HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum to SWIP SP Update Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)ADDENDUM TO THE SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK (SWIP)
SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2009091089)
16025 SLOVER AVENUE PROJECT
Master Case No. 22-105
Design Review No. 22-052
Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-026 (TPM No. 20639)
Seefried Industrial Properties
APNs: 0237-111-03, -04, -19, -20, -22, -36, -37, and -40
Prepared For:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Prepared By:
EPD Solutions, Inc.
3333 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612
March 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
SWIP Specific Plan Update i 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Purpose of the Addendum ..................................................................................................................... 1
2 Description of Proposed Project ............................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Project Setting and Location ....................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Project Approvals ........................................................................................................................ 7
3 Determination ...................................................................................................................................... 20
4 SWIP Specific Plan Update Environmental Impact Analysis Summary ................................................ 21
5 16025 Slover Avenue Project Environmental Impact Analysis and Project Approvals ........................ 23
5.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................. 24
5.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ......................................................................................... 29
5.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 31
5.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 43
5.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 50
5.6 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................... 57
5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Climate Change) .......................................................................... 63
5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 70
5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 81
5.10 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................................. 87
5.11 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................... 89
5.12 Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 90
5.13 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................ 98
5.14 Public Services ......................................................................................................................... 100
5.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 103
5.16 Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 105
5.17 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................. 119
5.18 Wildfire.................................................................................................................................... 125
5.19 Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 127
5.20 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 132
6 Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation ....................................................................... 135
7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 138
8 References .......................................................................................................................................... 139
Table of Contents
SWIP Specific Plan Update ii 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location ........................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2: Local Vicinity ................................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 3: Aerial View ................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4: Conceptual Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 5: Elevations ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 6: Conceptual Landscape Plan ......................................................................................................... 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table AQ-1: Project Construction Emsisions (lbs/day) ............................................................................... 35
Table AQ-2: Comparison of the Project and SWIP Buildout Regional Operational Emissions ................... 36
Table AQ-3: Project Localized Construction Emissions (lbs/day)................................................................ 39
Table AQ-4: Maximum Localized Operational Project Emissions ............................................................... 39
Table AQ-5: Maximum Localized Construction Project Emissions ............................................................. 40
Table AQ-6 Unmitigated Operational Health Risks to Off-Site Receptors .................................................. 41
Table GHG-1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MT/yr) ..................................................................................... 65
Table NOI-1: Potential Construction Nopise Impacts at Nearest Receptors .............................................. 91
Table NOI-2: Daytime Exterior Noise Level Impacts ................................................................................... 92
Table NOI-3: Nighttime Exterior Noise Level Impacts ................................................................................ 93
Table NOI-4: Summary of Construction Vibration Levels ........................................................................... 96
Table TRA-1: Maximum Buildout Intensity Project Site Trip Generation ................................................. 106
Table TRA-2: Proposed Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................... 107
Table E-1: Construction Equipment Fuel Usage ........................................................................................ 127
Table E-2: Energy Consumption Estimates during Construction .............................................................. 128
Table E-3: Energy Consumption during Operation ................................................................................... 129
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. MMRP
B. Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis
C. General Biological Assessment
D. Tree Survey and Arborist Report
E. Cultural Resources Assessmnet
F. Historic Resources Assessment
G. Geotechnical Investigation
Table of Contents
SWIP Specific Plan Update iii 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
H. Infiltration Report
I. Paleontological Assessment
J. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
K. Preliminary Hydrology Report
L. Water Quality Management Plan
M. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
N. Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis
O. Trip Distribution Figures
Purpose of the Addendum
SWIP Specific Plan Update 1 16025 Slover Avenue 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.
Purpose of the Addendum
SWIP Specific Plan Update 2 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan was originally adopted 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
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. 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 City of Fontana (City) determined that the SWIP Specific Plan should be revised to update land uses,
regulations, and development standards and prepared a SWIP Specific Plan Update to accommodate for
changes in market conditions and annexation of unincorporated land. The SWIP Specific Plan update
encompassed approximately 3,111 acres which included 472 acres of annexed land into the City of
Fontana and was intended to promote orderly and compatible growth in newly annexed areas as well as
older portions within the SWIP Specific Plan area.
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). On
May 8, 2012, the City adopted Resolution No. 2012-035, certifying the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) for the SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation (Approved Project), State
Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2009091089, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
The SWIP Specific Plan Update area, which is comprised of approximately 3,111 acres in the southwestern
portion of the City within San Bernardino County (County), includes nine land use districts. The Slover East
Industrial District (SED)2, at 463.1 acres. The SWIP Specific Plan Update analyzed in the Approved Project
FEIR included 2,012,298 square feet (SF) of new industrial uses, 503,074 SF of new commercial uses, and
1,025,461 SF of existing development to remain in place.
The City has received an application for the 16025 Slover Avenue Project (Proposed Project) for the
development of approximately 17.2 acres of land located within the SED at 16025 Slover Avenue,
southwest of the Slover Avenue and Citrus Avenue intersection. Within the SWIP EIR, a total of 2,012,298
SF of new industrial development was analyzed within the SED. The SED allows for a maximum floor area
ratio (FAR) of 0.55 for industrial uses. Consistent with the overall square footage of new industrial
development assumed in the SED by the Program EIR and the allowable FAR, the existing baseline
condition for this addendum is assumed to include development of up to 411, 590 SF. As such, this
addendum compares the 411,590 SF of industrial development to the Proposed Project, which consists of
a 385,970 SF warehouse, inclusive of a 5,000 SF ground floor office and a 5,000 SF second floor office, on
the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project would result in a FAR of 0.49 which would be less than
1 City of Fontana. 2011. Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan Update and Annexation Public Review Draft Program Environmental
Impact Report.
2 City of Fontana. 2018. Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan – Land Use Map. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29671/SWIP-Land-Use-Plan-Map (accessed February 13, 2023).
Purpose of the Addendum
SWIP Specific Plan Update 3 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the maximum allowed for the Proposed Project site. Development of the Proposed Project would be
within the 2,012,298 SF of industrial development previously analyzed within the SED of the SWIP.
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze any potential differences between the impacts identified in
the Approved Project FEIR, and those that would be associated with development of the Proposed Project.
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 Proposed Project
site. As part of its decision-making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the
Proposed Project would create new significant impacts or more severe significant impacts than those
previously disclosed, analyzed and mitigated for in the Approved Project FEIR.
As detailed herein, the Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts
than those disclosed, analyzed and mitigated for in the Approved Project FEIR. As demonstrated in this
Addendum, the potential impacts associated with the Proposed Project would either be the same or less
than those described in the Approved Project FEIR. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the
circumstances under which the Proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more
severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the Approved Project 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 Approved Project FEIR is the appropriate environmental documentation for the
Proposed Project. In taking action on any of the approvals, the decision-making body must consider the
whole of the data presented in the Approved Project FEIR and the previously adopted Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as well as subsequently approved project-specific CEQA
addenda for the Proposed Project site, as augmented by this Addendum.
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 4 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 Project Setting and Location
The Proposed Project site is within the southwestern portion of the County of San Bernardino in the City
of Fontana and is located southwest of the intersection of Slover Avenue and Citrus Avenue. The Proposed
Project site and surrounding area is pictured in Figure 1, Regional Location. Regional access to the
Proposed Project site is provided by Interstate 10 (I-10) to the north off the Citrus Avenue exit. Local
access is provided by Citrus Avenue and Slover Avenue as shown in Figure 2, Local Vicinity.
Existing Project Site
The site consists of eight parcels, encompassing approximately 17.2 net acres (18.2 gross acres). The
parcels are identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0237-111-03, 0237-111-04, 0237-111-36,
0237-111-37, 0237-111-40, 0237-111-19, 0237-111-20, 0237-111-22. The western three-fourths of the
Proposed Project site is occupied by McKinney Trailers Rentals and consists of an existing 60,000 SF
concrete and steel panel building, 145,000 SF of asphalt pavement, and 375,000 SF of gravel parking area.
The remaining seven lots have four existing residential structures and an outbuilding. The Proposed
Project site is bounded by Slover Avenue to the north, Catawba Avenue to the west, Citrus Avenue to the
east, and 13 existing single family-homes to the south. There is an existing concrete masonry unit (CMU)
block wall along most of the southern property line except the eastern most 190 feet. There is existing
metal fencing along the west, north, and eastern property lines. There are three existing driveway
accesses, with two on the northern boundary of the property on Slover Avenue and one on the eastern
boundary on Citrus Avenue. The Proposed Project’s existing conditions are shown in Figure 3, Aerial View.
Existing Land Use and Zoning Designation of the Project Site
The Proposed Project site has a General Plan designation of General Industrial (I-G) and a zoning
designation of Specific Plan (SP). As noted previously, the Proposed Project site is within the SWIP Specific
Plan area and is located in the SED. The SED is intended to provide opportunities for light and heavy
manufacturing activities that are supported by trucking routes and the existing rail spur. The SED allows
for the development of manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, processing, trucking, warehousing and
distribution, equipment, automobile and truck sales and services. The SWIP Program EIR analyzed
buildout of 2,012,298 SF of industrial uses within the 463.15-acre SED. Based on the maximum FAR of 0.55
allowed by the SED development standards and based on the maximum 2,012,298 SF of industrial uses
analyzed in the Program EIR for the SED, the Proposed Project site is assumed to allow up to 411,590 SF
of industrial uses. The Proposed Project would result in a 0.49 FAR, which is less than the maximum 0.55
FAR allowed for the Project site.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Designations
Existing conditions surrounding the Proposed Project site include commercial uses, light industrial uses,
residential uses, and undeveloped vacant land. Existing conditions, General Plan land use designations,
SWIP land use designations, and zoning for the surrounding properties are described in Table 1 below.
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 5 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table 1: Existing Conditions, Land Use and Zoning Designations Surrounding the Proposed Project Site
Existing Land Use City General
Plan Designation
City Zoning
Designation
SWIP Specific Plan
Designation
North
Slover Avenue
followed by a 7-
Eleven Convenience
Store/Gasoline
Service Station
(16096 Slover Ave.),
truck parking (15998
Slover Ave.), and a
recently constructed
warehouse building.
Light Industrial
(I-L) SWIP
Freeway
Industrial/Commercial
District (FID)
West
Catawba Avenue
followed by
Maxzone Vehicle
Lighting Corporation
General
Industrial
(I-G)
SWIP Slover East Industrial
District (SED)
South Single Family
Residential
Residential
Trucking
(R-T)
SWIP Residential Trucking
District (RTD)
East
Citrus Ave followed
by vacant property
and Jurupa Hills
Highschool to the
southeast
General
Commercial
(C-G)
General Commercial
(C-2) Not applicable
2.2 Project Description
The Proposed Project involves the demolition of McKinney Trailers Rentals that consists of an existing
60,000 SF concrete and steel panel building, 145,000 SF of asphalt pavement, and 375,000 SF of gravel
parking area along with four existing residential structures and an outbuilding. The Proposed Project
would construct an approximately 385,970 SF warehouse inclusive of a 5,000 SF 1st floor office and a
5,000 SF 2nd floor office on a 17.2-acre site resulting in a 0.49 FAR. Figure 4, Conceptual Site Plan,
illustrates the proposed Project site plan.
The Proposed Project is consistent with the existing General Plan I-G designation and the SWIP Specific
Plan designation of SED which allows construction and operation of industrial development and logistics-
based warehousing, along with strategically located service commercial uses.
A total of 38 dock doors are proposed along the northern portion of the building. Access to the truck yard
would be secured via 10-foot-high metal motorized gates in the north, east, and west entrances to the
truck yard. The truck yard would also be screened with 14-foot-high walls along Slover and a 25-foot
landscape setback that includes trees and shrubs. The existing 8-foot-high wall along the south boundary
would remain and a 10-foot-high wall extension would be provided along the southeast corner.
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 6 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The Proposed Project would have a maximum building height of 48 feet and 4 inches. In addition to a 25-
foot landscape setback along Slover Avenue, a 20-foot landscape setback would be provided along
Catawba Avenue and Citrus Avenue, consistent with the City’s Development Standards.
Access and Circulation
Access would be provided via a total of five driveways. The Proposed Project would include two 35-foot
driveways from Citrus Avenue for passenger and employee/customer vehicles, one 52-foot truck
accessible driveway would be provided on Slover Avenue and two driveways would be provided on
Catawba Avenue. The driveway along Slover Avenue would provide primary truck access to the site and
would allow for left- and right-turn ingress, and right-turn egress. The northern driveway on Catawba
Avenue would be 50-feet-wide with right-in and right-out, and the southern Catawba Avenue driveway
would be 35-feet-wide for passenger and employee/customer vehicles. Trucks would be restricted from
accessing the southerly driveway along Catawba Avenue and both driveways along Citrus Avenue and
would not circulate the southerly drive aisle south of the property. Onsite circulation would be provided
by 30-foot-wide internal drives around the building.
Parking
A total of 159 passenger vehicle stalls would be provided for employees and visitors in surface lots near
the northeastern and northwestern boundary of the Proposed Project site and would include electric
vehicle (EV) parking and ADA spaces. Parking would exceed the minimum required parking standard
outlined in Table 10-7 of the SWIP Specific Plan. Additionally, the Proposed Project would include 79 truck
and trailer stalls located on the north side of the Proposed Project site along Slover Avenue.
Landscaping
The Proposed Project includes landscaping that would cover approximately 126,907 SF or 17 percent of
the site, which would exceed the City’s requirement of 15 percent excluding building footprint and
landscaping within public right of way.
Drainage
The Proposed Project’s drainage system would funnel sheet flow to grate inlets and catch basins, then to
an onsite underground storm drain pipeline, and would eventually be discharged to two onsite
underground infiltration basin. The drainage system would also comply with regional low impact
development (LID) structural treatment control best management practices (BMPs). The proposed
underground infiltration system will collect the water from a storm which will then percolate through the
ground. The existing 42-inch diameter R.C.P. Catawba Storm Drain Main Line DZ-9 will be extended near
the southwest driveway to pick up the project’s runoff. A 14-foot wide catch basin will is also proposed to
capture the street runoff. Street frontage areas will be self-retained to capture and percolate 100 percent
of the volume for the 100-year 24-hour storm event.
Offsite Improvements
The Proposed Project’s offsite improvements include right-of-way (ROW) dedication via final parcel map
No. 20639 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 22-026) and construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 7 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
along in Slover Avenue, Catawba Avenue, and Citrus Avenue. The construction of a deceleration lane along
Slover Avenue would be constructed along with sewer lateral service lines, landscape improvements,
traffic signal modifications at the southwest corner of Slover Avenue and Citrus Avenue. The Project would
also contribute to a dedicated right turn pocket at the intersection of Slover Avenue, east of Citrus Avenue,
and 50-foot curb return radius at the intersection of Slover Avenue and Catawba Avenue and Slover
Avenue and Citrus Avenue. In addition, the Project would install a raised median along Slover Avenue with
a left-turn pocket from the westbound lane at the Project driveway. The applicant would process a final
parcel map that would be recorded.
Construction
Construction activities would occur over one phase and include demolition, site preparation, grading,
building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. Off-site improvements including existing
driveways, sewer laterals, existing power poles would be removed. Existing overhead utility service lines
would be undergrounded. Grading work of soils is expected to result in approximately 7,800 cubic yards
of soil import. Construction is expected to start in February 2025 and occur over 10 months. Construction
would occur within the hours allowable by the Fontana Municipal Code Section 18.63, which states that
construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays and between the
hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays.
Operation
Operation would begin in March 2026 and would occur 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Typical operational
characteristics would include employees traveling to and from the site, delivery of materials and supplies
to the site, truck loading and unloading, and distribution.
2.3 Project Approvals
The City is the Lead Agency as set forth in CEQA Section 21067 and is responsible for reviewing and
considering approval of this Addendum to the SWIP Specific Plan FEIR. In addition to this Addendum, the
City will consider the following discretionary approvals for the Proposed Project:
• A Design Review permit for the proposed site and building improvements.
Figure 116025 Slover Avenue
City of Fontana
Regional Location
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 9 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Local Vicinity
Figure 216025 Slover Avenue
City of Fontana
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 11 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Aerial View
Figure 316025 Slover Avenue
City of Fontana
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 13 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
16025 Slover Avenue
City of Fontana
Figure 4
Conceptual Site Plan
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 15 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
16025 Slover Avenue
City of Fontana
Figure 5
Elevations
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 17 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
16025 Slover Avenue
City of Fontana
Figure 5
Landscape Plan
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 19 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
SWIP Specific Plan Update 20 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
3 DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency) on the basis of this initial evaluation.
I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,
There will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Proposed Project have been
made by or agreed to by the Proposed Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, 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 for the Proposed Project.
I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
City of Fontana
Printed Name For
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
SWIP Specific Plan Update 21 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4 SWIP SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
The environmental impact findings of the Approved Project FEIR are summarized below.
No Impact: The Approved Project FEIR determined that no impact would occur with respect to the
following environmental topic areas below. These impacts were included in the Approved Project FEIR’s
“Effects Found Not To Be Significant (EFNTBS)” section (Section 8.0).
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources (EFNTBS items 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 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
• Traffic and Circulation (EFNTBS items 9a and 9b).
Less Than Significant Impact: The Approved Project 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);
• Cultural Resources (Impact 4.4-4);
• 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 item 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 Approved Project 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 4.3-5);
• 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
• 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
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
SWIP Specific Plan Update 22 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.8-9).
Significant and Unavoidable Impact: The Approved Project 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 23 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5 16025 SLOVER AVENUE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND
PROJECT APPROVALS
The scope of the City’s review of the Proposed Project is set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. This
review is limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated with the Proposed 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 Approved Project FEIR was certified. This evaluation includes a
determination as to whether the changes proposed for the Proposed 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 Form 3 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 Proposed 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 Proposed Project, any changes in
circumstances, or any new information since the Approved Project 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 Proposed Project does not result in substantial
changes to the Approved Project, no substantial changes in circumstances would occur which would
require major revisions to the Approved Project FEIR, and no new information of substantial importance
has been revealed since the certification of Approved Project 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 Approved Project FEIR that ensures the measures identified in the
FEIR to mitigate impacts associated with implementation of the Approved Project are applied to
subsequent development projects in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. The previously adopted
mitigation measures applicable to the Approved Project will be imposed as conditions of the Proposed
Project, and the MMRP, as applicable to the Approved Project, is contained in Appendix A.
3 City of Fontana. ND. Environmental Information Form. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2177/Environmental-Information-
Form-PDF (accessed February 13, 2022).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 24 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.1 Aesthetics
5.1.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that although the Approved Project includes various design features
to minimize impacts to scenic vistas and the Approved Project 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 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 Approved Project FEIR concluded that impacts to scenic vistas would
remain significant and unavoidable.
The Approved Project’s 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 SWIP Specific Plan Update area were determined to be less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3a.
5.1.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista. The dominant scenic views from the Proposed 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 Proposed Project site is
located in the SED, which is described in the Approved Project FEIR as intended to provide opportunities
for industrial and commercial activities. The design intent of the SED is to promote the continued use and
expansion of existing industrial development and distribution and logistics-based distribution and
warehousing along with strategically-located service commercial within the SWIP Specific Plan Update
area. This area capitalizes on its proximity to truck routes and to existing/proposed freeway interchanges
which may provide additional opportunities for service commercial developments, such as restaurants
and gas stations. This area has been predominantly developed and urbanized with single-family residential
properties undergoing redevelopment to industrial and commercial development in accordance with the
SWIP Specific Plan. The Proposed Project site is immediately surrounded by industrial/commercial uses to
the north, residential development to the south, industrial uses to the west, and vacant commercial
property to the east.
According to requirements within the SWIP Specific Plan Update, the maximum structure height within
the SED is 60 feet. The proposed industrial warehouse building would be within the allowed height, at 48
feet 4 inches high, as shown in Figure 5, Elevations. Additionally, the Proposed Project would include a 25-
foot setback from Slover Avenue, a 20-foot setback from Citrus Avenue and Catawba Avenue, and a 50-
foot setback from the residences to the south. Because the proposed building would be well below the
allowed building height and would be setback from the roadways, the Proposed Project’s encroachment
into the viewshed would not be significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 25 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
In addition, the existing Proposed Project site is developed with an approximately 60,000 SF industrial
building. The Proposed Project site is surrounded by industrial buildings at a similar scale and height as
the Proposed Project. Therefore, the change in views of the Proposed Project site from the surrounding
area would not cause a significant impact on a scenic vista. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
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 Approved Project FEIR would occur.
Additionally, no change in circumstances have occurred in the surrounding area that would result in a new
or more severe impact. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known
and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would
impact the prior finding of no significant impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts on a scenic vista(s). A significant and
unavoidable impact was identified in the Approved Project FEIR with respect to scenic vistas. The
Proposed 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.
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 Approved Project FEIR determined that future development
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 Proposed Project’s implementation. The Proposed Project site is fully developed
and disturbed. The nearest eligible State scenic highway is approximately 16.7 miles to the east of the
Proposed Project site. Additionally, the nearest officially designated state scenic highway is approximately
24 miles to the southwest of the Proposed Project site. Thus, the Proposed Project site is not within the
viewshed of a State scenic driveway and would not substantially damage scenic resources.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, there are no rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a
State- or County-designated scenic highway, nor is there one in the vicinity of the Proposed Project site.4
The area surrounding the Proposed Project site is fully developed. No new impacts relative to adverse
scenic resource impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant
impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur.
4 Caltrans. 2019. Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-
highways (accessed December 30, 2022).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 26 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding
of no significant impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts on a scenic resource(s). The
Proposed 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 Fontana Municipal Code (Municipal Code) regulations, are required for issues related to
aesthetics.
Threshold (c) Conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project site is located within an “urbanized area,” as
defined by Public Resources Code Section 21071; therefore, this analysis focuses on the Proposed
Project’s consistency with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The Proposed
Project is consistent with the SWIP designation of SED. Table AES-1 below illustrates consistency between
the SED development standards and the Proposed Project.
Table AES-1: Proposed Project Consistency with SED Development Standards
City Development Standard Proposed Project Consistency
Minimum Lot Size 40,000 SF 19.08 acres (831,124.8 SF)
Secondary
Highway/Collector Street
(Catawba, Citrus, Elm,
Poplar, Santa Ana)
20 feet 20 feet from Catawba and Citrus
Avenue
Maximum Height 60 feet 48 feet 4 inches
Minimum Landscape Area (55,167 SF) 15% 126,907 SF (%)
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.55 0.49
Parking 1 space/1,000 SF gross floor
area for the initial 40,000 sq ft;
1 space/4,000 SF of additional
gross floor area greater than
40,000 sq ft; 4 spaces/1,000 SF
gross floor area of office space
99 required
159 stalls
Trailer Parking Required 1 space/5,000 SF
77 required
79 stalls
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 27 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The Proposed Project is within an urban area that is mostly developed with industrial uses. As discussed
above, the Proposed Project is consistent with the SWIP designation of SED. As shown in Table AES-1, the
Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic
quality. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. 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 Approved Project FEIR would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on visual character or quality. The
Proposed 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
visual character or quality of public views.
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 Municipal Code (Chapter 30) to reduce the potential for light and/or glare effects to
off-site properties. In addition, outdoor lighting would not exceed 20 feet in height unless it has a light
cutoff of 90 degrees or less, in which case a maximum height of 30 feet may be allowed. In addition, all
lighting would be adequately controlled, shielded, and positioned so as to direct light away from adjoining
properties.
Consistent with the Municipal Code and the SWIP Specific Plan Update development regulations, and as
applicable, all exterior lighting would be adequately controlled and shielded to prevent glare and
undesirable illumination from affecting adjacent properties or streets. Adequate lighting levels would be
provided to ensure a safe environment, while not creating areas of intense light or glare. Light fixtures
and poles would also be designed and placed in a manner consistent and compatible with overall site and
building design, and high-intensity security lighting fixtures would not be substituted for site or landscape
lighting or general building exterior illumination but would be limited to loading and storage locations or
other similar service areas. In addition, all lighting provided to illuminate parking areas or buildings would
be positioned so as to direct light away from adjoining properties as previously stated.
These regulations are considered to be either design measures or existing regulations pursuant to the
SWIP development standards and City’s Municipal Code. Incorporation of such features into the Proposed
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. As such, consistency with the
Municipal Code 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 Approved
Project FEIR, no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 28 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Accordingly, no new or more severe impacts relative to the significant and unavoidable light and glare
aesthetic impacts previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would
occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have
been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior
finding of significant and unavoidable impacts.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact from light or glare. No significant
impacts associated with light and glare are identified in the Approved Project FEIR. The Proposed Project
would be designed consistent with the guidelines and standards within the Specific Plan Update.
Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to light or glare.
Overall Aesthetics Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Proposed Project
would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to aesthetics. No changes in
circumstances or changes to the Approved Project have occurred to the Approved Project Area and
Proposed Project Area. No new information has been determined since approval of the Approved Project
Final EIR. Therefore, the preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 29 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
5.2.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project 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 Approved Project FEIR found that no impacts would occur, and
no mitigation measures were required.
5.2.2 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;
Threshold (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; and
Threshold (c) 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 Impact: According to the Approved Project FEIR, there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance within SWIP Specific Plan Update boundaries. The only area where
these types of farmland occur are located within the northwestern portion of the City. The California
Department of Conservation designates the Proposed Project site as Urban and Built-Up Land.5 Thus, no
impacts would occur related to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
Lands within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area are designated in the General Plan as Single Family
Residential (R-SF), Residential Planned Community (R-PC), Residential Trucking (R-T), Public Facilities (P-
PF), Community Commercial (C-C), General Commercial (C-G), Regional Mixed Use (RMU), Light Industrial
(I-L), and General Industrial (I-G). 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.
Due to the location of the Proposed Project site and lacking farmland, the Proposed Project would not
convert farmland to non-agricultural land. As such, no impacts related to the loss of farmland would occur.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR’s findings, no significant impacts to agricultural resources
would occur from Proposed Project implementation. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
5 Department of Conservation. 2023. California Important Farmland: 1984-2016. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/
(accessed February 13, 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 30 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Overall Agricultural and Forestry Resources Impact Conclusion
The Proposed 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 Approved Project FEIR. The Proposed
Project is located within the boundaries of the SWIP Specific Plan Update; therefore, no new and/or
considerably different mitigation measures are required for issues related to agricultural or forestry
resources.
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to agricultural
resources. No changes in circumstances or changes to the Approved Project have occurred to the
Approved Project Area and Proposed Project Area. No new information has been determined since
approval of the Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 31 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.3 Air Quality
5.3.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project 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 applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The Approved Project FEIR
concluded a less than significant impact related to carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots. Construction and
operational impacts associated with the Proposed Project relative to impacts identified in the Approved
Project FEIR were analyzed in Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Report
(Appendix B).
5.3.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin)
which includes parts of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside Counties and all of Orange County. The
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
monitor air quality within the Basin.
Air quality plans describe air pollution control strategies and measures to be implemented by a city,
county, region, and/or air district. The primary purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area that does
not attain federal and State air quality standards into compliance with the requirements of the federal
Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. In addition, air quality plans are developed to ensure that an
area maintains a healthy level of air quality based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The AQMP is prepared by SCAQMD and the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The AQMP provides policies and control
measures that reduce emissions to attain both State and federal ambient air quality standards.
According to the SCAQMD, a project is consistent with the AQMP if the project is consistent with
anticipated growth and would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or
the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook, identifies two
key indicators of consistency with the AQMP:
1. Whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality
standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
2. Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of project buildout
and phase.
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are the CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Table
AQ-1 and Table AQ-2, below, and discussed further in Appendix B, the Proposed Project would not exceed
the short-term construction standards or long-term operational standards and would therefore not
violate any air quality standards. Thus, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the first criterion,
and no new impact would occur.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 32 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
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 and specific plans. The Proposed Project is
consistent with the land use designation and development density presented in the SWIP. The site is
designated SED under the SWIP Specific Plan Update, which permits logistics and distribution facilities and
warehouses. The maximum buildout of the site based on the SED FAR of 0.55, would result in up to
411,590 SF of industrial development. The Proposed Project would consist of a 385,970 SF industrial
warehouse inclusive of a 5,000 SF first floor office and a 5,000 SF second floor office resulting in an FAR
of 0.49. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not exceed the anticipated buildout evaluated in the SWIP
Specific Plan Update FEIR, and would not exceed the anticipated job growth projections used by the
SCAQMD to develop the AQMP. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the second consistency
criterion, resulting in no impact related to conflicts with the AQMP. Thus, no new impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR identified impacts during construction as a significant and unavoidable impact
on air quality. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f were identified in the FEIR to reduce air
emissions from implementation/development of the Approved Project.
The Approved Project FEIR identified air quality operational impacts associated with the buildout of the
SWIP Specific Plan as significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a to 4.2-1f and 4.2-2a through
4.2-2g and 4.4-2j and 4.4-2k were identified that would reduce operational emissions to the extent
feasible. The Proposed Project would be required to implement the following mitigation measures from
the Approved Project FEIR.
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
4.2-1a All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operation 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.
(Note: The Project would include the use of CARB Tier IV equipment during construction,
as required by the City of Fontana’s Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards)
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.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 33 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
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.
• 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.
4.2-2a All “large-scale” (e.g., over 10 acres per day) project Applicants shall provide incentives to
use mass transit including the placement of bus stop shelters along major thoroughfares
if not so equipped. (City Staff shall determine what denotes a “large-scale” project.) This
MM is applicable to the proposed Project as it is considered “large scale” as the site is
over 10 acres.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 34 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.2-2b All “large-scale” (e.g., over 10 acres per day) project Applicants shall incorporate a
bike/walking path between these shelters, the proposed residential areas, and the
proposed commercial areas. These paths shall be lit and configured so as to avoid
potential conflict with roadways and railroad activities. This MM is applicable to the
proposed Project as it is considered “large scale” as the site is over 10 acres.
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.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impact pertaining to conflict with or
obstructing implementation of the AQMP Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a to 4.2-1f and 4.2-2c through 4.2-2g
and 4.4-2j would reduce construction and operational emissions, and emissions related to the Proposed
Project would all be less than SCQAMD’s thresholds of significance. However, the Approved Project’s
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The Proposed 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 conflict with the AQMP in comparison to the previously
identified significant and unavoidable impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. The
2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs. It also includes a variety of
additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g.,
zero emissions technologies, when cost-effective and feasible, and low NOx technologies in other
applications), best management practices, co-benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy
efficiency), incentives, and other CAA measures. Air quality has continued to improve within the SCAB
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 35 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
since the certification of the Approved Project FEIR. No new additional information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR
was certified is available.
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: Emissions from the construction phase were estimated based on
information from the Applicant for construction equipment requirements and schedule. In addition,
emissions were conservatively analyzed based on a previous site plan with a larger square footage of
395,970 SF. Therefore, the analysis presented below provides a conservative estimate of Project
emissions. It is assumed construction of the Proposed Project would occur over a period of approximately
10 months. Construction activity would occur for eight hours per day, at least five days per week;
sometimes six days if necessary. The onsite building and structures would be demolished. Site preparation
includes the grading of the Project site and utilities installation, as well as off-site improvements. Following
site preparation, activities would include the construction of buildings, architectural coatings application,
and the paving of the parking areas. CalEEMod version 2022.1 was used to calculate expected pollutant
emissions generated from the construction of the Proposed Project. Table AQ-1 below displays the
maximum daily emissions in pounds per day that are expected to be generated from the construction of
the Proposed Project in comparison to the SWIP maximum buildout of the Project site.
Table AQ-1: Project Construction Emsisions (lbs/day)
Project Construction Maximum Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOCs NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project
Demolition 0.5 8.8 21.9 <0.1 5.2 1.0
Site Preparation 0.6 2.7 29.5 <0.1 8.0 4.1
Grading 0.8 10.7 40.0 0.1 5.2 2.0
Building Construction 1.1 5.6 27.2 <0.1 2.8 0.7
Paving 1.2 2.0 11.9 <0.1 0.2 0.1
Architectural Coating 49.8 0.8 3.8 <0.1 0.4 0.1
Maximum (lbs/day) 50.9 10.7 40.0 0.1 8.0 4.1
SCAQMD Thresholds 75.0 100.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Exceeds? No No No No No No
SWIP Maximum Buildout of Project Site
SWIP Maximum Buildout
Emissions 52.9 11.7 51.1 0.1 13.2 5.1
Proposed Project Consistency
with SWIP Maximum
Buildout Assumptions (Yes or
No) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis, Appendix B
Note: Maximum emissions of VOC occurred during the overlapping building construction and architectural coating phases.
CO = carbon monoxide lbs/day = pounds per day NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District SOX = sulfur oxides
SWIP = Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 36 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
As shown in Table AQ-1, construction emissions associated with the Proposed Project would not exceed
the SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, SOx, PM2.5, or PM10 emissions. As shown in Table AQ-1, the
Proposed Project would result in less emissions when compared to the maximum buildout of the Project
site allowed by the SWIP. In addition, the Proposed Project would be required to implement SWIP EIR
MMs 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f, which would further reduce construction-related emissions. Therefore,
construction of the Proposed Project would not result in emissions that would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project is in nonattainment under an
applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.
Operational Emissions
No New or More Severe Impact: Operational impacts are related to area source emissions, energy source
emissions, and mobile source emissions. Area source emissions are associated with landscape
maintenance activities and periodic architectural coatings, while energy-source emissions are associated
with natural gas and electricity consumption. Mobile sources from the daily vehicle trips constitute the
largest source of operational emissions. CalEEMod estimated emissions from the operation of the
Proposed Project and SWIP buildout (Approved Project) are shown in Table AQ-2 below.
Table AQ-2: Comparison of the Project and SWIP Buildout Regional Operational Emissions
Emission Type Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOCs NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project Emissions
Area Sources 12.3 0.2 17.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Sources 0.1 2.0 1.7 <0.1 0.2 0.2
Mobile Sources – Vehicles and Light Duty Trucks 2.3 3.0 27.9 0.1 2.3 0.4
Mobile – Heavy Heavy-Duty
Trucks
0.2 13.8 7.1 0.1 1.8 0.6
Stationary Sources 0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total Project Emissions 15.0 19.3 54.2 0.2 4.3 1.2
SCAQMD Thresholds 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Significant? No No No No No No
Maximum Buildout of the Proposed Project Site Emissions
Area Sources 12.8 0.2 17.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Sources 0.1 2.1 1.8 <0.1 0.2 0.2
Mobile Sources - Vehicles and Light Duty Trucks 2.4 3.1 29.0 0.1 2.4 0.5
Mobile – Heavy Heavy-Duty
Trucks
0.2 14.4 7.4 0.1 1.9 0.6
Stationary Sources 0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total SWIP Emissions 15.6 19.4 56.0 0.2 4.4 1.3
Proposed Project
Consistency with SWIP Maximum Buildout
Assumptions (Yes or No))
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis, Appendix B
As shown in Table AQ-2 above, the Proposed Project would not exceed the significance criteria for VOCs,
NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions; thus, the Proposed Project would not have a cumulatively
considerable effect on regional air quality. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would result in fewer
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 37 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
emissions than would occur under maximum development of the site as allowed by the SED. In addition,
the Project would be required to implement SWIP EIR MMs 4.2-2c through 4.2-2l, which would further
reduce operational emissions. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to regional construction
air quality emissions would occur from implementation of the Proposed Project.
Cumulative Emissions
No New or More Severe Impact: The regional analysis of construction and operational emissions
conducted for the Approved Project FEIR indicates that without mitigation, the SWIP Specific Plan Update
would exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, PM-10, and PM-2.5.
Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a through 4.2-2g and 4.4-2j and 4.4-2k were identified within the Approved
Project FEIR that would reduce cumulative emissions to the extent feasible. However, the Approved
Project FEIR concluded that even with implementation of these mitigation measures, cumulative impacts
would be significant and unavoidable.
The Proposed Project’s emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during both construction and
operations and the Proposed Project would result in less emissions when compared to the maximum
buildout of the Project site allowed by the SWIP. Thus, the Proposed Project’s air quality emissions are
not cumulatively considerable and would not result in a new or greater impact than identified in the
Approved Project FEIR.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a to 4.2-1f are applicable for construction and 4.2-2a through 4.2-2g and 4.4-2j
and 4.4-2k are applicable for operations.
Conclusion
No new or more severe impacts from previously identified significant impacts evaluated in the Approved
Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known
and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would
impact the prior finding of no significant and unavoidable impact under this issue area.
Threshold (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No New or More Severe Impact: The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a potentially significant impact could
occur if a project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The criteria
used in the Approved Project FEIR to address this impact included the preparation of a localized impact
traffic analysis and a CO hot spot analysis. CO concentrations would be well below the State and federal
standards according to the Approved Project FEIR. In addition, the Approved Project FEIR concluded that
there would be a less than significant impact from CO hotspots.
The Basin is currently considered a nonattainment area for the NAAQS for O3, PM-10, and PM-2.5.
Although the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is designated a nonattainment area for the NAAQS
for lead, all other portions of the Basin (including San Bernardino County) is designated as in attainment
(Appendix B). The Basin is considered a nonattainment area for CAAQS for NO2, O3, and PM-10, and PM-
2.5. Levels of PM-10 and PM-2.5 are locally high enough that contributions from new sources may add to
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 38 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the concentrations of those pollutants and contribute to a projected air quality violation. Two criteria are
used to assess the significance of this impact: (1) the localized significance analysis; and (2) the CO hot
spots analysis.
The localized significance analysis in the FEIR demonstrated that the Approved Project would exceed the
localized thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM-10, and PM-2.5.
Localized Mobile Source Impacts - CO Hot Spot Analysis
The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate 67 AM peak hour trips and 71 PM peak hour trips. Based
on the analysis presented below, a CO “hot spots” analysis is not needed to determine whether the change
in the level of service (LOS) at an intersection would have the potential to result in exceedances of the
CAAQS or NAAQS. An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot,” would occur if an exceedance of
the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to
occur. At the time of the 1993 Handbook6, the SCAG was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS
and NAAQS for CO. It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions,
primarily when idling at congested intersections. However, vehicle emissions standards have become
increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California
is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are
more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of
increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the Basin is
now designated as attainment. Also, CO concentrations in the Proposed Project vicinity have steadily
declined.
Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO
concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase
traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour
where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix to generate a significant CO impact. A trip generation
was prepared for the Proposed Project and the Proposed Project would generate 67 AM peak hour trips
and 71 PM peak hour trips. This would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hot
spot”. Therefore, CO “hot spots” are not an environmental impact of concern for the Proposed Project.
Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would therefore be less than significant.
Localized Significance Threshold
The SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology (2008) was used to analyze the
neighborhood scale impacts of NOX, CO, PM-10, and PM-2.5 associated with Project-specific mass
emissions. Introduced in 2003, the LST methodology was revised in 2008 to include the PM-2.5
significance threshold methodology and update the LST mass rate lookup tables for the new 1-hour NO2
standard. This guidance was used to analyze potential localized air quality impacts associated with
construction of the Proposed Project (Appendix B). Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) are developed
based on the size or total area of the emission source, the ambient air quality in the source receptor area,
and the distance to the project. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, hospitals, and similar uses
that are sensitive to adverse air quality.
6 SCAQMD is in the process of developing an “Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook” to replace the 1993 Handbook. Refer to
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook for updated sections.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 39 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
For most projects, the highest daily emission rates occur during the site preparation and grading phases
of construction due to the use of heavy earthmoving equipment. LSTs are based on the ambient
concentrations of NOX, CO, PM-10, and PM-2.5 within the project Source Receptor Area (SRA) and the
distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For the Proposed Project, the appropriate SRA for the LST is
the nearby Central San Bernardino Valley (SRA 34). SCAQMD provides LST screening tables for 25, 50, 100,
200, and 500-meter source-receptor distances. As identified above, the closest sensitive receptors to the
Proposed Project site are residential single-family homes located approximately 120 feet (37 meters)
south of the Proposed Project site boundary line. Based on the anticipated construction equipment and
based on the grading and ground-disturbing activities assumed in CalEEMod, it is assumed that the
maximum daily disturbed acreage for the Proposed Project would be 3.5 acres.
Proposed Project construction and operation emissions were compared to the LST screening tables in SRA
34, based on a 37-meter source-receptor distance and a disturbed acreage of 3.5 acres. As shown in Table
AQ-3 and AQ-4 below, the Proposed Project’s localized construction and operational emissions would be
less than the SCAQMD thresholds. As shown in Table AQ-4, the Proposed Project would result in lower
emissions in the six criteria pollutants in comparison to the maximum SWIP Buildout of the Proposed
Project site. Thus, impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial criteria pollutants would
be less than significant, and no new impacts would occur.
Table AQ-3: Proposed Project Localized Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Proposed Project
Proposed Project Onsite Emissions 55.1 40.0 9.0 5.0
Localized Significance Threshold 235.0 1,633.0 21.0 7.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Maximum Buildout SWIP Project
Approved Project Onsite Emissions 55.1 40.0 9.0 5.0
Difference (Proposed Project –
Approved Project)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis, Appendix B Note: Source Receptor Area 34, based on a 3.5-acre construction disturbance daily area, at a distance of 37 meters from the project
boundary. Table AQ-4: Maximum Localized Operational Proposed Project Emissions
Source NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project
Proposed Project Onsite Emissions 1.3 19.3 0.2 0.1
Localized Significance Threshold 235.0 1,633.0 5.6 2.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Maximum Buildout of the Proposed Project Site
Maximum Buildout of the Proposed
Project Site Onsite Emissions
1.4 20.0 0.2 0.1
Difference (Proposed Project – Maximum
Buildout of the Proposed Project Site)
-0.1 -0.7 0.0 0.0
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 40 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis, Appendix B
Construction and Operational-Related Diesel Particulate Matter
CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) in 1998. Mobile sources
(including trucks, buses, automobiles, trains, ships, and farm equipment) are by far the largest source of
diesel emissions. The exhaust from diesel engines includes hundreds of different gaseous and particulate
components, many of which are toxic. Diesel exhaust is composed of two phases, either gas or particulate
– both contribute to the risk. The gas phase is composed of many of the urban TACs, such as acetaldehyde,
acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The particulate
phase has many different types that can be classified by size or composition. The sizes of diesel
particulates of greatest health concern are fine and ultrafine particles. These particles may be composed
of elemental carbon with adsorbed compounds such as organics, sulfates, nitrates, metals, and other trace
elements. Diesel exhaust is emitted from a broad range of on- and off-road diesel engines.
A health risk assessment (HRA) was conducted for the Proposed Project (Appendix B). The closest sensitive
receptors to the Proposed Project site are residential single-family homes located approximately 120 feet
south of the Proposed Project site boundary line. Jurupa High School is located southeast of the Proposed
Project site, approximately 1,070 feet from the Proposed Project boundary.
Construction
A construction HRA, which evaluates construction-period health risk to off-site receptors, was performed
for the Proposed Project. Table AQ-5 below identifies the results of the analysis assuming the use of Tier
IV construction equipment, as required by the City of Fontana’s Industrial Commerce Centers
Sustainability Standards, at the maximally exposed individual (MEI), which is the nearest sensitive
receptor (single-family homes to the south). Table AQ-5 below identifies the results of the analysis with
implementation of the SWIP mitigation measure 4.2-1b. As shown in Tale AQ-5 below, the maximum
cancer risk for the sensitive receptor MEI would be 5.03 in one million, which would not exceed the
SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The worker receptor risk would be lower at 0.04 in
one million. The total chronic hazard index would be 0.005 for the sensitive receptor MEI and 0.002 for
the worker receptor MEI, which is below the threshold of 1.0. In addition, the total acute hazard index
would be nominal (0.000), which would also not exceed the threshold of 1.0. Therefore, construction of
the Proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No significant health risk would occur from Proposed
Project construction emissions. With updated MM 4.2-1b, the Proposed Project would not lead to new or
more severe construction health risk impacts beyond those identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Table AQ-5: Maximum Localized Construction Proposed Project Emissions
Location
Carcinogenic
Inhalation Health Risk in One Million Chronic Inhalation Hazard Index Acute Inhalation Hazard Index
Worker Receptor Risk 0.04 0.002 0.000
Sensitive Receptor Risk 5.03 0.005 0.000
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 10.0 in one million 1.0 1.0
Significant? No No No
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis, Appendix B
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 41 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Operation
To determine the potential health risk to people living and working near the Proposed Project associated
with the exhaust of diesel-powered trucks and equipment, an operational HRA was conducted for the
Proposed Project. The carcinogenic and chronic health risks from operation of the Proposed Project are
shown in Table AQ-6. The Worker Receptor risk assumes an exposure duration of 35 years for 250 days
per year and an exposure time of 12 hours per day (considered a conservative period of time for a worker)
based on SCAQMD and OEHHA recommended guidance. The Sensitive Receptor risk incorporates both
the risk for a child living in a nearby residence for 9 years (the standard period of time for child risk) and
an adult living in a nearby residence for 30 years (considered a conservative period of time for an
individual to live in any one residence). The operational health risks are summarized below in Table AQ-
6.
Table AQ-6 Unmitigated Operational Health Risks to Off-Site Receptors
Location
Carcinogenic
Inhalation Health Risk
in 1 Million
Chronic Inhalation
Hazard Index
Acute Inhalation
Hazard Index
Worker Receptor Risk 0.40 0.001 0.000 Sensitive Receptor Risk 2.75 0.001 0.000
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 10.0 in 1 million 1.0 1.0
Significant? No No No
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis, Appendix B
As shown in Table AQ-6, the maximum cancer risk for the sensitive receptor MEI would be 2.75 in one
million, less than the threshold of 10 in one million. The worker receptor risk would be lower at 0.40 in
one million. The total chronic hazard index would be 0.001 for the worker receptor MEI and the sensitive
receptor MEI, which is below the threshold of 1.0. In addition, the total acute hazard index would be
nominal (0.000), which would also not exceed the threshold of 1.0. As these results show, all health risk
levels to nearby residents from operation-related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD’s
HRA thresholds. Therefore, no new impacts would occur from operation of the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.2-1b, 4.2-2a through 4.2-2g and 4.4-2j and 4.4-2k, discussed above, are applicable.
Conclusion
Air quality impacts related to the Proposed Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the
Approved Project FEIR, as supplemented by additional technical analysis. No new or more severe impacts
relative to exposure of substantial pollutant concentrations to sensitive receptors from previously
identified significant impacts evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would alter the Approved Project FEIR’s
significance finding.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 42 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of people)?
No New or More Severe Impact: The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as
sources of odors. These land uses include the following: agriculture, wastewater treatment plant, food
processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, diaries, and fiberglass molding. The
Proposed Project is a warehouse facility and does not propose to include any odor-inducing uses on the
Proposed Project site. As the Proposed Project would not be a source of objectionable odors; no impact
would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact from odors. There are no new
potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or
considerably different mitigation measures are required for issues related to air quality.
Overall Air Quality Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to air quality. No
changes in circumstances or changes to the Approved Project have occurred to the Approved Project Area
and Proposed Project Area. No new information has been determined since approval of the Approved
Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR analysis is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 43 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.4 Biological Resources
5.4.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project 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 mitigation measures 4.3-1a through 4.3-1h. Similarly, the
Approved Project FEIR determined that future development would not affect any wetlands and drainages
with implementation of mitigation measure 4.3-3a or with development of habitat conservation plans
upon implementation of mitigation measures 4.3-1a through 4.3-1f.
5.4.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A General Biological Assessment (GBA) was prepared by Hernandez Environmental Services in October
2022 to document the presence or absence of sensitive biological resources that may be present on the
site and is included in Appendix C. The GBA presents the results of the field survey conducted on April 26,
2022 and literature review. CalPacific Sciences prepared the Tree Survey and Arborist Report for the
Proposed Project on October 19, 2022 which is included as Appendix D. The results of the Tree Survey and
Arborist Report are summarized herein and included as Appendix D to this Addendum.
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 Proposed Project site consists of an approximately 17.2-acre fully
developed site The Project site is occupied by McKinney Trailers Rentals and consists of an existing 60,000
SF concrete and steel panel building, 145,000 SF of asphalt pavement, and 375,000 SF of gravel parking
area. The remaining seven lots have four existing residential structures and an outbuilding. As identified
in the Biological Assessment (Appendix C), the site is completely disturbed, and no special-status plant
species or animals were detected on the site during reconnaissance surveys. Due to the disturbed status
of the site, it does not provide habitat that could be utilized by species listed or candidates for listing by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or California
Native Plant Society (CNPS).
Therefore, no new impacts relative to a substantial adverse effect to candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species would be caused due to the Proposed Project implementation.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR
are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 44 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Although species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish
& Wildlife Service (USFWS) are determined to be absent from the Proposed Project site, the Approved
Project FEIR requires implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b through 4.3-1h in order to further reduce
potentially significant impacts on special status species resulting in a less than significant impact.
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.
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 mitigation
measure has been accomplished through preparation of this Addendum EIR and related
arborist report.]
4.3-1d The City shall encourage the preservation of natural habitat in conjunction with private
or public development projects. [Note: this mitigation measure is a goal for the City and
is not applicable to the Proposed Project.]
4.3-1e Mitigation shall be provided for removal of any natural habitat, including restoration of
degraded habitat of the same type, creation of new or extension of existing habitat of the
same type, financial contribution to a habitat conservation fund administered by a
federal, State, or local government agency, or by a non-profit agency conservancy. [NOTE:
this mitigation measure does not apply to the Proposed Project because it does not have
natural habitat impacts requiring mitigation.]
4.3-1f Local CEQA procedures shall be applied to identify potential impacts to rare, threatened
and endangered species. [NOTE: this mitigation measure has been accomplished through
preparation of this Addendum EIR and related biological study.]
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.
4.3-1h Any development that results in the potential take or substantial loss of occupied habitat
for any threatened or endangered species shall conduct formal consultation with the
appropriate regulatory agency, and shall implement required mitigation pursuant to
applicable protocols. Consultation shall be on a project-by-project basis and measures
shall be negotiated independently for each development project. [NOTE: this mitigation
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 45 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
measure has been accomplished through preparation of this Addendum EIR and related
biological study.]
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts on a special status or listed species.
Similar to the Approved Project FEIR findings, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to cause any impacts
to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by the CDFW or USFWS. The
Proposed Project would redevelop an existing developed and disturbed property. To minimize any
potentially unforeseen impacts, the Approved Project FEIR Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1d, and 4.3-
1g would be implemented. With implementation of the Mitigation Measures, the Proposed Project would
be consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, and no new or more severe impacts from the Proposed
Project implementation would occur.
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 Approved Project FEIR found that future development within the
SWIP Specific Plan Update area would not adversely affect any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community upon the implementation of recommended mitigation measures. The Proposed Project site is
currently occupied by a trailer rental building and seven single-family residences. The property does not
have the presence of jurisdictional waters, i.e., Waters of the U.S. as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or streambed and
associated riparian habitat as regulated by the CDFW (Appendix C). No CDFW jurisdictional stream or
associated riparian habitat occurs on the site as the Project site has been fully developed and disturbed.
In addition, no waters of the U.S. or wetlands occur on the Project site. Further, no vernal pools are located
on the site.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR findings, no drainages are located onsite, and no aspect of the
Proposed Project site presents evidence of jurisdictional waters. None of the following indicators are
present onsite: riparian vegetation, facultative, facultative wet or obligate wet vegetation, harrow marks,
sand bars shaped by water, racking, drilling, destruction of vegetation, defined bed and bank, distinct line
between vegetation types, clear natural scour line, meander bars, mud cracks, staining, silt deposits, or
litter-organic debris. Therefore, no new impacts relative to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community would be caused by implementation of the Proposed Project. Although the Proposed Project
would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, the following Approved Project
FEIR Mitigation Measures are applicable.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Refer to Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1d, and 4.3-1g, discussed above.
Conclusion
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 46 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on a riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed
Project. No riparian habitat exists onsite; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation
measures are required. With implementation of the above referenced Approved Project FEIR Mitigation
Measures, the Proposed Project would not result in a new or more severe impact.
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: The Approved Project FEIR found that the SWIP Specific Plan Update
area has the potential for streambeds, wetlands, and/or riparian areas to occur onsite, especially in
undeveloped or unpaved areas throughout the Specific Plan Update area. The Approved Project FEIR
suggested that as development proposals within the Specific Plan Update area are received, properties
where a potential for wetlands and/or drainages exists will require the preparation of a jurisdictional
delineation (Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a). The jurisdictional delineation would be utilized to determine the
acreage of impact, regulating agencies, jurisdictional limits, and mitigation requirements. Upon
implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, impacts related to wetlands and drainages
would be less than significant.
As discussed in the previous response, no CDFW jurisdictional streams or riparian habitat occur on the
Proposed Project site (Appendix C). Thus, a jurisdictional delineation is not required for the Proposed
Project. In addition, no waters of the United States or wetlands occur on the site. Further, no vernal pools
are located on the site. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known
and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would
change the finding of less than significant impact under this threshold.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
4.3-3a For future development proposals that could potentially affect jurisdictional drainages or
wetlands (to be determined by the City of Fontana Planning Division), the project
applicant shall prepare a jurisdictional delineation to determine the extent of
jurisdictional area, if any, as part of the regulatory permitting process.
[This mitigation measure does not apply to the Proposed Project because no jurisdictional
wetlands or drainages exist onsite.]
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on wetlands. The Proposed Project
would be consistent with the Approved Project FEIR in that it would not result in a significant impact to
wetlands including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc. No jurisdictional drainages and/or
wetlands exist on site. No new or more severe impact would occur from the Proposed Project
implementation.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 47 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
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?
No New or More Severe Impact: Refer above to thresholds 4.4.2(a) and (b). The Approved Project FEIR
concluded that the SWIP Specific Plan Update area does not function as a wildlife movement corridor,
since the area is mostly developed, with most of the land had already been converted to industrial,
commercial, and residential uses. It is noted that the Jurupa Mountains, located south of the SWIP Specific
Plan Update area, provide habitat for many species of plants and animals. However, the mountains
function as an ecological island and do not provide for significant movement to the urbanized north.
Consistent of the Approved Project FEIR findings, the Proposed Project site is surrounded by urban
development (paved roads, residential development, and industrial development); because of the
Proposed Project site’s location, and due to the urbanized nature of the area, no migratory corridors,
migratory fish, or established native resident species would be affected.
In regard to wildlife nursery sites, the Approved Project FEIR concluded that the removal or alteration of
nonnative habitats within the SWIP 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. Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR,
the Arborist Report (Appendix D) determined that the trees within the Proposed Project site contain
habitat suitable for nesting birds. Therefore, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b
from the Approved Project FEIR. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b, impacts would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b, discussed above, applies.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on fish and wildlife and their habitat.
The Proposed Project would not conflict with the movement of wildlife habitat, including migratory birds.
Any potential conflict with foraging/nesting birds would be mitigated to a less than significant impact with
compliance to the Approved Project FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b.
There are no new or more severe impacts from the Proposed Project associated with interference of
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or foraging/nesting birds. In addition
to measures noted in the Approved Project FEIR, the Proposed Project would comply with applicable local,
State and federal regulations pertaining to migratory birds, as required in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA), such as 16 U.S.C. § 703, which enacts the provisions of treaties between the United States, Great
Britain (now Canada), Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union (now Russia), and authorizes the U.S. Secretary
of the Interior to protect and regulate the taking of migratory birds. It establishes seasons and bag limits
for hunted species and protects migratory birds, their occupied nests, and their eggs (16 U.S.C § 703; 50
C.F.R. §§ 10, 21).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 48 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances related to protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
As discussed in the Tree Survey and Arborist Report, the Project site is occupied by 69 trees which include:
22 Afghan pine (Pinus eldarica); 2 Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia); 7 Crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica);
1 Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara); 2 Grapefruit tree (Citrus x paradisi); 6 Honey Mesquite (Prosopis
glandulosa); 16 Lemon Bottlebrush (Callistemon citrinus); 1 Lemon tree (Citrus aurantifolia); 1 Lime tree
(Citrus aurantifolia); 1 Plum (Prunus domestica); 5 Queen Palm (Syagrus romanzoffiana); 1 Red Cascade
Weeping Bottlebrush (Callistemon viminalis 'Red Cascade'); 1 Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei); 2 Tree of
Heaven (Ailanthus altissima); and 1 white mulberry (Morus alba). Of the trees onsite, only the single (1)
Deodora cedar (Cedrus deodora) qualifies as a Significant tree based on its species. No other Heritage,
Significant or Specimen trees occur onsite. Furthermore, a variety of species within the property
contribute to the local urban forest. As stated in the Approved Project FEIR, Project development involving
tree removal such as the Proposed Project, would be subject to the provisions of Chapter 28 Article III of
the Municipal Code. Specifically, Code 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. Thus, the Project would be required to
obtain a Tree Removal Permit to remove the Deodora cedar that qualifies as a Significant tree, prior to
ground disturbance. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant through compliance with the
provisions of Section 28-64 of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not
conflict with any local policies or ordinances related to a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Thus, the
Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b applies to the Proposed Project.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to conflict with any local
policies or ordinances related to protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project;
therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required.
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: According to the Approved Project FEIR, the SWIP Specific Plan Update
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.
Moreover, the Approved Project FEIR concluded that neither the City nor the County of San Bernardino
has adopted a federal or State habitat conservation plan that provides any requirements or guidance for
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 49 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. Buildout of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area 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 SWIP 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. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1f and 4.3-1h would provide the necessary
analysis to formally determine whether areas within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area provide viable
habitat for DSF. As discussed in the GBA, the DSF is found in interior dune habitat. No dunes occur onsite.
Thus, the Project site does not have suitable habitat for the DSF and the species is not present onsite. As
such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would change the finding of
less than significant impact under this threshold.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.3-1f and 4.3-1h discussed above, apply.
Conclusion
The Proposed 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 Proposed
Project; therefore, no new and/or considerably different 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
Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified
impacts, with respect to biological resources. No changes in circumstances or changes to the Approved
Project have occurred to the Approved Project Area and Proposed Project Area. No new information has
been determined since approval of the Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is
not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 50 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.5 Cultural Resources
5.5.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR determined that adverse impacts to historical and archaeological resources
are not likely to occur within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. Nonetheless, in order to ensure any
potential unforeseeable impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a,
4.4-1b, 4.4-2a through 4.4-2c, and 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b were adopted. In addition, the Approved Project FEIR
complied with Senate Bill 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).
5.5.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
The Historical/Archaeological Records Search prepared for the SWIP Specific Plan Update FEIR concluded
that the likelihood of encountering potentially significant historic-period resources within the boundaries
of the SWIP Specific Plan area 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 National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The Approved Project FEIR determined
that the SWIP Specific Plan Update area was highly disturbed due to prior development of industrial,
residential and agricultural land uses, and noted that more than 20 previous cultural resources studies
have occurred on small portions of the Approved Project site. No archaeological resources or Native
American sites were found within the SWIP Specific Plan Update boundaries as a result of those studies.
Thus, the Approved Project FEIR determined that the likelihood of encountering potentially significant
prehistoric archaeological remains within SWIP Specific Plan Update area is low. However, Mitigation
Measures 4.4-1a, 4.4-1b, 4.4-2a, 4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c were adopted to minimize the potential impacts to
culturally significant resources. A Project site-specific Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared by
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. on October 12, 2022 (see Appendix E) and is summarized below.
As part of the Cultural Resources Assessment, an archaeological records search was conducted at the
South-Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC). This 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 a one-mile radius of the Proposed 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.
The results of the SCCIC revealed a total of 46 previously recorded resources were identified within one
mile of the Proposed Project area. However, none of the cultural resources identified were documented
on the Proposed Project site. A pedestrian survey of the Proposed Project site was conducted by Brian F.
Smith and Associates, Inc on June 8, 2022. No significant archaeological resources were identified during
the survey, and the property has been impacted through clearing and grading for residential, industrial,
and commercial use. Residential homes older than 50 years, constructed between 1946 and 1965, were
noted within the eastern quarter of the property. A Historical Resources Study was prepared by Urbana
Preservation and Planning and is included as Appendix F. The Historical Resources Study determined that
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 51 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
none of the onsite structures are eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or
otherwise qualify as historical resources for purposes of CEQA.
The results of the Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Summary are summarized
herein and included as Appendix E and Appendix F to this Addendum.
Threshold (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant
Section 15064.5?
The Project site consists of seven single-family residences, a trailer rental business and building,
pavement, and associated infrastructure. The onsite residences were constructed between 1946 and 1965
and were evaluated to determine eligibility under Section 15064.5. The Historical Resources Study stated
that the buildings were constructed during the contemporary era of the City of Fontana which consisted
primarily of development for the shipping and trucking industry. CRHR uses the following criteria to
determine eligibility of a historic resource:
• Criterion 1 – Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States
• Criterion 2 – Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history
• Criterion 3 – Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of
construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values
• Criterion 4 – Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California or the nation
Although the buildings on the Project site were constructed during pivotal moments in the history of
Fontana, no specific information was identified to indicate that any of the buildings exemplifies or
represents a special element of Fontana or California’s history or cultural heritage under CRHR Local
Register Criterion 1. Additionally, the buildings were not identified with persons or business uses
significant in local, state or national history under Criterion 2. The buildings do not possess a high artistic
value, are not located in a unique location, and do not embody a singular physical characteristic that
represents the feature of a neighborhood or community. Thus, the buildings do not meet Criterion 3
through 5 and are not considered to be historically significant. Therefore, no historic resources would be
impacted from implementation of the Proposed Project.
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:
As discussed previously, an archaeological records search was conducted at the SCCIC. This 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 a one-mile radius
of the Proposed 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.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 52 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The results of the SCCIC revealed a total of 46 previously recorded resources were identified within one
mile of the Proposed Project area. However, none of the archaeological resources identified were
documented on the Proposed Project site. Due to the lack of cultural resources located within the
Proposed Project site, additional mitigation measures beyond those included in the Approved Project FEIR
are not necessary. However, if previously undocumented archaeological 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 Mitigation Measures 4.4-1b,
4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c from the Approved Project FEIR.
The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to archaeological resources
compared to the previously identified significant impacts evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR. In
addition, the Proposed Project would be subject to the Cultural Resources standard conditions of
approval. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project 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 includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Note that Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a from the Approved Project FEIR has already been satisfied with
regard to the Proposed Project, as the Project site has already been assessed for cultural resources and
none were found.
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.
• 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
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 53 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
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.
[This mitigation measure has been accomplished through preparation of this
Addendum EIR and related cultural studies.]
4.4-1b If any historical resources and/or human 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.
• 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.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 54 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• All resources and data collected within the project site shall be permanently curated
at an appropriate repository within the County.
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;
• 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;
• 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.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 55 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Standard Conditions of Approval
The Proposed Project would be subject to comply with the City’s Cultural and Tribal Standard Conditions
of Approval as listed below.
• 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 Archaeologists shall ensure that all other personnel are
appropriately trained and qualified.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts to a historic or archaeological
resource. Similar to the Approved Project FEIR’s conclusion, implementation of the Proposed Project
would have a less than significant impact to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources. No new or
more severe impact from previously identified significant impacts evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR
would occur. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding
of less than significant impact with mitigation under this threshold. The above-referenced mitigation
measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable.
Threshold (c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outsides of formal cemeteries?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the Approved Project FEIR, the Proposed Project site is not
located within a known or suspected cemetery and there are no known human remains within the
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 56 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Proposed Project site. No conditions exist that suggest human remains are likely to be found within the
boundaries of the Proposed 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 Proposed Project site-specific Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix E) confirmed that the
Proposed Project site is not likely to contain human remains. Consistent with the Approved Project 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 process for
handling unexpected discovery of 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 NAHC if applicable, and if
applicable 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 Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impact pertaining to the disturbance of
human remains. The Proposed Project is consistent with the Approved Project FEIR. The Cultural
Resources Assessment and Historic Resources Report did not find new potentially significant impacts
associated with the Proposed Project regarding historical, archaeological, or human remains.
Overall Cultural Resources Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to cultural resources.
No changes in circumstances or changes to the Approved Project have occurred to the Approved Project
Area and Proposed Project Area. No new information has been determined since approval of the
Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 57 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.6 Geology and Soils
5.6.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project 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. The nearest fault to the Approved Project is the Cucamonga fault and no faults
exist beneath the Approved Project area. Therefore, impacts related to fault rupture were less than
significant. Adherence to standard engineering practices and compliance with the California Building Code
would result in less than significant impacts on seismic ground shaking. Similarly, impacts related to
liquefaction would be less than significant with adherence to existing CBC standards. The Approved
Project area is relatively flat and does not consist of land features capable of producing landslides. Thus,
there would be no impact on landslides. The Approved Project would be required to comply with all
requirements set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for
construction activities. Thus, impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than
significant. Impacts related to lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse would be less than
significant with adherence to existing CBC standards. Although the potential for expansive soils onsite
exists, future development associated with the Approved Project would be subject to CBC standards.
Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. The Approved Project site
would be served by sewer facilities and would not need to install septic tanks. Therefore, no impact would
occur.
5.6.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A Project site-specific Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix G) dated February 16, 2022 and an Infiltration
Report (Appendix H) dated February 21, 2022 were conducted by Southern California Geotechnical
(SoCalGeo). Additionally, a Project site-specific Paleontological Resources Assessment was conducted by
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. on October 12, 2022 (Appendix I).
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 Proposed Project site. The nearest
active regional fault traces are associated with the Sierra Madre Fault Zone northeast of central Rancho
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 58 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Cucamonga approximately 7.5 miles from the Proposed Project site. Consistent with the SWIP EIR, the
Project-specific geotechnical study, included as Appendix G to this Addendum, concluded that the
Proposed Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No evidence of faulting
was identified during the geotechnical investigation.7
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 Proposed Project site. The
Proposed 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),
effective 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.
Liquefaction and Landslides
No New or More Severe Impact: The California Geological Survey (CGS) has not yet conducted detailed
seismic hazards mapping in the area of the Proposed Project site. The general liquefaction susceptibility
of the site was determined by research of the San Bernardino County Official Land Use Plan, General Plan,
and Geologic Hazard Overlay. Map FH29C 8 for the Fontana USGS quadrangle indicates that the Proposed
Project site is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility. A Project site-specific Geotechnical
Investigation was prepared for the Project site and determined that the onsite soils were not susceptible
to liquefaction. Based on the mapping performed by the County, and the subsurface conditions
encountered at the boring locations, liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for the
Proposed Project. 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.
Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to landslides and no new
impacts would result from the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe new impact from earthquake induced
faulting, ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides. The Proposed Project is consistent with the
Approved Project FEIR. Proposed 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 Proposed Project implementation.
Threshold (b) Result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR concluded that construction associated with
future development in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would produce loose soils, which would be
7 Southern California Geotechnical, 2022. Geotechnical Investigation. See Appendix H.
8 San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Maps. Available at http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH29C.pdf.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 59 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
subject to erosion during onsite grading and excavation. Grading and trenching for construction may
expose soils to short-term wind and water erosion. The Proposed Project would be required to comply
with all requirements set forth in the NPDES permit for construction activities (e.g., implementation of
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 City’s standard building plan check process. Therefore, the Project would result in
less than significant impacts related to landslides and no new impacts would result from the Proposed
Project.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts as it pertains to erosion or loss of
topsoil. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project. As required
by standard City plan check processes, the Project Applicant would comply with applicable
recommendations as set forth in the Proposed Project geotechnical investigation, contained in Appendix
G to this Addendum. These measures will be reviewed and checked as part of the City’s standard grading
and building plan check process. A less than significant impact to erosion or loss of topsoil would occur
with adherence to recommendations in the Project-specific geotechnical 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 threshold (a) (i-iv) discussion, above. As stated in the
Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix G), several areas of pavement distress or possibly subsidence were
observed at isolated areas within the southern and southeastern regions of the Proposed Project site.
These areas identified possible fill soils extending to depths of 4½ to 7± feet below existing site grade.
However, as concluded in the Geotechnical Investigation, the pavement distress was expected to be the
result of abandoned underground storage tanks not properly backfilled. Additional remedial grading may
be necessary during grading operations if these materials are determined to represent undocumented fill
soils. Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR findings, the Geotechnical Investigation concluded that
the Proposed Project site would not become unstable as a result of the Proposed Project, or potentially
result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, liquefaction, or collapse. However, as discussed
within this section, the Proposed Project would be subject to adherence to standard engineering practices
and design criteria relative to seismic and geologic hazards, in accordance with the 2022 CBC, which would
result in a less than significant impact.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR findings, the geotechnical study concluded that the Proposed
Project site would not become unstable as a result of the Proposed Project, or potentially result in an
onsite or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. No mitigation
measures were recommended.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 60 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more serve impact from landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or soil collapse. There are no new or more severe potentially significant impacts
associated with the Proposed Project.
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 Approved Project FEIR concluded that impacts associated with
expansive soils were less than significant. Construction associated with development within the 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 Approved Project FEIR concluded that although the
potential for expansive soils exists, future developments in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would be
subject to site-specific geotechnical investigations and would comply with 2022 CBC standards to
minimize any potential for hazards due to expansive soils.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR and the 2022 CBC requirements, a Project site-specific
geotechnical investigation was prepared. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded that near-surface soils
in the Proposed Project site generally consist of silty sands and sandy gravels with no appreciable clay
content (Appendix G). These materials have been visually classified as non-expansion potential. Therefore,
no design considerations related to expansive soils are considered warranted for this site. Consequently,
impacts in this regard are considered less than significant and no new impacts would occur.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed 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 Proposed Project.
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
SWIP Specific Plan Update area, including the Proposed Project site, would be served by sewer facilities.
No septic tanks would be used as part of the Proposed Project. As a result, no impacts associated with the
use of septic tanks would occur as part of the Proposed Project’s implementation.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 61 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Proposed 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 Proposed Project regarding septic tanks or
wastewater disposal systems.
Threshold (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project 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. However, Mitigation Measures 4.4-
3a and 4.4-3b were incorporated into the Approved Project FEIR that would require an analysis of
potential impacts to paleontological resources on a site-specific basis.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR requirements, a Paleontological Assessment (Appendix I) was
conducted and included a locality records search, literature review, and a field pedestrian survey.
Although no significant paleontological resources were identified within the Proposed Project site, eight
paleontological resource localities were identified 1.5-miles southwest of the Proposed Project site.
As stated in the Paleontological Assessment, potentially fossiliferous late to middle Pleistocene alluvial
fan deposits exist at the surface of the Proposed Project site along with Holocene and late Pleistocene
alluvial fan sediments.. Similar to the Approved Project FEIR, excavation activity associated with the
development of the Proposed Project site has the potential to impact the paleontologically sensitive
Pleistocene alluvial units. Thus, the Paleontological Assessment concluded a paleontological resource
mitigation program (PRIMP) is warranted to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils from the
study area.
Consistent with the paleontological report’s findings and recommendations, Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b are applicable. With implementation of the mitigation measures,
a less than significant impact on paleontological resources would occur.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the Approved Project. Note: Where mitigation measures have been derived from the
General Plan EIR, the corresponding General Plan EIR mitigation measures are cited below. The following
measures from the FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
4.4-3a: A qualified paleontologist shall conduct a pre-construction field survey of any Project site
within the Specific Plan Update area that is underlain by older alluvium. The
paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that provides specific recommendations
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 62 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be
appropriate.
4.4-3b Should mitigation monitoring be recommended for a specific project within the Project
site (Specific Plan Update), the Mitigation Program shall include, but not be limited to,
the following measures:
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of
fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of
earth-disturbing activities.
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, earth-disturbing
activities shall be diverted elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If
construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor shall immediately
divert construction and notify the monitor of the find.
• All recovered fossils shall be prepared, identified, and curated for documentation in
the summary report and transferred to an appropriate depository (i.e., San
Bernardino County Museum).
• A summary report shall be submitted to City of Fontana. Collected specimens shall be
transferred with copy of report to San Bernardino County Museum.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact to paleontological resources. There
are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project.
Overall Geology and Soils Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to geology and soils. No changes in circumstances or changes to the Approved
Project have occurred to the Approved Project Area and Proposed Project Area. No new information has
been determined since approval of the Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is
not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 63 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Climate Change)
5.7.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan would result in less
than significant impacts relative to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with the incorporation of mitigation
measures.
5.7.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
This analysis evaluates construction and operational GHG impacts associated with the Proposed Project
relative to thresholds provided in the Approved Project FEIR, as well as the updated Environmental
Checklist Form. A Proposed Project-specific Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact
Analysis was prepared by LSA in January 2023. Emissions were conservatively analyzed based on a
previous site plan with a larger square footage of 395,970 SF. It is incorporated as Appendix B of this
document.
Background
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including
temperature, wind patterns and precipitation. Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring
atmospheric gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O),
as well as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These GHGs
allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth’s atmosphere but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus
warming the Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities.
Concentrations of GHG have increased in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Human activities
that generate GHG emissions include combustion of fossil fuels (CO2 and N2O); natural gas generated from
landfills, fermentation of manure and cattle farming (CH4); and industrial processes such as nylon and
nitric acid production (N2O).
GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap
heat in the atmosphere; it is the “cumulative radiative forcing effect of a gas over a specified time horizon
resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to a reference gas.” The reference gas for GWP
is CO2; therefore, CO2 has a GWP factor of 1. The other main GHGs that have been attributed to human
activity include CH4, which has a GWP factor of 28, and N2O, which has a GWP factor of 265. When
accounting for GHGs, all types of GHG emissions are expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) and are
typically quantified in metric tons (MT) or million metric tons (MMT).
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. Senate Bill (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
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 64 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
an interim GHG emission reduction goal for the State to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990
levels by the year 2030.
Threshold (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR concluded that, future development shall
incorporate project design features that achieve a minimum of 28.5 percent reduction in GHG emissions
from business as usual. The Approved Project FEIR stated that impacts to greenhouse gas emissions would
be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
The SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions.
However, lead agencies are required to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during
construction. The SCAQMD further requires that construction GHG emissions be amortized over the life
of the project, defined by the SCAQMD as 30 years, added to the operational emissions. The operation of
the previously approved warehouse land use analyzed under the SWIP and maximum buildout intensity
of the Proposed Project site would involve emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. For the
purpose of this analysis, all GHG emissions are calculated CO2 equivalents (CO2e), as reported by
CalEEMod and utilized by SCAQMD for their thresholds.
Short Term Construction GHG Emissions
Demolition and construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would produce combustion
emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of
construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use
fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and
N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from onsite
construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.
GHG emissions for the Proposed Project were calculated using CalEEMod to estimate construction and
operational GHG emissions. Based on the maximum FAR allowed for the Project site under the SWIP, it is
estimated that the maximum buildout of the Project site would generate approximately 745.0 MT CO2e
during construction of the project, and amortized annual emissions would be 24.8 MT CO2e. The Proposed
Project would generate approximately 731.0 MTCO2e during construction of the Project, and amortized
annual emissions would be 24.4 MTCO2e.
Long Term Operational GHG Emissions
Long-term GHG emissions are typically generated from mobile sources (e.g., vehicle and truck trips), area
sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), stationary sources (e.g., fire pump and diesel
generator) indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources (land
filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution).
Mobile-source GHG emissions would include Project-generated vehicle trips to and from the Project.
Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the
Project site. Energy source emissions would be generated at offsite utility providers because of increased
electricity demand generated by the Project. Waste source emissions generated by the Proposed Project
include energy generated by land filling and other methods of disposal related to transporting and
managing Project-generated waste. In addition, water source emissions associated with the Proposed
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 65 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Project are generated by water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and
wastewater treatment.
Following guidance from the SCAQMD, GHG emissions were estimated for the operational year of 2024
using CalEEMod. Table GHG-1 shows the comparison of GHG emissions for the Proposed Project and SWIP
buildout of the Project site.
Table GHG-1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MT/yr)
Emissions Source
Operational Emissions
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percentage of
Total
Proposed Project Emissions
Area Sources 8.0 <0.1 <0.1 8.1 <1
Energy Sources 873.0 0.1 <0.1 876.0 20
Mobile Sources – Vehicle
and Light Duty Trucks
1,090.0 <0.1 0.1 1,109.0 25
Mobile – Heavy Heavy-Duty
Trucks
1,909.0 0.2 0.3 2,007.0 46
Waste Sources 33.1 3.3 0.0 116.0 3
Water Sources 181.0 3.0 0.1 277.0 6
Stationary 9.0 <0.1 <0.1 9.0 <1
Total Project Operational Emissions 4,402.1 100-
Amortized Construction Emissions 24.4 -
Total Project Emissions 4,426.5
SWIP Projection Emissions
Area Sources 8.4 <0.1 <0.1 8.4 <1
Energy Sources 906.0 0.1 <0.1 909.0 20
Mobile Sources – Vehicle
and Light Duty Trucks
1,137.0 <0.1 0.1 1,157.0 25
Mobile – Heavy Heavy-Duty Trucks 1,996.0 0.2 0.3 2,099.0 46
Waste Sources 34.5 3.5 0.0 121.0 3
Water Sources 188.0 3.1 0.1 288.0 6
Stationary 9.0 <0.1 <0.1 9.0 <1
Total SWIP Emissions 4,591.4 100-
Amortized Construction Emissions 24.8 -
Total SWIP Annual Emissions 4,616.2
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis, Appendix B CH4 = methane CO2 = carbon dioxide CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
MT/yr = metric tons per year
N2O = nitrous oxide SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District SWIP = Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan
As detailed in Section 5.16, Transportation, the Proposed Project would generate 36 fewer daily vehicular
trips than the maximum buildout for the Proposed Project site permitted under the SWIP Update, and
thus result in fewer mobile source emissions than the maximum intensity allowed in the SWIP.
As shown in Table GHG-1, the change in GHG emissions released during construction and operation of the
Proposed Project would be less than the maximum buildout intensity permitted by the SWIP Update that
was analyzed in the Approved Project FEIR. Thus, the Proposed Project would not lead to new or
substantially more severe significant impacts associated with construction or operational GHG emissions.
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that the Approved Project’s construction and operational GHG
impacts were less than significant with mitigation. Cumulative GHG emissions for the Approved FEIR
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 66 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
would be less than significant with mitigation. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would be conditioned
to implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-5a, which would further reduce GHG emissions associated with the
Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe
significant impacts associated with operational GHG emissions.
Mitigation Program
According to the Approved Project FEIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a would reduce
impacts to a less than significant impact.
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 project shall include, but not be
limited to, the following list of potential design features:
Energy Efficiency
• Design buildings to be energy efficient and exceed Title 24 requirements by at least 5
percent.
• 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. [Note: The Proposed Project would be required to comply with
Ordinance No. 1891 approved by the City on March 22, 2022 and SCAQMD Rule 2305
which requires warehouses over 100,000 SF to directly reduce nitrogen oxide and diesel
particulate matter emissions. However, for a conservative analysis, no reductions in
emissions were assumed.]
• 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.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 67 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• 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 onsite 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.
• 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.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 68 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would comply with all applicable mitigation measures and would not result in new
impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. As shown in the table above, GHG emissions are consistent with
the emissions disclosed in the Approved Project FEIR. No new impact or increase in the severity of an
identified impact would therefore occur with implementation of the Proposed Project.
Threshold (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. As described in the
previous response, the Project would not exceed GHG emissions that were studied in the Approved
Project FEIR and would be below the GHG emissions for the maximum buildout of the Project site allowed
by the SED in the SWIP. The Project would also be within the overall industrial development intensity
assumed for the SED in the Approved Project FEIR. In addition, the Project would comply with regulations
imposed by the state and the SCAQMD that reduce GHG emissions, as described below:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) is applicable to the Project because many of the
GHG reduction measures outlined in AB 32 (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, advanced clean car
standards, and cap-and-trade) have been adopted over the last 5 years and implementation
activities are ongoing. The proposed building would not conflict with fuel and car standards or
cap-and-trade.
• Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493) establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new (model year
2009-2016) passenger cars and light trucks. The Project would develop a new warehouse facility
that would not conflict with fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.
• Title 24 California Code of Regulations (Title 24) establishes energy efficiency requirements for
new construction that address the energy efficiency of new (and altered) buildings. The Project is
required to comply with Title 24, which would be verified by the City during the plan check and
permitting process.
• Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard [LCFS]) requires carbon content
of fuel sold in California to be 10 percent less by 2020. Because the LCFS applies to any
transportation fuel that is sold or supplied in California, all vehicle trips generated by the Project
would comply with LCFS.
• California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) provides requirements to
ensure water efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing
landscapes. The Project is required to comply with AB 1881 landscaping requirements, which
would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting process.
• Emissions from vehicles, which are a main source of operational GHG emissions, would be
reduced through implementation of federal and state fuel and air quality emissions requirements
that are implemented by CARB. In addition, as described in the previous response, the Project
would not result in an exceedance of an air quality standard.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a above would be implemented and would reduce emissions of
GHGs generated by the Proposed Project. Thus, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts
related to an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. GHG emissions are less
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 69 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
than the emissions disclosed in the Approved Project FEIR. Therefore, no new impacts related to GHG
emissions would occur.
Mitigation Program
Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
As previously identified, Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the
proposed Project.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Overall Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified
impacts, with respect to GHG. No changes in circumstances or changes to the Approved Project have
occurred to the Approved Project Area and Proposed Project Area. No new information has been
determined since approval of the Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 70 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5.8.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project 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
Mitigation Measures
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:
A Proposed Project site-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the
Proposed Project by Hazard Management Consulting, Inc. (HMC) on January 26, 2023 (Appendix J).The
Proposed Project 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,
including the construction of warehouse facilities. In addition, hazardous materials would be needed for
fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site. These types of materials are not acutely
hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and
State requirements, which the Proposed Project construction activities are required to strictly adhere to.
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. As a result, routine
transport and use of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.
The Proposed Project operations would not involve acutely hazardous materials. 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 landscaping and cleaning products. The Proposed 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 to ensure proper use, storage, and
disposal of any hazardous substances. Overall, operation of the Proposed Project 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 Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the Approved Project. Note: Where mitigation measures have been derived from the
General Plan EIR, the corresponding General Plan EIR mitigation measures are cited below. The following
measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 71 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.5-1a through 4.5-1d were included in the Approved Project FEIR to mitigate
impacts associated with hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.
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 enters, shall not to be located near existing
sites that use, store, or generate hazardous materials.
[This mitigation measure has been accomplished through preparation of this Addendum
and Health Risk Assessment which demonstrates less than significant impacts to the
closest such use, Jurupa Hills High School]
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.
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.
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.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact(s) related to the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with
the Proposed Project.
Threshold (b) Create 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?
No New or More Severe Impact: As described above, the Proposed Project’s risks related to upset or
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be
adequately addressed through compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations.
Development of the Proposed Project would result in industrial warehouse uses that would use and store
common hazardous materials such as oils, paints, solvents, and cleaning products. Also, building
mechanical systems and grounds and landscape maintenance would potentially use a variety of products
formulated with hazardous materials, including fuels, cleaners, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 72 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
pesticides/herbicides. Although these impacts are determined to be less than significant, the Proposed
Project requires the demolition of the onsite buildings. The Approved Project FEIR determined asbestos-
containing materials may exist within existing buildings that may be modified or demolished. As a result,
asbestos fibers could be released into the air during demolition. The FEIR further stated that the standard
practice would be to conduct an asbestos assessment for candidate buildings to determine the presence
of asbestos. If identified, an asbestos abatement contractor would be retained to develop an abatement
plan and remove the asbestos containing materials, in accordance with local, State, and Federal
requirements. After removal, demolition may proceed without significant concern to the release of
asbestos fibers into the air. Given the age of the buildings on site, asbestos containing materials are likely
to be present. The potential to release hazardous materials during demolition activities could cause a
potential impact.
The Phase I ESA determined that there are eight leaking underground storage tank sites within
approximately 0.5 mile from the Project site. However, the Phase I concluded that there are no recognized
environmental conditions (RECs) on the site. Additionally, the Phase I ESA concluded an asbestos survey
should be conducted at the site buildings prior to any demolition activities to verify potential impacts.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-c requires a certified environmental professional to confirm the presence or
absences of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and lead based paints (LBPs) prior to structural
demolition activities. If ACMs or LBPs are present, the demolition materials shall be removed and disposed
of at an appropriate permitted facility. Thus, with adherence to MM 4.5-c, impacts would be less than
significant.
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 extent and exposure of individuals to hazardous
materials would be limited by the relatively small quantities of these materials that would be stored, used,
and handled. 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.
Through existing City and County Health Hazardous Materials Division permitting and occupancy
procedures, hazardous materials would be used and stored in accordance with applicable regulations and
such uses would be required to comply with federal and State laws to reduce the potential consequences
of hazardous materials accidents. In addition, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required to
be implemented for the Proposed Project (as further discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality). The BMPs that would be implemented as part of the WQMP would protect human health and
the environment should any accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials occur during operation of
the Proposed Project.
As a result, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in 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, and operational impacts would be less than significant.
The Approved Project FEIR recommended mitigation measures to address hazardous materials, when
developing portions of the Specific Plan Update area. The Proposed Project would adhere to Mitigation
Measures 4.5-2a through 4.5-2c to minimize hazardous materials impacts during construction.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 73 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
In accordance with Mitigation Measure 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 to handle all hazardous materials
incidents in the City and along I-10. Short-term and long-term construction activities within the SWIP
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
Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required for issues related to hazardous materials.
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
The Proposed Project will adhere to mitigation measures 4.5-1b through 4.5-1d, 4.5-2a through 4.5-2c for
both short term and long-term accidental releases, according to the Approved Project FEIR. Additionally,
A Phase I Assessment was conducted by Stantec in compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.5-2(a) to (c).
4.5-2a A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared in accordance with American
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) 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 [ACMs], lead-based paints [LBPs], polychlorinated
biphenyls [PCBs], etc.) that may require remedial activities prior to land acquisition or
construction.
[This mitigation measure has been satisfied through preparation of this Addendum and
related hazardous materials studies.]
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;
• Onsite remediation, if necessary; or
• Other measures as deemed appropriate by the County.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 74 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
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.
4.5-2d In the event any electrical transformers require relocation as a result of future
development associated with the project, the relocation shall be conducted under the
purview of the local electricity purveyor to identify property-handling procedures
regarding potential polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
[This mitigation measure does not apply to the Proposed Project because relocation of
electric transformers would not be required.]
4.5-2e Due to the railroad alignment within project boundaries, any construction in which the
soil around the railroad is to be disturbed shall be conducted under the purview of the
Fontana Fire Protection District to identify proper handling procedures. Once the soil
around the railroad has been removed, a visual inspection of the areas beneath and
around the removed area shall be performed. Any stained soils observed underneath the
area shall be sampled. Results of the sampling (if necessary) shall indicate the level of
remediation efforts that may be required (if necessary).
[This mitigation measure does not apply to the Proposed Project because a railroad
alignment is not located on the site.]
4.5-2f Areas of exposed soils within Caltrans right-of-way that would be disturbed during
excavation/grading activities shall be sampled and tested for lead prior to ground
disturbance activities on a project-by-project basis, so that any special handling,
treatment, or disposal provisions associated with aerially deposited lead may be included
in construction documents (if aerially deposited lead is above regulatory criteria).
[This mitigation measure does not apply to the Proposed Project because Caltrans right-
of-way would not be disturbed as part of the Project.]
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. There are no new potentially significant impacts
associated with the Proposed Project. The Phase I ESA concluded that there is no evidence of recognized
environmental conditions connected with the property (refer to Appendix J).
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. As discussed within the Approved Project FEIR, sensitive land uses are
present both within and surrounding the SWIP. With implementation of mitigation, future development
within the SWIP was determined to not result in significant impacts upon an existing or proposed schools
within one-quarter mile of future development within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 75 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The nearest school to the Proposed Project site is the Jurupa Hills High School located approximately 1,070
feet to the southeast. Therefore, the Proposed Project site is located within one-quarter mile of an existing
school.
Construction
A construction HRA that evaluates construction period health risk to off-site receptors was conducted for
the Proposed Project. As determined in threshold (a), construction of the Proposed Project would result
in a less than significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials. To estimate the potential cancer risk associated with construction of the
Proposed Project, a dispersion model was used to translate an emission rate from the source location to
a concentration at the sensitive receptor. As shown in Table AQ-5, the Proposed Project would not exceed
the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Additionally, the anticipated use of hazardous materials on
the Project site would be limited to materials and solvents typically used for project construction . Thus,
construction of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact on health risk to the
nearest off-site receptors including the school. Therefore, construction impacts related to hazardous
emissions and materials would be less than significant.
Operation
Operational trucks from the Proposed Project would operate in two modes: stationary idling and moving
on and off the site. The emissions from idling trucks would result in higher concentrations of TACs at
nearby sensitive receptors compared to the emissions from moving trucks. An Operational HRA was
conducted to determine potential health risks to people living and working near the Proposed Project
associated with the exhaust of diesel-powered trucks and equipment. As shown in Table AQ-5, operation
of the Proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Additionally, as
stated in the Approved Project FEIR, all businesses that handle or have onsite transportation of hazardous
materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the San Bernardino County Fire Department,
Fontana Fire Protection District, the City of Fontana Municipal Code, and additional regulatory
requirements. Both the Federal and State governments require all businesses that handle more than a
specified amount of hazardous materials to submit a Risk Management Plan to the Certified Unified
Program Agency (CUPA). Compliance with existing regulations and Mitigation Measures 4.5-1a through
4.5-1d presented in the Approved Project FEIR would minimize the risks to schools associated with the
exposure to hazardous materials. Thus, operation of the Proposed Project would result in less than
significant impacts to the sensitive receptors including the school. Therefore, operational impacts related
to hazardous emissions and materials would be less than significant.
No significant impacts to schools from hazardous emissions or use of hazardous materials are anticipated.
Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in
the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that
was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is
available that would change the impact finding.
Mitigation Program
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required for issues related to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 76 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school.
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
Refer to Mitigation Measures 4.5-1a through 4.5-1d, discussed above to mitigate impacts associated with
hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile from a school.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to emission or hazardous
materials release near a school. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the
Proposed Project.
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 Approved Project FEIR, there are various hazardous
material sites recorded within Federal, State, and local records databases within the SWIP Specific Plan
Update area. 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. Since the Specific Plan Update did not include any specific development projects, future
development would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis (e.g., through preparation of a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment to document the presence and extent of hazardous materials
contamination) to determine if such sites are listed on a current regulatory hazardous materials site list.
Mitigation Measures 4.5-2a to 4.5-2f would reduce potential impacts in this regard to less than significant
levels.
As stated in the Phase I ESA, the Proposed Project site was historically undeveloped vacant land and/or in
agricultural use as early as 1896 and developed with the existing buildings during 1950s and 1960s. The
site buildings in general were historically utilized for residential purposes along with a few side home
businesses from 1955 to the present. The site is currently occupied by six residential buildings and a trailer
rental business and building. No evidence of significant presence of hazardous substances was observed
during the site reconnaissance. No evidence of current or historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
(RECs) from prior or existing use of the site was noted in the ESA. The Proposed Project site is located in
an area that has been historically agricultural land and/or developed with residential homes. There are
several industrial-oriented facilities in the site vicinity that may potentially use chemicals, that have had
known chemical releases that are close enough or in the correct orientation to be considered a threat to
the Proposed Project site. However, the Phase I ESA found no evidence of offsite facilities that have
impacted the Proposed Project site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment concluded that no RECs
were found in connection with the Proposed Project site. In addition, the Proposed Project site is not
included on a list of hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 according to
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 77 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the DTSC Envirostor database.9 No new impacts are anticipated as part of the Proposed Project and no
new mitigation measures are recommended. The Approved Project FEIR recommended measures are
applicable to the Proposed Project and would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Program
Refer to Mitigation Measures 4.5-2a and 4.5-2f, discussed above
Conclusion
The Proposed 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 Proposed Project.
Threshold (e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project
area?
No New or More Severe Impact: The majority of the SWIP Specific Plan area, including the Proposed
Project site, is located within the Airport Influence Area of the Ontario International Airport (ONT) Land
Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). ONT is located approximately 7 miles west of the Proposed Project site.
According to Policy Map 2-1 of the ONT ALUCP, the Proposed Project site is within the ONT Airport
Influence Area. If the Proposed Project falls within an airport or freeway 65 dBA CNEL noise contour,
buildings shall be construction to provide an interior noise level environment attributable to exterior
sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent level of 50 dBA Leq in occupied areas during any hour
of operation. However, the Proposed Project is located outside the 60-65 dBA CNEL airport noise impact
zone consistent with Policy Map 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP. Because construction-related vehicle trips would
not approach existing daily traffic volumes, traffic noise would not increase by 3 dBA CNEL. A noise level
increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. While
construction noise will vary, it is expected that composite noise levels during construction at the nearest
off-site industrial uses to the north would reach 69 dBA Leq while construction noise levels would
approach 68 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive residential uses to the south during daytime hours. For
operational noise, an approximately 0.05 dBA CNEL increase is expected along Slover Avenue. As shown
in Tables NOI-1 through NOI-3, the Proposed Project would not exceed noise thresholds for construction
or operation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the traffic noise increase in the vicinity of the Proposed
Project site from construction and operation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Thus,
the Proposed Project would not result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the Proposed
Project area. As stated in the Approved Project FEIR, the SWIP Specific Plan Update area and the Proposed
Project site are not located within a Runway Protection Zone, No Build Zone, or Approach Zone.
Consequently, development of the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people
working or residing in the Project area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard
for people working on the site and impacts from the Project would be less than significant.
9 DTSC Envirostor Database https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Santa+ana+and+calabash+avenue+fontana (accessed
November 1, 2021)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 78 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in
the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that
was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is
available that would change the impact finding.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new impact as it pertains to an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan associated with an airport. There are no new potentially significant
impacts associated with the Proposed Project.
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 Proposed Project could temporarily impact street traffic adjacent to the Proposed
Project site during the construction phase due to roadway improvements and potential extension of
construction activities into 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. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures
identified in the Approved Project FEIR, temporary street closures would not affect emergency access in
the vicinity of the Proposed Project site, and impacts would be less than significant. Adequate emergency
access and maintenance of adequate emergency responsiveness would be accomplished through
compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.5-6a and 4.5-6b which include preparation of an Emergency
Evacuation Plan, including a Traffic Control Plan addressing access during construction, and consultation
with the City Police Department to disclose temporary closures and alternative travel routes.
All future developments would be required to provide sufficient emergency access, as required by the
Municipal Code. Additionally, the City’s Emergency Operations Plan complies with and relies on the City’s
Hazardous Materials Response Plan. Once operational, Project features to ensure sufficient emergency
access would include access via five driveways including two 35-foot driveways from Citrus Avenue, a 52-
foot truck accessible driveway on Slover Avenue, and two driveways would be provided on Catawba
Avenue. The northern driveway on Catawba would be 50-feet-wide with truck accessibility and the
southern Catawba driveway would be 35-feet wide and utilized for passenger vehicles only. The truck
court would be accessed via metal gates with knox-pad locks per Fire Department standards. Internally
on the site, 30-foot-wide drive aisles would allow for fire/emergency response vehicles to maneuver
throughout the Proposed Project site.
Future development within the Proposed Project boundaries would not interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan and/or emergency evacuation plan and a less than significant impact would
occur. Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 79 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR
was certified is available that would change the impact finding.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation from the Approved Project 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.
• 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.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new impact related to interference with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated
with the Proposed Project.
Threshold (g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
The Proposed Project site is located within an urbanized area surrounded by development to north, south,
and west. A vacant property zoned for commercial use that is regularly maintained for weed abatement
is located to the east of the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project site is not located within or
adjacent to land designated as a very high fire hazard severity zone.10 Impacts related to wildland fires
would not occur. Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant
impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of
substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved
Project FEIR was certified is available that would change the impact finding.
10 CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps (2022). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed February 13,
2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 80 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new impact from wildland fires. There are no new anticipated
potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project.
Overall Hazards-Related Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. No changes in circumstances or changes to the
Approved Project have occurred to the Approved Project Area and Proposed Project Area. No new
information has been determined since approval of the Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation
of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 81 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.9.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
As stated in the Approved Project FEIR, development on the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would be
subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements during both
construction and operations of future development projects. 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. Moreover, the Approved Project FEIR concluded that because the
majority of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is developed and urbanized, development of the area
would not cause a significant increase in impervious surfaces and therefore would not substantially impact
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Additionally, the Approved Project FEIR
identifies that the majority of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is developed and urbanized and
implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact on
groundwater supplies. 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
Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan Update would not result in
significant impacts relative to hydrology and water quality, and no mitigation is necessary to reduce
potential impacts.
5.9.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A Preliminary Hydrology Report (Hydrology Report) dated August 1, 2023, and a WQMP dated August 8,
2022, were prepared for the Proposed Project by DRC Engineering, Inc. and are included as Appendix K
and Appendix L to this document.
Threshold (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
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 Project Applicant would be required to prepare a SWPPP pursuant to the NPDES regulations and the
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control
Plan. The SWPPP would be included and implemented as part of the NPDES General Industrial Activities
Storm Water Permit obtained by the Project Applicant. The SWPPP would contain construction and
operational BMPs that would restrict the discharge of sediment into the streets and local storm drains,
based on the Project specific WQMP. The SWPPP must be obtained prior to the commencement of
construction in order to ensure applicable BMPs are implemented. The SWPPP would remain on the
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 82 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Project site during construction and during project operations, so that the developer and the operator are
aware of the measures to be implemented and RWQCB field staff can monitor compliance with the
required measures. Adherence to the BMPs outlined in the mandatory SWPPP would ensure Project
construction and operations do not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact regarding violation of water
quality standards and waste discharge requirements during construction.
The Proposed Project site is located within the service area of the Fontana Water Company (FWC). 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, there are sufficient water supplies (groundwater
is one of the sources) available to serve the Proposed Project. Additionally, the FEIR planned for the
Approved Project area (including the Proposed Project site) to be developed predominantly with industrial
uses. The Proposed Project would be a 385,970 SF industrial warehouse which is a less intensive use,
compared to the maximum buildout of the Proposed Project site allowed by the SED in the SWIP. To
further minimize any potential groundwater depletion, the Proposed Project would include landscaped
areas and collect drainage by grate inlets and catch basins that would be piped to an onsite underground
storm drain system which would discharge to two onsite underground infiltration basins. The drainage
system would also comply with regional low impact development (LID) structural treatment control best
management practices (BMPs).
The FWC’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) concluded there would be sufficient water
supplies to meet water demands through the year 2045, with approximately 50% of water supply provided
by groundwater in the FWC service area. See Table 4-4, Retail: Total Water Use and Table 6-1, Historical
and Projected Water Supplies in Normal Years, AFY 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 Proposed Project would consume water at a rate of approximately 6 acre-foot per year, based on
FWC water consumption rates (0.33 acre-foot, per acre, per year for industrial use 11). 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, there is sufficient supply to meet the demand of the Proposed Project and the Proposed Project
will not substantially decreasing groundwater supplies or impede sustainable groundwater management.
Based on the above discussion and the Approved Project FEIR finding of a less than significant impact, it
is anticipated that the Proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Nor would the Proposed
Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that sustainable groundwater management practices would be impeded. Lastly, the FWC is
11 Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.ieua.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Final-IEUA-
2020-UWMP.pdf (accessed January 04, 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 83 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
considering a future groundwater recharge project, but the projected volume has not been quantified.12
No new impact or increase in the severity of an identified impact would therefore occur with
implementation of the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to groundwater and water
quality discharge. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and
could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would
change the impact determination. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not significantly impact local
groundwater recharge or water quality discharge. 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 Approved Project FEIR found erosion and siltation impacts to be less
than significant. The Proposed Project is located in an already urbanized area where drainage is directed
to a network of City and County-operated stormwater drainage facilities. Development of the site would
increase the amount of impervious surfaces from 33.6 percent to approximately 90 percent16. However,
the Proposed Project would provide pervious landscaped areas covering approximately 126,907 SF or 17
percent of the site and would also implement an underground infiltration basin system designed to collect
and infiltrate post-development surface runoff and maintain existing water infiltration rates. The
Proposed Project would construct two onsite underground infiltration basins, designed to detain and
percolate the runoff resulting from a 100-year 24-hour storm event. Street frontage areas would be self-
retained to capture and percolate 100 percent of the volume for a 100-year 24-hour storm event.
Overflow from the onsite infiltration basins would be conveyed to the existing 42-inch diameter storm
drain main within Catawba Avenue, while overflow from the streets would be conveyed to a proposed
14-foot-wide catch basin. In addition, the Project proposes to extend the existing Catawba Avenue storm
drain main for approximately 600 linear feet to the southwest Project driveway. Thus, new drainage
structures would be designed to adequately serve the Proposed Project and minimize impacts related to
erosion or siltation by conveying onsite flows through the site safely and by detaining a required quantity
of stormwater flow. Existing pervious area conditions are considered poor due to the lack of vegetation
cover.13 In addition, as stated in the Approved Project FEIR, development in the SWIP Specific Plan Update
area would be subject to NPDES requirements during both construction and operations ensuring
implementation of appropriate BMPs that would adequately minimize substantial erosion or siltation on
or off-site. In addition, the Proposed Project does not contain any water features including a stream or
12 FWC. 2020. San Gabriel Valley Water Company Fontana Water Company Division 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf (accessed February 15, 2023).
13 DRC Engineering, Inc. Preliminary WQMP (Appendix K).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 84 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
river; therefore, substantial erosion and siltation on- or off-site would not occur. Impacts would be less
than significant.
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 Approved Project FEIR, the Proposed Project site is not
located within a FEMA designated 100-year floodplain, but in FEMA Zone X. Zone X are areas determined
to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. As stated previously, the Proposed Project would
increase the amount of impervious surface from 33.6 percent to approximately 90 percent. The Proposed
Project would include pervious landscaped areas covering approximately 17 percent of the Project site
and would introduce a new drainage system. The Proposed Project would introduce landscaped pervious
surfaces as well as grate inlets and onsite catch basins that would be piped to an onsite underground
storm drain system. The storm drain system would discharge to the two proposed onsite underground
infiltration basins. The underground infiltration system would be designed to accommodate surface flow
and catch and absorb surface water. The basin would capture, and the infiltration system overflow would
direct flows off the site to the proposed 600 linear foot extension of existing storm drain in Catawba
Avenue. With implementation of the Proposed Project and associated drainage improvement/features,
onsite and offsite flooding impacts would be reduced, resulting in a less than significant impact.
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 4.9.2 (c)(i) and, (ii). Impacts to the stormwater system
would be less than significant.
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
No New or More Severe Impact: As previously noted, the Proposed Project site is not located within a
FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be constructed within
a 100-year floodplain. The Proposed Project would increase impervious surfaces compared to existing
conditions. However, the Proposed Project includes landscaped pervious surfaces and onsite catch basins
that would convey surface runoff to the onsite underground infiltration and drainage system. See also
Responses 4.9.2(c)(i) and (ii). Impacts from impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact to impede or redirect flood flows.
Development in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would be subject to NPDES requirements during both
construction and operations insuring implementation of appropriate BMPs that would adequately
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 85 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
minimize substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site. The Proposed Project does not contain any water
features including a stream or river; therefore, substantial erosion and siltation on- or off-site would not
occur. Impacts would be less than significant. With implementation of the Proposed Project and
associated drainage improvement/features, onsite and offsite flooding impacts would be reduced,
resulting in a less than significant impact the Proposed Project site is not located within a FEMA-
designated 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be constructed within a 100-
year floodplain.
As stated in this section, the proposed drainage system would provide hydrologic benefits while
maintaining existing drainage patterns without creating a hydrologic condition of concern by conveying
onsite flows through the site safely and by detaining a required quantity of stormwater flow. A less than
significant impact is anticipated from the Proposed 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 Approved Project 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. The Proposed Project site is
located approximately 40 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. Due to site distance, the Proposed Project
would not be subject to tsunami-related inundation. Additionally, there are no enclosed or semi-enclosed
bodies of water in proximity to the Proposed Project site. Due to site distance to such bodies of water,
the Proposed Project would not be subject to seiche related inundation. Therefore, no impact related to
the potential for tsunami, seiche, or mudflow would occur and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed 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 Proposed Project site inundation. Based
on the Approved Project FEIR findings, the Proposed Project site is not located in an area prone to the
previously mentioned natural or manmade disasters. Thus, no pollutants would be released due to
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact would occur.
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 Proposed 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 Proposed 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
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 86 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
planning, water and land management, and project implementation supports improved sustainability,
resilience, and quality of life throughout the Santa Ana River Watershed through 2040.14 The Proposed
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.
The Approved Project FEIR identified the FWC as the main water provider in the SWIP Specific Plan Update
area. FWC obtains water supplies from both local and regional groundwater wells and surface water
deliveries (State Water Project and Colorado River) from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California. As shown in Table 4.8-1, Fontana Water Company Historical Water Usage and Production
(1988-2008) of the Approved Project 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 met water demand for the FWC coverage area through 2020 and is forecasted
to continue to do so through 2045. See Table 4-3, Demands for Potable and Non-Potable Water-Projected
and Table 6-1, Historical and Projected Water Supplies in Normal Years, AFY 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 Specific Plan Update area and is sufficient to meet current water supply needs.
In addition, the Proposed Project includes the replacement of some existing water lines and placement of
new water lines.
The Proposed 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. Impacts from conflict with the applicable water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts as it pertains to any conflicts with
water quality and groundwater management plans. Based on the Approved Project FEIR findings, FWC
prepared an UWMP in 2020 which included water demand projections in their service area through 2045.
The Proposed Project site is proposing a less water-intensive use than the maximum buildout that the SED
allows for. Additionally, an onsite water quality detention basin would help recharge groundwater in the
basin. A less than significant impact is anticipated. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with
any water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Thus, impacts related to
hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.
14 Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. 2018. One Water One Watershed Plan Update 2018. https://www.sawpa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/OWOW-Plan-Update-2018-1.pdf (accessed February 13, 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 87 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.10 Land Use and Planning
5.10.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
According to the Approved Project 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 Specific Plan Update
boundaries today. The Approved Project 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.
5.10.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Physically divide an established community?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project site consists of a trailer rental yard and seven
single-family residences. The Proposed Project is within the SED land use district of the SWIP and
surrounded by approved industrial/commercial uses to the north, residential development to the south,
and industrial uses to the west. A vacant property to the east boarders the SWIP Specific Plan boundary
and is designated for commercial uses.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, the Proposed Project would not divide an established
community. The Proposed Project would implement a warehouse facility that is similar and consistent
with surrounding uses and planned for by the SWIP for the Project site. Existing development within the
SWIP Specific Plan Update area consists of a variety of land uses (e.g., commercial, industrial, and
residential) and an existing local roadway network, including I-10. The Proposed Project would not create
additional physical barriers between these uses and would not result in the construction of new roadways.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts as it pertains to physically dividing
a community. No new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in
the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that
was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project 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 Approved Project FEIR. The Proposed Project is located within the boundaries of the SED.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 88 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
The Proposed Project would not require an amendment to the SWIP Specific Plan Update, because the
Proposed Project would be consistent with the SED intended to promote the continued use and expansion
of existing industrial development and distribution and logistics-based distribution and warehousing,
along with strategically located service commercial. According to the SWIP, logistics and distribution
facilities, warehousing facilities, and general/light manufacturing uses are permitted by right within the
SED. As such, the Proposed Project would be consistent with applicable land use plans, including the
General Plan and the SWIP. The Proposed 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.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Overall Land Use Impacts Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts from physically dividing a community
or conflict with land use plans, policies, and regulations. The Proposed Project would be consistent with
the SWIP Specific Plan Update and General Plan, and the Proposed 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 Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts, with respect to land use and planning. No changes in circumstances or changes to the Approved
Project have occurred to the Approved Project Area and Proposed Project Area. No new information has
been determined since approval of the Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is
not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 89 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.11 Mineral Resources
5.11.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
According to the General Plan EIR as concluded in the Approved Project FEIR, 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 area. Future development projects would not result in
significant impacts relative to mineral resources, and no mitigation measures were implemented.
5.11.2 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 Approved Project FEIR conclusions, the Proposed
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.15 Additionally, implementation of the Proposed Project would not
result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovery site delineated on the
General Plan, the SWIP Specific Plan Update, or other land use plan. No new or more severe impact
relative to mineral resources not already evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur with
implementation of the Proposed Project. A less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Overall Mineral Resources Impacts Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact to mineral resources. Therefore, no
new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required for issues related to mineral
resources. With regard to CEQA 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 mineral resources. No changes in circumstances or changes to the Approved
Project have occurred to the Approved Project Area and Proposed Project Area. No new information has
been determined since approval of the Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not
warranted.
15 California Department of Conservation. 2022. Mineral Land Classification.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc (accessed January 6, 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 90 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.12 Noise
5.12.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR analyzed noise from construction activities and operational activities.
Operational activities analyzed included vehicle traffic and the exposure of employees, residents, and
other sensitive receptors to noise in the Approved Project area. 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 were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
5.12.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A Proposed Project-specific Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis was prepared by LSA in January 2023. It
is incorporated as Appendix M of this document and is used as the basis for the following analysis. Noise
and vibration impacts were conservatively analyzed based on a previous site plan with a larger square
footage of 395,970 SF. Therefore, the analysis below provides a conservative estimate of noise impacts
associated with the Project.
Threshold (a) Generation of noise levels in excess standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
No New or More Severe Impact: Noise levels associated with the Approved Project would increase over
existing noise levels. This increase was identified in the Approved Project FEIR as a significant and
unavoidable impact associated with the SWIP Specific Plan Update. According to the Approved Project
FEIR, SWIP Specific Plan Update implementation may result in a long-term increase in ambient noise levels
associated with traffic noise and adjacent stationary sources. As discussed below, the Proposed Project
would result in a long-term increase in ambient noise levels associated with traffic noise and adjacent
stationary sources. However, the increase would be less than 3 dBA which is not perceptible to a human
ear in an outdoor environment. Thus, impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Project
would increase over existing noise levels which would be consistent with the impacts disclosed in the
Approved Project FEIR. The Proposed Project would be required to implement the following mitigation
measures from the Approved Project FEIR, but the impact from buildout of the SWIP would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Construction
Construction-related activities would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the Proposed Project
vicinity. Construction-related noise levels at and near the Proposed Project site would fluctuate depending
on the level and type of construction activity on a given day. The analysis performed in the Approved
Project FEIR used conservative assumptions to calculate worst-case construction noise levels. Noise from
the Proposed Project construction activities could be audible at nearby residential uses. Construction
noise would be intermittent and last for several days or a few weeks. As discussed in the Approved Project
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. Proposed Project
construction would be implemented in accordance with these conditions. Table NOI-1 below shows the
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 91 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
nearest receptors and sensitive uses to the Proposed Project site, their distance from the center of
construction activities within the Project site, and the Project’s composite noise levels expected during
construction. Table NOI-1 utilizes the distance from the center of construction activities to the nearest
receptor to calculate construction noise impacts. As shown in Table NOI-1, the Proposed Project would
have a maximum construction noise level of 69 dBA at the nearest worker receptors to the site which are
industrial uses 450 feet north of the center of construction. In addition, construction noise levels would
reach a maximum of 68 dBA at the nearest residence, 475 feet to the south of the center of construction.
Consequently, construction-related noise impacts would remain below the 80 dBA Leq and 90 dBA Leq 1-
hour construction noise level criteria for daytime construction noise level criteria as established by the
FTA for residential and industrial land uses, respectively, and therefore would be considered less than
significant.
In addition, the Proposed Project would comply with the construction hours specified in the City’s Noise
Ordinance, which states that the construction activities are allowed 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.
Table NOI-1: Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Nearest Receptors
Receptor (Location) Composite Noise Level (dBA Leq) at 50 feet1 Distance (feet) Cumulative Noise Level @ 50 Feet (dBA)
Industrial Uses (North)
88
450 69
Residence (South) 475 68
Industrial Uses (West) 705 65
School (Southeast) 925 62
1The composite construction noise level represents the site preparation phase which is expected to result in the greatest noise
level as compared to other phases.
dBA Leq = average A-weighted hourly noise level
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
As shown in Table NOI-1 above, it is not anticipated that construction of the Proposed Project would result
in new short-term noise impacts or increase the severity of impacts previously analyzed in the Approved
Project FEIR. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal
Code allowed hours of construction, Mitigation Measure 4.7-1a and 4.7-1b of the Approved Project FEIR.
Operational
Mitigation Measure 4.7-2a of the Approved Project FEIR requires new industrial facilities within 160 feet
of an existing sensitive land use to prepare a dedicated noise analysis that documents the noise producing
operations. The closest sensitive receptor is located approximately 120 feet to the south of the Proposed
Project site. Thus, a Noise Impact Analysis was prepared for the Proposed Project and is included as
Appendix M. To calculate the long-term offsite traffic noise impacts, existing daily volumes and existing
daily volumes plus the proposed project are collected to calculate the change in CNEL. When compared
to the existing (2016) average daily trips on Slover Avenue of 17,900 (City of Fontana General Plan
Community Mobility and Circulation Element 2018a), an increase of approximately 0.05 dBA CNEL is
expected along Slover Avenue based on the change in CNEL calculation. A noise level increase of less than
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 92 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment; thus, the noise level
increase would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, the traffic
noise increase in the vicinity of the Project site resulting from the Proposed Project would be less than
significant.
Adjacent off-site land uses would be potentially exposed to stationary-source noise impacts from the
proposed onsite HVAC equipment, truck deliveries, and loading and unloading activities. The potential
noise impacts to offsite sensitive land uses from the proposed HVAC equipment and truck delivery
activities are discussed below.
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Equipment
The Proposed Project would have various rooftop mechanical equipment including HVAC units on the
proposed building. To be conservative, it is assumed the project could have four rooftop HVAC units and
operate 24 hours per day and would generate sound power levels (SPL) of up to 76 dBA SPL or 63 dBA Leq
at 5 feet, based on manufacturer data (Allied Commercial 2019). However, the mechanical ventilation
system will cycle on and off throughout the day. The Proposed Project-related noise level impacts would
range from 26.6 dBA Leq to 29.9 dBA Leq at the surrounding sensitive receptors. These levels would be
below the City’s Municipal Code daytime and nighttime noise standards.
Truck Deliveries and Truck Loading and Unloading Activities
Noise levels generated by delivery trucks would be similar to noise readings from truck loading and
unloading activities. Delivery trucks would arrive on site and maneuver their trailers so that trailers would
be parked within the loading docks. During this process, noise levels are associated with the truck engine
noise, air brakes, and back-up alarms while the truck is backing into the dock. These noise levels would
occur for a shorter period of time (less than 5 minutes). After a truck enters the loading dock, the doors
would be closed, and the remainder of the truck loading activities would be enclosed and therefore much
less perceptible. To provide a conservative analysis, it is assumed that operations would occur equally
during all hours of the day and that half the 38 loading docks would be active at all times., Thus, it is
assumed that truck arrivals and departure activities could occur at 19 docks for a period of less than 5
minutes each and unloading activities could occur at 19 docks simultaneously for a period of more than
30 minutes in a given hour.
Tables NOI-2 and NOI-3 below show the combined hourly noise levels generated by HVAC equipment and
truck delivery activities at the closest sensitive receptors during the daytime and nighttime.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 93 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table NOI-2: Daytime Exterior Noise Level Impacts
Receptor Direction
Existing
Quietist
Daytime
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Proposed
Project
Generated
Noise
Levels
Potential Operational
Noise Impact
Exceeding 70 dBA?
Residential (15912 Aliso Drive) South 53.4 29.9 No
Residential (16080
Aliso Drive) South 51.9 29.6 No
Jurupa Hills High School Southeast 51.9 29.6 No
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
Table NOI-3: Nighttime Exterior Noise Level Impacts
Receptor Direction
Existing
Quietist
Daytime
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Proposed
Project
Generated
Noise
Levels
Potential Operational
Noise Impact
Exceeding 70 dBA?
Residential
(15912 Aliso Drive) South 53.4 29.9 No
Residential (16080 Aliso Drive) South 44.8 29.6 No
Jurupa Hills High
School Southeast 44.8 29.6 No
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
As shown in Tables NOI-2 and NOI-3 above, the cumulative noise levels of the Proposed Project would not
exceed the 70 dBA daytime or 65 dBA nighttime noise standards established by the City. A noise level
increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment.
Because project noise levels would not generate a noise level that exceeds existing ambient noise levels
by 3 dBA or more, the impact would be less than significant. Thus, impacts related to operational noise
would be less than significant.
The Approved Project FEIR analyzed the noise impacts for the entire SWIP Specific Plan Update area, which
includes the Proposed Project. The noise analysis included in the Approved Project FEIR was based on the
regulatory requirements and noise generation factors resulting from the proposed land uses. The
Proposed Project includes uses which are consistent with development assumed in the Approved Project
FEIR and would not generate abnormal noise levels. Noise associated with the Proposed Project is
anticipated to primarily be from vehicle-related noise and HVAC. The amount of traffic associated with
the proposed Project is less than the amount of traffic that would occur with maximum development of
the site. As such, operational noise generated by the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed
thresholds or the noise levels identified in the Approved Project FEIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project
would not result in new noise-related stationary or vehicular impacts not considered in the Approved
Project FEIR. Further, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 4.7-1a
and 4.7-1b, 4.7-2a, and 4.7-3b of the Approved Project FEIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 94 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Accordingly, no new or more severe impact relative to operational noise from a previously identified
impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Although the Approved Project FEIR identified
a significant and unavoidable impact, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact after
implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-1a and 4.7-1b. The Proposed Project would be required to
implement the following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR, but the impact from
buildout of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update. The following measures from the Approved Project
FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project 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 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.
• 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 onsite 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
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 95 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
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
onsite 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.
[MM 4.7-2a has been satisfied through the preparation of the Noise Impact Analysis
included as Appendix M].
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 65
dBA, as identified in Section 30-182 of the City’s Municipal Code.
[MM 4.7-3b has been satisfied through the preparation of the Noise Impact Analysis
included as Appendix M].
Conclusion
Mitigation Measures 4.7-1a to 4.7-1b, 4.7-2a, and 4.7-3b would reduce construction and operational noise
levels. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have
been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would change the
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 96 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
significant and unavoidable determination in the Approved Project FEIR. Mitigation Measures 4.7-2a and
4.7-3b have been satisfied through the preparation of a Noise Impact Analysis included as Appendix M.
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to noise. Therefore,
preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Threshold (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No New or More Severe Impact: Construction of the Proposed Project could generate varying degrees of
groundborne vibration depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used.
The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest offsite
buildings and the Proposed Project construction boundary (assuming the construction equipment would
be used at or near the Proposed Project setback line). As shown in Table NOI-4, the nearest sensitive
receptors are the residential uses approximately 120 feet to the south and industrial uses approximately
75 feet to the west of the Proposed Project boundary.
Table NOI-4: Summary of Construction Vibration Levels
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
ft = foot/feet PPV = peak particle velocity
VdB = vibration velocity decibels FTA = Federal Transit Administration in/sec = inch/inches per second
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criterion for vibration induced structural damage is 0.20 in/sec
for the peak particle velocity (PPV). As shown in Table NOI-4 below, the vibration levels would not exceed
the 0.20 in/sec PPV FTA threshold. As shown in Table NOI-4, the threshold at which vibration levels would
result in annoyance would be 90 VdB for workshop or industrial type uses and 78 VdB for daytime
residential uses. Based on the information provided in Table NOI-4, vibration levels are expected to
approach 73 VdB at the closest industrial uses to the west and 67 VdB at the closest residential use to the
south and would not exceed the annoyance thresholds. Other building structures surrounding the
Proposed Project site are farther away and would experience further reduced vibration. Therefore,
construction vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Once operational, the Proposed Project would not be a source of substantive groundborne vibration.
Operations of the Proposed Project would include truck deliveries. Due to the rapid drop-off rate of
ground-borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced ground-
Land Use Direction Equipment
Reference
Vibration
Level
(VdB) at
25 ft
Distance
(ft)
Maximum
Vibration Level
(VdB)
Maximum
Vibration Level
(PPV)
Industrial West
Large
Bulldozers 0.089
75 73 0.017
Residential South 120 67 0.008
Industrial North 150 64 0.006
School Southeast 1,070 38 0.000
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 97 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration
levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. Thus, impacts related to operational vibration levels
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.7-1a to 4.7-1b listed above would lessen groundborne vibration and noise levels.
Conclusion
No new or more severe vibration impacts from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the
Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was
not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
No New or More Severe Impact: ONT is located approximately 7. miles west of the Proposed Project site.
The majority of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area, including the Proposed Project site, is located within
the Airport Influence Area of the ONT ALUCP. According to Policy Map 2-1 of the Ontario ALUCP, the
Proposed Project site is within the ONT Airport Influence Area. According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP,
industrial land uses within the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise level contours of ONT, such as the Proposed Project,
are considered normally compatible land use and must reduce interior noise levels to 50 dBA CNEL.
Standard building construction practices required under CALGreen typically provide up to 25 dBA CNEL of
attenuation. With respect to noise generated by the ONT Airport facilities and activities, application of
standard CALGreen construction practices would yield acceptable Project interior noise levels of
approximately 40 dBA CNEL. In addition, the Proposed Project does not propose or require facilities or
actions that would contribute to or exacerbate noise generated by ONT facilities and activities.
Additionally, the Proposed Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Accordingly,
no new or more severe airport or aircraft noise impact from a previously identified significant impact
evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR
was certified is available that would change the impact finding.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
There are no new or more severe potentially significant airport or aircraft noise impacts associated with
the Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 98 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Overall Acoustical Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to noise. No changes in circumstances or changes to the Approved Project have
occurred to the Approved Project Area and Proposed Project Area. No new information has been
determined since approval of the Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 99 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.13 Population and Housing
5.13.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
According to the Approved Project FEIR, development of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would not
result in any impacts to existing residential units onsite. 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 onsite 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. According to the Approved Project FEIR, development of the
SWIP Specific Plan Update area is considered growth-inducing due to infrastructure improvements and
expansions related to traffic/circulation, domestic and recycled water, wastewater, and stormwater. In
addition, future development would result in the creation of 39,416 new employment positions which
would foster economic expansion and growth. The SWIP Specific Plan Update would result in direct
growth in the City’s population because of the potential for future employees to relocate to the City. As
such, the Approved Project FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures were recommended.
5.13.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly;
and
Threshold (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New or More Severe Impact: Population and housing stock within Fontana have grown from
approximately 196,069 residents in 2010 to 204,900 residents in 2020 and 51,857 households in 2010 to
53,510 households in 2018 16. This is an increase of approximately 1.1 percent per year for both household
units and population.
According to the SCAG, the generation rate for employees required for operation of an industrial project
is one employee for every 1,195 SF of industrial space17. As the Proposed Project would construct and
operate a 385,970 SF industrial warehouse, operation of the Proposed Project would generate
approximately 323 employees. In comparison, 344 employees would be generated by development of the
Project Site with the maximum buildout allowed in the SED. in addition, the employees that would fill
these roles are anticipated to come from the region. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project
would not result in unplanned population growth.
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
16 Fontana. 2022. 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/37230/Fontana-Housing-ElementJanuary-2022Clean (accessed January 6, 2023)
17SCAG Employment Density Study. https://www.mwcog.org/file.aspx?A=QTTlTR24POOOUIw5mPNzK8F4d8djdJe4LF9Exj6lXOU%3D (accessed
January 6, 2023)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 100 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
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 had a moderate vacancy rate at 3.2 percent in 2018.18
The Proposed Project would not induce population growth through the introduction of housing because
no housing is associated with the development of the Proposed Project. Per Senate Bill (SB) 330, which is
part of the Planning and Zoning Law, Projects that demolish existing units, or build on a site that has had
units demolished in the last five years are required to replace them with a project that will “include at
least as many residential dwelling units as the greatest number of residential dwelling units that existed
on the project site within the last five years, however, SB 330 is not applicable because the Proposed
Project site is not zoned for residential development. Although the Proposed Project would demolish four
existing single-family residences, the residences are within the Approved Project Specific Plan area of the
SWIP designated by the SED for industrial uses. As stated within the Approved Project FEIR, the SED
encourages lot consolidation and promotes industrial and commercial development. As such, the
construction of replacement housing would not be necessary. In some cases, direct population growth
can be created through the introduction of new businesses; however, direct population growth associated
with the Proposed Project is not anticipated because the community has a need for employment and the
Proposed Project’s workforce would likely be local residents. Additionally, the Proposed Project would
not involve any infrastructure improvements that would induce growth by removing an impediment to
growth. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially induce population growth.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Overall Population and Housing Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts pertaining to population and
housing. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
proposed by the Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously
identified impacts with respect to population and housing. No changes in circumstances or changes to the
Approved Project have occurred to the Approved Project Area and Proposed Project Area. No new
information has been determined since approval of the Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation
of an SEIR is not warranted.
18 Fontana. 2022. 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/37230/Fontana-Housing-
ElementJanuary-2022Clean (accessed February 13, 2023)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 101 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.14 Public Services
5.14.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that there is potential for an increase in fire protection, police
protection, and school services with the development/redevelopment of the SWIP Specific Plan Update
area. However, to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant levels, the Approved Project FEIR
incorporated Mitigation Measures 4.8-1a through 4.8-3f, listed below. The Approved Project FEIR also
concluded that development of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would not significantly increase the
demand for library services and construction of additional library facilities was not required. Nonetheless,
Mitigation Measure 4.8-4a was incorporated to maintain this impact at less than significant.
5.14.2 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 Proposed 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 Proposed Project plans would be reviewed by applicable
local agencies to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code as well as all applicable regulations to ensure
adequate site signage, lighting, and other crime safety preventative measures.
The Fontana Police Department is located approximately three miles northeast of the Proposed Project
site at 17005 Upland Avenue, Fontana. The closest fire station is San Bernardino County Fire Station 72 at
15380 San Bernardino Avenue, Fontana, located approximately 1.3 miles northwest from the Proposed
Project site. The Approved Project FEIR concluded that the Fontana Police Department has 180 sworn
positions and 90 non-sworn positions. The City of Fontana Police Department currently has 201 sworn
and 93 non-sworn employees.19 Additionally, the City collects development impact fees on behalf of the
Police Department in the amount of $0.131 per square foot of industrial development. The Proposed
Project would result in approximately 311 new employees which would not significantly impact existing
service levels and would pay development impact fees. Since the Proposed Project would be served by
nearby police and fire stations, no new or expanded police or fire facilities would be required. The
Proposed Project would be constructed pursuant to existing California Fire Code regulations. The
Proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police and/or fire department
facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.
The Proposed Project site is located within the limits of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area and would be
developed at a FAR of 0.53 in comparison to the maximum buildout of 0.55 allowed by the SED of the
SWIP which would result in less impacts to public services and recreation. Accordingly, no new or more
19 Captain Michael Dorsey, Administrative Services Fontana Police Department
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 102 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
severe impact relative to public services or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified
significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. The Proposed Project does not
have a residential component and would therefore not directly introduce new residents to the City that
would require school services and other public services. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be
required to pay development impact fees prior to building permit issuance.
Construction of the Proposed Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of or need for new or physically altered public facilities or parks, and would not adversely affect
service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Compliance with applicable local
regulations will ensure that Proposed Project construction will 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 Approved Project FEIR was certified is available. Although impacts to public facilities and services
is anticipated to be low, with implementation of the Approved Project FEIR mitigation measures listed
below, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to fire protection, police
protection, schools, and other public facilities.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the Approved Project. The following measures from the FEIR are applicable to the
Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The below mitigation measure are listed in the Approved Project FEIR; however, these are goals/policies
to be implemented by the City, not the Proposed Project.
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.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 103 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
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.
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.
Overall Public Services Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to public services. No changes in circumstances or changes to the Approved Project
have occurred to the Approved Project Area and Proposed Project Area. No new information has been
determined since approval of the Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 104 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.15 Recreation
5.15.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that future development associated with the SWIP Specific Plan
Update could result in a significant and unavoidable impact to parks and recreation due to future
industrial, commercial, and office development. The Approved Project would 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. the Approved Project FEIR incorporated Mitigation Measures 4.8-5a through 4.8-5g. However,
impacts remained significant and unavoidable.
5.15.2 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; or
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 Approved Project FEIR determined that impacts to parks and
recreation uses would be significant and unavoidable. Because the Proposed Project is a permitted, by
right use in the SED, the Approved Project FEIR has previously analyzed and accounted for this type of
development on the site and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated. The Proposed
Project would be within the significant and unavoidable determination that was identified in the Approved
Project FEIR. The Proposed Project would result in a FAR of 0.49 which is less than the 0.55 FAR maximum
buildout allowed by the SED of the SWIP, and is thus consistent with the SWIP. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not result in new or more severe impacts on parks and recreational facilities than disclosed
in the Approved Project FEIR. As previously noted in Population and Housing, it is anticipated that the
labor force would come mostly from within the City or immediate surrounding communities. The
Proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities that would result in substantial or accelerated physical deterioration
of the facility, nor would the Proposed Project include recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. A
less than significant impact would occur. The Proposed Project would be required to implement the
following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR. Impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project. The following measures from the FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 105 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The mitigation measures listed below from the Approved Project FEIR are goals/policies to be
implemented by the City, not the Proposed Project.
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.
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. [GPEIR MM PR-6] 4.8-5g Each park within
the City shall be evaluated for safety on a periodic basis.
Overall Public Services Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to parks and recreation. No changes in circumstances or
changes to the Approved Project have occurred to the Approved Project Area and Proposed Project Area.
No new information has been determined since approval of the Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore,
preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 106 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.16 Transportation
5.16.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for vehicle miles traveled (VMT). However,
because changes to the guidelines apply prospectively only, CEQA generally does not require a VMT
analysis to be included in an addendum to an EIR that was certified prior to the new requirement. (See
Guidelines, §§ 15007, 15064.3(c); A Local and Regional Monitor v City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 CA4th
1773; Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (“CAAP”) (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788.
Nonetheless, a VMT analysis has been included for informational purposes.
The Approved Project 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 (Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1n). 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 Approved Project 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 Specific Plan Update area. These
potential impacts were to be reduced to less than significant levels due to the roadway upgrades included
in the proposed mitigation measures. However, the majority of the improvements identified as mitigation
measures were unfunded or partially funded, therefore, their implementation remained unassured. As a
result, it was determined that these mitigation measures were infeasible, and impacts related to increased
roadway traffic were considered to be significant and unavoidable.
5.16.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis was prepared by EPD Solutions,
Inc., on February 9, 2024. It is incorporated as Appendix N of this document and forms the basis of this
analysis. However, this addendum does not require a VMT analysis to be included based on A Local and
Regional Monitor v City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 CA4th 1773.
Threshold (a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
The Proposed Project involves the construction of a 385,970 SF warehouse building. The primary patrons
of the proposed development would be warehouse employees. Vehicular traffic to and from the Project
site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project area.
A Project Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis (Appendix N) was prepared to determine the
estimated change in site trip generation resulting from the Proposed Project compared to the maximum
buildout intensity allowed in the SED of the Approved Project FEIR. Table TRA-1 presents the trip
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 107 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
generation estimate for the maximum buildout of the Project site under the SWIP. Table TRA-2 presents
the trip generation for the Proposed Project.
Table TRA-1: Maximum Buildout Intensity Project Site Trip Generation
Source: Trip Generation and VMT Analysis (Appendix N), Table 2
Previous Site Trip Generation using ITE 11th Edition Rates
Warehouse1 411.590 TSF 704 54 16 70 21 53 74
Vehicle Mix2 Percent
Passenger Vehicles 79.57% 560 43 13 56 16 43 59
2-Axle Trucks 3.46% 24 2 0 2 1 2 3
3-Axle Trucks 4.64% 33 2 1 3 1 2 3
4+-Axle Trucks 12.33% 87 7 2 9 3 6 9
100% 704 54 16 70 21 53 74
PCE Trip Generation 3 PCE Factor
Passenger Vehicles 1.0 560 43 13 56 16 43 59
2-Axle Trucks 2.0 48 4 0 4 2 4 6
3-Axle Trucks 2.5 83 5 3 8 3 5 8
4+-Axle Trucks 3.0 261 21 6 27 9 18 27
Total PCE Trip Generation 952 73 22 95 30 70 100
Total Net PCE Trip Generation -1028 -61 -10 -71 -15 -63 -78
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent
3 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factors from the City of Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, 2020.
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 150 -
Warehousing.
2 Vehicle Mix from the City of Fontana, Truck Trip Generation Study, August 2003 for Heavy Warehouses.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 108 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table TRA-2: Proposed Project Trip Generation
Source: Trip Generation and VMT Analysis (Appendix N), Table 3
Table TRA-1 above shows that the Proposed Project site at the maximum buildout intensity allowed for
the SED within the SWIP Specific Plan Update would generate 704 trips. As shown above in Table TRA-2,
the Proposed Project would generate 660 daily trips using the 11th edition rates. Thus, the Proposed
Project is forecasted to generate fewer daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips when compared to
the maximum buildout of the Proposed Project site under the SWIP Specific Plan Update.
Access would be provided via a total of five driveways. The Proposed Project would include two 35-foot
driveways from Citrus Avenue, one 52-foot truck accessible driveway would be provided on Slover Avenue
and two driveways would be provided on Catawba Avenue. The driveway on Slover Avenue would be the
primary access point for trucks, allowing for left-turn and right-turn ingress, and right-turn egress. In
addition, a raised median with a left-turn pocket at the Project driveway would be constructed for the
westbound lanes on Slover Avenue. The northern driveway on Catawba would be 50-feet-wide with truck
accessibility and the southern Catawba driveway would be 35-feet-wide and utilized for passenger
vehicles only. Both driveways on Citrus Avenue would be utilized for passenger vehicles only. Onsite
circulation would be provided by 30-foot-wide internal drive aisles around the building. The Proposed
Project would construct internal roadways that would provide employee access to the warehouse
building. In addition, final design plans, including the proposed offsite median, would be subject to review
and approval by the City’s Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. As such, the
Proposed Project would not introduce any new roadways or land uses that would interfere with adopted
plans, programs, ordinances, or policies regarding roadway facilities.
Project Trip Generation using ITE 11th Edition Rates
Warehouse1 385.970 TSF 660 51 15 66 19 50 69
Vehicle Mix2 Percent
Passenger Vehicles 79.57% 525 41 12 53 15 40 55
2-Axle Trucks 3.46% 23 2 0 2 1 1 2
3-Axle Trucks 4.64% 31 2 1 3 1 2 3
4+-Axle Trucks 12.33% 81 6 2 8 2 7 9
100% 660 51 15 66 19 50 69
PCE Trip Generation 3 PCE Factor
Passenger Vehicles 1.0 525 41 12 53 15 40 55
2-Axle Trucks 2.0 46 4 0 4 2 2 4
3-Axle Trucks 2.5 78 5 3 8 3 5 8
4+-Axle Trucks 3.0 243 18 6 24 6 21 27
Total PCE Trip Generation 892 68 21 89 26 68 94
Total Net PCE Trip Generation -964 -56 -11 -67 -16 -57 -73
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent
3 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factors from the City of Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, 2020.
1Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 150 -
Warehousing.
2 Vehicle Mix from the City of Fontana, Truck Trip Generation Study, August 2003 for Heavy Warehouses.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 109 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Alternative Transportation
In addition to the raised median, the Proposed Project’s offsite improvements include right-of-way (ROW)
dedication and construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk, 600 feet of extension of existing storm drain in
Catawba Avenue, and streetlights along in Slover Avenue, Catawba Avenue, and Citrus Avenue. No bicycle
facilities currently exist within the vicinity of the Proposed Project site. The City is served by Omnitrans,
with 10 bus routes, and the Victor Valley Transit Authority, which provides commuter bus service to
Barstow and Victorville. The Proposed Project would be located approximately 430 feet west of the
Omnitrans Bus Route 82, which is located along Slover Avenue. Additionally, Metrolink provides passenger
rail service to Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura counties from
downtown. The Fontana Metrolink station is located approximately 3.2 roadway miles east of the
Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project would not disrupt service of the Omnitrans Bus Route or the
Metrolink line. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with alternative transportation and Project
impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.
Threshold (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
No New or More Severe Impact:
Vehicle Miles Traveled:
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed by Governor Brown in 2013 and required the Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating
transportation impacts. SB 743 specified that the new criteria should promote the reduction of GHGs, the
development of multimodal transportation networks and a diversity of land uses. In response, Section
15064.3 was added to the CEQA Guidelines. As explained above, However, this addendum does not
require a VMT analysis to be included based on A Local and Regional Monitor v City of Los Angeles (1993)
12 CA 4th 1773.
As described previously, the maximum buildout allowed for the Proposed Project site pursuant to the SED
development standards is 411,590 SF of industrial uses: 25,620 SF greater than the Proposed Project. The
Proposed Project would develop a 385,970 square foot industrial warehouse, inclusive of 10,000 SF of
office space. The maximum buildout intensity allowed under the SWIP trip generation is shown in Table
TRA-1 and the Proposed Project trip generation is shown in Table TRA-2. As shown in Table TRA-1 and
TRA-2, the Proposed Project would result in 660 daily trips using the 11th edition ITE rates (Land Use Code
150 – Warehouse) and the maximum buildout intensity allowed under the SWIP would result in 704 trips
using the same 11th edition ITE rates. Thus, the Proposed Project would result in fewer trips than the
maximum buildout intensity permitted under the SWIP Specific Plan Update. Therefore, there are no new
or more severe impacts.
In addition, based on the 11th edition peak hour trip generation of the Proposed Project use (Land Use
Code 150 – Warehouse), the Proposed Project would not generate 50 new peak hour trips when
compared to the maximum buildout allowed for the Proposed Project site. Thus, the Proposed Project
does not meet the City’s threshold for preparation of a LOS Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). It should be noted
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 110 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
that the Proposed Project would pay all applicable traffic impact fees, which would be used to fund the
local and regional transportation system (Appendix N). These fees are intended to mitigate the cumulative
traffic effects of land development projects. The Proposed Project would be required to implement the
following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR but the impact associated with buildout of
the entire SWIP would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Program
There are no new or more severe significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project. Nonetheless,
the FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Approved
Project.
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Forecast Existing with Project Conditions
The following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR were intended to achieve acceptable
operations at the deficient roadway segments for forecast existing with the Approved Project conditions.
The Proposed Project would generate fewer than 50 new peak hour trips when compared to the maximum
buildout intensity allowed for the Proposed Project site. Therefore, per the City’s TIA guidelines, the
Proposed Project would not be required to prepare a LOS traffic analysis. Thus, the mitigation measures
shown below did not apply to the Proposed Project site because the Approved Project TIA found that
based on the City’s LOS standards and significant impact criteria, the mitigation measures would be
implemented for significant LOS impacts. Since the Proposed Project screens out of LOS and does not
contribute enough trips to significantly impact any of the intersections or segments as shown in Appendix
O, the Proposed Project would not be considered significant at the study intersections. Thus, the
mitigation measures are not applicable to the Proposed Project.
4.9-1a Mulberry Avenue – Consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, construct
Mulberry Avenue connection from Slover Avenue to Valley Boulevard over I-10 freeway.
This improvement is identified to provide additional north-south capacity, reducing
forecast traffic on Etiwanda Avenue and Cherry Avenue.
4.9-1b Beech Avenue – Consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, construct Beech
Avenue from Slover Avenue to Valley Boulevard including an interchange with I-10. This
improvement is consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan. This
improvement is identified to provide additional north-south capacity and freeway access,
reducing forecast traffic on Cherry Avenue and Citrus Avenue.
4.9-1c Jurupa Street between Etiwanda Avenue and Mulberry Avenue – Consistent with the City
of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 4-lane
divided roadway segment to a 6-lane divided roadway segment. This improvement is
included in the City of Fontana 7-Year Capital Improvement Program, but is not yet fully
funded.
4.9-1d Mulberry Avenue between Slover Avenue and Jurupa Avenue – Consistent with the City
of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-lane
undivided roadway segment to a 4-lane undivided roadway segment.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 111 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.9-1e Jurupa Street between Mulberry Avenue and Cherry Avenue – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 4-lane divided
roadway to a 6-lane divided roadway. This improvement is included in the City of Fontana
7-Year Capital Improvement Program, but is not yet fully funded.
4.9-1f Beech Avenue between Slover Avenue and Jurupa Street – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-lane divided
roadway to a 4-lane divided roadway.
4.9-1g Citrus Avenue between I-10 Eastbound Ramps and Santa Ana Avenue – Consistent with
the City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-
lane undivided roadway segment to a 4-lane undivided roadway segment.
4.9-1h Citrus Avenue between Santa Ana Avenue and Jurupa Street – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-lane
undivided roadway segment to a 4-lane undivided roadway segment.
The following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR were intended to achieve acceptable
operations at the deficient intersections for forecast existing with Approved Project conditions. The
Proposed Project would generate fewer than 50 new peak hour trips when compared to the maximum
buildout intensity allowed for the Proposed Project site. Therefore, per the City’s TIA guidelines, the
Proposed Project would not be required to prepare a LOS traffic analysis. Thus, the mitigation measures
shown below did not apply to the Proposed Project site because the Approved Project TIA found that
based on the City’s LOS standards and significant impact criteria, the mitigation measures would be
implemented for significant LOS impacts. Since the Proposed Project screens out of LOS and does not
contribute enough trips to significantly impact any of the intersections or segments, as shown in Appendix
O, the Proposed Project would not be considered significant at the study intersections. Thus, the
mitigation measures are not applicable to the Proposed Project.
4.9-1i Etiwanda Avenue/San Bernardino Avenue – Widen the northbound Etiwanda Avenue
approach from two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound
San Bernardino Avenue approach from two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and
one right-turn lane. Additionally, modify the westbound San Bernardino Avenue signal
phasing to include a westbound right-turn overlap, which will preclude U-turn movement
from southbound to northbound Etiwanda Avenue.
4.9-1j Etiwanda Avenue/East Airport Drive-Slover Avenue – Widen the northbound Etiwanda
Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared
through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Etiwanda Avenue approach from
one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of
two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the
westbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
two right-turn lanes.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 112 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.9-1k Etiwanda Avenue/Jurupa Street – Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street approach from two
left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Street
approach from two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1l Mulberry Avenue/Slover Avenue – In concert with construction of the extension of
Mulberry Avenue north of Slover Avenue, widen the northbound Mulberry Avenue
approach from one left-turn lane and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane,
two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Construct and stripe the southbound
Mulberry Avenue approach to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one
right-turn lane. Widen the eastbound Slover Avenue approach from two through lanes
and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through
lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Slover Avenue
approach from one left-turn lane and two through lanes to consist of one left-turn lane,
two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Additionally, modify the signal phasing to
consist of protected left-turn phasing.
4.9-1m Mulberry Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue – Widen the northbound Mulberry Avenue approach
from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-
turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Re-stripe the eastbound Santa Ana
Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane to
consist of one left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the
westbound Santa Ana Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/ through/right-turn
lane to consist of one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn
lane. Additionally, modify the east-west signal phasing from permitted left-turns to
protected left-turns.
4.9-1n Mulberry Avenue/Jurupa Street – Modify the northbound Mulberry Avenue signal
phasing to include a northbound right-turn overlap, which will preclude U-turn movement
from westbound to eastbound Jurupa Street. Widen the southbound Mulberry Avenue
approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Additionally, modify
the southbound Mulberry Avenue signal phasing to include a southbound right-turn
overlap, which will preclude U-turn movement from eastbound to westbound Jurupa
Avenue. Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street approach from one left-turn lane, two
through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through
lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Avenue approach from one
left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1o Banana Avenue/Valley Boulevard – Signalize the Banana Avenue/Valley Boulevard
intersection. According to the City of Fontana, the Banana Avenue/Valley Boulevard
satisfies traffic signal warrants and is in the pre-construction phase.
4.9-1p Cherry Avenue/Valley Boulevard – Widen the northbound Cherry Avenue approach from
one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one defacto right-turn lane to consist of one
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 113 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Cherry
Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to
consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the
westbound Valley Boulevard approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn
lane.
4.9-1q Cherry Avenue/Slover Avenue – Widen the northbound Cherry Avenue approach from
one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn
lane, four through lanes and one right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Cherry Avenue
approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn
lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Widen
the eastbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
one defacto right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one
right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane,
two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through
lanes, and two right-turn lanes.
4.9-1r Cherry Avenue/Jurupa Street – Widen the northbound Cherry Avenue approach from two
left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Cherry Avenue
approach from two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Widen the
eastbound Jurupa Avenue approach from two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one
shared through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and
one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Street approach from two left-turn
lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three
through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1s Beech Avenue/Valley Boulevard – Signalize the Beech Avenue/Valley Boulevard
intersection. Widen the northbound Beech Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/
through lane and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, one through lane,
and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Beech Avenue approach
from one shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn
lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1t Beech Avenue/Slover Avenue – Signalize the Beech Avenue/Slover Avenue intersection.
Widen the northbound Beech Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/through/right-
turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
Widen the southbound Beech Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/through/right-
turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
Widen the eastbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane,
and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through
lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Slover Avenue approach from one
left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one
left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 114 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.9-1u Beech Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue – Signalize the Beech Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue
intersection.
4.9-1v Beech Avenue/Jurupa Street – Signalize the Beech Avenue/Jurupa Street intersection.
Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street approach from one shared left-turn/through lane and
one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes,
and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Street approach from one shared
left-turn/through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
one right-turn lane.
4.9-1w Citrus Avenue/Valley Boulevard – Widen the northbound Citrus Avenue approach from
one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of
two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the
southbound Citrus Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
one right-turn lane. Widen the eastbound Valley Boulevard approach from two left-turn
lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-
turn lanes, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes.
4.9-1x Citrus Avenue/Slover Avenue – Widen the northbound Citrus Avenue approach from one
left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two
through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Citrus Avenue approach
from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-
turn lane, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Widen the eastbound Slover
Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one defacto right-turn
lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen
the westbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and
one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes,
and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1y Citrus Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue – Signalize the Citrus Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue
intersection. Widen the northbound Citrus Avenue approach from one shared left-
turn/through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Citrus Avenue approach from one shared
left-turn/through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane. Widen the eastbound Santa Ana Avenue approach from one
shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane. Re-stripe the westbound Santa Ana Avenue approach from one
shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and
one shared through/right-turn lane.
4.9-1z Citrus Avenue/Jurupa Street – Signalize the Citrus Avenue/Jurupa Street intersection.
Widen the southbound Citrus Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared
through/right-turn lane. Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street approach from one left-turn
lane, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-
turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 115 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Street approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-
turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1aa Sierra Avenue/Slover Avenue – Widen the eastbound Slover Avenue approach from two
left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1bb Sierra Avenue/Jurupa Street – Widen the southbound Sierra Avenue approach from two
left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lane,
two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street
approach from one left-turn lane, one shared left-turn/through lane, one through lane,
and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-
turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Street approach from one left-turn lane, one
through lane, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes,
and one right-turn lane. Improvements have recently been constructed at this
intersection satisfying the lane configuration recommended.
4.9-1cc Armstrong Road/SR-60 Eastbound Ramps – Contribute towards preparation of a Project
Study Report to improve operations, circulation, and access at the Armstrong Road/SR-
60 interchange.
Forecast Year 2030 with Approved Project Conditions
The following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR were intended to achieve acceptable
operations at the deficient roadway segments for the forecast year 2030 with Approved Project
conditions. The Proposed Project would generate fewer than 50 new peak hour trips when compared to
the maximum buildout intensity allowed for the Proposed Project site. Therefore, per the City’s TIA
guidelines, the Proposed Project would not be required to prepare a LOS traffic analysis Thus, the
mitigation measures shown below did not apply to the Proposed Project site because the Approved
Project TIA found that based on the City’s LOS standards and significant impact criteria, the mitigation
measures would be implemented for significant LOS impacts. Since the Proposed Project screens out of
LOS and does not contribute enough trips to significantly impact any of the intersections or segments as
shown in Appendix O, the Proposed Project would not be considered significant at the study intersections.
Thus, the mitigation measures are not applicable to the Proposed Project.
4.9-1dd Cypress Avenue – Consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, construct
Cypress Avenue from Slover Avenue to Valley Boulevard over I-10 freeway. This
improvement is consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan. This
improvement is identified to provide additional north-south capacity, reducing forecast
traffic on Cherry Avenue and Citrus Avenue.
4.9-1ee Country Village Road between Philadelphia Avenue and SR-60 Westbound Ramps –
Consistent with the County of Riverside Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway
segment from a 4-lane undivided roadway segment to a 6-lane divided roadway segment.
Since this improvement is within the jurisdiction of the recently incorporated City of
Jurupa Valley, implementation by the City of Fontana cannot be assured. Therefore, this
improvement shall be included in the planning and collection of fees and coordination
with the appropriate lead agency shall occur to administer the improvement.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 116 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.9-1ff San Bernardino Avenue between Cherry Avenue and Fontana Avenue – Consistent with
the City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-
lane divided roadway to a 4-lane divided roadway. Since this improvement is within the
jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino, implementation by the City of Fontana
cannot be assured. Therefore, this improvement shall be included in the planning and
collection of fees and coordination with the appropriate lead agency shall occur to
administer the improvement.
4.9-1gg Jurupa Street between Cherry Avenue and Citrus Avenue – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 5-lane divided
roadway to a 6-lane divided roadway. A portion of this improvement has recently been
implemented by the City of Fontana providing the capacity for a 6-lane roadway between
Poplar Avenue and Citrus Avenue.
4.9-1hh Jurupa Street between Citrus Avenue and Sierra Avenue – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 5-lane divided
roadway to a 6-lane divided roadway. This improvement has recently been implemented
by the City of Fontana providing the capacity for a 6-lane roadway between Citrus Avenue
and Sierra Avenue.
The following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR were intended to achieve acceptable
operations at the deficient intersection for the forecast year 2030 with Approved Project conditions. The
mitigation measures shown below did not apply to the Proposed Project site because the Approved
Project TIA found that based on the City’s LOS standards and significant impact criteria, the mitigation
measures would be implemented for significant LOS impacts. Since the Proposed Project screens out of
LOS and does not contribute enough trips to significantly impact any of the intersections or segments as
shown in Appendix O, the Proposed Project would not be considered significant at the study intersections.
Similarly, because the Proposed Project would have a negative trip generation compared to the Approved
Project (as shown on Table TRA-2), the mitigation measures are not applicable to the Proposed Project.
4.9-1ii I-15 Southbound Ramps/Jurupa Street – Widen the southbound I-15 Southbound Off-
Ramp from one left-turn lane, one shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane, and one
right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1jj Commerce Way/Ontario Mills Parkway – Widen the northbound Commerce Way
approach from two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1kk Cherry Avenue/San Bernardino Avenue – Widen the eastbound San Bernardino Avenue
approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1ll Cherry Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue – Widen the southbound Cherry Avenue approach
from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane to
consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
4.9-1mm Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicants for future development associated with
the proposed project shall prepare site-specific traffic studies, to the satisfaction of the
City’s Engineering Department. As determined by these subsequent traffic studies, traffic
improvements identified as mitigation measures in this Program EIR shall be implemented
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 117 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
as a condition of the approved future development project, either through direct
construction by the project applicant and/or through development impact fees. [NOTE:
this mitigation measure has been accomplished through preparation of this Addendum
EIR and related transportation studies].
4.9-1nn The City of Fontana shall perform monitoring of traffic generation and phasing of
development within the project area to defer or eliminate identified improvements due
to potential circulation impact changes or reduced land use intensities. This monitoring
shall be achieved through project-specific traffic studies tied to future development
within the Specific Plan Update area with land use in excess of 100,000 square feet of
non-residential land use.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to conflict with a
program, plan, ordinance, policy, or guideline addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. No new or more severe impacts from a previously identified
significant and unavoidable impact evaluated in the Approved FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of significant and
unavoidable impacts under this issue area.
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: Proposed Project construction activities could require the restriction of
public access in its duration. Standard construction safety measures would also be applied which would
include appropriate signage and flagmen visible to approaching motorists and pedestrians indicating
access options and warnings. Because the Proposed Project would impact a public right-of-way, a Traffic
Management Plan would be created and include further provisions to minimize risks during Proposed
Project construction.
Proposed Project geometric design features, including the five driveways (entrances), internal driveway
system, and Slover Avenue frontage (turn lane and median) improvements have been designed to meet
the standards for the turning radii of large truck with trailers. These driveways would allow traffic to safely
enter and exit the Proposed Project site. This is also beneficial for the access of emergency response
equipment, including a ladder fire truck. The Proposed Project would therefore generate a less than
significant traffic hazard impact, and no mitigation would be required.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed 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
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 118 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the Approved Project FEIR was certified 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: Proposed Project would include design features to ensure sufficient
emergency access including access via two 35-foot driveways from Citrus Avenue, a 52-foot truck
accessible driveway from Slover Avenue, and two driveways from Catawba Avenue. The northern
driveway on Catawba would be 50-feet-wide with truck accessibility and the southern Catawba driveway
would be 35-feet-wide and utilized for passenger vehicles only. The Project includes metal access gates
with fire department padlocks, and 30-foot-wide fire lane between truck and trailer parking aisles to allow
for fire/emergency response vehicles to maneuver throughout the Proposed Project site.
The Approved Project FEIR stipulates that a Traffic Management Plan would be created via the City’s
requirements for any projects that include construction activities within the public right-of-way. The
Proposed Project would therefore be required to create a Traffic Management Plan which would include
practices such as directional signage, flagmen, and emergency access creation. Further, the Municipal
Code Section 30-529(A) requires developments to incorporate access for emergency vehicles to project
designs. The five total driveways for the Proposed Project; two along Catawba Avenue, one (main
entrance) along Slover Avenue, and two along Citrus Avenue would be of sufficient size to allow
emergency vehicles to traverse onto the Proposed Project site. By complying with the City’s Traffic
Management Plan and other traffic management regulations, the Proposed Project would maintain
adequate emergency access and result in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed 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 Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR
was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact under this issue area.
Overall Transportation Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts, with respect to transportation. No changes in circumstances or changes to the Approved Project
have occurred to the Approved Project Area and Proposed Project Area. No new information has been
determined since approval of the Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 119 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.17 Utilities and Service Systems
5.17.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not
result in significant impacts relative to utilities and service systems with implementation of the below
listed Mitigation Measures.
5.17.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Require or result in the construction of new water, wastewater treatment facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project is a permitted use, allowed by right in the SWIP’s
SED. The Proposed Project has been previously analyzed and accounted for in the Approved Project FEIR,
including the potential water and wastewater required for the site. As discussed previously, the Project
would install new onsite water lines that would connect to the existing 8-inch water lines in Catawba
Avenue and Citrus Avenue. The Proposed Project would connect new onsite sewer lines to the existing
12-inch sewer in Slover Avenue. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities.
Additionally, the Approved Project FEIR determined that impacts to storm water drainage facilities would
be less than significant. The Proposed 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.
Furthermore, as previously addressed, the Proposed Project will 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. Therefore, associated impacts are considered less than
significant. Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact
evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project. The following measures from the FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The mitigation measures listed below are included in the Approved Project FEIR; however, these are
goals/policies to be implemented by the City, and are not applicable to the Proposed Project.
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.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 120 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
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.
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 Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe 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 Approved Project 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?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project 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 Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would be served
with potable water by the FWC. The FWC prepared a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the SWIP
Specific Plan Update as part of the Approved Project 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 as well as total forecast demand for the FWC’s entire service area.20 Development of the
Proposed Project site, which is located in the SED, was calculated in the WSA, and the Proposed Project is
consistent with the type of development and square footage maximum anticipated for the site in the SED.
Lastly, according to the FWC’s latest 2020 UWMP, the FWC has sufficient water supply through year
2040.21
Domestic water supplies from FWC are reliant on groundwater from the Chino Groundwater Basin and
Rialto Groundwater Basin, with shortfalls obtained from State Water Project and Colorado River water
deliveries via MWD. All municipal water entities that exceed their safe yield incur a groundwater
replenishment obligation, which is used to recharge the groundwater basin. The Proposed Project would
consume water at a rate of approximately 5.67 acre-foot per year, based on FWC water consumption
rates (0.33 acre-foot, per acre, per year for industrial use.22). According to the Approved Project FEIR, the
20 City of Fontana. 2009. Water Supply Assessment for the Southwest Industrial Park Project.
21 San Gabriel Valley Water Company FWC Division. Amended 2021. Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf (accessed January 9, 2023).
22 Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. https://18x37n2ovtbb3434n48jhbs1-wpengine.netdna-
ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FINAL-IEUA-WFA-2015-UWMP-2016-07-07.pdf (accessed January 18, 2023).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 121 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
estimated buildout of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would consume water at a rate of 1,690 acre-
feet per year (includes industrial, commercial, and residential uses). The Proposed Project would thus
consume less than one-half of a percent of the estimated water demand for the SWIP Specific Plan Update
area.
No new or more severe impact relative to water supply from a previously identified significant impact
evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project 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 measures to reduce potential impacts associated the implementation of the Approved
Project. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
The mitigation measures listed below are goals/policies to be implemented by the City and are not
applicable to the Proposed Project.
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 Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to water supplies.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project 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 inadequate 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 4.17.2(a) above. The SWIP Specific Plan
Update area is within the sewer service area of the City and IEUA. The City, a member of the IEUA, has
contracting privileges with the IEUA for offsite 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 SED at 115,758 gallons per day (gpd) and 216,802 gpd for
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 122 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
ultimate buildout. Existing peak flow is 32 gallons per minute (gpm) and ultimate buildout is 236 gpm. 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 SED. 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 Approved Project FEIR references the 2000 Sewer Master Plan. Thus, the City of Fontana General Plan
EIR has been used for this analysis to account for the updated wastewater generation factors. The
Proposed Project would produce 97.81 gpd of wastewater based on the wastewater generation of 10.76
gallons per acre per day provided in the City’s General Plan and the maximum buildout of the Project site
allowed by the SWIP would produce 101.67 gpd.25 Thus, the Proposed Project would generate less
wastewater per year compared to the maximum buildout. As such, no change would occur and no
significant impacts are anticipated with respect to providing adequate wastewater facilities to serve the
Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
Previously referenced Mitigation Measures 4.8-8a through 4.8-8d are listed in the Approved Project FEIR;
however, these are goals/policies to be implemented by the City, not the Proposed Project.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to wastewater
treatment capacity. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and
could not have been known at the time the Approved Project 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?
Threshold (e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project 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 Proposed Project would be expected to generate additional
waste during the temporary, short-term construction phase, as well as the long-term operational phase.
The City is required to comply with AB 341, which set a statewide goal for a 75 percent reduction in waste
disposal by the year 2020 and established mandatory recycling for commercial businesses. In addition,
the City is required to report their progress towards achieving the 75 percent reduction goal to the
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The City contracts with Burrtec Waste
Industries to provide trash, recycling, and special pickup services for residents. After collection, waste is
conveyed to the areas primary solid waste depository, Mid-Valley Landfill, located at 2390 Alder Avenue
in the City of Rialto, or to a transfer station operated by Burrtec in the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 123 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
According to CalRecycle, the landfill has a maximum capacity 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 61.2 million cubic yards. The landfill has an expected operational life through
2039 with the potential for vertical, or downward expansion.23 However, the Approved Project 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.24
Based on the CalEEMod Default Solid Waste Generation Factors for warehouses25, the Proposed Project
would generate 0.94 tons per 1000 square feet per year. Operation of the Proposed 385,970 SF warehouse
would generate approximately 362.8 tons of solid waste per year or 0.99 tons per day. Thus, the Proposed
Project’s solid waste disposal needs can be met by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Additionally, the
Proposed Project, as with all other developments in the City, would be required to adhere to City
ordinances with respect to waste reduction and recycling. As a result, no impacts related to State and
local statutes governing solid waste are anticipated and no mitigation is required. Consistent with the
Approved Project FEIR, with implementation of the below-referenced mitigation measures, the Proposed
Project would have a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with implementation of the Approved
Project. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The below mitigation measures are listed in the Approved Project FEIR; however, these are goals/policies
to be implemented by the City, not the Proposed Project.
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 Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to conflict with solid
waste standards and regulations. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not
23 CalRecycle. 2022. Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662 (accessed
January 9, 2023).
24 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed January 11, 2023).
25 CalEEMod Appendix E Technical Source Documentation, July 2013 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/caleemod-
appendixe.pdf Accessed February 15, 2023.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 124 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project 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 Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to utilities and service systems. No changes in circumstances or changes to the
Approved Project have occurred to the Approved Project Area and Proposed Project Area. No new
information has been determined since approval of the Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation
of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 125 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.18 Wildfire
5.18.1 Analysis of Proposed Project
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for Wildfire hazards. Although not
addressed as a separate threshold, the Approved Project FEIR noted in the Air Quality and Climate Change
chapter that climate change could result in increased occurrences and duration of wildfire events. Wildfire
hazards were not included as a separate CEQA threshold when the Approved Project FEIR was certified.
Impacts to Wildfire are not required to be analyzed in this addendum. Thus, this section has been included
solely for informational purposes. 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 risks as a result of global climate change is anticipated to be less than
significant in the Approved Project FEIR.
Threshold (a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Threshold (b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Threshold (c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Threshold (d) 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 the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is not within an area identified
as State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Fire Hazard Area that may contain substantial fire risk or a VHFHSZ
(CAL FIRE 2022). The nearest very high fire hazard severity zone in a SRA is located approximately 8 miles
northeast of the Project site within the City of Rialto. Consistent with the approved FEIR, the Proposed
Project site is located in a flat and level area which does not include wildland habitat or located near
hillsides. The Proposed Project is surrounded by industrial/commercial uses to the north, residential
development to the south, industrial uses to the west, and vacant commercial property to the east.
Because the Proposed Project site would not be exposed to wildfires, wind, slope, or other factors would
not exacerbate wildfire risks. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not require the installation of
additional roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or other features that could result in fire risks.
Finally, the Proposed Project site is not exposed to flooding, landslides, runoff conditions. No impact is
anticipated to occur from Proposed Project implementation.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 126 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Not evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR; therefore, there are no mitigation measures from the
Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact associated with wildfires. Although
wildfires were not addressed specifically in the Approved Project FEIR, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR
was certified is available that would impact the assumed conclusion that the Approved Project would not
have resulted in impacts associated with wildfires.
Overall Wildfire Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to Wildfire. No changes
in circumstances or changes to the Approved Project have occurred to the Approved Project Area and
Proposed Project Area. No new information has been determined since approval of the Approved Project
Final EIR. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 127 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.19 Energy
5.19.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for Energy. Although not addressed as a
separate threshold in the Approved Project FEIR, the Approved Project FEIR analyzed energy conservation
as part of the Other CEQA Considerations and concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan
Update would result in a less than significant impact on energy resources. Additionally, the SWIP Specific
Plan planned for the Proposed Project site to be developed with light industrial uses. Thus, the SWIP
Specific Plan Update planned and accounted for the use of energy from the permitted use.
5.19.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A Proposed Project-specific Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis was
prepared by LSA in January 2023. Energy consumption was conservatively analyzed based on a previous
site plan with a larger square footage of 395,970 SF. Therefore, the analysis below provides a conservative
estimate of potential energy impacts associated with the Project. It is incorporated as Appendix B of this
document.
Threshold (a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
No New or More Severe Impact.
Construction
Proposed Project construction would require energy for activities such as the manufacture and
transportation of building materials, grading activities, and building construction. Construction of the
Proposed Project would require electricity to power construction-related equipment; however, Proposed
Project construction would not involve the consumption of natural gas. Transportation energy represents
the largest energy use during construction and would occur from the transport and use of construction
equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles that would use petroleum
fuels (diesel fuel and/or gasoline). Table E-1 indicates the construction equipment fuel usage and Table E-
2 presents the Proposed Project’s energy consumption estimates during construction.
Table E-1: Construction Equipment Fuel Usage
Activity Equipment Number Hours per day Horse- power Load Factor Days of Construction
Total
Horsepower-hours
Fuel Rate (gal/hp-hr) Fuel Use (gallons)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73 20 3854 0.041881728 197
Excavators 3 8 36 0.38 20 6566 0.01985595 336
Rubber Tire Dozers 2 8 367 0.4 20 46976 0.020601315 2405
Site
Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4 15 52848 0.020601315 2706
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37 15 14918 0.022175849 764
Grading
Excavator 2 8 36 0.38 15 3283 0.01985595 168
Graders 1 8 148 0.41 15 7282 0.021161331 373
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 15 17616 0.020601315 902
Scraper 2 8 423 0.48 15 48730 0.024988526 2495
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37 15 7459 0.022175849 382
Building Construction
Cranes 1 8 367 0.29 170 126652 0.014895293 6485
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 170 66912 0.010444403 3426
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 170 14090 0.045116197 721
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 128 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Activity Equipment Number Hours
per day
Horse-
power
Load
Factor
Days of
Construction
Total
Horsepower-hours
Fuel Rate
(gal/hp-hr)
Fuel Use
(gallons)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 170 110956 0.022175849 5681
Welder 1 8 46 0.45 170 28152 0.026298689 1441
Paving
Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 10 5443 0.021532281 279
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 10 5126 0.018464524 262
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 10 2188 0.019836075 112
Architectural
Coating
Air Compressors 1 8 37 0.48 75 7992 0.027796281 409
Total 29545
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis, Appendix B
As shown in Table E-2, the Proposed Project would consume approximately 72,267.8 gallons of diesel fuel
and approximately 44,639.2 gallons of gasoline during construction. Based on fuel consumption obtained
from EMFAC2021, approximately 915.5 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 321.6 million gallons
of diesel will be consumed from vehicle trips in San Bernardino County in 2022. Therefore, construction
of the Proposed Project would increase the annual construction generated fuel use in San Bernardino
County by approximately 0.01 percent for diesel fuel usage and by less than 0.01 percent for gasoline fuel
usage. As such, Proposed Project construction would have a negligible effect on local and regional energy
supplies. Further, construction-related fuel use would be similar or less than with the Approved Project.
No unusual project characteristics would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be
less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the State. The Proposed Project
would not cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or an additional or expanded delivery
system. Therefore, fuel consumption during construction would not be inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary.
Table E-2: Energy Consumption Estimates during Construction
Energy Type Total Energy
Consumption
Percentage Increase
Countywide
Proposed Project
Diesel Fuel (total gallons) 72,267.8 0.02
Gasoline (total gallons) 44,639.2 <0.01
Maximum Buildout Intensity
Diesel Fuel (total gallons) 73,470.0 0.02
Gasoline (total gallons) 46,450.5 <0.01
Proposed Project Consistency
with SWIP Maximum Buildout
Assumptions (Yes or No)
Yes
-
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis, Appendix B
Note: Difference (Proposed Project – Maximum Buildout Intensity of Site)
Operation
Operational energy use for the Proposed Project would be associated with natural gas use, electricity
consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips. Energy consumption was estimated for the Proposed Project
using default energy intensities by land use type in CalEEMod while fuel use associated with vehicle and
truck trips generated by the Proposed Project was calculated using the Project's Trip Generation Analysis
(Appendix B). Table E-3 shows electricity, natural gas, and fuel usage estimates associated with the
Proposed Project and maximum buildout intensity of the Project site.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 129 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table E-3: Energy Consumption during Operation
Energy Type Annual Energy Consumption
Proposed Project Energy Estimates
Electricity Consumption (kWh/year) 1,962,427.0
Natural Gas Consumption (therms/year) 75,292.0
Gasoline (gallons/year) 105,439.3
Diesel Fuel (gallons/year) 222,739.8
Maximum Buildout Intensity Energy Estimates
Electricity Consumption (kWh/year) 2,034,567.0
Natural Gas Consumption (therms/year) 78,262.0
Gasoline (gallons/year) 109,605.2
Diesel Fuel (gallons/year) 233,166.4
Proposed Project Consistency with SWIP
Maximum Buildout Assumptions (Yes or No)
Yes
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Analysis, Appendix B
As shown in Table E-3, the estimated potential increase in electricity demand associated with the
operation of the Proposed Project is 1,962,427 kWh per year and the estimated potential increase in
natural gas is 75,292 therms per year. The Proposed Project is smaller in square footage than the
maximum buildout intensity allowed under the SWIP and thus would result in a lower electricity and
natural gas usage than the maximum buildout intensity. Additionally, total electricity consumption in San
Bernardino County was 15,968.5 GWh (15,968,515,536 kWh), while total natural gas consumption was
527 million therms. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would increase the electricity
consumption in the County by less than 0.01 percent and increase the annual natural gas consumption by
less than 0.01 percent.
Electrical and natural gas demand associated with Project operations would not be considered inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. Additionally, the
Project would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency,
including the Title 24 standards. Title 24 building energy efficiency standards establish minimum efficiency
standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling
equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting, which would reduce energy usage.
As shown in Table E-3, fuel use associated with the vehicle trips generated by the Proposed Project is
estimated at 105,439.3 gallons of gasoline and 222,739.8 gallons of diesel fuel per year. This analysis
conservatively assumes that all vehicle trips generated as a result of Project operation would be new to
San Bernardino County. The Proposed Project is smaller in square footage than the maximum buildout
intensity allowed under the SWIP and thus would result in a lower fuel usage than the maximum SWIP
buildout. Additionally, based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, approximately 915.5
million gallons of gasoline and approximately 321.6 million gallons of diesel will be consumed from vehicle
trips in San Bernardino County in 2022. Therefore, vehicle and truck trips associated with the Proposed
Project would increase the annual fuel use in San Bernardino County by approximately less than 0.01
percent for gasoline fuel usage and approximately less than 0.01 percent for diesel fuel usage. Therefore,
fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by Project operations would be consistent with
current State and federal fuel economy standards and would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 130 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Proposed Project’s energy consumption for construction activities related to redevelopment of the
site for new industrial warehousing uses would be permitted to require compliance with existing fuel
standards, machinery efficiency standards, and CARB requirements that limit idling of trucks. Through
compliance with existing standards the Proposed Project would not result in demand for fuel greater on
a per-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. There are no unusual
Project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy
efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the State. Additionally, operation
of the Proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources. In addition, the Proposed Project would comply with current Title 24 requirements as well as
all applicable City business and energy codes and ordinances. Therefore, the Proposed Project would
result in a less than significant impact on energy consumption and would be less than the Approved
Project FEIR impacts. Thus, the addendum is appropriate and no new impacts would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The FEIR did not include measures to reduce potential impacts associated with implementation of the
Approved Project; therefore, there are no applicable mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
No new impact from energy consumption would occur.
Threshold (b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No New or More Severe Impact.
The California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are designed to ensure new and existing
buildings achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These
measures (Title 24, Part 6) are listed in the California Code of Regulations. The California Energy
Commission is responsible for adopting, implementing and updating building energy efficiency. Local city
and county enforcement agencies have the authority to verify compliance with applicable building codes,
including energy efficiency. All development is required to comply with the adopted California Energy
Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 6), which is ensured through the City’s development permitting
process.
As previously stated, the Project would be consistent with Title 24 standards. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency,
and no new impacts would occur.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would comply with current Title 24 requirements as well as all applicable City
business and energy codes and ordinances. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than
significant impact on energy consumption, and no new impacts would occur.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 131 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The FEIR did not include measures to reduce potential impacts associated with implementation of the
Approved Project; therefore, there are no applicable mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
No new impact from energy consumption would occur.
Overall Energy Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to energy. No changes
in circumstances or changes to the Approved Project have occurred to the Approved Project Area and
Proposed Project Area. No new information has been determined since approval of the Approved Project
Final EIR. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 132 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5.20 Tribal Cultural Resources
5.20.1 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
Proposed Project. TCRs were not included as a separate CEQA threshold when the Approved Project FEIR
was certified. TCRs are not required to be analyzed in this addendum. Thus, this section has been included
for informational purposes. The analysis is based primarily on confidential cultural resource studies
conducted for the Approved Project FEIR and the Proposed Project. PRC language relevant to the TCR
thresholds is below:
PRC Section 21074 defines a TRC 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.
Subdivisions (a) and (c) of PRC Section 5024.1 are 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:
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 133 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
(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.
(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.
Threshold (a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe,
and that is:
Threshold (i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
Threshold (ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American tribe?
In October 2022, A Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted which included a cultural resources
records search, reconnaissance-level pedestrian cultural resources survey, and Sacred Lands File (SLF)
Search with the NAHC. The search results were negative and did not reveal any previously recorded Native
American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the Project site.
Furthermore, there are no CRHR- or NRHP-eligible tribal cultural resources located on the Proposed
Project site. Although no prehistoric sites have been locally recorded, in general the Proposed Project site
is situated at an ethnographic nexus peripherally occupied by the Gabrielino and Serrano Tribes.
The Notice of Preparation for the Approved Project EIR was filed in 2009; therefore, AB 52, which was
enacted on July 1, 2015, did not apply to the Approved Project FEIR. Likewise, the provisions of AB 52 are
inapplicable to this Addendum. The Proposed Project would be subject to comply with the Tribal Cultural
Resources standard conditions of approval listed below.
Based on the above, a less than significant impact would occur on TCRs from Proposed 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 and divert earthmoving activities if necessary. In accordance with Mitigation Measures 4.4-1b,
4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 134 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.4-1b, 4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c apply, as discussed above.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The Proposed Project would be subject to comply with the City’s Cultural and Tribal Standard Conditions
of Approval as listed below.
• 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 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 Archaeologists shall
ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.
Conclusion
No new impact related to TCRs would occur.
Overall Tribal Cultural Resources Impact Conclusion
TCRs were not included as a separate CEQA threshold when the Approved Project FEIR was certified. TCRs
are not required to be separately analyzed in this addendum. Thus, this section has been included for
informational purposes With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the
changes proposed by the Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with
respect to tribal cultural resources. No changes in circumstances or changes to the Approved Project have
occurred to the Approved Project Area and Proposed Project Area. No new information has been
determined since approval of the Approved Project Final EIR. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not
warranted.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
SWIP Specific Plan Update 135 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
6 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 Proposed 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 Proposed Project within the context of the SWIP Specific Plan Update,
as described in this Addendum. As discussed in the Environmental Impact Analysis and Project Approvals
section of this Addendum, the Proposed Project is entirely consistent with the SWIP Specific Plan Update,
and no new or more severe significant environmental effects beyond what was evaluated in the Approved
Project 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, the circumstances associated with the location, type, setting, or operations of the
Proposed Project have not substantively changed from what was evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR;
and none of the Proposed Project elements would result in new or more severe significant environmental
effects than previously identified. No major revisions to the Approved Project 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 Approved Project FEIR were
identified.
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
Significant effects previously examined would not be more severe than were disclosed in the Approved
Project FEIR as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts associated with all environmental resource areas
would be the same as or less than disclosed in the Approved Project FEIR. Implementation of the Proposed
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
SWIP Specific Plan Update 136 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Project within the context of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not substantially increase the severity
of previously identified impacts.
(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
Based on the discussion above, no mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
are now feasible.
(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 be considerably
different than those incorporated in the Approved Project FEIR.
(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 Approved Project FEIR in May 2012, additional technical analyses were
performed for the Proposed Project and are the subject of this Addendum. Based on the analysis in this
document, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects nor would
it increase the severity of significant effects previously identified in the Approved Project 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 Proposed Project. No SEIR is
required.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
SWIP Specific Plan Update 137 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
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.
Detailed technical studies for the Proposed Project confirmed none of the conditions described in Section
15162 calling for preparation of a SEIR would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. Therefore, an
Addendum to the certified Approved Project FEIR is the appropriate CEQA document for the Proposed
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 Approved Project 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 Approved Project FEIR prior to making a decision on the
Proposed 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 Proposed Project.
Conclusion
SWIP Specific Plan Update 138 16025 Slover Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
7 CONCLUSION
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA 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
Proposed Project. No major revisions to the Approved Project FEIR prepared for the SWIP Specific Plan
Update are required as a result of the Proposed Project. No new significant environmental impacts have
been identified. Since the certification of the Approved Project 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 Approved Project FEIR that the City declined to adopt. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is
not required and the appropriate CEQA document for the Proposed Project is this Addendum to the
Approved Project FEIR. This document will be maintained in the administrative record files at the City.
8 REFERENCES
Caltrans. 2020. Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-
community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed February 3, 2023).
City of Fontana. 2009. Water Supply Assessment for the Southwest Industrial Park Project.
City of Fontana. 2011. Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update and Annexation Environmental
Impact Report.
City of Fontana. 2012. SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation FPEIR Mitigation and Monitoring
Program (Available in Appendix N).
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26738/Acknowledgements-and-Table-of-
Contents (accessed January 20, 2023).
California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland: 1984-2018.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/ (accessed January 20, 2023).
Brian F. Smith and Associates, 2022. Cultural Resources Assessment (Available in Appendix E).
Brian F. Smith and Associates, 2022. Paleontological Resources Assessment (Available in Appendix I).
CalPacific Sciences, 2022. Tree Survey and Arborist Report. (Available in Appendix D).
DRC Engineering, Inc., 2022. Preliminary Hydrology Report. ( Available in Appendix K)
EPD Solutions, Inc., 2022. Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis (Available
in Appendix N)
Hernandez Environmental Services, 2022. General Biological Assessment (Available in Appendix C)
LSA, 2023. Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Report (Available in Appendix B).
LSA, 2023. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Available in Appendix M).
Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., 2022. Geotechnical Investigation (Available in Appendix G).
Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., 2022. Results of Infiltration Testing (Available in Appendix H).
Hazard Management Consulting, 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. (Available in Appendix J).
State of California Department of Finance. 2021. Report E-5, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State – January 1, 2011-2018, with Benchmark. Available at
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed January 23, 2023).
This page intentionally left blank.