposed
use has been previously accounted for in the FEIR, including the potential water, sewer wastewater
required for the site. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, The Project would
consume water at a rate of approximately 5.4 acre-feet per year, based on FWC water consumption rates
(0.33 acre-feet, per acre, per year for industrial use).26.
Because the Project site is consistent with the zoning district, the Project is anticipated to have a negligible
impact on the previously mentioned resources. Additionally, the FEIR determined that impacts to storm
water drainage facilities would be less than significant. The Project would not create or contribute runoff
water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
additional sources of polluted runoff. In addition, the Project proposes off-site drainage in support of the
Project’s additional utility demands.
Furthermore, as previously addressed, the Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP that details
construction and post-construction measures to control surface runoff in a manner that is consistent with
master planning efforts.
Lastly, the FEIR concluded that the electrical and natural gas companies would be able to accommodate
electricity and natural gas needs for future development within the SWIP area with mitigation
incorporated.
Therefore, associated impacts are considered less than significant. Accordingly, no new or more severe
impact from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the FEIR would occur.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR included MMs 4.8-6a through 4.8-6c and MMs 4.8-8a through 4.8-8d to reduce potential impacts
associated with the Approved Project. The following mitigation measures listed below are goals/policies
and would be implemented by the City.
26 Inland Empire Utilities Agency. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at: https://www.ieua.org/download/urban-water-
management-plan-2015/ (accessed October 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 126 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
4.8-6a The City should provide growth projections to utility companies periodically as the basis
for their projection of facility and service needs to support community development.
4.8-6b The City shall coordinate the installation of utilities so that disruption of public rights of
way and private property is kept to a minimum.
4.8-6c The City shall collaborate with utility companies to achieve the maximum undergrounding
of utility lines commensurate with available funds.
4.8-8a The City shall maintain its current Master Plan of Sewers as the basis for development of
a sewer system to serve the community.
4.8-8b The City shall design and operate its local and trunk sewer system in close collaboration
with the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA).
4.8-8c The City shall establish and maintain an aggressive water recycling program.
4.8-8d The City shall devote sufficient financial support for wastewater system maintenance so
that current levels of service, health, and safety are sustained or improved.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe new impact as it pertains to placement of utilities and
sewer systems. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could
not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of
no significant impact.
Threshold (b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
No New or More Severe Impact: The FEIR determined that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan
Update would have a less than significant impact, with respect to water supplies. No potable groundwater
wells are proposed as part of the Project. The Project would be served with potable water by the FWC.
The FWC prepared a WSA for the SWIP Specific Plan Update as part of the FEIR process. Based on the
results of the WSA, existing and future water entitlements from groundwater, surface, and imported
sources in addition to recycling and conservation were determined to be sufficient to meet the Approved
Project’s demand at buildout, in addition to forecast demand for the FWC’s entire service area.27
Development of the Project site, which is located in the JND, was calculated in the WSA, and the Project
is consistent with the type of development and square footage maximum anticipated for the site in the
JND. Lastly, according to the FWC’s latest 2020 UWMP, the FWC has sufficient water supply through year
2040.28
Domestic water supplies from this service provider are reliant on groundwater from the Chino
Groundwater Basin and Rialto Groundwater Basin. All municipal water entities that exceed their safe yield
incur a groundwater replenishment obligation, which is used to recharge the groundwater basin. Thus,
27 City of Fontana. (2009). Water Supply Assessment for the Southwest Industrial Park Project.
28 FWC. (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.fontanawater.com/water-quality-supply/2020-urban-water-management-
plan/ (accessed October 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 127 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the Project’s demand for domestic water service would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
Accordingly, no new or more severe impact relative to water supply from a previously identified significant
impact evaluated in the FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance
that was not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified is available that
would impact the prior finding of no significant impact related to the provision of water.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes MMs 4.8-7a through 4.8-7e to reduce potential impacts associated with the Approved
Project. These mitigation measures will be implemented by the City.
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
4.8-7a The City shall work closely with water supply agencies to assure the continued supply of
water.
4.8-7b The City shall act to conserve water in whatever cost-effective ways are reasonably
available.
4.8-7c The City shall manage urban runoff to minimize water supply contamination.
4.8-7d The City shall collaborate with water management authorities to devise and implement
creative and cost-effective water management strategies.
4.8-7e The City shall provide educational material to its residents and businesses regarding the
critical necessity for careful use of water and management of water systems.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to water supplies. The Project
would result in a less than significant impact, and no Project-specific mitigation measures are required.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant
impact to utilities and service systems.
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: See discussion for Threshold (a) above. The SWIP Specific Plan Update
area is within the sewer service area of the City and the IEUA. The City is a member agency of the IEUA,
which provides the City contracting privileges with the Agency for off-site collection, treatment, disposal,
and reuse.
A Water and Sewer Infrastructure Study (Study) was conducted for the SWIP Specific Plan Update in 2009.
The Study calculated existing sewer flow for the JND at 76,953 gallons per day (gpd) and 948,230 gpd for
ultimate buildout. Existing peak flow in gallons per minute (gpm) is 107 and 1,317 gpm for ultimate
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 128 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
buildout. The Study found that existing sewerage collection capacity would be sufficient for ultimate
Approved Project land uses of the areas currently within the City limits, which includes the JND. However,
the Study recommended that because much of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is under-utilized,
estimated flows for each trunk sewer system should be revised as these activities occur, in order to
optimize sewer sizing. In addition, potential trunk system alignment modifications may be in order to
efficiently serve new parcel construction. The FEIR included MMs 4.8-8a through 4.8-8d to reduce impacts
which would be implemented by the City. With adherence of FEIR MMs 4.8-8a through 4.8-8d, impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes MMs 4.8-8a through 4.8-8d to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the Approved Project. The City is responsible for implementing these measures.
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
Refer to FEIR MMs 4.8-8a through 4.8-8d in Threshold (a) above.
Conclusion
The Project would result in a less than significant impact as it pertains to wastewater treatment capacity.
No Project-specific mitigation measures are required. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified is
available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact to wastewater treatment systems.
Threshold (d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
No New or More Severe Impact: The FEIR determined that the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not result
in significant impacts relative to solid waste with the implementation of mitigation measures.
Implementation of the Project would be expected to generate additional waste during the temporary,
short-term construction phase, as well as the long-term operational phase.
Solid waste service for the City is provided by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill located east of the City.
According to CalRecycle, the landfill has a maximum throughput of 7,500 tons per day. This landfill has a
maximum permitted capacity of approximately 101.3 million cubic yards, and the landfill has a remaining
capacity of approximately 61 million cubic yards. The landfill has an expected operational life through
2045 with the potential for vertical expansion.29 However, the FEIR notes that while the 2011 projected
capacity of the landfill was thought to be met by 2033, more recent projections indicate the same landfill
may have capacity to accept waste for another 30 to 40 years.30 For these reasons, the Project’s solid
waste disposal needs can be met by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Additionally, the Project, as with all
29 CalRecycle. (2023). Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662. (accessed October 2023).
30 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed
October 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 129 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
other development in the City, would be required to adhere to City ordinances with respect to waste
reduction and recycling. Consistent with the FEIR, with implementation of the below-referenced
mitigation measures, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes MMs 4.8-9a through 4.8-9d to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the Approved Project; these measures will be implemented by the City.
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
4.8-9a The City shall continue to maintain a contractual arrangement that achieves maximum
recycling rates at a reasonable price.
4.8-9b Where joint programs offer improvement efficiency or reduced cost, the City shall
collaborate with other entities in recycling efforts.
4.8-9c The City shall continue to provide services to resident and business citizens that facilitate
community cleanup, curbside collections and diversion of oil and other hazardous waste
materials.
4.8-9d The City should maintain an aggressive public information program to stimulate waste
reduction by its resident and business citizens.
Conclusion
The Project would result in a less than significant impact as it pertains to conflict with solid waste
standards and regulations. No Project-specific mitigation measures are required. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact to solid
waste generation.
Threshold (e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
No New or More Severe Impact: As discussed in Threshold 4.17(d) above, the Project’s solid waste
disposal would be adequately serviced by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill and would adhere to FEIR MMs
4.8-9a through 4.8-9d to ensure that the Project does not generate excess solid waste. Additionally, the
Project would be designed and operate in compliance with all State and local requirements related to
solid waste. Therefore, the Project’s impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures 4.8-9a through 4.8-9d to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the Approved Project; these measures will be implemented by the City.
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
Refer to FEIR MMs 4.8-9a through 4.8-9d in Threshold (d) above.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 130 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Project would result in a less than significant impact as it pertains to conflict with solid waste
standards and regulations. No Project-specific mitigation measures are required. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact to solid
waste generation.
Overall Utility and Service Systems Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed
by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified impacts
with respect to utilities and service systems. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 131 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.18 Wildfire
4.18.1 Analysis of Proposed Project
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for Wildfire hazards. Although not
addressed as a separate threshold, the FEIR noted in the Air Quality and Climate Change chapter that
climate change could result in increased occurrences and duration of wildfire events. However, the SWIP
Specific Plan Update area is located within an urbanized area and is surrounded by development on all
sides; it is not located adjacent to wildlands that may increase the risk of wildland fires. Because the SWIP
Specific Plan Update area is not considered susceptible to wildland fires, wildfire risk as a result of global
climate change is anticipated to be less than significant in the FEIR.
Threshold (a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
According to CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area Viewer, the Project site
and surrounding area is not located in a state responsibility area (SRA) or a very high fire hazard severity
zone and therefore, the Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan due
to a wildfire.31 Regardless, refer to Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold (f) which
discusses the Project’s potential to substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. As discussed in that section, the Project would implement FEIR MMs 4.5-6a
and 4.5-6b to reduce impairments to the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. Furthermore, the Project’s
driveways, and internal fire lane will be designed to ensure that emergency access is provided. Thus,
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
Not evaluated in the FEIR; therefore, there are no mitigation measures from the FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would not substantially impair an emergency response plan due to wildfire related impacts.
No new impact concerning wildfire would occur.
Threshold (b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
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?
31 CAL FIRE. (2022). CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area Viewer. Available at: https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008 (accessed October 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 132 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
According to CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area Viewer, the Project site
and surrounding area is not located in a state responsibility area (SRA) or a very high fire hazard severity
zone and therefore, the Project would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The Project site is located in a flat/leveled area which
does not include wild habitat and is not located near hillsides. The Project site is surrounded by a fully
developed industrial area to the west, north, and east, and Jurupa Avenue and residential development
to the south. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Threshold (c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
According to CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area Viewer, the Project site
and surrounding area is not located in a state responsibility area (SRA) or a very high fire hazard severity
zone. Accordingly, the Project site would not require the installation of additional roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, or other features that could result in wildfire risks. Thus, no impact would
occur.
Conclusion
The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may
exacerbate fire risk or result in ongoing impacts. Therefore no impacts would occur.
Threshold (d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
According to CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area Viewer, the Project site
and surrounding area is not located in a state responsibility area (SRA) or a very high fire hazard severity
zone and therefore, the Project would not expose project significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslide. As discussed in Section 4.18 Threshold (b) above, the Project site is
located in a flat/leveled area which does not include wild habitat and is not located near hillsides. The
Project site is surrounded by a fully developed industrial area to the west, north, and east, and Jurupa
Avenue and residential development to the south. Because the Project site would not be exposed to
wildfires, wind, slope, or other factors would not exacerbate wildfire risks. Thus, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
Not evaluated in the FEIR; therefore, there are no mitigation measures from the FEIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 133 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
Consistent with the FEIR, the Project is not located near hillsides. No new impact from wildfires would
occur.
Overall Wildfire Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed
by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to Wildfire. Therefore,
preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 134 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.19 Energy
4.19.1 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation, and
Threshold (b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for Energy. Although not addressed as a
separate threshold in the FEIR, the FEIR analyzed energy conservation as part of the Other CEQA
Considerations and concluded that as part of the implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update, there
would be a less than significant impact on energy resources. Additionally, the SWIP Specific Plan had
planned the Project site to be developed with industrial uses and by right permits warehousing. With this,
the SWIP Specific Plan Update planned and accounted for the use of energy from the allowed use. For
modeling purposes, the Project consists of 384,817 square feet (sf), 66,298 sf of landscaping, and 177 auto
parking stalls and 82 trailer parking stalls along the east and west perimeter of the proposed warehouse
building. The Project site is rectangular-shaped totaling approximately 16.305 net acres on the northeast
corner of the Calabash Avenue and the Jurupa Avenue intersection. Based on the land use types,
CalEEMod is able to estimate the usage of natural gas, electricity, and annual vehicle miles traveled which
correlates with amount of fuel consumed. As shown in Table 17: Energy Usage, the Project is anticipated
to use the following energy.
Table 17: Energy Usage
Energy Usage Proposed Project
Natural Gas – kBTU/year 7,442,072
Electricity – kWh/year 2,310,958
Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled 4,505,430*
*Mitigated VMT result
Source: CalEEMod version 2022. Refer to Appendix B, Air Quality Assessment and Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for
model outputs.
As stated in Impact 4.17.2 Threshold electrical and natural gas companies would be able to accommodate
electricity and natural gas needs for future development within the SWIP area with mitigation
incorporated. Furthermore, the Project would implement FEIR MM 4.2-5a which includes energy
efficiency standards and renewable energy standards that would improve the efficiency of energy
resources. Since the Project’s energy usage was planned and accounted for the planned usage, and the
Project would implement FEIR MM 4.2-5a, the Project is not anticipated to result in an impact on the
environment due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. A less than
significant impact would occur from energy consumption from the Project implementation.
As concluded above, the Project is not anticipated to result in an impact on the environment due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The Project would comply with all
applicable state and local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency including, but not limited to,
the California Energy Plan and 24 CALGreen Green Building Code Standards Code. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 135 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
Not evaluated in the FEIR; therefore, there are no mitigation measures from the FEIR.
Conclusion
No new impact from energy consumption would occur.
Overall Energy Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts,
with respect to energy. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 136 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.20 Tribal Cultural Resources
4.20.1 Analysis of Proposed Project
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). This
section briefly examines potential impacts related to TCRs that could result from implementation of the
Project. The analysis is based primarily on confidential cultural resource studies conducted for the FEIR
and this Project. PRC language relevant to the TCR thresholds is below:
PRC Section 21074 defines a TCR as follows:
(a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical
Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of
Section 5020.1.
(2) 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 Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this
paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
(b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the
extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape.
(c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in
subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in
subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the
criteria of subdivision (a).
Subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5020.1 is as follows:
(k) “Local register of historical resources” means a list of properties officially designated or
recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or
resolution.
Subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1 is as follows:
(c) A resource may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if it meets any of the
following National Register of Historic Places criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 137 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
(3) 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.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Threshold (a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
Threshold (b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American tribe?
The CRA included a cultural resources records search, reconnaissance-level pedestrian cultural resources
survey, and Sacred Lands File (SLF) Search with the NAHC. The result of the SLF check conducted through
the NAHC was negative. There are no CRHR or NRHP-eligible TCRs located on the Project site. Although
no prehistoric sites have been locally recorded, in general the Project site is situated at an ethnographic
nexus peripherally occupied by the Gabrielino and Serrano. The Notice of Preparation for the Approved
Project was filed in 2009; therefore, AB 52, which was enacted on July 1, 2015, does not apply to this
Project as the CEQA document is an Addendum to the FEIR and not subject to the provisions of AB 52. For
added information on AB 52, visit:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB52.
Based on the above, a less than significant impact would occur on TCRs from Project implementation;
however, if previously undocumented cultural resources are identified during earthmoving activities, a
qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find, diverting
earthmoving activities if necessary, in accordance with FEIR MMs 4.4-1a, 4.4-1b, 4.4-2a, 4.4-2b, and
4.4-2c.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a, 4.4-1b, 4.4-2a, 4.4-2b, 4.4-2c, and the Standard Condition of Approval No. 1
noted in the Cultural Resources Section apply.
Conclusion
No new impact related to TCRs would occur.
Overall Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed
by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to tribal cultural resources.
Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 138 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
SWIP Specific Plan Update 139 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION
The following discussion lists the appropriate subsections of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA
Guidelines and provides justification for the City to make a determination of the appropriate CEQA
document for the Project, based on the environmental analysis provided above.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 ‒ Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent
EIR shall be prepared for that Project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of
substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
The City proposes to implement the Project within the context of the SWIP Specific Plan Update in the
JND, as described in this Addendum. As discussed in the Environmental Impact Analysis section of this
Addendum, no new or more severe significant environmental effects beyond what was evaluated in the
FEIR would occur.
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects.
As documented herein, no circumstances associated with the location, type, setting, or operations of the
Project have substantively changed beyond what was evaluated in the FEIR; and none of the Project
elements would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than previously identified.
No major revisions to the FEIR are required.
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant environmental effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
No new significant environmental effects beyond those addressed in the FEIR were identified.
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
Significant Project-related effects previously examined would not be more severe than were disclosed in
the FEIR as a result of the Project. Impacts associated with all environmental resource areas would be the
same as or less than disclosed in the adopted FEIR. Implementation of the Project within the context of
the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not substantially increase the severity of previously identified
impacts.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
SWIP Specific Plan Update 140 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
No mitigation measures or alternatives were found infeasible in the certified FEIR.
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
No other mitigation measures or feasible alternatives have been identified that would substantially
reduce significant impacts.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after
adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required
under subsection (a). Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a
subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
Subsequent to certification of the FEIR in May 2012, additional technical analyses were performed for the
Project and are the subject of this Addendum. Based on the analysis in this document, the Project would
not result in any new significant environmental effects nor would it increase the severity of significant
effects previously identified in the FEIR. None of the conditions listed under subsection (a) would occur
that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
(c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless
further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval
does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions
described in subsection (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared
by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this
situation, no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the
subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.
None of the conditions listed in subsection (a) would occur as a result of the Project. No SEIR is required.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 ‒ Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if
some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
As described above, none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the
preparation of a SEIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling
for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
SWIP Specific Plan Update 141 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur
as a result of the Project. Therefore, an addendum to the certified FEIR is the appropriate CEQA document
for the Project.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the
FEIR or adopted negative declaration.
This Addendum will be attached to the FEIR and maintained in the administrative record files at the City.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the FEIR or adopted negative
declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
The City will consider this Addendum with the FEIR prior to making a decision on the Project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162
should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the Project,
or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
This document provides substantial evidence for City records to support the preparation of this
Addendum for the Project.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
SWIP Specific Plan Update 142 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Conclusion
SWIP Specific Plan Update 143 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
6 CONCLUSION
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA Statute and the
CEQA Guidelines to document the finding that none of the conditions or circumstances that would require
preparation of a SEIR, pursuant to Section 15162 and Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, exist in
connection with the Project. No major revisions would be required to the FEIR prepared for the SWIP
Specific Plan Update as a result of the Project. No new significant environmental impacts have been
identified. Since the certification of the FEIR, there has been no new information showing that mitigation
measures or alternatives once considered infeasible are now feasible or showing that there are feasible
new mitigation measures or alternatives substantially different from those analyzed in the EIR that the
City declined to adopt. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not required and the appropriate CEQA
document for the Project is this Addendum to the FEIR. This document will be maintained in the
administrative record files at the City.
Conclusion
SWIP Specific Plan Update 144 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
References
SWIP Specific Plan Update 145 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
7 REFERENCES
CAL FIRE. (2022). CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area Viewer. Available at:
https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab69
3d008.
CalRecycle. (2023). Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662.
Caltrans. (2019). Scenic Highways. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-
architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.
City of Fontana. ND. Environmental Information Form.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2177/Environmental-Information-Form-PDF.
City of Fontana. (2018). Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report. Available at: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-
Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update.
City of Fontana. (2018). Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan – Land Use Map.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29671/SWIP-Land-Use-Plan-Map.
City of Fontana. (2012). SWIP Specific Plan, Table 7-2 – Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements,
pages 7-6 to 7-7. Available at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29312/Southwest-Industrial-Specific-Plan---
Combined-Document.
City of Fontana. (2011). Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan Update and Annexation Public
Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report.
City of Fontana. (2009). Water Supply Assessment for the Southwest Industrial Park Project.
Department of Conservation. (2021). California Important Farmland: 1984-2016. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/.
Department of Conservation. (2021). Data Viewer DOC Maps. Available at Data Viewer (ca.gov).
Department of Conservation. (2022). Mineral Land Classification. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.
DOF. (2023). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 2021-2023
with 2020 Benchmark. Available at: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-
population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/.
FEMA. (2021). FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address. Available at
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor.
FWC. (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.fontanawater.com/water-quality-
supply/2020-urban-water-management-plan/.
References
SWIP Specific Plan Update 146 Jurupa Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
FWC. ND. Fontana Water Company Service Area Map. Retrieved from:
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Service_Area_FONTANA.pdf.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
https://www.ieua.org/download/urban-water-management-plan-2015/ (accessed
October 2023).
San Bernardino County General Plan. Figure 6-4A, Paleontological Resource Areas – Valley Region.
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. (2018). One Water One Watershed Plan Update 2018. Available
at: https://www.sawpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/OWOW-Plan-Update-2018-1.pdf.