The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration - Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse ProjectCitrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration CITY OF FONTANA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: City of Fontana Planning Department 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, California 92335 Contact: Irene Romero (909) 350-6658 Prepared by: MIG, Inc. 1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106 Riverside, California 92507 Public Review Draft February 16, 2024 - This document is designed for double-sided printing - Table of Contents Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND i Table of Contents 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 – Purpose of CEQA .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 – Public Comments .................................................................................................... 2 2 Project Description................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 – Project Title ............................................................................................................. 3 2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address ............................................................................ 3 2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number ........................................................................ 3 2.4 – Project Location....................................................................................................... 3 2.5 – Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ..................................................................... 3 2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation ........................................................................ 3 2.7 – Zoning District ......................................................................................................... 4 2.8 – Onsite and Surrounding Land Uses ......................................................................... 4 2.9 – Environmental Setting ............................................................................................. 5 2.10 – Project Characteristics ........................................................................................... 10 2.11- Required Approvals .................................................................................................. 30 2.12- Anticipated Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required ........................... 30 3 Environmental Determination ................................................................................................. 31 3.1 – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................... 31 3.2 – Determination ........................................................................................................ 31 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................... 33 4.1 – Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 33 4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources ......................................................................... 37 4.3 – Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 40 4.4 – Biological Resources ............................................................................................. 57 4.5 – Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 63 4.6 – Energy ................................................................................................................... 67 4.7 – Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 71 4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 79 4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................................... 88 4.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................. 94 4.11 – Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................... 101 4.12 – Mineral Resources .............................................................................................. 109 4.13 – Noise ................................................................................................................... 111 4.14 – Population and Housing ...................................................................................... 123 4.15 – Public Services .................................................................................................... 125 4.16 – Recreation ........................................................................................................... 128 4.17 – Transportation ..................................................................................................... 129 4.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 136 4.19 – Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................. 140 4.20 – Wildfire ................................................................................................................ 143 4.21 – Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................... 145 5 Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................. 148 6 References .......................................................................................................................... 156 6.1 – List of Preparers .................................................................................................. 156 6.2- Persons and Organizations Consulted................................................................. 156 6.3 – Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 156 Table of Contents ii City of Fontana List of Tables Table 2.8-1 Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................................... 4 Table 2.10-1 Land Use and Zoning Designations .............................................................................. 10 Table 2.10-2 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................. 12 Table 2.10-3 Development Standards ............................................................................................... 23 Table 2.10-4 Project Construction Activities and Equipment .............................................................. 24 Table 2.10-5 Benefits of Project Design Features to Comply with Ordinance 1891 ............................ 26 Table 4.1-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis for Aesthetics .......................................................... 35 Table 4.3-1 Construction Activities ..................................................................................................... 42 Table 4.3-2 Construction Emissions .................................................................................................. 44 Table 4.3-3 Operational Emissions .................................................................................................... 46 Table 4.3-4 Construction LST Impacts ............................................................................................... 50 Table 4.3-5 Operational LST Impacts ................................................................................................ 51 Table 4.3-6 Project-Related Cancer Risks ......................................................................................... 55 Table 4.4-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis ................................................................................ 62 Table 4.8-1 Construction GHG Emissions ......................................................................................... 81 Table 4.8-2 Operational GHG Emissions ........................................................................................... 81 Table 4.8-3 San Bernardino County Regional GHG Reduction Plan – Project Consistency Analysis . 84 Table 4.11-1 Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................................. 102 Table 4.11-2 General Plan Consistency Analysis ............................................................................ 103 Table 4.11-3 Consistency with Fontana Industrial Sustainability Ordinance 1891 ............................ 105 Table 4.11-4 Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal Goals ........................................................... 108 Table 4.13-1 Construction Noise Levels at Noise Receptors ........................................................... 115 Table 4.13-2 Project Noise Compared to City Standards ................................................................. 117 Table 4.13-3 General Plan Consistency – Noise Policies................................................................. 120 Table 4.13-4 Construction Vibration Levels ..................................................................................... 123 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map ........................................................................................................... 7 Exhibit 2 Project Vicinity Map. .............................................................................................................. 8 Exhibit 3 Site Photgraphs .................................................................................................................... 9 Exhibit 4 General Plan Designations .................................................................................................. 11 Exhibit 5 Zoning Designations ........................................................................................................... 13 Exhibit 6 Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................................... 15 Exhibit 7 Building Elevations .............................................................................................................. 18 Exhibit 8 Landscaping Plan................................................................................................................ 19 Exhibit 9 Wall and Fence Plan ........................................................................................................... 20 Exhibit 10 Tentative Parcel Map ........................................................................................................ 21 Exhibit 11 Construction Emissions Sources ....................................................................................... 43 Exhibit 12 Operational Emissions Sources ........................................................................................ 45 Exhibit 13 Construction Annual Average DPM Concentrations (ug/m3) .............................................. 54 Exhibit 14 Operational Annual Average DPM Concentrations (ug/m3) ............................................... 55 Exhibit 15 Sensitive Noise Receptor Locations ................................................................................ 114 Appendices Appendix A Air Quality Reports Appendix B Biological Resources Report Appendix C Cultural Resources Report Appendix D Geotechnical Report Appendix E Hazardous Materials Report Table of Contents Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND iii Appendix F Water-Related Reports Appendix G Noise Report Appendix H Transportation Reports Appendix I Native American Consultation Appendix J Project Plans Table of Contents iv City of Fontana - This Page Intentionally Left Blank Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 1 1 Introduction The City of Fontana (Lead Agency) is considering a land development application for a single 355,995 square foot high cube industrial warehouse building located on 17.39 gross acres in the southern portion of the City of Fontana, California. The Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse Project (Project) is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et. seq.). This Initial Study was prepared to assess the short-term, long-term, and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from the Project. The Project consists of one industrial warehouse building measuring approximately 940 feet long (east-west) by 421 feet wide (north-south) with 348,995 square feet of warehousing and 7,000 square feet of office space consisting of 3,500 sf of mezzanine space and 3,500 sf of ground floor office space on 21 parcels totaling 17.39 gross and 15.84 net acres. The Project site consists of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0251-151-03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 09, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44. This Initial Study was prepared to comply with CEQA Guidelines §15063, which sets forth the required contents of an Initial Study. These include: • A description of the Project, including the location of the Project (See Section 2). • Identification of the environmental setting (See Section 2.10). • Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other methods, provided that entries on the checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries (See Section 4). • Discussion of ways to mitigate potentially significant effects identified, if any (See Section 5). • Examination of whether the Project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls (See Section 4.11); and • The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study (See Section 6.1). 1.1 – Purpose of CEQA CEQA § 21000 of the California Public Resources Code provides as follows: The Legislature finds and declares as follows: a) The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern. b) It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man. c) There is a need to understand the relationship between the maintenance of high-quality ecological systems and the general welfare of the people of the state, including their enjoyment of the natural resources of the state. d) The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the state take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and Introduction 2 City of Fontana safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached. e) Every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. f) The interrelationship of policies and practices in the management of natural resources and waste disposal requires systematic and concerted efforts by public and private interests to enhance environmental quality and to control environmental pollution. g) It is the intent of the Legislature that all agencies of the state government which regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. Pursuant to §15074 of the CEQA Guidelines, prior to approving the Project, the City of Fontana is required to consider the findings of this Initial Study and to either adopt a Negative Declaration (ND) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or determine that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required due to potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. The analysis in this Initial Study supports the conclusion that there is no substantial evidence to suggest that this Project will have a significant impact after mitigation. Therefore, an MND has been determined to be the most appropriate CEQA compliance document for this proposed action. 1.2 – Public Comments Written comments from all agencies and individuals are invited regarding the information contained in this Initial Study. Such comments should explain any perceived deficiencies in the assessment of impacts, identify the information that is purportedly lacking in the Initial Study or indicate where the information may be found. All materials related to the preparation of this Initial Study are available for public review. To request an appointment to review these materials, please contact: Irene Romero, Associate Planner City of Fontana Planning Department 8533 Sierra Avenue Fontana, California 92335 (909) 350-6658 The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) will have a 20-day public review period and all written comments will be considered by the City of Fontana prior to adoption. Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 3 2 Project Description 2.1 – Project Title Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND – Master Case Number (MCN) 22-115 2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address City of Fontana Planning Department 8533 Sierra Avenue Fontana, California 92335 2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number Irene Romero, Associate Planner, (909) 350-6658 2.4 – Project Location The Project is located just south of the I-10 Freeway, north of Slover Avenue, south of Boyle Avenue, east of Citrus Avenue, and west of Oleander Avenue in the southern portion of the City of Fontana in San Bernardino County, California (See Exhibit 1, Regional Context Map). The Project site occupies 17.39 gross acres (15.84 net acres) on 21 parcels. The site is bordered by residential homes and businesses to the west, residential to the north, Citrus Avenue and an Arco gas station to the west and residential to the east, and a new high cube industrial warehouse project of several buildings directly to the south (See Exhibit 2, Project Vicinity Map). Various views of the existing site are shown in Exhibit 3, Site Photographs. It should be noted the existing housing in the surrounding area is legal non-conforming which means the housing was already in place when the zoning of the area was changed from residential to light industrial. • Latitude 34° 03’ 50” North, Longitude 117° 27’ 04” West (centroid of the site) • Address: NA • Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 0251-151-03 to -07, -09, -10, -14 to -16, -18 to -22 and -39 to -44 (21 parcels) 2.5 – Project Sponsor’s Name and Address Crow Holdings Industrial (CHI) 527 W. 7th Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Contact: Jorge Garcia Phone: 909-358-7715 2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation The entire Project site is designated as “Light Industrial” (I-L) in the City’s 2015-2035 General Plan (See Exhibit 4, General Plan Designations) except for APN 251-151-10 near the southwest corner of the property which is designated as C-C, Community Commercial. Project Description 4 City of Fontana 2.7 – Zoning District The City of Fontana Zoning Ordinance designates the entire site as “Light Industrial” (M-1)(See Exhibit 5, Zoning Designations) except for APN 251-151-10 that occupies approximately 1.2 acres near the southwest corner of the property which is classified C-1, Community Commercial. 2.8 – Onsite and Surrounding Land Uses The Project site is vacant. The Project site is surrounded by a mix of uses. There are older legal non- conforming residential uses to the north and east of the Project site, and there is evidence several of these parcels operate unpermitted industrial operations from their premises. To the west, beyond Citrus Avenue, there are a mix of commercial uses. Immediately south of the Project site are several warehouses. It should be noted the site is approximately 600 feet south of the I-10 Freeway and 500 feet south of an existing railroad line. Northeast of the Project site is a recently completed warehouse. To the east, between the east Project boundary and Oleander Avenue, are more legal non-conforming residences. Further to the east are various commercial uses (including Caliber Collision and On Point Truck Sales) and more residences. To the south, there is a new distribution center with several warehouse buildings and further south is the Jurupa Hills High School campus, which is approximately a quarter of a mile from the Project site. (See Table 2.8-1, Surrounding Land Uses and refer to Exhibit 2, Project Vicinity Map). Table 2.8-1 Surrounding Land Uses Direction General Plan Designation Zoning District Existing Land Use Project Site Light Industrial (I-L) (0.1-0.6 FAR) and one parcel C-C Light Industrial (M-1) (0.1-0.6 FAR) and one parcel C-1 Vacant North General Industrial (I-G) (0.1-0.6 FAR) General Industrial (M-2) (0.1-0.6 FAR) Single family residences and non-conforming commercial yards, and the I-10 Freeway South Light Industrial (I-L) (0.1-0.6 FAR), C-G, R-PC Light Industrial (M-1) (0.1-0.6 FAR), C-2, R-PC Slover Avenue and a recently completed large high cube industrial distribution warehouses East Light Industrial (I-L) (0.1-0.6 FAR) Light Industrial (M-1) (0.1-0.6 FAR) Mixed residential and commercial uses West Light Industrial (I-L) (0.1-0.6 FAR) Specific Plan 5 (Southwest Industrial Park), C-1 Citrus Avenue and Citrus Avenue freeway bridge over railroad tracks Project Description Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 5 2.9 – Environmental Setting The 17.39-acre Project site is relatively flat with the high point on the north, sloping down slightly from north to south with elevations ranging from approximately 1,079 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) along the northern boundary down to 1,073 feet AMSL along the southern boundary of the site (overall grade of one percent toward the south). The City of Fontana has a semi-arid Mediterranean climate and is located in the South Coast Air Basin. The City lies at the northwest margin of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California which is characterized by northwest-southeast trending (active) faults, folds, and mountain ranges. Much of the Fontana region sits on an alluvial plain and is underlain by loose soils such as sand and silt eroded from the surrounding uplands (mainly the San Gabriel Mountains to the north). Regional runoff flows south out of the mountains and across the valley plain toward the Santa Ana River to the south. Fontana is in the western portion of San Bernardino County which is characterized mainly by urbanized uses which provide low habitat value for special-status plant and wildlife species (except for the northern areas of Fontana, along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains). The Valley has been inhabited by Native American tribes for thousands of years prior to European contact. The region has been urbanizing since the late 1800’s. The area contains a number of freeways (I-10, I-15, SR-210, SR-60) and major roadways such as Foothill Boulevard which was formerly U.S. Route 66, and Baseline Road in the northern part of the City to Slover Avenue and Jurupa Avenue in the southern part of the City. Project Description 6 City of Fontana - This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Description Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 7 Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map Project Description 8 City of Fontana Exhibit 2 Project Vicinity Map. Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 9 Exhibit 3 Site Photgraphs Project Description 10 City of Fontana 2.10 – Project Characteristics The proposed Project entitlement review is being requested by the City with a land use application for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Design Review, and Tentative Parcel Map to develop one high cube industrial distribution warehouse building with a total of 355,995 square feet, including 348,995 square feet of warehousing and 7,000 square feet of office space (3,500 SF on the mezzanine level and 3,500 SF on the ground floor) on 21 parcels totaling 17.39 gross acres and 15.84 net acres. The site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0251-151-03 to -07, -09, -10, -14 to -16, -18 to -22 and -39 to -44, south of Boyle Avenue, north of Slover, and east of Citrus Avenue. The Project will have 42 loading docks along the south side of the building and 8 loading docks along the west side for a total of 50 docks. The site is located north of Slover Avenue, south of Boyle Avenue, east of Citrus Avenue, and west of Oleander Avenue. The General Plan designation for all but one of the onsite parcels is Light Industrial (I-L) and the zoning is the Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning District. However, APN 251-151--10 (approx. 1.2 acres) near the southwest corner of the property has a General Plan Land Use designation of C- C, Community Commercial and a Zoning classification of C-1, Community Commercial. In order to develop the proposed industrial warehouse building, the General Plan and Zoning designations of this one parcel will be changed to I-L, Light Industrial. All of the existing parcels will be consolidated with the processing of a Tentative Parcel Map and Final Parcel Map as part of the development of the Project. The existing and proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations for the 21 Assessor’s Parcels that comprise the Project site are shown in Table 2.10-1 below. Table 2.10-1 Land Use and Zoning Designations Assessor Parcel(s) Current General Plan Land Use Designation Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Current Zoning Proposed Zoning All APNs except for 251-151-10 I-L, Light Industrial No Change M-1, Light Industrial No Change 251-151-10 C-C, Community Commercial I-L, Light Industrial C-1, Community Commercial I-L, Light Industrial At present, all of the former abandoned structures at the Project site have been demolished and removed from the Project site. Table 2.10-2, Project Characteristics, shows the various development aspects of the Project site including overall site size, building area and coverage, landscaping, and parking. The overall layout of the Project on the site is shown in Exhibit 6, Conceptual Site Plan. Although the Project does not currently have a proposed tenant, it is assumed the single building could operate on a 24/7 basis. This MND uses the 24/7 operation of the building to ensure that the “worst case” scenario was used in the various technical studies and resulting analyses of impacts. Project Description Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 11 Exhibit 4 General Plan Designations Project Description 12 City of Fontana Table 2.10-2 Project Characteristics Site/Project Characteristics Size (acres or square feet) Gross Site Area Acres Square Feet 17.39 ac 757,768 sf Net Site Area Acres Square Feet 15.84 ac 689,990 sf Proposed Building Area Mezzanine Ground Floor Office Warehousing TOTAL 3,500 sf 3,500 sf 348,995 sf 355,995 sf Floor Area Ratio1 Gross Net Max. Allowed 0.47 0.51 0.60 Landscaping Acres Square Feet Percent of Net Area Min. Required 1.65 ac 71,889 sf 21.3% 15% Parking Required Trucks Autos 71 94 Parking Provided Trucks Autos 75 97 Maximum Height Proposed Allowed 50 feet 75 feet Truck Doors 50 Source: Project Plans August 2023 1 Ratio of Building Area to Site Area Project Description Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 13 Exhibit 5 Zoning Designations Project Description 14 City of Fontana - This Page Intentionally Left Blank Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 15 Exhibit 6 Conceptual Site Plan Project Description 16 City of Fontana - This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Description Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 17 Architecture The proposed building will consist of concrete tilt-up construction with painted and scored accents. The design will provide glazing, differing exterior colors and variation in the scale of the concrete panels to provide architectural relief along the length of the building. The four-sided elevations will utilize a combination of glazing and differing exterior colors. The main color of the building will be Classic White with Raindrops, Metal Fringe, and Boxwood accents. Window glazing will be Blue with clear anodized mullions and an Alucobond Clear Anodized Aluminum canopy treatment. Exhibit 7, Building Elevations, shows views of the proposed building from various locations around the perimeter of the Project site. The building is intended to be used as a high cube industrial distribution warehouse. Tenants have not been identified at this time so details about the future operation of the facilities are not currently available. To help reduce onsite energy consumption, regional air pollutants, and GHG emissions, the warehouse proposes to have no refrigerated storage space. The conditions of approval for this project would include an exception to this limit if a future user can demonstrate that its energy use and air pollutant emissions with cold storage would not exceed the emissions estimated for the warehouse without cold storage as calculated in this document and the related technical studies. Landscaping Landscaping is provided around the entire Project with additional landscape along Slover, Boyle, and Citrus Avenues as well as providing a landscape buffer along the eastern property line adjacent to the existing residential homes. Landscaping will be on the front setbacks, on all sides of the site, adjacent to the building on the north, south, and east sides, and throughout the parking areas. The Project provides 71,889 square feet or 21.3% landscaping on the site (see Exhibit 8, Landscaping Plan). The Fontana Industrial Sustainability Ordinance requires warehouses greater than 50,000 square feet to include a 10-foot wide landscaping buffer from adjacent sensitive receptors and the Project site as designed will be in compliance with this Ordinance. Screen Walls/Fencing The site will have a variety of screen walls and fences to help screen public views of the property. The concrete screen walls will be approximately 10 feet in height and will complement the exterior color variations of the building. The truck courts will have 8-foot metal sliding gates, screened from public view. Fencing along the eastern portion of the site along the residential properties will be a 10-foot high concrete screen wall. On the west side will be an 8-foot high black tube steel at the property line and a 10-foot tall screen wall at the truck court. Exhibit 9, Fence and Wall Plan, shows the locations, height, and materials of proposed fences and walls on the site. Drainage and Water Quality The stormwater treatment/water quality system will be placed underground, located on the south, east and west sides of the building underground in primarily the hardscape areas of the Project site. Circulation Trucking access to the Project site will be from the I-10 freeway exiting at Citrus Avenue, traveling south and turning left at the signalized intersection of Slover and Citrus Avenues, traveling east along Slover Avenue to enter the Project site at the center Slover Avenue driveway. Trucks traveling west on Slover Avenue would enter the site at either the center or western driveway. Automobile and motorcycle access to the Project site will primarily occur from the Boyle Avenue driveways as shown on the Project site plan and from the eastern most driveway (designated for automobiles only) on Slover Avenue. Project Description 18 City of Fontana Exhibit 7 Building Elevations Project Description Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 19 Exhibit 8 Landscaping Plan Project Description 20 City of Fontana Exhibit 9 Wall and Fence Plan Project Description Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 21 Exhibit 10 Tentative Parcel Map - This Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Description 22 City of Fontana Access to the Project site will be provided as follows: Automobiles • One 35’ driveway (eastern most) is on the south side of the Project site allowing entry from Slover Avenue; and • One 50’ driveway (west) and one 35’ driveway (east) on the north side of the Project site from Boyle Avenue. Trucks • Two 60’ driveways (central and western most) on the south side of the Project site from Slover Avenue; and • Emergency vehicle access is provided around the east, west, and south sides of the building with a minimum 26-foot fire lane. Access and Street Improvements The following street improvements are anticipated for Slover Avenue and Boyle Avenue: • Slover Avenue is federally designated as a Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA) truck route. The Project will be using Slover Avenue to serve as the east/west roadway for autos and trucks to and from the Project site with two shared driveways (autos and trucks – central and west) and one smaller (east) driveway for autos only. Improvements to Slover Avenue will include a 52-foot half-width street replacement/paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and enhanced drive approaches. The Project frontage along Slover Avenue will have a landscaped parkway. • Boyle Avenue will also serve as an east/west roadway with two driveways for auto access (east and west) and emergency truck access (west driveway). Improvements to Boyle Avenue will include 32-foot half-width street replacement/paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and enhanced drive approaches. The Project frontage along Boyle Avenue will have a landscaped parkway. The Traffic Group of the City Engineering Department indicated that full access was assumed at the central driveway in the traffic study but additional documentation may be needed to demonstrate that adequate queuing for site access is available to prevent safety concerns between eastbound left and westbound through movement conflicts. The Slover median shall accommodate eastbound left-turn movement only and westbound left turn and southbound left turns will be restricted. In addition, the eastern driveway on Slover must be limited to auto (non-truck) traffic due to the proximity to sensitive receptors near the southeast corner of the property. All onsite and offsite access routes and driveways will be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to final plan approval. Auto/Truck Parking Based on the Project size of the proposed high cube industrial distribution warehouse building that will consist of approximately 3,500 SF of second floor mezzanine space and 3,500 SF of ground floor office space, the Project will require 94 auto parking stalls while the site plan indicates it provides 100 auto parking stalls. Based on the warehouse having 50 dock doors, there will be a minimum of 75 truck trailer parking stalls provided onsite compared to the required 71 spaces needed. Development Standards The Project will be subject to the City’s Industrial zoning district guidelines and standards for development and design. The Project meets or exceeds all required standards, as shown in Table Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 23 2.10-3, Development Standards. The high cube industrial warehouse distribution building will have a maximum exterior parapet height of 50 feet even though City zoning allows for building heights up to 75 feet. The Project will have site coverage of 47% which is well below the City guidelines that permit up to 60% coverage on the site. In addition, the City requires that at least 15% of the Project site must have landscaping and the Project proposes to provide 20.6% of the Project site being landscaped. Table 2.10-3 Development Standards Development Standard Required Project Lot Size (minimum) 20,000 sf 689,807 sf Building Height Maximum 75’ 50’ Building Setbacks Slover Avenue Boyle Avenue Interior Side Yard1 West East 20’ -- 20’ 10’ -- 10’ 200’+ 31’ 9” -- 61’ 6” 65’ Landscape Coverage (minimum) 15% 21.3% Lot Coverage (maximum) 60% 51.1% Walls Truck court walls adjacent to the Citrus offramp and the streets Adjacent to existing residential to screen truck courts from public view 14’ 10’ 14’ 10’ Parking Requirements Office/Mezzanine 3,500 sf of ground floor office space and 3,500 sf of second floor mezzanine space, for a total of 7,000 sf @ 1/250 sf (less 10%) Warehouse 1/1000 sf for first 20K 1/2,000 sf for next 20K 1/5000 sf for remainder -- 20 stalls (10 stalls) 64 stalls -- 20 stalls (10 stalls) 67 stalls Auto Parking (Total) 94 stalls 97 stalls Trailer parking (provided spaces 10’ x 55’) 71 stalls 75 stalls Truck doors -- 50 doors Source: Project Plans August 15, 2023 ‘ = feet, sf = square feet 1 adjacent to residential zone = 20 feet Construction and Grading Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to begin in the first quarter of 2024 and take approximately 10 months to complete. The development of the approximately 17.39-acre site and the construction of approximately 348,995 square feet of warehousing and 7,000 square feet of office use (355,995 square feet total) will require site preparation, grading, trenching, wet and dry utilities, underground fire lines, building construction, site concrete work, paving, and painting. Preliminary Project site grading is anticipated to require approximately 18,600 cubic yards of cut and 24,000 cubic yards of fill, resulting in the net import of approximately 5,400 cubic yards of soil. The types of equipment that will be used for Project construction are shown in Table 2.10-4, Project Construction Activities and Equipment. Project Description 24 City of Fontana Table 2.10-4 Project Construction Activities and Equipment Construction Activity Duration (Days)1 Typical Equipment Used2 Demolition 20 Saws, Excavator, Dozer Site Preparation 10 Dozer, Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Grading 30 Excavator, Grader, Dozer, Backhoe Trenching 60 Trencher, Forklift, Backhoe Building Construction 160 Crane, Forklift, Backhoe Paving 10 Paver, Paving Equipment, Roller Architectural Coating 25 Air Compressor Source: Table 2-4, MIG 2023a (Appendix A). 1 Days refers to total active workdays in the construction phase, not calendar days. 2 The typical equipment list does not reflect all equipment that would be used during the construction phase. Not all equipment would operate eight hours per day each workday. Project Design Features to Comply with City Ordinance 1891 The Air Quality, Health Risk, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Assessments were based on the inclusion of a number of project design features that would help reduce air pollutant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy use generated by the Project. These features also help the Project comply with the requirements of Fontana’s Ordinance 1891 regarding warehousing in proximity to residential uses. These features are therefore considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA. The proposed design features are outlined below and Table 2.10-5, Benefits of Project Design Features to Comply with Ordinance 1891, explains how the proposed PDFs comply with the requirements of the City’s Ordinance 1891 regarding warehouse design in proximity to residential uses. These PDFs are also shown in the Project plans (Appendix I). • Landscape Buffer - The Landscaping Plan shows a 10-foot wide landscaping buffer measured from the property line shared between the two properties that are adjacent to sensitive receptors to the east. This buffer will include a minimum 10-foot solid wall, natural ground landscaping, and a solid screen of evergreen, drought tolerant buffer trees. • Landscaping - All landscaping will be drought tolerant with low biogenic emissions. Trees will be planted to provide at least 35% shade cover to automobile parking areas within 15 years. • Location of Truck Docks – Project Plans show docks on the south and west sides of the building, away from sensitive receptors to the north and east. Truck activity will take place from Slover Avenue. • Truck Routing and Idling Restriction - Facility operators will be required to submit a truck routing plan and install the required Project signage to help direct both auto and truck traffic as part of the proposed lease or sale agreement. • Use of Zero Emission Onsite Operations Equipment - The use of only electric forklifts, pallet jacks, and other cargo/material handling equipment shall be a condition of the lease or sale of the property. • Cold Storage Space Restriction – To help reduce onsite energy consumption, regional air pollutants, and GHG emissions, the warehouse proposes to have no refrigerated storage space. The exception to this limit would be if a future user can demonstrate that its energy use and air pollutant emissions with cold storage would not exceed that estimated for the warehouse without cold storage as calculated in this document and the related technical studies. Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 25 • Solar-Ready Building Roof – The Project Plans show the building’s roof has been designed to support installation of a solar photovoltaic (PV) system in the future if desired by a future owner or tenant. “Solar ready” design includes increased weight loading and electrical connections for future connections to the building and power grid. • Cool Reflective Roof Materials - The Project Plans show light-colored roofing material shall be installed. • Electric Vehicle Parking and Charging – The Project Plans show 11 EV charging spaces. • Bicycle Parking – The Project Plans show 12 bicycle racks (one bicycle rack per 30,000 square feet). The racks will have lockable spaces and lockable charging outlets for electric bikes. • Cool Pavements - The Project Plans show the Project’s parking areas and drive aisles will be constructed with a solar-reflective cool pavement (concrete). This pavement must have a solar reflective index (SRI) of 78 or higher. • Electrical Rooms - The Project Plans show the building’s electrical maintenance rooms are 25% larger than required for the current building design to accommodate future electrical needs of electric vehicles and trucks. • Super-Compliant Architectural Coatings – Project Plans show that SCAQMD super- compliant architectural coatings (SCAC) will be used during Project construction. Paints must be consistent with SCAQMD’s definition of SCAC (i.e., coatings would meet the VOC standard of <10 g/L). • Off-Road Equipment Selection – Notes will be placed on the grading and construction drawings of the Project Plans stipulating that Tier 4 construction equipment will be used. • Use of Electric Equipment and Charging during Construction - The use of electric forklifts and provisions for onsite charging equipment shall be a condition of the lease or sale of the property. Project Description 26 City of Fontana Table 2.10-5 Benefits of Project Design Features to Comply with Ordinance 1891 Project Design Feature Ordinance 1891 Section and Requirements How Does the Feature Reduce Project Impacts? Landscaping Buffer 9-71.(a) Warehouse buildings larger than 50,000 sq ft but less than 400,000 sq ft shall include a minimum 10-foot-wide landscaping buffer, measured from the property line of all adjacent sensitive receptors. Buffer areas shall include at a minimum a solid decorative wall of at least 10 feet in height, natural ground landscaping, and solid screen buffering trees, unless there is an existing solid block wall. The proposed landscape and screen wall buffer increases the distance between Project emission sources and sensitive air quality receptors, increasing the amount of distance of which air pollutants can disperse. This buffer would also limit noise transmission to surrounding adjacent land uses and receptors. Landscaping 9-71.(c-d, e). Landscaping shall be drought tolerant and low biogenic emissions species. Landscaping areas shall be properly irrigated to maintain growth of plants and trees. Trees shall be installed in automobile parking areas to provide at least 35 percent shade cover of parking areas within 15 years. Trees shall be planted that are capable of meeting this requirement. Selecting specific trees would avoid or reduce potential VOC emissions. The use of drought tolerant landscaping would reduce emissions associated with outdoor watering. Shade would reduce energy use and associated emissions by providing more onsite cooling. Location of Truck Docks 9-71.(f) Unless impossible, docks and truck entries shall be oriented away from abutting sensitive receptors. As best able, docks, truck entries and drive aisles shall be located away from nearby sensitive receptors. Placing truck docks away from sensitive receptors minimizes the potential for air pollutant concentrations in these sensitive areas and minimizes noise. The site plan and layout of the drive aisle and docks shows that both docks are facing away from nearby sensitive receptors and are being recessed on the western and southern sides of the site, respectively. The trailer stalls area and setbacks of the building from the eastern and southern property lines would also limit noise transmission originating from the docks. Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 27 Project Design Feature Ordinance 1891 Section and Requirements How Does the Feature Reduce Project Impacts? Truck Routing and Idling Restriction 9-72.(c, e-i, d) Signs are required for a 3-minute idling limit, on-site circulation patterns, parking, truck routes, and the SCAQMD contact information. A truck routing plan to and from the state highway system based on the City's latest truck route map is required. It will include the facility’s operational characteristics and measures for preventing truck queuing, circling, stopping, and parking on public streets. The Project will provide electrical outlets at every other dock door to allow for trucks to be able to connect to the clean electrical outlets thus helping with unnecessary GHG emissions from truck idling. Signage limiting the time idling, along with Project site circulation requirements will prevent unnecessary truck travel and queuing, which would avoid potential air pollutant and GHG emissions from truck travel and idling. Signs prohibiting off-site parking would prevent vehicles from idling and parking on neighboring streets and possibly creating parking conflicts and nuisances for local residents. On-site circulation, parking, and signs would help reduce traffic congestion entering into and exiting from the Project whether using Boyle Avenue or Slover Avenue for ingress/egress. These features would also reduce truck idling, and therefore would reduce noise generation. Use of Zero Emission On- site Operations Equipment (forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.) 9-73.(a) On-site motorized operational equipment shall be ZE (zero emission). The use of electric forklifts and other equipment avoids the creation of onsite air pollutants and GHG emissions from diesel- compressed natural gas- and other fossil- fuel-powered types of this equipment. Electric motorized operational equipment would generally limit noise generation, especially in and around the docks area. The project will use electric forklifts and other onsite motorized operational equipment. Solar-ready Building Roof 9-73.(b) All building roofs shall be solar-ready The building will be designed to accommodate a future solar PV system that will reduce facility energy demand and indirect air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with energy production. Cool/Reflective Roof Materials 9-73.(c) The office portion of a building’s rooftop that is not covered with solar panels or other utilities shall be constructed with light colored roofing material with a solar reflective index ("SRI") of not less than 78. The building’s use of light-colored roofing materials reduces heat gain and energy usage associated with building cooling and air handling systems. Project Description 28 City of Fontana Project Design Feature Ordinance 1891 Section and Requirements How Does the Feature Reduce Project Impacts? Electric Vehicle Parking and Charging 9-73.(e) At least 10% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces shall be electric vehicle (EV) ready, at least 5% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces shall be equipped with working Level 2 Quick charge EV charging stations installed and operational, prior to building occupancy The Project’s use of EV ready parking promotes the use of EVs, thereby reducing potential air pollutant and GHG emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles. Bicycle Parking 9-73.(g) Bicycle racks are required and shall include locks as well as electric plugs to charge electric bikes. The Project will have dedicated bicycle parking areas that will promote the use of active transportation, thereby avoiding emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles. Bicycle racks will also provide locations to safely store bicycles for workers and/or visitors that may travel to and from the site using a bicycle for transportation. Cool Pavements 9-74.(a) Cool surface treatments shall be added to all drive aisles and parking areas, or such areas shall be constructed with a solar- reflective cool pavement such as concrete. The Project’s use of solar-reflective cool pavements will reduce heat island effects that can lead to increased demand for energy in building air conditioning and air handling systems. Electrical Rooms 9-74.(b) To ensure that warehouse electrical rooms are sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential need for additional electrical panels, either a secondary electrical room shall be provided in the building, or the primary electrical room shall be sized 25% larger than is required to satisfy the service requirements of the building or the electrical gear shall be installed with the initial construction with 25% excess demand capacity. The Project’s inclusion of a larger electrical room than what would normally be required will help support the future installation and expansion infrastructure and will help reduce air pollutant and GHG emissions such as solar PV systems, alternative space and water heating systems, electric vehicle/truck charging equipment, etc. Super- Compliant Architectural Coatings 9-74.(c). Use of super-compliant VOC architectural and industrial maintenance coatings (e.g., paints) shall be required. The Project’s use of super-compliant coatings would reduce VOC emissions during construction. Consistent with SCAQMD rules. Off-Road Equipment Selection Sec. 9-74 (e)(1) The Project proponent shall require construction bid, contract, procurements, and other similar documents include a requirement for the contractor to use the highest rated California Air Resources Board (CARB) engine tier technology available at the time of construction unless proof is provided that such equipment is not available and cannot be reasonably obtained from other sources within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD The highest tier technology available at this time is Tier 4. The construction of the Project will require the use of equipment that meets the Tier 4 emissions standards. By requiring the general contractor to use Tier 4 equipment to grade and construct the Project it will help reduce specific pollutant emissions, reduce construction emissions, and reduces pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 29 Project Design Feature Ordinance 1891 Section and Requirements How Does the Feature Reduce Project Impacts? Use of Electric Equipment and Charging during Construction Sec. 9-74 e (2-5) The Project proponent shall require construction bid, contract, procurements, and other similar documents include a requirement for the contractor to electric- powered hand tools, forklift, and pressure washers during Project construction. The Project proponent shall require the construction contractor to designate an area where electric-powered construction vehicles and equipment can charge and install a conduit for future electric truck charging stations. Diesel-powered generators will be limited to emergency and temporary power purposes only. The Project’s use of electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers avoids onsite emissions from diesel, compressed natural gas, and other fossil- fuel-powered types of this equipment. Connecting to electric service during construction and limiting the use of diesel- powered generators will minimize onsite emissions during construction. Source: modified from Table 2-3, MIG 2023a and Table 2-3, MIG 2023b (Appendix A) Utilities The area immediately surrounding the Project site consists of a very limited amount of lower intensity residential uses which are served by typical urban utility systems (water, sewer, storm drain, etc.) in the adjacent public streets (i.e., Boyle Avenue to the north and Slover Avenue to the south). There is an existing 18-inch water main and a 3-inch natural gas line in Boyle Avenue. In addition, there is a 12-inch water line, a 6-inch sanitary sewer line, and a 6-inch gas line that exists in Slover Avenue. The Project proposes to connect to the existing water main with a 2-inch potable water line and a 10- inch fire service water line around the Project site using a connection to the 18-inch line in Boyle Avenue to supply the water to the Project site. The Project will also be extending a new 6-inch sewer line along the eastern portion of the site connecting Boyle Avenue to Slover Avenue. New storm drain collector lines will be constructed onsite that connect the two proposed underground water quality basins with the existing storm drain line in Slover Avenue. Water to the Project site will be provided by the Fontana Water Company; sewer and storm drain service to the Project site will be provided by the City of Fontana; Southern California Edison shall provide the Project electricity; and the Southern California Gas Company is able to provide natural gas service if required. Tentative Parcel Map The Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) will consolidate the 21 existing parcels into one large super parcel for the construction and development of the Project. The total acreage once consolidated will be 17.39 gross acres which will be reduced to 15.84 net acres following street dedications (See Exhibit 10, Tentative Parcel Map). Project Description 30 City of Fontana 2.11- Required Approvals The proposed warehouse is permitted by right within the underlying General Plan Land Use and Zoning Classifications (Light Industrial). Because the aggregation of the former parcels into one large parcel, one of the parcels had a different zoning overlay, Community Commercial, that requires the Project to process the following City approvals: • General Plan Amendment for APN 251-151-10; • Zone Change for APN 251-151-10; • Site Plan Design Review; • Tentative Parcel Map; and • Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2.12- Anticipated Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required • Regional Water Quality Control Board • South Coast Air Quality Management District (Rule 2305, Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 31 3 Environmental Determination 3.1 – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a ‘Potentially Significant Impact’ as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. □ Aesthetics □ Agriculture Resources □ Air Quality □ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy □ Geology /Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Hazards & Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology / Water Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise □ Population / Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation □ Transportation/Traffic □ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities / Service Systems □ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings of Significance 3.2 – Determination □ I find that the Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. □ I find that the Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. □ I find that the Project MAY have a ‘potentially significant impact’ or ‘potentially significant unless mitigated’ impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Name: Irene Romero, Associate Planner Date: XX Environmental Determination 32 City of Fontana - This Page Intentionally Left Blank Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 33 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.1 – Aesthetics Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? □ □ □ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within view from a state scenic highway? □ □ □ c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ □ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? □ □ □ A “visual environment” includes the built environment (development patterns, buildings, parking areas, and circulation elements) and natural environment features such as hills, vegetation, rock outcroppings, streams, and soils. Views are characterized by visual quality, viewer groups and sensitivity, duration, and visual resources. Visual quality refers to the general aesthetic quality of a view, such as vividness, intactness, and unity. Viewer groups identify who is most likely to experience the view. High-sensitivity land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, religious institutions, and passive outdoor spaces such as parks, playgrounds, and recreation areas. Duration of a view is the amount of time that a particular view can be seen by a specific viewer group. Visual resources refer to unique views, and views identified in local plans, from scenic highways, or of specific unique structures or landscape features. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 34 City of Fontana a ) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact On clear days the Project area has views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and Jurupa Hills to the south, although views from some public vantage points may be blocked or partially blocked by trees, walls, buildings, and residences. Views of the area and the mountains to the north are readily available for travelers along the I-10 Freeway which runs east-west approximately 600 feet north of the Project site. In this location, the freeway is elevated so area views to the north and south are unobstructed. The land immediately south of the site, across Slover Avenue has been recently developed into a large high cube industrial distribution warehouse project. In addition, a smaller warehouse is being developed immediately northeast of the Project site across Boyle Avenue. Another high cube industrial distribution warehouse is planned just west of the site on the west side of Citrus Avenue. Travelers (drivers and pedestrians) along Slover Avenue (east-west) would have views of the San Gabriel Mountains temporarily interrupted when immediately south of the Project. However, the Project proposes a warehouse building with a maximum height of 50 feet which is set back approximately 70 feet from Slover Avenue, so it will only partially block public views from Slover Avenue. Travelers on north-south roads both east and west of the Project site have views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Jurupa Hills to the south. The high cube industrial distribution warehouse proposed by the Project would not substantially block views from these roadways since views from these roadways are not blocked to the north and south. Based on the location and height of the proposed high cube industrial distribution warehouse building, the Project will not have a significant impact on scenic (public) vistas. It will not block motorists’ views from the I-10 Freeway looking north toward the San Gabriel Mountains or looking south toward the Jurupa Mountains. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within view from a state scenic highway? No Impact The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic Highway Program does not identify any State-designated scenic highways near the Project site. The nearest Officially Designated Scenic Highway is a western portion of the 91 freeway, approximately 15 miles southwest of the site. No other scenic highways or local scenic roads are located in the vicinity of the Project site. Because there are no designated local scenic highways or scenic roadways near the Project site, the proposed Project will not affect scenic resources within view of a state scenic highway or a local scenic road, and no mitigation is required. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 35 Less Than Significant Impact The Project site is located within an urbanized mixed-use area and surrounded by existing non- conforming residential uses immediately adjacent to the east and north (across Boyle Avenue). This surrounding area was redesignated in the current City General Plan to allow for the same type of light industrial use as proposed for the Project site. The Project site was formerly littered with trash, debris and vacant residences that were boarded up with homeless observed living on the site and did not have any distinctive visual character as many properties were being used for illegal and non-conforming uses including truck/trailer storage, material storage, trash and debris. The area does not contain any significant visual elements as the entire Project site has been completely demolished and there is not any landscape or buildings that remain on site. The appearance of new development in the City is guided by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning and Development Code (Chapter 30) of the City Municipal Code. Table 4.1-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis for Aesthetics, demonstrates the Project is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan (Fontana Forward 2015-2035) relative to aesthetics. In addition, Table 2-4, Development Standards, in the Project Description compares the Project characteristics to the various development standards for light industrial development, including aspects that are related to project appearance (i.e., FAR, building height, landscaping). This table demonstrates the proposed Project is consistent with those standards. Table 4.1-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis for Aesthetics General Plan Goals, Policies, and Actions1 Project Consistency Urban Design: Modern warehouse districts are characterized by very large boxes (often white) on well- landscaped streets. The interface between these modern warehouse areas and residential areas is typically buffered by arterial streets and commercial areas. Industrial districts also include older areas with a variety of businesses, many focused on trucking. In these areas, and in the southern industrial areas between I-10 and Jurupa Avenue, there are many transition areas where industrial and older residential areas are not well buffered. Consistent. The proposed warehouse Project is well buffered from neighboring residential uses by the following: the orientation of truck docks to the south and west away from existing residential uses; setbacks from the warehouse building to residential uses to the north (min. 100 feet) and the east (59-130 feet); a 10-foot tall screening walls; and additional 10- foot landscaped setbacks with a variety of plantings and trees. The design characteristics are consistent with the requirements of Ordinance No. 1891 regarding warehouse design. Goal 7: Public and private development meets high design standards. Consistent. As presented in Section 3, Project Description, the proposed warehouse demonstrates high-quality architectural design and enhanced visual characteristics, landscaping, etc. Policy 1: Support high-quality development in design standards in land use decisions. Consistent. The Project is consistent with the design requirements of the City Zoning and Development Code (Chapter 30 of the City Municipal Code) as outlined in Division 8, Design and Architectural Regulations, and Article VII – Industrial Zoning Districts, Division 2, Development Standards. Action B: Ensure that public and private developments are attractive, comfortable, and welcoming by following the urban design principles in Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan. (summarized below) 1. Focus on creating human-scaled environments 2. Focus on streets as three-dimensional shares spaces Partially Consistent. The Project demonstrates the high quality urban design elements outlined in Chapters 14 and 15 of the City’s General Plan 2015- 2035. These are demonstrated in the Project Site Plan and Building Elevations (Exhibits 6 and 7 in Section 3, Project Description) as well as the landscaping plan and wall and fence plan also in Section 3. The Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 36 City of Fontana General Plan Goals, Policies, and Actions1 Project Consistency 3. Create walkable environments 4. Plant trees 5. Bring buildings to the street 6. Parking is necessary but should not dominate street frontage landscaping plan shows a 10-foot wide landscape buffer on the north and east sides of the site that face residential uses (and contain no truck docks). The landscaping includes extensive planting of shrubs and liberal use of trees along the north and east sides as well. The Project entrance has a human scale despite the height of the building. Slover Ave., which fronts the Project, has sidewalks on both sides but no bike lanes due to the high amount of truck traffic on this roadway. Due to the proximity to residential to the north, the warehouse building was oriented so the truck docks face away from existing residential uses and truck parking is located to the south, both of which increase the distance of the warehouse from BoyleAve. Much of the Project design was based on the requirements of City Ordinance No. 1891 on warehouse design. Source: Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning & Urban Design. City of Fontana General Plan, Fontana Forward 2015-2035. July 23, 2023 1 Only those that apply to light industrial projects The development of the Project site will include a new high cube industrial distribution warehouse building that will be consistent with the other similar projects in the area that have been developed after the removal of other existing legally non-conforming residential uses. The Project will be visually compatible with the other similar projects in the area, including the ones that have been completed and the ones in close proximity to the Project site that are in the planning or early construction phase. The new high cube industrial distribution warehouse building will be visually attractive in its own right as indicated the previous Exhibit 6, Conceptual Site Plan, and Exhibit 7, Building Elevations. The new building will be set back from adjacent residential properties anywhere from 59 to 130 feet on the east side of the building (a side with no dock doors). Existing uses to the north of the Project site (a side with no dock doors) will be separated from the non-conforming residential uses by at least 100 feet, which includes the width of Boyle Avenue, depending on the setback of an individual residence from the north side of Boyle Avenue. The proposed building has been designed to sit further back on the Project site than City code requires, which will allow for a larger area of the building to be adequately screened by landscape and the use of block walls. Therefore, the Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact The Project area contains many existing uses which produce sources of light and glare. In addition, street lighting and vehicle lights along Slover Avenue, Boyle Avenue, Oleander Avenue, and Citrus Avenue to the west produce additional lighting at night. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 37 Development of the Project site would introduce different and new sources of light from what existed with the non-conforming residential uses in the form of street lighting, parking lots, and security lighting for the building. In addition, development can introduce additional glare from sunlight reflecting off of windows or direct views of unshielded lighting sources at night (visual “hot spots”). The Project could increase new lighting and glare (from windows or lighting) onto neighboring residential uses. Activities at the warehouses could occur 24/7 which would increase the amount of lighting needed beyond just security lighting (i.e., parking and truck movements), however, shielding is required to direct lighting down and not toward offsite properties, and the site will also have a 10- foot tall wall that will help shield direct views of any lighting fixtures or window reflections (i.e. glare) and overall lighting increases. Although new Project lighting will increase overall ambient light levels in the Project vicinity, the lighting introduced by the Project would be substantially screened from sensitive receptors, would be oriented downward to avoid spillage, and are required to be constructed and operated consistent with City standards. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, new development must be consistent with City regulations relative to light and glare to address light and glare impacts to adjacent properties. Section 30.326 of the Fontana Municipal Code requires all lights must be directed and shielded to prevent light and glare from spilling over onto adjacent properties, thereby avoiding an adverse effect. Therefore, Project lighting impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 38 City of Fontana c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g))? □ □ □ d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact According to the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), maintained by the state Department of Conservation (DOC) website, there are no state designated farmland classifications on or adjacent to the Project site. As noted on the “Important Farmland Finder” page of the DOC website1, the entire Project site and surrounding areas are categorized as “Urban and Built-Up Land” under the FMMP. The entire Project site is mapped underlain by one Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil type: Tujunga Loamy Sand (TuB) 0-5% slopes which is a Class III soil when irrigated. This soil is well drained, exhibits negligible to very low runoff, but is sandy and subject to wind erosion. Statewide the NRCS describes this soil type as a prime agricultural soil when irrigated, however, it is classified as a Class III soil by the NRCS in the soil survey for southwestern San Bernardino County, and locally it is not considered to be a prime soil for agricultural use (i.e., not a Class I and II soil). In addition, a review of historical aerial photos and topographic maps indicate the site has not been irrigated or used for agriculture since at least 1990 (Appendix E). The FMMP considers both soil quality and land use in its evaluation. While the physical and chemical properties of onsite soils may be conducive to agriculture, current land uses and zoning limit the site’s utility for agricultural production. The Project site and surrounding area currently contain large lot residential uses but are zoned for Light Industrial uses. In the City’s Zoning and Development Code, agricultural uses are not listed in Table No. 30-530, Permitted Uses in Industrial Zoning Districts. Section 30-531, Prohibited Uses, it further states that “any use not specifically permitted by Table No. 30-530, shall be prohibited”. Therefore, agricultural uses would not be allowed in the industrial zone requested by the Project. Due to the built-up nature of the area, agricultural use would no longer be 1 https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 39 possible, and the “Urban and Built-Up Land” designation is not considered to have agricultural value under the FMMP. For these reasons, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to farmland conversion and no mitigation is required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact The Williamson Act is also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. According to the State FMMP website and supported by County Assessor and Title Report records, there are no Williamson Act contracts either on the Project site or on any adjacent properties. Neither the Project site nor adjacent properties are zoned for agricultural use. Because the Project would not conflict with any Williamson Act contracts or agricultural zoning, the impacts related to this issue would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g))? No Impact According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection website, there are no areas designated as forest land or timberland on the Project site. Public Resource Code Section 12220(g)) defines forest land as: “land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” The site supports non-native weedy vegetation although many of the large lot residential properties contain trees of various types and sizes, but not in any large assemblages and not to the level of 10% property coverage. Therefore, onsite vegetation would not meet the basic requirements of Public Resource Code Section 12220(g)). For these reasons, no impacts would occur to forest zoned land from the implementation of the Project and no mitigation is required. d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact As discussed in Threshold 4.2(c) above, there are no areas of forest lands on the Project site or in the immediate surrounding area. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur from the implementation of the Project and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 40 City of Fontana e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact Neither the Project site nor adjacent lands are zoned for agricultural use, are under a Williamson Act contract, or are designated Farmland under the FMMP. The site and surrounding area also do not contain forest land. Therefore, there is no potential for the proposed Project to result in the conversion of farmland or forest land. There will be no impact and no mitigation required. 4.3 – Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ □ b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? □ □ □ c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? □ □ □ d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? □ □ □ a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact The Project is located within the City of Fontana, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Basin spans 6,729 square miles and includes all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Air Quality within the Basin is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 41 Both the State of California and the federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants (known as criteria pollutants). These pollutants include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The state has also established AAQS for additional pollutants. The AAQS are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace within a reasonable margin of safety. Where the state and federal standards differ, California AAQS (CAAQS) are more stringent than the national AAQS (NAAQS). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the SCAQMD assess the air quality of an area by measuring and monitoring the amount of pollutants in the ambient air and comparing pollutant levels against NAAQS and CAAQS. Based on these comparisons, regions are classified into one of the following categories: Attainment, Nonattainment, or Unclassified. The Basin is currently in nonattainment for State and Federal 1- and 8-hour Ozone, State 24-hour and Annual PM10, and partial nonattainment for lead. Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistency with the AQMP is affirmed if the Project: 1) Is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP; and 2) Does not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new one. Consistency Criterion 1 refers to the growth forecasts and associated assumptions included in the AQMP. Projects that are consistent with the AQMP growth assumptions would not interfere with attainment of air quality standards, because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. The proposed Project is estimated to create approximately 305 new jobs2, which would be well within the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS growth projections for the City of Fontana3. Except for the 1.2-acre parcel currently zoned for commercial use, the proposed Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning designations, which form the basis for growth assumption accounted for in the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS. The one parcel that is not consistent was vacant and its conversion to light industrial use would not represent a significant land use from the proposed light industrial use (SCAG, 2020). Therefore, the proposed Project would not exceed the growth assumptions contained in the AQMP. Consistency Criterion 2 refers to the CAAQS. In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable (SCAQMD, 2003; page D-3). As described below in Sub-Section (b), the proposed Project would not generate construction or operational emissions in excess of SCAQMD criteria air pollutant thresholds. For the reasons described above, the proposed Project would not conflict with the SCAQMD 2022 AQMP. There will be no impact and no mitigation is required. However, the City will comply with current SCAQMD regulations regarding dust control and vehicular emissions as appropriate which will help reduce potential air pollutant emissions (see Impact 4.2.b below). 2 Employment for the proposed warehouse was estimated using a SCAG conversion factor of 1,195 square feet per employee 3 The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS, which formulate the growth projections on which the 2022 AQMP are based, estimated that the City of Fontana would increase employment by approximately 18,400 jobs between 2016 and 2045, a growth rate of approximately 634 new jobs per year during that time period Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 42 City of Fontana b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact The Project’s potential emissions have been estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), V. 2022.1. The proposed Project will generate both short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions. The SCAQMD adopts rules that establish permissible air pollutant emissions levels for a variety of business, processes, operations, and products subject to Federal and State air quality requirements. In general, the proposed Project and its potential emissions sources will be subject to a number of SCAQMD rules, including, but not limited to, Rule 2305, Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (ISR), Rule 401 (Visible Emissions), Rule 402 (Nuisance), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 1108 (Cutback Asphalt), Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 1143 (Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi-Purpose Solvents). These SCAQMD rules will serve to limit and control the proposed Project’s potential to emit air pollutants. The proposed Project would generate both short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions. It is likely that demolition, grading, and construction of improvements will occur at different times so combined substantial air pollutant emissions from these activities would not occur. The construction of the proposed warehouse building and related improvements would generate equipment exhaust and dust emissions from the use of heavy-duty off-road equipment during construction activities such as clearing, demolition, site preparation, grading, paving, and applying architectural coating activities, as well as worker and vendor vehicle trips. The operation of the warehouse would involve vehicular emissions from employee vehicles and a variety of trucks traveling to and from the site, as well as regional emissions from power plants generating electricity to be used on the Project site. Construction The proposed Project is anticipated to require varying types of equipment throughout the different construction phases including, but not limited to, bulldozers, backhoes, loaders, graders, cranes and forklifts. Table 4.3-1, Construction Activities, summarizes the proposed Project’s construction phasing and the typical pieces of heavy-duty, off-road construction equipment that would be required during each phase. In addition, Exhibit 11, Construction Emissions Sources, shows the locations of emission sources during construction that were modeled in the air quality analysis. Table 4.3-1 Construction Activities Construction Activity Duration (Days)1 Typical Equipment Used2 Demolition 20 Saws, Excavator, Dozer Site Preparation 10 Dozer, Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Grading 30 Excavator, Grader, Dozer, Backhoe Trenching 60 Trencher, Forklift, Backhoe Building Construction 160 Crane, Forklift, Backhoe Paving 10 Paver, Paving Equipment, Roller Architectural Coating 25 Air Compressor Source: Table 2-4, MIG 2023a (Appendix A). 1 Days refers to total active workdays in the construction phase, not calendar days. 2 The typical equipment list does not reflect all equipment that would be used during the construction phase. Not all equipment would operate eight hours per day each workday. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 43 Exhibit 11 Construction Emissions Sources Figure 4-1, Source: MIG 2023 The proposed Project’s maximum daily unmitigated construction emissions are shown in Table 4.3-2, Construction Emissions. The construction emissions estimates incorporate measures to control and reduce fugitive dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 and the implementation of “project design features” (PDFs) as conditions of approval and identified in Section 2.10 that reduce construction-related air pollutants. These PDFs are designed to comply with the requirements of City Ordinance 1891 which are intended to reduce air pollutant impacts on local neighbors and the environment when warehouses are located in the vicinity of residential uses. It should be noted these PDFs were included in the CalEEMod computer modeling for the Project so the project proponent will be responsible for implementing them. These PDFs are considered regulatory compliance with Ordinance 1891 and not unique mitigation under CEQA. As shown Table 4-2, the proposed Project’s maximum daily unmitigated construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD’s regional pollutant thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Thus, the proposed Project would not generate construction-related emissions that exceed SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds, and no mitigation is required for construction emissions. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 44 City of Fontana Table 4.3-2 Construction Emissions Season Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day) VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Summer 2024 18.0 3.2 22.8 <0.1 1.3 0.4 Winter 2024 0.8 4.1 23.7 0.1 3.4 1.4 SCAQMD CEQA Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: Table 4-13, MIG 2023a (Appendix A) It should be noted that the City has a number of standard Conditions of Approval (COAs) that implement SCAQMD regulations related to air pollution emissions from construction of development projects. The City will require this Project to implement those standard COAs which will help further reduce potential air pollutants from Project construction. Operation Once operational, the proposed Project would generate long-term emissions from the following sources: • “Area” Sources. The proposed Project would generate emissions from small area sources, including landscaping equipment, the use of consumer products (e.g., paints, cleaners, and fertilizers) that result in the evaporation of chemicals into the atmosphere during product use. • Energy Use and Consumption. The proposed Project would generate emissions from the combustion of natural gas in water and space heating equipment, as well as industrial processes. • Mobile Sources. The proposed Project would generate emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the Project site. The proposed Project’s operational emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, V. 2020.4.0. The Project’s first full year of operation is anticipated to be 2025; however, as the Project could operate in a portion of Year 2024, the earlier year was selected as its operational year for the CalEEMod emissions modeling to provide a conservative assessment of the Project’s potential operational emissions. Exhibit 12, Operational Emissions Sources, shows the locations of emission sources during operations that were modeled in the air quality analysis. As shown in Table 4.3-3, Operational Emissions, the proposed Project’s maximum daily, unmitigated operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be well below the SCAQMD- recommended regional pollutant thresholds. The Project will also have to comply with SCAQMD Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule which was included in the CalEEMod modeling but will further reduce potential operational emissions. Project operation, therefore, would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions levels that exceed SCAQMD regional CEQA thresholds. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 45 Exhibit 12 Operational Emissions Sources Source: Figure 4-2, MIG 2023 In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable (SCAQMD, 2003; page D- 3). As described above, the proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions would be below applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria air pollutants. Impacts would be less than significant for both construction and operational emissions, and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 46 City of Fontana Table 4.3-3 Operational Emissions Source Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions (Pounds Per Day)1 VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Mobile 2.0 8.2 28.7 0.1 6.6 1.8 Area 11.3 0.0 15.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Total 13.7 8.2 44.4 0.1 6.6 1.8 SCAQMD CEQA Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: Table 4-14, MIG 2023a (Appendix A). Unmitigated emissions for Year 2024 1 Maximum daily ROG, CO, and SOX occur in the summer. Maximum daily NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions occur in the winter 2 Totals may not equal due to rounding. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Although the air quality analysis determined Project impacts were less than significant, the estimate of air pollutants was based on a number of “project design features” (PDFs) outlined in Section 2.10 of the Project Description, and Table 2.10-5, Benefits of Project Design Features to Comply with Ordinance 1891. These PDFs were incorporated into the CalEEMod computer modeling for the Project to comply with the regulatory requirements of the City’s Ordinance 1891 regulating the design of warehouses in proximity to residential uses. With implementation of this regulatory compliance, and standard SCAQMD Rules for new development, the Project will have less than significant impacts related to criteria pollutants from both short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions. Impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact Sensitive Receptors The proposed Project would generate both short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions that could impact sensitive residential receptors located near the Project. The proposed Project site is surrounded by a mix of residential and light industrial uses to the north (across Boyle Avenue), residential uses to the east and commercial uses to the southeast (across Oleander Avenue), commercial, light industrial, educational, and residential land uses to the south (across Slover Avenue), and commercial and residential land uses to the west (primarily across Citrus Avenue). It should be noted the Project site is, at its closest, approximately 485 feet (0.1 miles) south of a Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line and 575 feet (0.1 miles) south of Interstate 10 (I-10). The existing residences in proximity to the site represent sensitive receptors relative to the evaluation of potential health risks from air pollutants associated with the Project. The sensitive air quality receptors in proximity of the proposed Project site are: • Single-family residences bordering the site to the east on Oleander Avenue; • Single-family residences approximately 50 feet north of the site on Boyle Avenue; • Single-family residences approximately 160 feet west of the site on Citrus Avenue, north of Slover Avenue; Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 47 • Single-family residences approximately 380 feet southwest of the site on Citrus Avenue, south of Slover Avenue; • Jurupa Hills High School approximately 700 feet south of the site; • Single-family residences approximately 240 feet southeast of the site on Oleander Avenue, • south of Slover Avenue; • Fontana Adult School approximately 1,380 feet southeast of the site on Oleander Avenue; and • Citrus High School approximately 1,620 feet southeast of the site on Cyprus Avenue, adjacent to the Fontana Adult School. Existing Health Risks and Disadvantaged Communities The existing sensitive air quality receptors located adjacent or in close proximity to the Project site are exposed to air pollution associated with motor vehicles operating on the I-10 and roadways (e.g., Citrus Avenue), trains and overhead aircraft, and warehouse facilities and industrial uses in proximity of the site. The following subsections identify existing sources of information that attempt to quantify community health risks based on the sources of pollution to which they are exposed. The Project site is located within 0.25 miles of approximately one existing and two planned warehouse facilities, which contribute to existing air pollution in the region. There are currently five (5) warehouse facilities operating within 0.25 miles (from 110 to 1,000 feet) mainly south and northeast of the Project site which contribute to existing air pollution in the region. There is also an additional warehouse planned but not operational yet 1,250 feet west of the Project site. According to the SCAQMD’s MATES V Carcinogenic Risk Map, the existing carcinogenic risk in the vicinity of the Project is approximately 472 incremental cancer cases per million population. This estimate reflects regional modeling efforts that largely do not account for site specific emission rates and dispersion characteristics that typically result in refined and substantially lower health risk estimates. CalEnviroScreen is a mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. While CalEnviroScreen was originally developed as part of Senate Bill (SB) 535 and used to identify disadvantaged communities for the purposes of allocating funding from the State’s Cap-and-Trade regulation, its application and scope have expanded over the years. The tool uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores for every census tract in the state. The CalEnviroScreen model is made up of four components – two pollution burden components (exposures and environmental effects) and two population characteristics components (sensitive populations and socioeconomic factors). The four components are further divided into 20 indicators. An indicator is a measure of either environmental conditions, in the case of pollution burden indicators, or health and vulnerability factors, in the case of population characteristic indicators, including exposure, environmental effects, sensitive population, and socioeconomic factors. Communities that are within the top 25th percentile for total CalEnviroScreen scores are considered disadvantaged communities pursuant to SB 535. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Map, the proposed Project is in Census Tract 6071002601. This area shows an average pollution indicator percentile of 97% based on the CalEnviroScreen indicators (e.g., exposure, environmental effects, population characteristics, socioeconomic factors) and has a population of 9,594 people. Census Tract 6071002601 is within the top 30% of total CalEnviroScreen percentiles throughout the State. It is substantially burdened by exposure to pollution and is subject to relatively high levels of underlying conditions. Census tract Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 48 City of Fontana 6071002601 is in the 95th percentile for ozone and 94th percentile for PM2.5, meaning this census tract has higher exposure to ozone than 95% of census tracts in the State and higher exposure to PM2.5 than 94% of census tracts in the State. However, the census tract is not heavily burdened by socioeconomic factors, with a Population Characteristics Percentile of 41. The total CalEnviroScreen Percentile is 71, which is not in the top 25% percentile. Since this census tract is not within the top 25% in scoring, it is not considered a disadvantaged community pursuant to SB 535 based on the CalEnviroScreen methodology. Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) The SCAQMD identifies sensitive receptors as populations more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Some people are more affected by air pollution than others. Sensitive air quality receptors include specific subsets of the general population that are susceptible to poor air quality and the potential adverse health effects associated with poor air quality. Both the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the SCAQMD consider residences, schools, parks and playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes to be sensitive air quality land uses and receptors. “Friant Ranch” Court Case Discussion The following discussion is based on SCAQMD comments from the California Supreme Court decision on the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case from 2018 (referred to as the “Friant Case”). In addition to criteria air pollutant emissions on a regional scale and TAC emissions on a local scale, receptor exposure to elevated concentrations of criteria air pollutants (e.g., CO, O3, and PM) is capable of causing adverse health effects on heart, lung, and other organ systems. As described in Section 4.3(b), the proposed Project would generate cumulatively considerable construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions for which the region is designated nonattainment; however, these criteria air pollutant emissions would not expose receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, as described below. In the amicus brief filed by the SCAQMD on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Sierra Club versus County of Fresno, the SCAQMD noted that, “[it] takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions [e.g., NOx] to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels… a project emitting only 10 tons per year of NOx or VOC is small enough that its regional impact on ambient ozone levels may not be detected in the regional air quality models used to determine ozone levels…” (SCAQMD 2015). Although implementation of the proposed Project would increase criteria air pollutant emissions within the Basin, any analysis linking potential adverse health risks to corresponding pollutant concentrations would be speculative for several reasons. First, to estimate potential adverse health effects from regional emissions, it is necessary to have information on the sources of the ozone and PM emissions, such as the location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area, and the location of receptors exposed to the emissions (SCAQMD 2015). While the general nature of the emissions sources occurring with implementation of the Project area is known (i.e., area source, energy source, mobile source), the specific location of these sources within the Plan Area is not known, nor is other information, including source emission rate, exit velocity, operating characteristics (e.g., daytime or nighttime, seasonal or steady-state), etc. Second, the majority of operational NOx and PM emissions would be attributable to mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips) that would potentially travel on numerous local and regional roadways throughout the Project area and beyond that would be subject to varying meteorological and topographical Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 49 influences. These emissions would be subject to small scale air patterns, such as those formed as wind passes between buildings and other anthropogenic features (e.g., cars), creating eddies and other turbulence that affect pollutant transport. Third, as mentioned previously, the SCAQMD has stated (SCAQMD 2015, pgs. 10-11): “For the so- called criteria pollutants, such as ozone, it may be more difficult to quantify health impacts . . . It takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so ozone may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources . . . Scientifically, health effects from ozone are correlated with increases in the ambient level of ozone in the air a person breathes . . . However, it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over an entire region. For example, the SCAQMD's 2012 AQMP [Air Quality Management Plan] showed that reducing NOx by 432 tons per day (157,680 tons/year) and reducing VOC by 187 tons per day (68,255 tons/year) would reduce ozone levels at the SCAQMD's monitor site with the highest levels by only 9 parts per billion. SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify ozone-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects.” The proposed Project would not generate emissions anywhere near the levels cited by the SCAQMD in its amicus brief on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Sierra Club versus County of Fresno (i.e., 432 tons per day of NOx and 187 tons per day of VOC). Finally, adverse health effects associated with receptor exposure to criteria air pollutant concentrations is cumulative in nature. In other words, any potential health effects associated with the proposed Project would also need to be considered in light of background pollutant emissions. As discussed previously in this EIR chapter, there are many efforts being undertaken at the state and regional level to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from stationary and mobile sources. These actions are anticipated to reduce pollutant concentrations throughout the region over the next few decades. Therefore, even if the proposed Project does increase emissions in the Basin, criteria air pollutant concentrations in the region could still be lower in the future than they are currently due to the advancement of cleaner technologies. As described above, it would be speculative to transform the mass increase in VOC, NOX, and PM emissions that could occur with implementation of the proposed Project into quantifiable health risks for several specific reasons, including the uncertain location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area (which could affect the transport rate and photochemical reactions needed to produce ozone), background criteria air pollutant emissions in the future, and the location of receptors in relation to emission sources. However, given that the proposed Project’s operational emissions are far less than that modeled by the SCAQMD for its 2012 AQMP, which showed a relatively minor increase in criteria air pollutant concentrations for a large mass amount of emissions, mass operational emissions associated with implementation of the Project would not substantially alter criteria air pollutant concentrations within the Basin. Furthermore, the majority of emissions generated by the proposed Project would come from gasoline- powered mobile sources, which are transient in nature and would generate the majority of emissions off-site. Aside from mobile source emissions, which are anticipated to become cleaner over time due to actions taken at the state and federal level, the next largest sources of criteria air pollutant emissions are anticipated to come from the use of consumer products and landscaping equipment. Neither of these sources would be used at the frequency nor magnitude required to result in criteria air pollutant emissions that would be harmful to one’s health. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not exacerbate or contribute to significant health risks at or in proximity of the Project area, nor would it increase the number of state or national ambient air quality standard exceedances). This impact would be less than significant. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 50 City of Fontana This discussion is based on the SCAQMD document entitled Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of the Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and [Proposed] Brief for Amicus Curiae dated April 6, 2015 [SCAQMD website accessed 11-2-23] <https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/9-s219783-ac-south-coast-air-quality-mgt-dist-041315.pdf> Construction. The proposed Project’s maximum daily construction emissions are compared against the SCAQMD’s-recommended LSTs in Table 4.3-4, Construction LST Impacts. The LSTs are for SRA 34 (Central San Bernardino Valley) in which the proposed Project is located. Construction emissions were estimated against the SCAQMD’s thresholds for a 5-acre project size which is the largest site acreage for which screening threshold values are established. However, the proposed Project would disturb approximately 17.39 acres so the 5-acre threshold values would be overly stringent for the proposed Project. In addition, a receptor distance of 25 meters was used to evaluate impacts at sensitive receptor locations for construction activities. This distance was used because SCAQMD guidance says this distance should be used if any receptors are closer than 25 meters. This is still considered to be a conservative approach; the assumptions used would estimate more emissions within the site envelope than would actually be generated. Table 4.3-4 Construction LST Impacts Construction Phase Maximum On-Site Pollutant Emissions (Pounds Per Day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition 1.3 14.4 2.6 0.4 Site Preparation 0.6 6.9 2.8 1.3 Grading 2.0 21.7 2.6 1.1 Trenching 0.3 4.9 0.2 0.1 Building Construction 2.0 9.1 0.9 0.2 Paving 0.5 6.6 0.2 0.1 Architectural Coating 0.1 1.9 0.3 0.1 SCAQMD LST Threshold 270 1,756 14 8 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source: Table 4-15, MIG 2023a (Appendix A). As shown in Table 4.3-2, the proposed Project’s construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended construction LSTs. Project construction, therefore, would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions levels that exceed SCAQMD local CEQA thresholds. Construction impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Operation. The proposed Project’s maximum daily operational emissions are compared against the SCAQMD’s-recommended LSTs in Table 4.3-5, Operation LST Impacts. The LSTs are for SRA 34 (Central San Bernardino Valley) in which the proposed Project is located. The operational emissions from on-site area, mobile, and off-road emissions sources were estimated against the SCAQMD’s thresholds for a 5-acre project size. A receptor distance of 25 meters was used to evaluate impacts at sensitive receptor locations for operational activities. As shown in Table 4.3-3, emissions from operational activities at the Project site would not exceed the SCAQMD’s-recommended LSTs for SRA 34. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 51 Table 4.3-5 Operational LST Impacts Emissions Maximum On-Site Pollutant Emissions (Pounds Per Day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 0.1 15.7 0.0 0.0 Mobile Sources 1.7 4.6 0.5 0.1 Total Onsite Emissions 1.8 20.3 0.5 0.2 SCAQMD LST Threshold 176 2,437 15 4 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: Table 4-16, MIG 2023a (Appendix A) CO Hotspots Increased congestion at local intersections from Project traffic may create localized concentrations of CO that may have health impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. The proposed Project would generate approximately 498 new vehicle trips with 29 AM peak hour and 34 PM peak hour trips. The Project would generate a total 633 passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips with 43 and 38 PCE trips added during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively (Ganddini 2023b). PCE trips create a standard unit of measurement that reflects the fact that large trucks and buses have greater impacts than recreational vehicles on traffic flow. By their size alone, these vehicles occupy the same space as two or more passenger cars. In addition, the time it takes for them to accelerate/decelerate is much longer than for passenger cars and varies depending on the type of vehicle and number of axles. Thus, a PCE factor of 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 were applied to the 2-, 3-, and 4-axle trucks, respectively, that were associated with the proposed Project (Ganddini 2023b). The proposed Project would result in approximately 498 total new vehicle trips on the local roadway infrastructure per day with 29 and 34 of those trips occurring during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively (Ganddini 2023b). To establish a record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted by the SCAQMD in 2003 for four busy intersection is Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The busiest intersection evaluated for morning traffic volumes was at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a morning traffic volume of approximately 8,062 vehicles per hour (vph). The highest 1-hour CO concentration level for this intersection during the peak morning period was calculated to be 4.6 ppm. This indicates that, should the hourly traffic volume increase four times to 32,250 vehicles per hour, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4 = 18.4 ppm) would still not likely exceed the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm). The Project is not located in an area where hourly or daily traffic volumes on any nearby streets are anywhere close to the SCAQMD 2003 study parameters. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant CO concentrations. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Health Risk Assessment The proposed Project would involve construction and operational activities that would generate emissions of regulated air pollutants from construction equipment, area sources, energy use and consumption, mobile sources including trucks, and off-road equipment. The proposed Project would also involve travel and idling by diesel-powered trucks, which would generate emissions of diesel particulate matter(“DPM”), a pollutant identified by the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) as a toxic air contaminant (“TAC”). Construction activities are anticipated to last approximately 10 months and begin in early 2024. The building could operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 52 City of Fontana A health risk assessment (“HRA”) was prepared for the Project to evaluate its potential cancerogenic and non-cancerogenic health effects that could result from receptor exposure to DPM. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would require the use of heavy-duty, off-road, diesel- powered equipment (e.g., loaders, tractors, backhoes, bulldozers, etc.) that would generate DPM during the combustion of fuel. Operational activities at the site would also include the use of yard equipment and the use of diesel trucks that would generate DPM emissions during on- and off-site travel and on-site idling. The HRA was prepared in accordance with applicable guidelines from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) and the SCAQMD and utilized PM10 exhaust emissions estimates for the construction portion of the HRA, and emission factors derived from EMFAC2021 in conjunction with Project-specific truck trip and idling characteristics from the Project’s Trip Generation Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads for the operational portion of the HRA. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) - and SCAQMD-approved American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (“AERMOD”, V. 21112) was used to predict pollutant concentrations at existing sensitive receptors near the Project area. The AERMOD dispersion model simulates the dispersion of pollutant emissions and estimates ground level concentrations of pollutants at specified receptor locations. Predicted ground level concentrations of DPM were then assessed for potential health risks in accordance with SCAQMD and OEHHA methodologies. Cancer Risk. Cancer risk is the calculated, pollutant-specific estimated probability of developing cancer based upon the dose and exposure to the TAC. Cancer risk is determined by calculating the combinatory effects of the cancer potency factor (CPF) when inhaling the toxic, the daily inhalation dose, the age group the receptor is cohort to, the duration of exposure over a lifetime (70 years), and other factors such as age sensitivity and the amount of time spent at the location of exposure. For the proposed Project, risks were assessed for the inhalation pathway (i.e., breathing) for residential receptors.6 Residential receptors were assessed under a 30-year exposure duration to detail potential risk to those under lifetime exposure; student receptors were assessed using a 4-year exposure duration. For the first year of exposure, receptors were assessed for exposure to construction PM10 emissions for 10 months and operational PM10 emissions for two (2) months. For the remaining duration of exposure (29 years for residential receptors) risks at receptor locations are only based on exposure to exhaust PM10 emissions generated during operational activities. The results of the modeling indicate the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR), is located east of the Project site at 10408 Oleander. The incremental increase in excess cancer risk at this location is 0.8 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 10.0 in one million. This risk is less than one-tenth of the SCAQMD threshold and, therefore, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in health risks for receptors in proximity of the Project site. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Cancer Burden. Cancer burden is the product of public cancer risk and the population exposed to the carcinogen. There are approximately 88 total residential dwelling units located within a quarter-mile of the expansion portion of the Project site. There are an average of approximately 4.0 persons per household in the City of Fontana (SCAG, 2019). Thus, an estimated population of 352 people live within a quarter-mile of the Project site. The HRA indicates the population-wide cancer burden is 0.000082, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 0.5 so these impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 53 Non-Cancer Risk. The chronic non-cancer hazard quotient is the calculated pollutant-specific indicator for risk of developing an adverse health effect on specific organ system(s) targeted by the identified TAC within the DPM. The potential for exposure to result in chronic non-cancer effects is evaluated by comparing the estimated annual average air concentration to the chemical-specific, non- cancer chronic RELs. The REL is a concentration below which there is assumed to be no observable adverse health impact to a target organ system. When calculated for a single chemical, the comparison yields a ratio termed a hazard quotient. To evaluate the potential for adverse chronic non- cancer health effects from simultaneous exposure to multiple chemicals, the hazard quotients for all chemicals are summed, yielding a hazard index. The chronic REL threshold for DPM was established by OEHHA as 5 μg/m3. For an acute hazard quotient, the one-hour maximum concentration is divided by the acute REL for the substance; however, there is no acute REL for DPM. Chronic non-cancer risks are considered significant if a project’s TAC emissions result in a hazard index greater than or equal to one. Based on the results of the dispersion modeling, the maximum annual average concentration of DPM (0.00443 micrograms of PM10 exhaust per cubic meter) and resulting non- carcinogenic health hazard index (0.00089) at the MEIR location would not exceed the SCAQMD health hazard index threshold of 1.0. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions As described previously, sensitive receptors are located north, west, south, and east of the Project site. Project-related construction activities would emit PM10 from equipment exhaust. The operation of trucks and yard equipment during operation of the proposed Project would also generate PM10 from equipment exhaust during idling and truck and equipment operation. A major constituent of diesel truck exhaust is diesel particulate matter (DPM), and the following describes the Individual Cancer Risk from exposure to DPM. The predicted locations of the annual, unmitigated point of maximum impact (PMI) and the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), and maximally exposed student receptor (MESR) for DPM exposure during construction are shown in Exhibit 13, Construction Annual Average DPM Concentrations (ug/m3), shows the contours of pollutant concentrations in proximity of the Project site. The predicted PMI is located north of the Project site along Boyle Avenue. Since the PMI for DPM exposure is located on land that is not occupied by a receptor on a permanent basis, lifetime excess cancer risks and chronic non-cancer health hazards, which are based on exposure to annual average pollutant concentrations, were not estimated for the modeled PMI location. Accordingly, health risks were assessed at the modeled residential MEIR location, which is located east of the Project site in the yard of 10408 Oleander Avenue. The HRA for residential receptors evaluated worst- case carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks to child (3rd trimester, 0-2 years, and 2-16 years) and adult (16-30 years) receptors. Potential health risks were also assessed for student receptors (9-16 years) at Jurupa Hills High School, south of the Project site. As shown in Appendix C, the calculated, maximum unmitigated combined construction and operation risks would be approximately 0.7 excess cancers in a million in Year 1, which corresponds to infant receptors that are less than two years old at the start of construction activities. The proposed Project would generate DPM once operational from diesel truck trips to and from the site, as well as their on-site idling. The calculated, maximum unmitigated risks for exposure operational concentrations at the MEIR location during Year 2 would be approximately 0.1 excess cancers in a million. After Year 2, the proposed Project would continue to generate DPM from operational activities. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 54 City of Fontana Exhibit 13 Construction Annual Average DPM Concentrations (ug/m3) Source: Figure 4-3, MIG 2023a An operational HRA was conducted to evaluate the potential health risks posed by these activities. Whereas construction activities would only last approximately 10 months, the proposed Project’s operational activities would continue to occur year after year. Health risks from construction and operational activities are presented in Table 4.3-6, Project-Related Cancer Risks and Exhibit 14, Operational Annual Average DPM Concentrations (ug/m3), shows the dispersion characteristics and location of the MEIR and MEIS for operational activities. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 55 Exhibit 14 Operational Annual Average DPM Concentrations (ug/m3) Source: Figure 4-4, MIG 2023a Table 4.3-6 Project-Related Cancer Risks Receptor UTM Location Annual Average DPM Concentration (µg/m3) Excess Cancer Risk (per million population) East North Construction (Year 1) Operation (Years 2-30) Construction Operational Total PMI 458374.96 3769439.31 0.00505 0.00034 -- -- -- MEIR 458554.96 3769399.31 0.00443 0.00029 0.7 0.1 0.8 MEIW 458262.9 3769033.16 0.00018 0.00014 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Source: Table 4-17, MIG 2023a (Appendix A) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 56 City of Fontana Cancer Burden. The average cancer risk based on the lifetime exposure scenario (70 years), is 2.34E-07 or approximately 0.234 cases per million people. The product of cancer risk and the estimated population (352) is 0.000082 and does not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 0.5 excess cancer cases. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Non-Cancer Risk. The maximum annual average DPM concentration at any receptor location would be approximately 0.00443 μg/m3, which would occur at the MEIR location. Based on the chronic inhalation REL for DPM (5 μg/m3), the calculated chronic hazard quotient during the maximum exposure to DPM concentration would be 0.00089, which is below the SCAQMD’s non-cancer hazard index threshold value of 1.0. All other receptor exposure scenarios would result in a non-carcinogenic hazard index less than 0.001. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Cumulative Cancer Risk from Receptor Exposure to DPM. The proposed Project is located in an industrial area that includes DPM emission sources, such as those associated with warehousing activities and truck trips. The construction and operational activities proposed by the Project would emit DPM emissions and contribute to overall DPM concentrations in the vicinity and SCAB as a whole; however, these emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, because the Project would result in excess cancer risks that are less than one-tenth of the SCAQMD project-level threshold. Although the proposed Project would emit DPM emissions, which would contribute to existing emissions and health risks in the area, it would not do so in a manner that is cumulatively considerable. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993), land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). The proposed Project would result in the construction of a warehouse and the use of equipment, solvents, and other construction materials used to modify the existing site could temporarily produce odors common to construction sites (fuel odors, solvent odors, etc.). These odors would not be unusual or prolonged. Any potential construction-related odors would be temporary, quick to disperse, and would not affect a substantial number of people or nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, any impacts from odors would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 57 4.4 – Biological Resources Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ □ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? □ □ □ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? □ □ □ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 58 City of Fontana 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? □ □ □ 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? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated A general Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) was initially prepared for the Project site by MIG in September 2022 but was updated in September 2023 to account for changes in site conditions (i.e., removal of former vacant homes and businesses). The BRA included a search of the California Natural and Terrestrial Communities Database to determine if any rare or sensitive plant communities are present in the Project area (see Appendix B). Special-status plant species include plants that are federal- or state-listed as rare, threatened, or endangered, federal and state candidates for listing, plants assigned a Rank of 1 through 4 by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory, and plants that qualify under the definition of “rare” in the CEQA, section 15380. The BRA indicated the Project site was initially determined to provide potentially suitable habitat for a total of 80 special-status plant species based on the proximity of the Project site to previously recorded occurrences in the region, vegetation types and habitat quality, topography, elevation, soil types, and other species-specific habitat requirements. Based on results of the habitat suitability analysis and focused late season survey conducted on June 16, 2022 and reconfirmed during the 2023 update. The BRA update confirmed the conclusion that none of the 80 plant species are expected to occur on the Project site, and no mitigation was necessary. Special-status wildlife species include those species listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA), candidates for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Species of Special Concern (SSC) to the CDFW, and birds protected by the CDFW under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3513. The Project site is currently vacant although the surrounding area is almost completely developed with residential and commercial uses which support landscapes with mostly non-native plant species. The BRA initially determined that 61 special-status wildlife species have been recorded in the vicinity of the Project site but that 59 of the species were not expected to occur on the Project site. The two species that have some potential to occur onsite include one bird (Cooper's hawk, Accipiter cooperii, California Watch List Species) and one bat (western mastiff bat, Eumops perotis californicus, a California SSC). The 2022 BRA recommended a mitigation measure for each of these species due to the number of trees and vacant structures on the site at that time that could serve as habitat for these species. However, the subsequent 2023 BRA documented that the vacant buildings and trees onsite had been demolished and removed since the 2022 survey. There is no longer any vegetation or habitat for these species on the site so no mitigation is proposed for these species. It should be noted that “critical habitat” for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) is located over a mile south of the Project site in different habitats (e.g., like inland or Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 59 coastal sage scrub) compared to the Project site which has no trees or other vegetation that might support the species. Therefore, this species will not be impacted by the Project. The updated BRA also concluded no USFWS-designated critical habitat for any federally listed animals is present on the Project site. The 2022 BRA and the 2023 updated BRA indicated a potential for the burrowing owl, a CDFW species of special concern, to be present or have the possibility of quickly occupying the site due to its habit of taking over existing small mammal burrows. The BRA concluded the Project site did have a potential for burrowing owl onsite so it recommended Mitigation Measure BIO-1. The 2022 BRA indicated the Project site provided suitable roosting (i.e., trees and abandoned structures) and foraging (i.e., open habitat) habitat for the rare western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) as well as other common bat species protected under California Fish and Game Code. However, since that time the trees and structures that could be occupied by roosting bats have been removed from the site. Therefore, the 2023 BRA update concluded the site no longer contains any potential habitat for roosting bats and no mitigation is required. Nesting birds are protected under CFGC 3503, 3503.5, and 3512, which prohibits the taking of active bird nests. Nesting birds are also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The BRA indicated ruderal (weedy) vegetation and ornamental trees on the Project site provide marginally suitable nesting habitat for songbirds and raptors, including common species protected by the code. The BRA concluded there was potential for ground- and tree-nesting birds to establish nests on the Project site prior to initiation of Project construction. As indicated above, the BRA recommended implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to address potential impacts to (ground) nesting birds since the trees and vacant buildings that could have provided nesting habitat in the past have since been removed from the site. No other special-status wildlife species are expected to be impacted by project construction due to a lack of suitable habitat and the high degree of site disturbance due to existing development within and surrounding the Project site. With implementation of the recommended mitigation, potential impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 Pre-construction Survey for Burrowing Owl and Ground Nesting Birds. Burrowing Owl. No more than 14 days prior to ground disturbance a focused survey for burrowing owl will be required to ensure take avoidance. Even though burrowing owls were not located as part of the general biological survey, a pre-construction survey for burrowing owl is required because burrowing owls may encroach or migrate to the property at any time, and therefore steps should be taken to ensure avoidance, including reevaluating the locations/presence of burrowing owl or burrows. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the survey requirements outlined in Appendix D of the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl, dated March 7, 2012. If burrowing owl are found on the Project Site during pre-construction surveys, the biologist conducting surveys shall immediately contact the CDFW to develop a plan for avoidance and/or translocation prior to construction crews initiating any ground disturbance on the Project Site. Ground Nesting Birds. To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 60 City of Fontana the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in San Bernardino County extends from February 1 through September 1. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds will be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during Project implementation. These surveys will be conducted no more than 5 days prior to the initiation of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization, including tree, shrub, or vegetation removal, fence installation, grading, etc. If Project activities are delayed by more than 5 days, an additional nesting bird survey will be performed. During this survey, the biologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees and shrubs) in and immediately adjacent to the impact area for nests. Active nesting is present if a bird is building a nest, sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the surveys will be documented. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically up to 300 feet for raptors and up to 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during Project implementation. Within the buffer zone, no site disturbance and mobilization of heavy equipment, including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, demolition, and grading will be permitted until the chicks have fledged. A qualified biologist is an individual who has a degree in biological sciences or related resource management with a minimum of two seasonal years post-degree experience conducting surveys for nesting birds. During or following academic training, the qualified biologist will have achieved a high level of professional experience and knowledge in biological sciences and special-status species identification, ecology, and habitat requirements. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact The BRA evaluated onsite plant communities to determine if they are considered sensitive under federal, state, or local regulations or policies. Biological communities are classified as sensitive or non-sensitive as defined by CEQA and other applicable laws and regulations. Five sensitive plant communities in the general area were found during a search of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) maintained by the CDFW but the BRA concluded none of these were expected to occur on the Project site. The BRA also concluded the entire Project site is in an urban area and considered in a “disturbed and/or developed” condition. As noted above in Threshold 4.4(a) above, the BRA also concluded no USFWS-designated critical habitat for any federally listed animals is present on the Project site. The closest critical habitat for a list species is located over a mile south of the Project site for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) which would not be impacted by the Project. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 61 According to the BRA and the National Wetlands Inventory, the Project site contains no riparian (streamside) resources or other sensitive natural community or habitat. In addition, the property has been and is regularly disturbed by human activity. At this time, the site no longer contains any trees or abandoned houses that might have supported birds, raptors (birds of prey), and possibly bats, as discussed in Threshold 4.4(a) above. However, all of the improvements on the site were demolished and removed in early 2023 so the site does not now contain any important habitat or other biological resources, and its development will not require subsequent regulatory permitting through the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, any impact will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 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? Less Than Significant Impact There is an ephemeral stream immediately north of the Project site that terminates at a storm drain, but there is no evidence (e.g., watermarks, vegetation, or other characteristics) that water flows from this stream onto the Project site. According to the BRA and the National Wetlands Inventory, the Project site does not contain any wetlands, and there is no vegetation or onsite water features indicative of potential wetlands. In addition, there are no drainage or wetland features on the site that would be considered jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or CDFW. Therefore, impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 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? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The Project site currently contains no native or ornamental trees or bushes which could have the potential to provide nesting habitat for migratory bird species protected by the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Sections 3503 and 3513. Therefore, there is little or no potential for tree-nesting birds to establish nests on the Project site but there may be some potential for ground-nesting birds to utilize the site prior to any Project-related construction. Construction activities include site mobilization, building demolition, limited tree removal, other vegetation clearing, grubbing, and grading. Noise and vibration from the operation of heavy equipment have the potential to result in significant direct (i.e., death or physical harm) and/or indirect (i.e., nest abandonment) impacts to nesting birds. The loss of an active nest of common or special-status bird species and/or their eggs or young as a result of Project construction would be considered a violation of the CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513 and therefore, will be considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will reduce the impact on nesting birds to a less than significant level, as discussed in Threshold 4.4(a) above. The 2023 BRA concluded the Project site does not act as a wildlife movement corridor due to its location within a built environment as well as the presence of urban/suburban development surrounding the site. Once landscaping is installed, the Project site is expected to be utilized by common, non-special-status wildlife for foraging and possibly breeding. However, the site is situated in an urbanized area and does not represent a wildlife movement corridor as it is bound on all sides Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 62 City of Fontana by residential and industrial land uses and therefore does not preclude wildlife movement in otherwise open areas. Therefore, impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact As outlined in Table 4.4-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, the proposed Project is generally consistent with the General Plan policies and objectives in the Open Space and Conservation Element regarding biological resources. Table 4.4-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis General Plan Goals and Targets General Plan Consistency Analysis Goal #1.2 (Preservation of Natural Open Space) Conserve Natural Habitat and Protection of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species. Consistent. The Project site does not contain resources or habitat that supports listed or otherwise sensitive species, and mitigation is proposed to address the potential impacts on migratory birds and roosting bats. Policy 3). Apply local CEQA procedures to identify potential impacts to rare, threatened and endangered species. Consistent. A biological assessment was performed that determined the project site does not contain resources or habitat that supports listed or otherwise sensitive species. Mitigation is proposed to address the potential impacts on migratory or nesting birds and roosting bats per CEQA requirements. Policy 4). Require evidence of satisfactory compliance with any required state and/or federal permits, prior to issuance of grading permits for individual projects. Consistent. The project biological assessment determined no permitting was required for drainages or federal/state jurisdictional land. Mitigation is proposed to address the potential impacts on nesting birds and roosting bats as sensitive species. Policy 5). Require site-specific surveys to identify the presence/absence of sensitive species and natural communities, for all projects located in areas identified in the Sensitive Biotic Resource database. Consistent. A site-specific biological assessment was performed that determined the project site does not contain resources or habitat that supports listed or otherwise sensitive species, important natural communities, wildlife movement corridors, etc. Appropriate mitigation is proposed for potential impacts to migratory nesting birds and potential roosting bats. The City of Fontana has a Tree Preservation Ordinance which establishes regulations for “the preservation and protection of heritage, significant and/or specimen trees within the city located on both private and public property (Ordinance No. 1126, § 1, 8-16-94, adopted Aug. 16, 1994. Chapter 28: Vegetation, Article III: Preservation of Heritage, Significant, and Specimen Trees). At this time there are no trees remaining on the site from past residential uses, however, if any tree removal is required it will have to be consistent with this ordinance. In addition, the Project will comply with the City’s landscaping requirements regarding the planting of street trees and onsite trees. Meeting the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 63 requirements of the ordinance is considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA. With this regulatory compliance, the Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 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 Impact While the Project site is located approximately one mile north of Final Critical Habitat for Coastal California Gnatcatcher, as discussed in Threshold 4.4(a) above, the project site itself does not lie within an area covered by any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The project site is widely separated from the SBKR and DSFLF HCP areas in the City by roads and development, so the proposed Project will not affect or be affected by either of these HCPs. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no direct or indirect impacts on any Habitat Conservation Plan and no mitigation is required. 4.5 – Cultural Resources Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ □ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ □ c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? □ □ □ a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact A comprehensive Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) was prepared for the Project site by CRM TECH in September 2023. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that, for purposes of CEQA, the term “historical” resource includes: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 64 City of Fontana 1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by, the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. 2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code. 3. Any resource determined by the lead agency to meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. See EIR Section 4.5.2.2 for a discussion of the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Spanish Mission Period (1769-1821). The San Bernardino Valley was originally inhabited by Californian Native Americans, including the Serrano, Cahuilla, and Tongva tribes. The Mohave Trail, a trade route from the Mohave villages on the Colorado River that crossed the Mojave Desert from spring to spring and then followed the Mojave River upstream, entered the valley from the slopes of Monument Peak in the San Bernardino Mountains. The Spanish missionaries established the Politana Rancheria in the valley in 1810, as an estancia or ranch outpost of Mission San Gabriel Arcángel. It was built to graze cattle and to help convert Serrano and Cahuilla Indians into Mission Indians. Mexican Rancho Period (1821–1848). In 1821, Mexico gained independence from Spain, and the period from 1821 to 1848 is referred to here as the Mexican Rancho Period. It was during this period of time that tracts of land in excess of 1,000 acres, termed ranchos, were granted by the various governors of Alta California, usually to individuals who had worked in the service of the Mexican government. In 1833, 12 years after gaining independence from Spain, the Mexican Government’s Secularization Act changed missions into civil parishes, and those natives who had inhabited regions adjacent to a Spanish Period mission were to obtain half of all mission possessions, including land. However, in most instances this did not occur, and the Secularization Act resulted in the transfer of large land tracts to politically prominent individuals. American Period (Post-1848). Following the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago in 1848, the United States took possession of California. The treaty bound the United States to honor the legitimate land claims of Mexican citizens residing in captured territories. The Land Act of 1851 established a board of Land Commissioners to review these records and adjudicate claims and charged the Surveyor General with surveying confirmed land grants. The Project area itself has never been part of one of the big Mexican Ranchos and by 1846 it was considered public land. The closest Ranchos were Rancho Muscupiabe (to the east), owned by Michael C. White (granted in 1843) and Rancho Cucamonga (to the southwest), land grant awarded in 1839 to Tiburcio Tapia. Many of these Rancho Land Grants were unable to remain and keep themselves together after the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the influx of immigrants. The Federal Land Act of 1851 required landowners to show proof of land ownership. In addition, floods during the winters of 1862 and 1864 decimated the cattle industry, leading to its decline. The Community of Fontana. Once the Southern Pacific Railroad (1870) and the Santa Fe Railroads (1885) were built, the region really began to develop. In 1887, Fontana started out as a Santa Fe Railroad stop originally named Rosena. The area of Grapeland was developed just to the east and south of the Project site. In the 1870s Andrew Pope of Semi Tropic Land and Water bought a lot of the region south and east of this area. In 1905 A. B. Miller came to Rosena, which by this time had 25 families in the area and had laid out the town site. In 1911 Miller changed the name of the town to Fontana and organized the Fontana Farm Company which helped build the region into an agricultural area. With the coming of World War II in 1942, the area faced great change with the development of the Kaiser Steel Company. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 65 The particular history of the Project site involves the development of Grapeland. The Grapeland Irrigation District was part of the land boom and advertised as such. For a time, the area was successful for peach and citrus groves, olives, and grapes until the drought of 1888-1889. In 1901, the Fontana Development Company got the rights to the water from Lytle Creek. The post office and Perdew School were closed in 1905, signaling the end of the Grapeland community. The CRA found 44 historical/archaeological sites had been previously recorded within the one-mile radius of the Project site, but none of them were located on the Project site itself. All of these sites dated to the historic period, and no precontact —i.e., Native American—cultural resources were identified in SCCIC records. The CRA concluded that development of the Project site will not cause an adverse change in the significance of an historical resource since no such resources have been identified on the Project site. Therefore, the Project will not result in a significant impact on a historical resource and no mitigation is required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The Project site is located within the traditional boundary interface between the Serrano and Gabrielino (Tongva) Native American groups. The Serrano and Tongva Native Americans had similar material cultures in antiquity and often enjoyed large intervillage relationships; both groups have traditional use claims to the region encompassing the Project site. Both the Serrano and Tongva were semi-nomadic hunter gatherers who subsisted by exploitation of seasonably available plant and animal resources. Generally, the Serrano lived along the northern and southern foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. The Tribe’s traditional use territory extended west into the Cajon Pass and east as far as Twentynine Palms, north to Victorville, and south to the Yucaipa Valley. “Serrano” is a Spanish term meaning mountaineer or highlander, but tribal members refer to themselves as the Maarrenga’yam. Tongva territory includes the Santa Ana River watershed and stretches from the San Gabriel Mountains to Laguna Hills and from the southern Channel Islands to the San Bernardino Valley. The Tongva language is derived from the Takic family, part of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock. The term “Gabrielino” came from the association with the Mission San Gabriel Archangel; however, today the group prefers to be known by “Tongva”, its ancestral name. The CRA found 44 historical/archaeological sites had been previously recorded within the one-mile radius. All of these sites dated to the historic period, and no precontact (i.e., Native American before European contact) cultural resources were identified in SCCIC records. Due to the long history of Native American habitation, there is at least a potential for uncovering archaeological artifacts or resources during construction and grading operations. In compliance with California law chaptered pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) and Assembly Bill 52 (Chapter 532, Statues of 2014), the City of Fontana has consulted with California Native American tribes during the planning and environmental review processes. Letters were sent to ten (10) local tribal groups. For additional information regarding local Native American tribal cultural resources, see Threshold 4.18(a-b). The City has a standard condition that If any resources are Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 66 City of Fontana uncovered during grading, work will be halted until the artifact or resource has been evaluated by qualified personnel. This is considered regulatory compliance with State law and not unique mitigation under CEQA. In accordance with SB 18 and AB 52, the City contacted local tribes requesting to be notified of development projects. The City commenced the AB 52 and SB18 processes by transmitting letters of notification about the Project on November 9, 2023. The City transmitted letters of notification to the following tribes: • Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation; • Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians; • San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; • Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians; and • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. The 30-day notification period for AB 52 ended on December 9, 2023 and the 90-day notification period for SB 18 ended on February 5, 2024. The City received two responses from local tribes requesting consultation during those times, from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation (GBMI-KN) and the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN). No other tribes contacted the City regarding consultation on this project. Based on consultation with the YSMN, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 are included to address unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during grading. Further, as discussed in the Tribal Cultural Resources section 4.18(b), Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-5 require that any archaeological/cultural resources, including human remains, found during grading will be evaluated by tribal monitoring staff and/or tribal representatives to determine their appropriate disposition. The possibility remains that previously undiscovered TCR could be uncovered during development of the proposed Project. With incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 and TCR-1 through TCR-5, as recommended by the GBMI-KN and the YSMN, the Project will not impact TCR's or archaeological resources relating to TCRs. Therefore, potential impacts to archaeological resources are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The Project site has been previously disturbed during development of the now former low intensity residential uses. In the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered during earthmoving activities, the contractor shall halt work in the immediate area of the find and notify the County Coroner, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, who then must determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of a supervising archaeologist, determines that the remains are or appear to be of a Native American, he/she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission for further investigations and proper recovery of such remains, if necessary. Based on Native American Consultation (NAC) with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly known as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians), Mitigation Measure CUL-3 is included to address unanticipated discovery of human remains during grading. Through adherence to existing regulations and implementation of the recommended mitigation, impacts will be less than significant. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 67 Mitigation Measures CUL-1 Unanticipated Resources. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Consulting Tribe(s) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-4, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. CUL-2 Treatment Plan. If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-4. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly. In addition to its standard requirements, the Plan shall indicate the process by which the two tribes will resolve a situation of both tribes claim ownership of an identified tribal cultural resource. CUL-3 Human Remains. If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that Code enforced for the duration of project grading. 4.6 – Energy Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? □ □ □ b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? □ □ □ a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 68 City of Fontana Less Than Significant Impact A detailed evaluation of energy-related impacts of the Project is provided in the Energy and GHG Report prepared by MIG in July 2023 (Appendix A). Implementation of the Project would increase the demand for energy at the Project site during construction and operation. However, the proposed warehouse would be designed to current 2022 CalGreen Code standards to minimize additional energy use. Construction Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would require the use of equipment and construction-related vehicle trips that would combust fuel, primarily diesel and gasoline. Heavy-duty construction equipment would be required to comply with CARB’s airborne toxic control measures, which restrict heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling to five minutes. Once operational, the Project would consume energy for vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas usage, and water and wastewater conveyance; however, the proposed Project will install more efficient lighting, and new facilities would be constructed to the latest building code requirements governing energy efficiency. Electricity, natural gas, and gasoline fuel consumption are energy sources necessary to operate and maintain the proposed Project in a safe manner. Electricity is provided to the City by Southern California Edison (SCE). Electric power would be required for lighting and electronic equipment (e.g., computers) located in trailers used by the construction crew. In addition, the Project would consume electricity through workers that may use electric vehicles to drive to and from the site. Project construction is estimated to require approximately 3,308 Kilowatt Hours (kwh) of electricity for worker trips and vendor trips. However, the electricity used would be temporary and would have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption. Natural Gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). Natural gas consumption is not anticipated during construction of the Project. Fuels used for construction would generally consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed in the next subsection. Any amount of natural gas that may be consumed during Project construction would be nominal and would have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption. Diesel and Gasoline Fuels, also referred to as petroleum in this subsection, would be consumed throughout construction of the Project. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource consumed over the course of construction, and VMT associated with the transportation of construction materials (e.g., deliveries to the site) and worker trips to and from the site would also result in petroleum consumption. Whereas on-site, heavy-duty construction equipment and delivery trucks would predominantly use diesel fuel, construction workers would generally rely on gasoline-powered vehicles to commute to and from the Project site. The operation of heavy-duty, off-road equipment associated with Project construction would consume approximately 14,962 gallons of diesel fuel. Worker, vendor, and hauling trips associated with Project construction are estimated to consume approximately 8,978 and 2,143 gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel, respectively. In total, Project construction is estimated to require approximately 8,978 gallons of gasoline and 17,105 gallons of diesel. On- and off-road petroleum-powered vehicles/equipment would be subject to various rules and regulations at the federal and state levels. On the federal level, on-road vehicles would be subject to the SAFE Vehicles Rule. On the state level, off-road equipment at the site would also be required to comply with CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measures, which restricts heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 69 to five minutes. In addition, the efficiency of petroleum use is related to numerous other state-wide regulations and programs, such as the LCFS (on- and off-road vehicles/equipment), ACC Program (on-road passenger vehicles), and ACT Program (on-road trucks). Since petroleum use during construction would be temporary and is a necessary component when conducting development activities, it would not be wasteful or inefficient. Operation Electricity. During operation of the new warehouse, the Project would consume electricity from appliance operation, general building systems (e.g., lighting, HVAC equipment), and outdoor lighting. Based on estimates generated by the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), the proposed Project would consume approximately 4,057,276 kWh per year of electricity. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the standards contained in the CalGreen Code (i.e., Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Code) that requires the warehouse building constructed at the site meet energy efficiency standards that improve upon those from previous years. The Project is not proposing to install a Photo Voltaic (PV) system at this time but would comply with City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-73(c) and design the proposed building’s roof to facilitate and optimize the future installation of a solar PV system. Electricity would also be consumed by the operation of electric vehicles by future workers and customers traveling to and from the site. As estimated in CalEEMod, based on the trip generation rates and trip distances provided for in the Project traffic study and SCAQMD guidance document, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 3,255,618 vehicle miles travelled (VMT) on an annual basis. The average fuel economies and vehicle fleet mix attributable to the proposed Project were used to estimate the amount of electricity consumed from vehicle trips associated with the proposed Project. The Project is estimated to consume approximately 769,861 kWh of electricity from on-road fuel consumption on an annual basis (see Appendix A). The proposed Project would also indirectly benefit from other, regulatory actions taken at the state level. For example, SB 100 requires 60% of the power purchased by California to come from renewable sources by 2030. SB 100 further requires all retail electricity to be carbon-free by 2045. Based on these statewide mandates, electricity consumed at the site will become more and more green (e.g., not requiring the burning of fossil fuels), which will lead to the more efficient use of energy resources. Although electricity would increase at the site under implementation of the Project, the proposed facility would be designed to the 2022 Title 24 Building Code standards, and benefit from other actions taken at the State level. For these reasons, the electricity consumed by the Project is not considered to be inefficient or wasteful. Natural Gas. The Project will be an all-electric facility so it will not consume any natural gas during operations. Gasoline and Diesel Fuels. These fuels would be consumed during operation of the proposed Project. Both forms of petroleum fuel would be consumed from future workers and customers traveling to and from the site. As estimated in CalEEMod, based on the trip generation rates and trip distances provided for in the Project traffic study and SCAQMD guidance document, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 3,255,618 VMT on an annual basis. Based on the average fuel economies and vehicle fleet mix attributable to the proposed Project, vehicle trips associated with the proposed Project are estimated to consume approximately 84,992 and 98,358 gallons of gasoline and diesel, respectively, on an annual basis. These fuel consumption estimates are based on vehicle Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 70 City of Fontana efficiency in 2024 and would decrease in future years as trucks become more fuel efficient and ZEV trucks are more commonly available and used within San Bernardino County. There are numerous regulations in place that require and encourage fuel efficiency. For example, CARB has adopted an approach to passenger vehicles by combining the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single, coordinated package of standards. The approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the number of plug-in hybrids and ZEVs in California. In addition, per the requirements identified in SB 375, CARB adopted a regional goal for the SCAG region of reducing per capita GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 8% by 2020 and 19% by 2035 for light-duty passenger vehicles. The SB 375 goal would help reduce emissions from worker and customer trips at the site. The proposed Project would also benefit from actions taken at the state level with regard to the ACT Program and Sustainable Freight Plan. The implementation of these programs will help reduce the number of diesel trucks on California roadways and improve the fuel efficiency of those diesel trucks that remain in operation. Accordingly, operation of the Project is expected to decrease the amount of petroleum it consumes in the future due to advances in fuel economy. Although the Project would increase petroleum use in the region during construction and operation, the use would be a small fraction of statewide consumption and would have its overall fuel consumption decrease over time. As such, petroleum consumption associated with the Project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact The proposed Project would not conflict with nor obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing the amount of renewable energy or energy efficiency. As discussed above, the Project would be subject to the California Title 24 Building Code energy efficiency standards for non- residential buildings, which would help reduce energy consumption. Equipment and vehicles associated with construction and operation of the Project would also be subject to fuel standards at the state and federal level. The Project would inherently benefit from programs implemented to achieve the goals of the Sustainable Freight Plan, such as the turnover of older, less fuel-efficient trucks, as fuel economy standards are rolled out and Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) trucks become more widely available and cost effective for business. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Although the energy analysis determined Project impacts were less than significant, the estimate of air pollutants was based on a number of “project design features” outlined in Section 2 and Table 2.10-5, Benefits of Project Design Features to Comply with Ordinance 1891. These PDFs would help the Project comply with (i.e., not conflict with nor obstruct) a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency even though they were primarily developed to address Project air quality impacts. Impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 71 4.7 – Geology and Soils Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. □ □ □ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ □ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? □ □ □ iv) Landslides? □ □ □ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? □ □ □ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? □ □ □ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? □ □ □ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 72 City of Fontana e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? □ □ □ f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? □ □ □ a.i) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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. A detailed geotechnical study of the Project site was prepared by Southern California Geotechnical in August of 2022 (Appendix D). The Project area is at the boundary of the Coastal Plain and the Transverse Range geomorphic provinces. Geologically, the North Fontana area is located on a broad, coalescing alluvial fan that starts at the San Gabriel Mountains and Lytle Creek to the north. The sediments fill the western portion of the upper Santa Ana River valley with alluvial deposits approximately 300 to 800 feet thick, with crystalline basement bedrock beneath the alluvium. The upper Santa Ana River valley is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains and the Cucamonga Fault to the north, the Puente Hills and the Chino Fault to the west; the Jurupa Hills and other resistant granitic and metamorphic hills to the south; and the San Bernardino Mountains and the San Andreas Fault to the northeast. The Project area is located on the Lytle Creek Fan, a convex fan-shaped deposit of rocky alluvium that radiates southward from its source in Lytle Creek Canyon to the northeast. The canyon was created by headward erosion along the San Jacinto Fault Zone, and debris from this erosion during the Pleistocene and Holocene created the Lytle Creek Fan. Described as “Younger Alluvial Sediments,” it consists of granitic, mylonitic, and gneissic clasts from the eastern San Gabriel Mountains. The California Geological Survey defines an active fault as one which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972 and as most recently revised in 2007 as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and Earthquake Fault Zones. The intent of this act is to require fault investigations on sites located within earthquake fault zones to ensure that certain inhabited structures are not constructed across the traces of active faults. The geotechnical study indicated there are no known active faults traversing the proposed Project site. The proposed Project site does not lie within or immediately adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone designated by the State of California to include traces of suspected active faulting, nor is the site located within an area designated by the County of San Bernardino as a fault hazard zone. Faults throughout southern California have formed over millions of years. Some of these faults are considered inactive under present geologic conditions, and other faults are known to be active1. Such faults have either generated earthquakes in historic times (200 years) or indicate movement within the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 73 last 11,000 years. Faults that have moved in the relatively recent geological past are generally presumed to be the most likely to cause damaging earthquakes in the lifetimes of residents, buildings, or communities. Less Than Significant Impact Surface rupture occurs where displacement or fissuring occurs as a result of movement along or immediately adjacent to a fault zone. The closest active or potentially active fault is the San Andreas Fault approximately 14 miles northeast of the Project site. The proposed site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act or as defined by the City General Plan. In addition, there is no evidence of any faults or faulting activity on the Project site. Potential impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. a.ii) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact The vast majority of earthquake damage is caused by ground shaking. The extent of shaking is a result of the size of the earthquake and distance from the epicenter. In general, shaking and damage decrease with distance from an active fault, although they are affected also by the orientation of the fault and the localized geology and soils beneath a particular site. The primary threat associated with nearby faults is the intensity of potential ground shaking at the Project site. The known regionally active and potentially active faults that could produce the most significant ground shaking at the site include the San Jacinto (Lytle Creek), Cucamonga, and San Andreas Faults. Southern California is a seismically active area and, therefore, will continue to be subject to ground shaking resulting from seismic activity on regional faults. Ground shaking from earthquakes associated with nearby and more distant faults is expected to occur during the lifetime of the Project. The level of potential ground motion is considered moderate to high in the City and, therefore, in the Project area. However, design and construction in accordance with the current California Building Code (CBC) requirements is anticipated to address the issues related to potential ground shaking. The Project site would be subject to ground shaking impacts should a major earthquake in the area occur in the future. The potential seismic-related impacts could include injury or loss of life and property damage; however seismic engineering and current building codes have significantly reduced the potential for seismic-related building damage and the upgraded and developed buildings/structures will be subject to the seismic design criteria of the California Building Code (CBC). The City of Fontana has adopted the 2022 California Building Code which contains seismic safety provisions with the aim of preventing building collapse during a design earthquake, so that occupants will be able to evacuate after an earthquake. Adherence to existing regulations will result in a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 74 City of Fontana a.iii) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Ground failure can occur during strong seismic events in unconsolidated soils and weakly bedded geologic formations underlying developed structures. Liquefaction occurs primarily in saturated, loose, fine-to-medium-grained alluvial soils in areas where the groundwater table is within 50 feet of the surface. Shaking suddenly causes soils to lose strength and behave as a liquid. Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength, lateral spreading, and flow failures or slumping. The onsite geotechnical study did not encounter groundwater in the exploratory borings, which reached 25 feet below ground surface at the Project site. Recent water level data was obtained from the California Department of Water Resources website, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. The nearest monitoring well on record is located approximately 0.2-mile west of the site. Water level readings within this monitoring well indicated a groundwater level of 347 feet below the ground surface in March 2021. Therefore, the liquefaction potential at the proposed Project site is considered low (SCG 2022a, b). According to the County’s General Plan Hazard Overlays4 mapping, there is no liquefaction zone and no areas of seismically-induced ground failure identified on or in the general vicinity of the Project site. The City’s General Plan Noise and Safety Element indicates liquefaction is a secondary risk of earthquake faults and seismic groundshaking but does not map specific liquefaction zones in the City. However, these zones are delineated in the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) dated 2017. The LHMP shows the southern portion of the City, including the Project site, has a “low” potential for liquefaction. Although area soils are relatively sandy and moderate to severe groundshaking is expected in the area, local groundwater is generally more than 100 feet in depth which results in a low to negligible potential for liquefaction in this area. In addition, the mapping software provided by the California State Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology indicates the Project site is not located within an area Seismic Hazard Zone susceptible to liquefaction (CDMG 2022). Sub-section 4.7(c) indicates the geotechnical study concluded the site contains undocumented fill in some areas which may be unstable, especially during strong seismic movement. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 recommends removal of undocumented fill and remedial grading so that onsite soils can safely support the proposed building. This measure will assure that grading will result in a stable site upon which to construct and operate the proposed warehouse building. With implementation of this measure and regulatory compliance, the potential for seismically related ground failure will be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 Remedial Grading. The Project geotechnical study (Southern California Geotechnical 8- 9-22) concluded there was undocumented fill beneath the site and recommended its removal and remedial grading so that onsite soils would be stable and can safely support the proposed building and other improvements from soil movement, especially during strong seismic events. During grading, the grading contractor shall, consistent with the recommendation of the Project geotechnical study, remove any undocumented fill discovered and mix it with appropriate fill materials (in terms of volume and content). The combined materials shall be graded per applicable State standards for industrial properties 4 http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/HazMaps/FH29B_20100309.pdf Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 75 including but not limited to those outlined in “Use of California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) in Evaluation of Contaminated Properties” issued by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) in January 2005 or subsequent approved volumes. This measure shall be implemented by the Project grading contractor in consultation with the Project geotechnical and civil engineers to the satisfaction of the City Engineer The proposed Project building and improvements will be built to current CBC seismic and soil constraint standards regarding liquefaction commensurate with the local risk. This is considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA. Therefore, the Project will not be subjected to significant impacts related to seismic ground failure from liquefaction. Impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. a.iv) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? No Impact The Project site is located within Seismic Zone 4 as defined by the California Building Code (CBC) and so moderate to severe ground shaking could be expected. However, the Project site lies on relatively flat terrain with no steep slopes, so the relatively flat-lying topography of the Project site precludes the potential for slope instability or landslides. In addition, the City’s LHMP) shows the flat southern portions of the City, including the Project site, to have little or no potential for landslides. This conclusion is supported by the County’s General Plan Hazard Overlays mapping. Therefore, there are no impacts and no mitigation is required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact Runoff onsite currently drains toward the south and southwest, eventually reaching the Etiwanda San Sevaine Flood Control Channel southwest of the site. A more detailed discussion of water- related erosion and water quality impacts is provided in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and its Soil Survey of San Bernardino County, the Project site and surrounding area are underlain by the Tujunga soil series (TuB) which is typical throughout this portion of Fontana (NRCS 1980). The Project site soils have “negligible to low erosion potential” and present no significant limitations or restrictions to the construction of habitable facilities and related improvements. Due to their sandy nature, onsite soils are subject to erosion if left exposed to wind or uncontrolled runoff. The proposed site plan shows one warehouse building and related improvements including interior roadways, sidewalks, landscaping, and underground utilities. Site grading would require approximately 18,600 cubic yards of cut and 24,000 cubic yards of fill, resulting in the net import of 5,400 cubic yards of soil. These activities have the potential to cause erosion onsite during grading and early construction activities. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project proponent will be required to prepare and submit detailed grading plans. These plans will be prepared in conformance with applicable standards of the City, including grading and erosion control measures. Any construction of off-site utility and roadway improvements would also result in the movement of soil and would be subject to the same permitting and plan checking processes. The City’s development review process requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 76 City of Fontana Plan (SWPPP) to address short-term construction-related water quality issues (FMC § 23-519). In addition, the City requires a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for new development to document a Project that would not result in long-term water quality impacts. The WQMP is required as part of the City’s compliance with the MS4 regional water quality permit. See additional discussion under Threshold 4.10(a) below. Potential wind erosion will be minimized through soil stabilization measures required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), including daily watering of the site. In addition, potential water erosion will be prevented through the City’s standard erosion control practices required pursuant to the California Building Code and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), such as silt fencing or sandbags. Section 13.32.450 (Compliance with Best Management Practices, BMPS) of the City of Fontana Municipal Code requires any activity that may contribute to prohibited discharges or storm-water pollution to comply with all applicable BMPs, and that following construction activities, the site will be covered completely by paving, structures, and landscaping. Implementation of the existing regulations will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 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? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The onsite geotechnical study indicated that “artificial (undocumented) fill soils were encountered at all of the boring locations, extending from the ground surface to depths of 2.5 to 4.5 feet. These near- surface native alluvial soils generally consist of sands and gravelly sands which possess variable strength. These soils, in their present condition, are not considered suitable for support of the foundation loads of the new structure. The deeper alluvium generally possesses higher strengths and densities and more favorable consolidation/collapse characteristics” (SCG 2022a). The geotechnical study recommended removal of undocumented fill and remedial grading so that onsite soils can safely support the proposed building. Therefore, the Project will implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1 as outlined in Section 4.7(a.iii) to address this impact. With implementation of the recommended mitigation, potential impacts related to unstable geology or soils are reduced to less than significant levels. The Project does not propose any activity known to cause damage or be damaged by subsidence (e.g., oil, gas, or groundwater extraction). Subsidence generally occurs within areas of loose, granular soils with relatively low density. The Soil Survey of San Bernardino County indicates the Tujunga (TuB) soil series underlies the site and surrounding area which is typical throughout this portion of Fontana (NRCS 1980). This soil series is relatively stable especially when used in engineered fills and with proper compaction. The NRCS indicates this soil type presents no significant limitations or restrictions to the construction of habitable facilities and related improvements. The impacts related to both liquefaction and landslides are discussed in Sections 4.7.a.iii and 4.7.b.iv above. Based on the relatively flat nature of the Project site and the surrounding area, there is a limited potential of lateral spreading. The new improvements, buildings, and structures will be required to comply with current California Building Code guidelines which would help limit any potential impacts brought on by unstable soils. With implementation of the recommended mitigation and regulatory compliance, potential impacts of the Project relative to unstable geology or soils will be reduced to less than significant levels. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 77 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact The Project site still contains remnant foundation materials from former residences. The underlying soils are relatively sandy and the risk of expansion due to clay constituents in the soil is considered negligible. The proposed Project will be required to comply with current CBC requirements which require design considerations for foundations of structures on soils with expansion potential (indices greater than 20). Through adhering to current CBC requirements, the Project will have a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact The Project site and surrounding area are served by existing sewer lines in Boyle Avenue to the north, Oleander Avenue to the east, and Slover Avenue to the south. The Project will not utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, so there will be no impacts in this regard and no mitigation is required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant with Mitigation The Project site is located along the alluvial plain south of the foothills of the eastern San Gabriel Mountains. Soils underlying the Project site and surrounding properties have been previously graded and disturbed by construction of residences that have since been removed from the Project site. The Project area is underlain by Quaternary alluvium (Qa) which is a sedimentary rock unit of the Holocene Epoch (12,000 years ago to present day). Generally, Holocene sediments are too young to yield paleontological resources. Specifically, the site is underlain by recent alluvium of the Tujunga Series (TuB) which are very deep, well drained soils that formed in dominantly sedimentary alluvium…on fans and floodplains and have slopes of 0 to 5 percent. The soils have been laid down by historical flooding along drainages in the San Bernardino County-Los Angeles County basin (NRCS 1980). A paleontological resources assessment (PRA) was prepared for the Project by CRM TECH in November 2022. The PRA found that…”Holocene-age sediments in the Project vicinity tend to rest directly on top of older, Pleistocene-age sediments…While no fossil localities were reported in the Project area or in the immediate vicinity, sediments similar to those present under the ground surface at this location have produced significant fossils of extinct Ice Age animals in other portions of the San Bernardino Valley.” Based on these findings, the PRA concluded the Project’s potential to impact significant paleontological resources appears to be low in the Holocene surface sediments but high in the undisturbed Pleistocene sediments at depth (i.e., greater than five feet below ground surface). Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 78 City of Fontana Therefore, the PRA recommended that a paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) be developed and implemented during Project construction to prevent such impacts or reduce them to a level less than significant. These provisions have been incorporated into Mitigation Measure PAL-1 below. Mitigation Measures PAL-1 Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall retain a qualified professional to prepare a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) and submit it to the City for review and approval. The PRIMP shall be developed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, as well as the proposed guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The PRIMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following: • Periodic monitoring of earth-moving activities shall be required during earth-moving operations and continuous monitoring shall be conducted when ground disturbance reaches or exceeds a depth of five feet, or if the older Pleistocene-age sediments are encountered at lesser depths. • The monitor shall be prepared to quickly salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and shall collect samples of sediments that are likely to contain fossil remains of small vertebrates or invertebrates. The monitor shall have the power to temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens. • Collected samples of sediment shall be processed to recover small fossils, and all recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage. • A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, shall be prepared upon completion of the procedures outlined above. The report will include a discussion of the significance of the paleontological findings, if any. The report and the inventory, when submitted to the City of Fontana, shall signify completion of the program to mitigate potential impacts on paleontological resources. With implementation of the recommended mitigation, potential impacts to paleontological resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 79 4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? □ □ □ b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? □ □ □ Background Information A detailed assessment of GHG impacts of the Project was prepared by MIG in July 2023 (Appendix A). Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and affect regulation of the Earth’s temperature are known as GHGs. GHGs that contribute to climate change are a different type of pollutant than criteria or hazardous air pollutants because climate change is global in scale, both in terms of causes and effects. Some GHG are emitted to the atmosphere naturally by biological and geological processes such as evaporation (water vapor), aerobic respiration (carbon dioxide), and off-gassing from low oxygen environments such as swamps or exposed permafrost (methane); however, GHG emissions from human activities such as fuel combustion (e.g., carbon dioxide) and refrigerants use (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons) significantly contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, climate regulation, and global climate change. The 1997 United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol international treaty set targets for reductions in emissions of four specific GHGs – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulfur hexafluoride – and two groups of gases – hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. These GHG are the primary GHG emitted into the atmosphere by human activities. The six most common GHG’s are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). GHG emissions from human activities contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and the corresponding effects of global climate change (e.g., rising temperatures, increased severe weather events such as drought and flooding). GHGs can remain in the atmosphere long after they are emitted. The potential for a GHG to absorb and trap heat in the atmosphere is considered its global warming potential (GWP). The reference gas for measuring GWP is CO2, which has a GWP of one. By comparison, CH4 has a GWP of 25, which means that one molecule of CH4 has 25 times the effect on global warming as one molecule of CO2. Multiplying the estimated emissions for non-CO2 GHGs by their GWP determines their carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which enables a project’s combined global warming potential to be expressed in terms of mass CO2 emissions (referred to as CO2 equivalents, or CO2e). Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 80 City of Fontana Adopted Thresholds The City of Fontana has not adopted project-specific significance thresholds. The City has opted to use a non-zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook, which is the Tier 3 screening value of 3,000 MTCO2e per year that is recommended by SCAQMD staff for residential and commercial projects. Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) of the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook establishes a numerical threshold based on capture of approximately 90 percent of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is the 3,000 MTCO2e/year screening threshold. In setting the threshold at 3,000 MTCO2e per year, SCAQMD researched a database of projects kept by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That database contained 798 projects, 87 of which were removed because they were very large projects and/or outliers that would skew emissions values too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th percentile capture rate. The SCAQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects included warehouses and other light industrial land uses but did not include industrial processes (i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing, electric generating stations, mining operations, etc.). Emissions from each of these projects were calculated by SCAQMD to provide a consistent method of emissions calculations across the sample population and from projects within the sample population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD analysis determined that the 90th percentile ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e per year. The SCAQMD set their significance threshold at the low-end value of the range when rounded to the nearest hundred tons of emissions (i.e., 3,000 MTCO2e per year) to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not need to provide further analysis. The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for residential/commercial uses was proposed by SCAQMD over a decade ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (2008) document and subsequent Working Group meetings (latest of which occurred in 2010). SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the interim threshold and all documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that provides guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also are listed). Further, as stated by SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal [80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050] as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains valid for use in 2023 (SCAQMD, 2008, pp. 3-4). Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction. Thus, if Project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold, then Project-related GHG emissions would have a less than significant impact. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions from both short-term construction and long- term operational activities. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 81 Construction Construction activities would generate GHG emissions primarily from equipment fuel combustion as well as worker, vendor, and haul trips to and from the Project site during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities. Construction activities would cease to emit GHG upon completion, unlike operational emissions that would be continuous year after year over the life of Project. The SCAQMD recommends amortizing construction GHG emissions over a 30-year period and including them with operational emissions estimates. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions and compared to appropriate thresholds, plans, etc. GHG emissions from construction of the proposed Project were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1, based on the anticipated construction schedule and construction activities, the proposed Project’s total construction GHG emissions are shown in Table 4.8-1, Construction GHG Emissions. Table 4.8-1 Construction GHG Emissions Construction Year Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year) CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerant (CO2e) Total MTCO2e 2024 252.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 257.0 Amortized (over 30 years) 8.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8.6 Source: Table 6-2, MIG 2023b (Appendix B) Operation Once operational, the proposed Project would generate emissions of GHG from area, energy, mobile, water/wastewater, refrigeration, solid waste, and off-road sources. The proposed Project’s operational GHG emissions are shown in Table 4.8-2, Operational GHG Emissions, as outlined in the Energy and GHG Report (Appendix A). Table 4.8-2 Operational GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MT/Year)1 CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerant (CO2e) MTCO2e Mobile 1,769.0 0.1 0.2 2.7 1,824.0 Area 7.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 7.3 Energy 815.0 0.1 <0.1 0.0 819.0 Water 5.2 3.0 <0.1 0.0 8.3 Waste 30.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 106.0 Refrigerants 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 Off-road 10.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 10.4 Amortized Construction 8.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 8.6 Total 2,645.4 3.3 0.2 2.7 2,783.6 SCAQMD 2020 Interim Threshold 10,000 City GHG Threshold 3,000 Thresholds Exceeded? No Source: Table 6-3, MIG 2023b (Appendix B) 1 <0.1 means that emissions are greater than zero but less than 0.05. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 82 City of Fontana As shown in Table 4.8-2, the proposed Project’s potential increase in GHG emissions would be approximately 2,783.6 MTCO2e, which would be below 3,000 MTCO2e threshold employed by the City for evaluating the significance of GHG emissions from warehouse projects including the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Although the GHG analysis determined Project impacts were less than significant, the estimate of GHG emissions was based on a number of “project design features” outlined in Section 2.10 of the Project Description, and Table 2-9, Benefits of Project Design Features to Comply with Ordinance 1891. These PDFs were incorporated into the CalEEMod computer modeling for the Project to comply with the regulatory requirements of the City’s Ordinance 1891 regulating the design of warehouses in proximity to residential uses. With implementation of this regulatory compliance, and standard SCAQMD Rules for new development, the Project will have less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions from both short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions. Impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact The proposed Project would not conflict with CARB’s Scoping Plan, Sustainable Freight Plan, ACT Program, or regional RTP/SCS. The Project’s consistency with these plans is described in more detail below. CARB Scoping Plan The 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan is CARB’s primary document used to ensure State GHG reduction goals are met. The 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan’s primary objective is to identify the measures needed to achieve the 2030 reduction target established under SB 32 and have the state achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, as established by AB 1279. The major elements of the plan are generally geared toward actions either CARB or other state entities will pursue, such as, but not limited to: • Creation and future implementation of the Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program required by SB 905. • Reducing imbedded GHG emissions in supplied retail electricity by increasing the amount of electricity generated and supplied to the grid from renewable resources, consistent with the requirements identified in SB 100 and SB 1020 (i.e., 60% by 2030, 90% by 2035, 95% 2040, and 100% by 2045). • Expansion of non-petroleum fueling stations across the state to support the transition to electric, hydrogen, and other alternatively-powered vehicles (e.g., through AB 2127 and SB 1075) while also increasing the use of mass transit, carpooling, and other trip reduction measures (e.g., through the implementation of SB 375). • Leverage the capacity of California’s natural and working lands to function as a sink for carbon emissions. Specifically, AB 1757 requires the CNRA, in collaboration with CARB, other state agencies, and an expert advisory committee, to determine a range of targets for natural carbon sequestration, and for nature-based climate solutions, which will reduce GHG emissions in 2030, 2038, and 2045. This is supported by SB 27, which requires CNRA to Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 83 establish Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy, and for CARB to established specified CO2 removal targets for 2030 and beyond. Many of the measures identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan Update are not applicable at the proposed Project’s level; rather, the success of the plan primarily relies upon the State’s actions to uphold and implement existing legislation and develop new plans and strategies to sequester, trap, and store emitted carbon emissions. Although most of these measures would be implemented at the State level, the GHG reductions achieved by these state measures would be realized at the local level. For example, regardless of actions taken by the City of Fontana or County of San Bernardino, emissions generated through gasoline combustion in motor vehicles within the city and the county would produce less GHG in 2030 than they do now. Similarly, the electricity consumed by on-site sources (e.g., lighting, building systems, etc.) would become greener over time as the State’s RPS increases, consistent with the benchmarks established in SB 100 and SB 1020. In addition to State measures, Appendix D to CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan Update identifies potential actions that could be undertaken at a local level to support the State’s climate goals. These actions primarily relate to preparing and implementing a qualified Climate Action Plan (CAP) at the local level. Appendix D goes on to provide specific recommendations regarding the types of measures the qualified CAPs should consider to align local actions with those being undertaken at the state-level. Section 3.2.1 of Appendix D also outlines project attributes for residential and mixed-use projects to qualitatively determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Although the 2022 Scoping Plan Update does not include specific criteria for qualitatively evaluating the consistency of other land uses (e.g., industrial) or air permitting with the 2022 Scoping Plan Update, the Project would support one of the overarching goals of the.2022 Scoping Plan Update by being all electric and not using natural gas. The proposed Project would not conflict with nor obstruct implementation of the 2022 Scoping Plan Update. Sustainable Freight Plan, Act Program, and ACF Regulation The proposed Project would not conflict with the Sustainable Freight Plan, the Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) Program, or the Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) Regulation. Although the proposed Project would include the use of diesel trucks during operation, the Sustainable Freight Plan, ACT Program, and ACF Regulation would be implemented at the state-level. The proposed Project’s GHG emissions would benefit (i.e., be reduced) over the long-term as older, less fuel efficient, and higher polluting engines are decommissioned and replaced by newer, cleaner engines and Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) trucks. Southern California Association of Governments RTP/SCS The Connect SoCal is a growth strategy and transportation plan whose primary intent is to demonstrate how the SCAG region will meet its GHG reduction target through the year 2045. Many of the measures included in the RTP/SCS are focused on: the expansion of, and access to, mass transit (e.g., light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit, etc.); planning growth around livable corridors; and locating new housing and job growth in high quality transit areas. Collectively, these land use plans, in conjunction with measures at the state-level to improve fuel efficiency standards, are designed to meet CARB’s goal for the SCAG region for reducing per capita GHG emissions in the region by eight percent by 2020—compared with 2005 levels—and by 19 percent by 2035 (CARB, 2018). The proposed Project would not be located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA) nor would it be located in a High Quality Transit Area (HQTA); however, the Project would generate fewer than 500 net new daily vehicle trips, and would not cause a substantial increase in total citywide or regional VMT according to Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 84 City of Fontana the City guidelines (Ganddini, 2023b). The Project meets the City’s VMT screening criteria, and it is an industrial warehouse so it would not conflict with housing land use strategies contained in the RTP/SCS. For these reasons, the Project would not conflict with or otherwise obstruct implementation of Connect SoCal. San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Although the Project is in the City of Fontana and not subject to the County’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (Reduction Plan), the following information is provided for informational purposes only. The Project’s GHG emissions would not conflict with the County Reduction Plan because the Project would be consistent with the General Plan policies that form the basis of Fontana’s emission reduction measures in the Reduction Plan. In addition, the Project contains design features, as described in Section 2.3.4, that support the goals of the Reduction Plan. Table 4.8-3 below presents a Project consistency analysis with reduction measures identified in the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan for the City of Fontana. Table 4.8-3 San Bernardino County Regional GHG Reduction Plan – Project Consistency Analysis Measure Description Project Consistency Building Energy Energy-1. Building Energy Efficiency • SR Policy 1: Create a Sustainable Fontana program that promotes green practices in government and the community. • SR Policy 2.1: Incorporate goals into the City Code for resource efficiency in municipal facilities and operations. • SR Policy 5: Promote green building through guidelines, awards, and non- financial incentives. • SR Policy 6.1: Promote energy-efficient development in Fontana. • SR Policy 6.2: Meet or exceed state goals for energy-efficiency in new construction. • Chapter 10 Policy 7. Promote renewable energy and distributed energy systems in new development and retrofits of existing development to work towards the highest levels of low-carbon energy-efficiency. Consistent. The Project would be designed to current CalGreen Code standards. In addition, the building’s roof will be solar-ready, which will facilitate the future installation of a PV system. Energy-2. Lighting Efficiency • SR Policy 1: Create a Sustainable Fontana program that promotes green practices in government and in the community. • SR Policy 2.1: Incorporate goals into the City Code for resource efficiency in municipal facilities and operations. • SR Policy 2.2: Continue organizational and operational improvements to maximize energy and resource efficiency and reduce waste. Consistent. The Project would be designed to current CalGreen Code standards, including the installation of energy efficient lighting. Energy-5. Renewable Energy – New • SR Policy 3: Promote renewable energy programs for government, Fontana Consistent. The Project would be designed to meet current CalGreen Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 85 Measure Description Project Consistency Commercial/Industrial businesses, and Fontana residences. • Chapter 10 Policy 7: Promote renewable energy and distributed energy systems in new development and retrofits of existing development to work towards the highest levels of low-carbon energy-efficiency. Code standards. The project proponent has designed the proposed building’s roof to be solar- ready, which will facilitate the future installation of a PV system. Energy-6. Solar Energy for Warehouse Space • SR Policy 3: Promote renewable energy programs for government, Fontana businesses, and Fontana residences. Consistent. The Project would be designed to meet current CalGreen Code standards. The project proponent has designed the proposed building’s roof to be solar- ready, which will facilitate the future installation of a PV system. Energy-7. Solar Installation for Existing Housing • SR Policy 3: Promote renewable energy programs for government, Fontana businesses, and Fontana residences. • SR Policy 3.1: Evaluate a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) Program for Fontana. • SR Policy 3.2: Ensure that appropriate zoning and design standard regulations are in place as needed to provide for domestic solar and wind installations. • Chapter 10 Policy 7: Promote renewable energy and distributed energy systems in new development and retrofits of existing development to work towards the highest levels of low-carbon energy-efficiency. Not Applicable. The proposed Project does not involve retrofit of an existing residential building. Energy-8. Renewable Energy – Existing Commercial/Industrial • SR Policy 3: Promote renewable energy programs for government, Fontana businesses, and Fontana residences. • SR Policy 4: Continue to collaborate with SBCTA, infrastructure agencies, and utilities on greenhouse gas reduction studies and goals. • Chapter 10 Policy 7: Promote renewable energy and distributed energy systems in new development and retrofits of existing development to work towards the highest levels of low-carbon energy-efficiency. Not Applicable. The proposed Project does not involve retrofit of an existing non-residential building. On-Road On Road-2. Encourage Use of Mass Transit • CM Policy 1.4: Make land use decisions that support walking, bicycling, and public transit use, in alignment with the 2014- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. • CM 7.2: Coordinate with regional agencies and Caltrans to participate in regional efforts to maintain transportation infrastructure in Fontana. • CM 7.3: Participate in the efforts of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to coordinate Not Applicable. The proposed Project consists of a speculative warehouse development. The Project would generate less than 500 net new trips per day and therefore would not cause a substantial increase in total citywide or regional VMT according to the City guidelines. Future warehouse operators would encourage the use of mass transit as applicable and required of them. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 86 City of Fontana Measure Description Project Consistency transportation planning and services that support greenhouse gas reductions. On Road-3. Transportation Demand Management and Signal Synchronization • CM Policy 1.1: Provide roadways that serve the needs of Fontana residents and commerce, and that facilitate safe and convenient access to transit, bicycle facilities, and walkways. • CM Policy 1.2: Make safety and multimodal accessibility the top priority of Citywide transportation planning. • CM 3.2: Promote concentrated development patterns in coordination with transit planning to maximize service efficiency and ridership. • CM 7.1: Lead and participate in initiatives to manage regional traffic. • CM 7.4: Participate in the efforts by Caltrans to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on area freeways. Not Applicable. The proposed Project consists of a speculative warehouse development. The Project would generate less than 500 net new trips per day and therefore would not cause a substantial increase in total citywide or regional VMT according to the City guidelines. The Project would not be required to implement TDM strategies or signal synchronization. It should also be noted the Project is located immediately off of the I- 10 Freeway so workers will have convenient access to their workplace. On Road-4. Expand Bike Routes • CM 2.1: When constructing or modifying roadways, design the roadway space for use by all users when feasible, including motor vehicles, buses, bicyclists, mobility devices, and pedestrians, as appropriate for the context of the area. Not Applicable. The Project would not construct or modify roadways. On Road-5. Community Fleet Electrification • CM Action 7.D: Support the adoption and use of technologies that reduce emissions from passenger and transit vehicles. Consistent. The Project would provide EV charging consistent with current CalGreen Code requirements and those specified in the Fontana Municipal Code. Solid Waste Management Waste-2. Waste Diversion and Reduction • SR Policy 2.2: Continue organizational and operational improvements to maximize energy and resource efficiency and reduce waste. • Chapter 10 Policy 8.2: Continue to maximize landfill capacity by supporting recycling innovations, such as organic waste recycling for compost. Consistent. The Project would comply with State and County solid waste reduction requirements. Water Conveyance Water Conveyance • Chapter 10 Policy 1: Support initiatives to provide a long-term supply of the right water for the right use through working with regional providers and the One Water One Watershed Plan. • Chapter 10 Policy 2.1: Encourage use of processed water from the IEUA systems using recycled water for all non-drinking water purposes. • Chapter 10 Policy 2.2: Promote laundry- to-landscape greywater systems for single-family housing units. Consistent. The Project would comply with current water efficiency standards contained in the CalGreen Code. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 87 Measure Description Project Consistency Water-1. Voluntary CALGREEN: New Construction • SR Policy 7: Continue to promote and implement best practices to conserve water. Consistent. The Project would comply with current water efficiency standards contained in the CalGreen Code. Water-2. Renovate Existing Buildings • SR Policy 7: Continue to promote and implement best practices to conserve water. Not Applicable. The Project does not involve the renovation of existing buildings. Water-3. Water- Efficient Landscaping Practices • SR Policy 7: Continue to promote and implement best practices to conserve water. • Chapter 10 Policy 3.1: Support landscaping in public and private spaces with drought resistant plants. • Chapter 10 Policy 3.2: Continue successful City water conservation programs and partnerships. Consistent. The Project would include drought tolerant landscaping, consistent with the requirements identified in Municipal Code Section 9-71. Source: Table 6-4, MIG 2023b (Appendix A) As shown in Table 4.8-3, the proposed Project would not conflict with the San Bernardino County Regional GHG Reduction Plan. In summary, the Project is consistent with all the applicable GHG reduction plans, and, on an informational basis, with other area GHG reduction plans, so there will be no impact and no mitigation is required relative to GHG plan consistency. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 88 City of Fontana 4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? □ □ □ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? □ □ □ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? □ □ □ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? □ □ □ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area? □ □ □ f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ □ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 89 g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? □ □ □ a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact A detailed Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Project site by Vertex on 3-28-2022 (Appendix E). The Project will require grading and construction to implement the planned improvements and new structures, and there will be a minor level of transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes during grading and construction activities. Those materials will consist of fuels and lubricants for construction machinery, coating materials, etc. The construction and grading activities will be required to comply with Best Management Practices for hazardous materials storage, application, waste disposal, accident prevention and clean-up if any are kept temporarily onsite. Through the incorporation of regulatory compliance for handling hazardous materials and standard Best Management Practices (BMP), potential impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required for these short-term impacts. The Project site is located within an urban area of mixed uses with older residential uses to the east, north, and west and light industrial warehouses to the northeast and along Slover Avenue to the south The proposed warehouse Project is not expected to introduce uses onto the site that will generate significant amounts of hazardous materials which would require frequent transportation, onsite storage, and disposal. In addition, the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD), contracted through the San Bernardino County Fire Department, requires businesses that store, handle, or use hazardous materials to prepare Business Plans to identify what hazardous materials can be found onsite and what protection procedures will be followed to protect workers and the public from accidental releases of such materials. Other typical chemicals used onsite would consist of commercial cleaning products and occasional use of landscaping and pest control chemicals (e.g., herbicides, pesticides) in limited application and location. All of these actions are to comply with existing established federal, state, and local regulations that control hazardous materials. Implementation of this regulatory compliance is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Through the incorporation of regulatory compliance for long-term handling of any hazardous materials and standard Best Management Practices (BMP), the Project will not create any significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 90 City of Fontana Per the information obtained from the Geotracker website of the State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB 2023) and the Envirostor website of the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC 2023), there are no leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup sites or other active sites involving hazardous materials (hazmat) within one-quarter mile of the Project site. The closest location of any hazardous materials (hazmat) activity in the past was a soil characterization study conducted by the “Fontana Unified School District on Elementary School No. 32” Site (Case #36010061). This study investigated potential contamination of the site by former/past agricultural activities (i.e., growing crow crops). The site was 1,100 feet south-southwest of the Project site just west of Jurupa Hills High School. However, no school was ever actually built on this site. No contamination was found and the DTSC determined “No Further Action” was needed for this study on April 25, 2005 and the case was closed. That is the only governmental database record of hazmat sites within a half-mile of the Project site. Therefore, there are no LUST cleanup sites, remediation sites, or land disposal sites on or near the Project site that could result in hazards to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The portion of Fontana was used for agriculture in the past so there is a possibility that agriculturally related chemicals may still exist in the soils beneath the Project site. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is recommended to assure there will be no release of any remnant agricultural chemicals during Project grading. It is possible that buried hazardous materials may be found during grading, especially in or near the location of a former maintenance facility in the west-central portion of the site. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 is recommended so that any such materials that are found during grading would be identified and remediated according to established federal, state, and local regulations regarding such materials. With regulatory compliance and the two recommended mitigation measures, the Project and surrounding properties will have less than significant impacts related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 Soil Testing. The City of Fontana, including the project area, supported agriculture in the past, including citrus production. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall retain a qualified environmental professional (QEP). The QEP must be experienced with remediating hazardous materials from private development sites. The QEP shall design and supervise the sampling and laboratory testing to determine if onsite soils have been contaminated by past application of agricultural chemicals. This sampling and testing procedure shall generally follow the general guidance of the “Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Fields for School Sites (Second Revision)” issued by the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on August 26, 2002 (DTSC 2002) or any subsequent guidance document in this regard. However, the specific parameters of this study are up to the discretion of the QEP in consultation with the City Planning Department. Contaminants of concern (COC) generally include any fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, rodenticide, etc. that was used extensively for the kind of agricultural activities conducted in Fontana over the years. For a more specific list, the County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division can be consulted. Primary COCs include organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) including Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 91 Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and inorganic heavy metals (referred to as CAM 17 metals) such as arsenic-containing compounds that were once used as a citrus insecticide. Sampling and testing procedures should follow the guidance in DTSC 2002 or later documents. Selecting the number of samples should be guided by Table 1 in DTSC 2002. The sampling depth should be guided by Section 3.2 of DTSC 2002. Recommended testing methods include U.S. EPA 8081A or equivalent for OCPs. Metals must be analyzed using U.S. EPA 6000/7000 series or equivalent. After completing the soil sampling and laboratory testing, the QP shall prepare a summary report of the results and clearly state whether or not the underlying soils are contaminated by any of the COCs at or above the applicable health standards for industrial land uses. If the QEP determines that all onsite soil meets industrial standards, no further action is required. To assure that onsite soils meet applicable health standards for industrial land uses, the QEP will work with the developer and grading contractor to determine if or to what degree onsite soils can be mixed with clean onsite or offsite imported soils to achieve the industrial standard for the entire site. The QEP, developer, and grading contractor shall also identify if or how much soil needs to be removed from the site and disposed of at an appropriate landfill certified to accept hazardous materials. The collection and disposal of any excavated contaminated soils shall be in accordance with applicable hazmat regulations. Prior to issuance of any building permit, it must be demonstrated through adequate sampling and testing that onsite soils meet established industrial health standards. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Department by providing empirical evidence that onsite soil meets established standards. HAZ-2 Inadvertent Hazmat Discovery. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall retain a qualified environmental professional (QEP) experienced with remediating hazardous materials from private development sites. The QEP must be on-call and summoned to the site immediately if any potentially hazardous materials are found during grading. Grading must be halted within 100 feet of an area that appears to contain hazardous materials. The QEP will halt grading as necessary to effectively identify the potential contaminated materials, including directing any sampling and laboratory testing that may be required. Remediated areas must be retested to assure potential contaminant levels are within applicable industrial standards. The results of any testing shall be provided to the San Bernardino County Fire Department - Hazardous Materials Division as the County’s Consolidated Unified Protection Agency (CUPA) and the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health if necessary. Any contaminated soil that must be removed from the site shall be done by a licensed contractor and hauled to a landfill approved for such materials. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the San Bernardino County Fire Department - Hazardous Materials Division as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the County. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 92 City of Fontana The closest school to the Project site is Jurupa Hills High School, approximately 700 feet to the south, although the closest classroom building is approximately 1,000 feet to the south. According to the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD) website, adjacent to the high school to the east are also the Citrus Continuation High School and Fontana Adult Center (FUSD 2022). The demolition, grading and construction activities associated with the Project may involve some temporary transportation of materials classified as hazardous (e.g., fuels, cleaning products): however, any use of such materials will be limited to the time of construction of the planned warehouse ``improvements. In addition, the transportation of any limited amount of hazardous materials will be along Slover Avenue either west to Citrus Avenue or east to Sierra Avenue to access the I-10 Freeway. Therefore, any of these materials will not be within close proximity (i.e., 1,000 feet) to any occupied buildings on the high school site. The Project is not expected to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD), contracted through the San Bernardino County Fire Department, requires businesses that store, handle, or use hazardous materials to prepare Business Plans to identify what hazardous materials can be found onsite and what protection procedures will be followed to protect workers and the public, including the nearby high school and other educational facilities, from accidental releases of such materials. With implementation of appropriate regulatory compliance, any potential impacts to schools will be less than significant. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact According to the City’s 2015 General Plan Noise and Safety Element, there “are no Superfund sites in Fontana. Two listed sites in adjacent municipalities, one in Rialto (BF Goodrich) and one in Jurupa Hills (Stringfellow), which were undergoing cleanup as of 2015.” According to governmental databases, the Project site is not located on a State Cortese List, nor are any surrounding properties included on that list (DWR 2022a, DTSC 2022). Therefore, the Project will have no impact and no mitigation is required. 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? Less Than Significant Impact The closest commercial airport to the Project site is the Ontario International Airport (OIA) which is a public use airport located at 2500 E. Airport Drive in the City of Ontario. According to the San Bernardino County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), the Project site is 7.2 miles east of OIA. According to ALUC, the Project site is outside of the Planning Boundary/Airport Influence Area for OIA so there would be no impact (ALUC 2022). Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for local residents relative to airport or air installations. Any impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 93 f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact The Project site is located on the north side of Slover Avenue just west of Oleander Avenue. The locations of the proposed facilities will be distributed throughout the 17.39-acre site and sufficient space will be provided around the building for emergency personnel and equipment access and emergency evacuation, and all Project elements, including landscaping, will be located with sufficient clearance from existing and proposed buildings so as not to interfere with emergency access to and evacuation from the site. All proposed improvements will be designed in accordance with California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Section 9) specifications. With adherence to existing regulations, impacts from the proposed Project will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact The Noise and Safety Element of the 2105 Fontana General Plan states that the…”California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped fire threat potential throughout California. CAL FIRE ranks fire threats according to the availability of fuel and the likelihood of an area burning (based on topography, fire history, and climate). The rankings include little or no fire threat, moderate, high, very high, and extreme fire threat. Within the City of Fontana, fire hazards have been ranked within the range of little to no threat.” The northern (foothill) portions of the City are generally classified as High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones but there are no wildland conditions in the flatter, urbanized Project area south of the I-10 Freeway. Therefore, the Project site is not located within a fire hazard zone, as identified on the latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps from CAL FIRE (CalFire 2022). Therefore, there will be no impact and no mitigation are required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 94 City of Fontana 4.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water supply? □ □ □ b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? □ □ □ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; □ □ □ ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; □ □ □ iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or □ □ □ iv) impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ □ d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? □ □ □ e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? □ □ □ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 95 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water supply? Less Than Significant Impact A Hydrology Report and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) were prepared for the proposed Project by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services in April and May of 2023 (Appendix F). The City of Fontana and the Project site are within the Santa Ana River Watershed. It is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and covered by the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit (see below). The Project site drains nto the San Sevaine Channel to the west then into Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River before reaching the Prado Basin. From there it flows down the Santa Ana River (Reaches 2 then 1) and finally arrives at the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Ana River Basin Plan indicates pathogens and nitrates are the pollutants of most concern in these areas. The Hydrology Report divides the site into two drainage sub-areas. Drainage across the Project site flows south toward the public curb and gutter on Slover Avenue. Most of the site drainage (Sub-Area 1) flows west on Slover Avenue to an existing catch basin near the corner of Slover Avenue and Citrus Avenue. Runoff from a small portion of the site (Sub-Area 2) flows east on Slover Avenue to an existing catch basin near the intersection of Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue. A portion of runoff from Boyle Avenue also flows through the site and exits on Slover Avenue as a portion of Sub-Area 1. The Hydrology Report must comply with the City’s Detention Basin Policy and its Design Criteria as well as requirements of the City Master Storm Drain Plan when warranted. In lieu of constructing permanent storm drain facilities to convey the increased run-off, this project must analyze the 100, 25, 10, and 2-year event storms, using criteria for the pre-developed condition hydrology study to inceease confidence that the flow reduction system achieves the desired effect. This criteria includes: a) using rainfall intensities less than the return period being studied for pre-developed conditions (e.g., using a 25-year rainfall event for the 100-year pre-developed hydrology); b) using a 0.9 multifplier on the pre-developed condtion flow rates (e.g., reudce 100-year developed icondition flow rate to no more than 90 percent of 25-year pre-developed condition flow rate); c) use City-specified AMC values for the calculations; and d) emptying the detention basin with 24 hours after the peak depth of the basin is achieved. The Project proposes to construct water quality improvements for each of the drainage sub-areas. Drainage from Sub-Areas 1 and 2 will be directed to an underground infiltration system located within each of the Subareas. The two infiltration systems are designed to infiltrate at least the Design Capture Volume (DCV) as required per the Project WQMP. The infiltration system is also part of the drainage detention system to mitigate the 100-year peak flow rate to less than or equal to 90% of the pre-development peak flow rate. Storm drainage from Sub-Areas 1 and 2 that exceeds the capacity of the infiltration/detention system “backs up” through the pipe network and outlets through a bubbler box on the south side of the Project site next to Slover Avenue. An under-sidewalk parkway culvert is proposed to convey drainage exiting from each of the bubbler boxes to outlet onto the public curb and gutter on Slover Avenue. Sub-Area 3 consists primarily of landscaping between the proposed building and the Right-of-Way at Slover Avenue. An under-sidewalk culvert is proposed to convey drainage from this Sub-Area to Slover Avenue. On Boyle Avenue, proposed street improvements include new pavement, curb, and gutter along the northern frontage of the Project site and will direct the street drainage west along Boyle Avenue towards an existing catch basin at the existing cul-de-sac. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 96 City of Fontana Because construction of the proposed Project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, it is subject to the requirements of the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, as amended by Order Nos. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ (Construction General Permit), which is considered regulatory compliance for the City. The project proponent must also prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which outlines applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction, in compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. Compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit, including incorporation of construction BMPs to target and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, would ensure that construction impacts related to waste discharge requirements, water quality standards, degradation of water quality, increased pollutant discharge, and alteration of receiving water quality, or impacts on surface water quality to marine, fresh, or wetland waters, would be less than significant. The Project Geotechnical Report (Appendix D) indicates that groundwater is likely at considerable depth beneath the site. The onsite geotechnical studies did not encounter groundwater in the exploratory borings, which reached 25 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the Project site. However, recent water level data obtained from the California Department of Water Resources website, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/ from the nearest monitoring well on record located approximately 0.2-mile west of the site. Water level readings within this monitoring well indicated a groundwater level of 347 feet below the ground surface in March 2021 (SCG 2022a, b). Groundwater discharged to the storm drain system is covered under the Santa Ana RWQCB’s NPDES Permit. The Project would require a General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R8- 2020-0006, NPDES No. CAG998001). This determination is considered regulatory compliance by the City. This permit requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during groundwater dewatering prior to release to the storm drain system. As a result, groundwater dewatering would not introduce pollutants to receiving waters at levels that would violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, degrade water quality, increase pollutant discharge, or alter the quality of the receiving water. Impacts to surface water quality from groundwater dewatering would therefore be less than significant with regulatory compliance. Pollutants of concern during construction of the Project are sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During construction, essentially the whole site would be graded and excavated depending on the depth needed for planned improvements. During construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and other construction waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters. Sediment from increased soil erosion and chemicals from spills and leaks have the potential to be discharged to downstream receiving waters during storm events, which can affect water quality and impair beneficial uses. The Project site is currently vacant which contains mainly impermeable surfaces at present (i.e., bare ground). The Project proposes to construct one light industrial warehouse building with attendant parking areas and vehicular access ways onsite. The Project will result in a significant increase in Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 97 impermeable surfaces which will affect onsite drainage or water quality. The Project engineer indicates the site has infiltration rates that vary from 9.8 to 20.6 inches per hour (SCG 2022c). The Project Hydrology Report and WQMP are proposing two underground infiltration/bioretention basins in the east-central and west-central portions of the site for water quality purposes. The basins will be sized based on the site’s hydrological conditions and have an overflow drain that connects to the storm drain in the public street south of the site (SCG 2022). Since the site is over one acre in size, grading and construction activities will be subject to NPDES permit requirements as well as compliance with BMPs outlined in Section 13.32.450 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code. Compliance with the applicable City MS4 discharge requirements will ensure that construction activities will not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degree quality. For operation of the warehouse once completed, the City will also have to implement post- construction BMPs to address long-term water quality goals per NPDES requirements. Long-term operation of the proposed Project may involve the following pollutants and sources: • Suspended Solids/Sediment, Nutrients, and Pesticides from proposed landscaped areas; • Heavy Metals and Oil and Grease, and Toxic Organic Compounds from uncovered parking areas; and • Trash and Debris – general activities on the site. Operation of the proposed Project would comply with the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB’s NPDES Permit Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of San Bernardino, the County’s Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of San Bernardino County within the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit. The San Bernardino County MS4 Permit requires BMPs be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. With this regulatory compliance, the Project would have less than significant impacts related to water quality. The Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water supply. With regulatory compliance, potential impacts related to water quality will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact The Project area is part of a regional alluvial plain and is underlain by several groundwater basins. Groundwater in the Project area is managed and distributed by the Fontana Water Company (FWC), a subsidiary of the San Gabriel Valley Water Company. The FWC derives its water supplies from the following sources: groundwater pumped from the Chino Basin, Lytle Basin, Rialto Basin, and No- Man’s Land Basin; surface water diversions from Lytle Creek, imported State Water Project water from Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD), and recycled water. The Chino Basin has enhanced reliability during drought and is FWC’s most reliable source of water supply. The Chino Basin Watermaster (CBW) and its technical staff ensure long-term reliability of water supplies from the Chino Basin. Under the direct supervision of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, the CBW manages basin water supplies, arranges for local and supplemental groundwater recharge and implements and administers the Chino Basin Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 98 City of Fontana physical solution as prescribed in the governing Superior Court groundwater pumping rights adjudication (the “Chino Basin Judgment”). The FWC provides potable water to the City of Fontana including the Project site, of which over half of their supply comes from groundwater wells. The FWC is required by state law (Urban Water Planning Management Act or AB 797 in 1983) to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) to identify its sources/supplies of potable water, its historical and projected consumption by its customers, and evaluate various mandated scenarios for water shortages (e.g., single dry year, and multiple dry years) to assure its customers and the state that it will have adequate water supplies now and in the future, even under expected drought conditions (FWC 2020). At present most of the precipitation that falls on the Project site is absorbed and eventually percolates back into the local groundwater. The Project site is currently vacant so much of the site consists of pervious surfaces (bare dirt) with no major impervious surfaces (e.g., asphalt, concrete). Development of the site into a light industrial warehouse will cover up to 90% of the site with impervious surfaces. This will reduce natural surface infiltration back to the local groundwater. However, the Project WQMP indicates the developed site will have two underground infiltration/bioretention basins in the east- central and west-central portions of the site which will allow continued percolation of onsite runoff into the ground and eventually back to the local groundwater basin(s). Therefore, the Project will not have a significant impact on the amount of water the site contributes to local groundwater supplies and mitigation is not required. c.i) 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact According to the Project Hydrology Study and WQMP, the Project will not 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. The Project site is located within an urbanized area and is not adjacent to a stream or river and as such, will not impact a neighboring water body. The Project site is currently vacant but will be developed into a light industrial warehouse with supporting paved parking and vehicle travel areas. Runoff currently flows generally from north to south across the site, and that overall pattern is proposed to continue under the planned Project improvements. The site is currently covered with largely permeable surfaces, but the Project will introduce a substantial amount of new impermeable surfaces on the site. This will cover native soils and prevent erosion during storm events. Once developed, the site will not experience substantial erosion as native soils will be covered over by improved surfaces. In addition, construction activities will also be required to comply with drainage and runoff guidelines pursuant to the City’s MS4 permit and its Municipal Code requirements regarding flood control and water quality. Therefore, the Project will not result in a significant impact related to erosion on the site and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 99 c.ii) 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact Runoff currently flows generally from north to south across the site, and that overall pattern is proposed to continue under the planned Project improvements. The proposed Project will regrade the entire site and will substantially increase the percentage of impervious surface area, so it is likely runoff from the site could substantially increase without onsite controls. According to the Hydrology Report and WQMP, the Project proposes two subsurface infiltration/retention basins to prevent an increase in offsite runoff and help protect local water quality. Therefore, the Project will not have a significant impact on the amount of runoff from the site. Therefore, the Project will not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. c.iii) 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact Runoff currently flows generally from north to south across the site, and that overall pattern is proposed to continue under the planned Project improvements. The proposed Project will regrade the entire site and will substantially increase the percentage of impervious surface area, so it is likely runoff from the site could substantially increase without onsite controls. According to the Hydrology Report and WQMP, the Project proposes two subsurface infiltration/retention basins to prevent an increase in offsite runoff. The site eventually drains west to the San Sevaine Channel, then south to the Prado Basin and the Santa Ana River, and eventually to the Pacific Ocean. The Project will not change the flow rate or course of any stream or river by its addition of impervious surfaces. In addition, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared consistent with the Construction General Permit requirements to identify the specific BMPs to be implemented during construction to reduce water quality impacts, including those impacts associated with soil erosion, siltation, and spills. If any groundwater is extracted during dewatering activities that is discharged to surface waters, it would be tested and treated (if necessary) to ensure that any discharges meet the water quality limits specified in the applicable NPDES permit. This regulatory compliance will prevent substantial additional sources of polluted runoff being discharged to the storm drain system through implementation of construction BMPs that target pollutants of concern in runoff from the project site as well as testing and treatment (if required) of groundwater prior to its discharge to surface waters. Therefore, the Project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 100 City of Fontana c.iv) 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 impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact According to the 2015 Fontana General Plan Noise and Safety Element and County Hazard Maps, the Project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain as the area is not mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FEMA 2023). The City’s 2015 General Plan Safety Element identifies the proposed Project site as Zone X which is defined by FEMA as minimal risk areas outside of the one percent and 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. The Project site is not located in a flood zone and will not alter the course of a stream or river (FEMA 2023). In addition, the improvements proposed by the Project are relatively low scale and include detention and infiltration of onsite runoff, so the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows even if they were to occur. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less Than Significant Impact Flood Hazard. According to the 2015 Fontana General Plan Noise and Safety Element and County Hazard Maps, the Project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain as the area is not mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FEMA 2023). The City’s 2015 General Plan Safety Element identifies the proposed Project site as Zone X which is defined by FEMA as minimal risk areas outside of the one percent and 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. Therefore, flooding impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Dam Inundation. According to the Noise and Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the Project site is not located within an identified inundation zone of any regional flood control or water retention facilities. Therefore, the potential for the release of pollutants from inundation by any dam or impoundment failure is remote. Impacts of the proposed Project related to the exposure of people and structures to significant risk associated with flooding as a result of dam failure would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Seiche/Tsunami Risk. There are no open bodies of water in the vicinity of the Project site and the proposed Project is therefore not located within an inundation zone of a seiche (standing seismic wave inside a closed body of water). The Project site is located over 40 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and at an elevation of 1,056 feet above mean sea level, so the site is not located within a tsunami inundation zone. Therefore, no impact from inundation by flood hazard, seiche, or tsunami would occur, and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 101 e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less Than Significant Impact Per the information provided in Checklist Responses 4.10a and 4.10.b, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan (with regulatory compliance) or sustainable groundwater management plan. No impact will occur as a result of the proposed Project and no mitigation is required. 4.11 – Land Use and Planning Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? □ □ □ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? □ □ □ a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact The site is bounded by a mixture of uses including low intensity residential to the east, west, and north and limited commercial uses and services to the west. Warehouses have recently been constructed northeast and south of the Project site as the land use/zoning designation is light industrial (see Table 4.11-1 , Surrounding Land Uses). The proposed Project will be located at the western end of a legal non-conforming residential neighborhood but it will allow for continued movement of cars and pedestrians along Solver Avenue and Boyle Avenue so it will not separate existing residences to the east and west from each other. Residents in the surrounding areas would still be able to walk and travel to other residences and uses in the immediate and surrounding areas. Therefore, the Project will not physically divide an established community and will result in less than significant impacts in this regard and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 102 City of Fontana Table 4.11-1 Surrounding Land Uses Direction General Plan Designation Zoning District Existing Land Use Project Site Light Industrial (I-L) (0.1-0.6 FAR) with one parcel C-C Light Industrial (M-1) (0.1-0.6 FAR) with one parcel C-1 Vacant North General Industrial (I-G) (0.1-0.6 FAR) General Industrial (M-2) (0.1-0.6 FAR) Industrial residences and yards with a new warehouse to the northeast South Light Industrial (I-L) (0.1-0.6 FAR), C-G, R-PC Light Industrial (M-1) (0.1-0.6 FAR), C-2, R-PC Slover Avenue and new warehouses and Jurupa Hills High School further south of the warehouses East Light Industrial (I-L) (0.1-0.6 FAR) Light Industrial (M-1) (0.1-0.6 FAR) Mixed large lot residential and commercial uses West Light Industrial (I-L) (0.1-0.6 FAR) Specific Plan 5 (Southwest Industrial Park), C-1 Mixture of residential and commercial uses 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? Less than Significant Impact General Plan and Zoning. Regarding local plans, almost the entire Project site and surrounding areas have been designated for light industrial uses in the 2015 General Plan and current zoning, and the existing residences in the area are considered non-conforming uses. However, a small (1.2-acre parcel of the Project site) is currently designated by the General Plan and zoning for commercial uses. Conversion of that parcel to industrial uses would not in and of itself contribute to any significant impacts as it is on the northeast corner of Citrus Avenue and Slover Avenue and there is already a warehouse located on the southeast corner of that intersection. Therefore, changing this small (1.2- acre site or 7% of the site) from commercial to industrial use would not cause a significant land use change to the Project area as the remaining 16.19 acres of the site (93%) is already designated for industrial use. Table 4.11-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, evaluates the Project to determine if it is consistent with the various goals, policies and actions in the current City General Plan (Fontana Forward 2015-2035). As shown in Table 4-12, the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan goals, policies and actions that are applicable to light industrial uses. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 103 Table 4.11-2 General Plan Consistency Analysis General Plan Goals, Policies, and Actions1 Project Consistency Overall Goal: High quality job-producing industrial uses are located in proximity to regional transportation routes. Consistent. The Project is located just south of the I-10 freeway corridor between two freeway ramp interchanges (Citrus Ave. and Sierra Ave.) Urban Design: Modern warehouse districts are characterized by very large boxes (often white) on well-landscaped streets. The interface between these modern warehouse areas and residential areas is typically buffered by arterial streets and commercial areas. Industrial districts also include older areas with a variety of businesses, many focused on trucking. In these areas, and in the southern industrial areas between I-10 and Jurupa Avenue, there are many transition areas where industrial and older residential areas are not well buffered. Consistent. The proposed warehouse Project is well buffered from neighboring residential uses by the following: the orientation of truck docks to the south and west away from existing residential uses; setbacks from the warehouse building to residential uses to the north (min. 100 feet) and the east (59-130 feet); a 10-foot tall screening walls; and additional 10-foot landscaped setbacks with a variety of plantings and trees. The design characteristics are consistent with the requirements of Ordinance No. 1891 regarding warehouse design. Goal 1: The Strategic Policy Map and the Land Use Map guide land-use decision making. Consistent. As shown below, the Project is consistent with both the Strategic Policy Map and the Land Use Map. Action A: Exhibit 15.7 Strategic Policy Map. Legend says goal for areas immediately north and south of the I-10 Freeway is to… “continue upgrading light industrial areas to be regionally competitive.” Consistent. The Project is located just south of I- 10 within area designated for light industrial uses. Project is a warehouse consistent with the light industrial land use designation and zoning. Light Industry. Warehousing, trucking, manufacturing and support industries are focused especially along regional transportation routes. Some of these areas need upgrades in order to increase or maintain competitiveness. Consistent. The Project is in an area designated for light industrial land uses south of the I-10, a regional transportation route. Action B. Use the Land Use Map to designate land uses in the city. (GP Exhibit 15.8) LUM I-L: Light Industrial (0.1–0.6 FAR). Employee-intensive uses, including business parks, research and development, technology centers, corporate and support office uses, clean industry, supporting retail uses, truck and equipment sales and related services are allowed. Warehouses that are designed in ways that limit off-site impacts are also permitted. Consistent. The Project is consistent with the planned light industrial uses in this area shown on the Land Use Map (LUM). The Initial Study demonstrates that with recommended mitigation, standard conditions, and regulatory compliance, the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic prosperity. Not Applicable. The Goal, Policies, and Actions do not apply to the proposed Project. Goal 3: Downtown is a dynamic center of activity, with new housing options, walkable environments, and a mixture of uses attracting residents and visitors. Not Applicable. The Project is not located in the downtown area so the Goal, Policies, and Actions do not apply to the proposed Project. Goal 4: Compact, walkable, mixed-use centers are located at key locations along corridors to be served by public transit in the future and at intersections where neighborhood retail and diverse housing options can succeed. Not Applicable. The Goal, Polices, and Actions do not apply to the proposed Project. Goal 5: High-quality job- producing industrial uses No Applicable. Goal and Policies do not directly Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 104 City of Fontana General Plan Goals, Policies, and Actions1 Project Consistency are concentrated in a few locations where there is easy access to regional transportation routes. apply to the Project. Action A: Extend industrial land uses along I-10 shown in the Land Use Map Consistent. Project site is in the industrial corridor just south of the I-10 corridor. Goal 6: The expansion of Fontana’s city limits through annexation has improved the entrance corridors. Not Applicable. Goal, Policies, and Actions do not apply to the proposed Project. Goal 7: Public and private development meets high design standards. Consistent. As discussed in Section 3, Project Description, the proposed warehouse has high- quality architectural design and enhanced visual characteristics, landscaping, etc. Policy 1: Support high-quality development in design standards in land use decisions. Consistent. The Project is consistent with the design requirements of the City Zoning and Development Code (Chapter 30 of the City Municipal Code) as outlined in Division 8, Design and Architectural Regulations, and Article VII – Industrial Zoning Districts, Division 2, Development Standards. Action B: Ensure that public and private developments are attractive, comfortable, and welcoming by following the urban design principles in Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan. (summarized below) 1. Focus on creating human-scaled environments 2. Focus on streets as three-dimensional shares spaces 3. Create walkable environments 4. Plant trees 5. Bring buildings to the street 6. Parking is necessary but should not dominate street frontage Partially Consistent. The Project demonstrates the high quality urban design elements outlined in Chapters 14 and 15 of the City’s General Plan 2015-2035. These are demonstrated in the Project Site Plan and Building Elevations (Exhibits 6 and 7 in Section 3, Project Description) as well as the landscaping plan and wall and fence plan also in Section 3. The landscaping plan shows a 10-foot wide landscape buffer on the north and east sides of the site that face residential uses (and contain no truck docks). The landscaping includes extensive planting of shrubs and liberal use of trees along the north and east sides as well. The Project entrance is incorporated into the architecture of the office portion of the warehouse which is has a different appearance, with larger, lower, and more numerous glass panels, which has a more human scale appearance compared to the mass and height of the warehouse portion of the building with smaller, fewer glass panels. Slover Ave. which fronts the Project has sidewalks on both sides but no bike lanes due to the high amount of truck traffic on this roadway. Due to the proximity to residential to the north, the warehouse building has been oriented so the truck docks face south and parking is located to the south, both of which increase the distance of the warehouse from Slover Ave. Much of the Project design was based on the requirements of City Ordinance No. 1891 on warehouse design. Source: Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning & Urban Design. City of Fontana General Plan, Fontana Forward 2015-2035. July 23, 2023 1 Only those that apply to light industrial projects In addition, Table 2-4, Development Standards, in the Project Description (Section 3) compares the Project characteristics to the various Zoning and Development Code standards for light industrial Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 105 development (i.e., FAR, building height, landscaping, parking, etc.). That table demonstrates the proposed Project is consistent with those standards. For these reasons, the Project would not conflict and be generally consistent with the applicable goals, policies, and actions in the General Plan, zoning ordinance or any other parts of the municipal code that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant. On April 12, 2022, the City enacted Ordinance 1891 which applied a variety of restrictions and design guidelines on new warehouses in Fontana. Table 4.11-3, Consistency with Fontana Industrial Sustainability Ordinance 1891, compares aspects of the Project to the requirements of City Ordinance 1891. Table 4.11-3 Consistency with Fontana Industrial Sustainability Ordinance 1891 Ordinance Requirement Project Consistency Sec 9-70 – Applicability: Applies to all warehouses throughout the City Consistent. Project complies with City’s requirements. Sec 9-71 – Buffering and Screening adjacent to sensitive receptors 1. Buffers/Screening (a) warehouses over 50,000 SF must have 10-foot wide landscape buffer (b) warehouses over 400,000 SF must have 20-foot wide landscaping buffer © any warehouse 50,000 SF or smaller must have a solid decorative wall at least 10-feet tall. Consistent. Project is over 50k SF but under 400k SF so it will have 10-foot wide landscape buffers. Project will have solid decorative walls at 10-feet in height facing residences or sensitive receptors. 2. Solid screen must include evergreen drought-tolerant, 36-inch box trees Consistent. Landscape Plan shows min. 36-inch box trees and evergreen, drought-tolerant trees in landscape buffer along solid perimeter walls. 3. Landscaping must drought tolerant native species and include evergreen trees (no palm trees) Consistent. Landscape Plan complies with these requirements. 4. All landscaping to be irrigated for life of project Consistent. Condition of Approval will require compliance. 5. Car parking shall have 35% shade covering within 15 years Consistent. “Project Design Features” will ensure compliance with this requirement. 6. Orient dock doors away from sensitive receptors Consistent. Sensitive receptors to north, east, and southwest so docks open to the south (42 doors) and west (8 doors). Setbacks, walls and landscaping per this ordinance provide additional buffering. 7. Dock doors for warehouses larger than 400,000 SF must be min. 300 feet away from sensitive receptors Consistent. Project is less than 400k SF but dock doors are oriented to the south or west away from sensitive receptors. Sec 9-72 – Signage and Traffic 1. Entry gates must have min. 140 feet stacking depth inside property line. Stacking depth to increase by 70 feet for every 20 docks beyond 50 docks. Queuing must be onsite or in a dedicated offsite lane Consistent. Site Plan shows adequate stacking per this requirement. 2. Engineering Dept. to approve all truck turning templates Consistent. Site Plan has been developed in cooperation with City Engineering staff to assure adequate turning radii. 3. 3-minute idling limit must be signed and enforced Consistent. “Project Design Features” incorporate this limit. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 106 City of Fontana Ordinance Requirement Project Consistency 4. Truck Routing Plan for project must be approved by City Planning Director and adhered to for the life of the project Consistent. “Project Design Features” incorporate this limit. 5. Signs and drive aisle pavement markings to clearly identify onsite vehicular circulation pattern Consistent. Conditions of Approval will assure compliance. 6. Offsite parking by employees, drivers, and visitors must be signed and strictly enforced Consistent. The Project will not have any offsite parking, parking for all employees and visitors will be onsite. 7. Install signs notifying drivers about approved Truck Routing Plan and highways Consistent. “Project Design Features” Mitigation Measure AIR-1 incorporates this limit. 8. Post signs to clearly indicate project contact for noise, dust, odors, and parking complaints Consistent. “Project Design Features” Mitigation Measure AIR-1 incorporates this limit. 9. All signs must be easily visible, permanent, and maintained Consistent. Conditions of Approval will require compliance. 10. Warehouses with more than 400,000 SF shall have a well-equipped truck operator lounge Consistent. Site Plan shows a dedicated lounge area. Sec 9-73 – Alternative Energy 1. Onsite motorized operational equipment shall be zero emission Consistent. “Project Design Features” incorporates this limit. 2. Building roofs shall be solar ready for PV systems Consistent. “Project Design Features” incorporates this limit. 3. Open building roof surfaces shall be SRI 78 or greater Consistent. “Project Design Features” incorporates this limit. 4. Warehouses over 400,000 SF shall have solar systems that provide 100% of all non-refrigerated space energy needs Consistent. Project has no designated user yet but does not propose refrigerated space and has less than 400k SF. Project Plans and “Project Design Features” require the warehouse to have a solar ready roof and no refrigerated space unless equivalent or reduced energy use can be demonstrated. This limitation will be included as a condition of approval as outlined in the Project Description under “Project Design Features to Comply with City Ordinance 1891” 5. Minimum 10% of car parking spaces shall be EV ready and min. 5% shall have Level 2 Quick EV charging stations installed Consistent. “Project Design Features” incorporates this limit. 6. Conduit and related improvements shall be installed for all dock doors that may handle refrigerated goods so TRUs can be plugged in rather than running off the truck engine Consistent. “Project Design Features” incorporate this limit. 7. Install bicycle racks including locks and charging stations for electric bicycles Consistent. “Project Design Features” incorporate this limit. Sec 9-74 – Operation and Construction 1. Drive aisles and parking areas shall have cool pavement or surfaces Consistent. “Project Design Features” incorporate this limit. 2. Provide secondary electrical room or enlarge single electrical room by 25% to accommodate future electrical needs that may not be known at this time Consistent. “Project Design Features” incorporate this limit. 3. Use super-compliant VOC architectural coatings and paint Consistent. “Project Design Features” incorporate this limit. 4. Warehouses shall implement a recycling program Consistent. Standard Conditions of Approval will ensure compliance with this requirement. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 107 Ordinance Requirement Project Consistency 5. Construction shall use highest CARB Tier technology available. Use only electric-powered tools and operational equipment, and designate a charging area for electric equipment and vehicles (a) Identify location for future electric truck charging stations and install necessary conduit for future installation (b) Prohibit diesel generators except in case of emergencies Consistent. “Project Design Features” incorporate this limit. 6. Implement Property Maintenance Program approved by the City Planning Director 7. Property owner shall provide information on incentive programs like Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program (a) Require all facility operators to enroll in the U.S. EPA SmartWay Program Consistent: project proponent will submit materials to City for review and approval prior to occupancy of new building. Source: City website 2023 (note requirements are summarized from the ordinance) k = thousand SF = square feet Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The Air Quality Study (Appendix A) and Section 4.3 in this Initial Study found the Project to be consistent with the 2022 AQMP. SCAG Plans. Regarding regional plans, the “Connect SoCal Plan” otherwise known as the 2020– 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) was prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is a long- range planning document that provides a common foundation for regional and local planning, policymaking, and infrastructure goals in the SCAG region. The core vision for the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, which is formally named the Connect SoCal Plan, is to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern (SCAG 2016). Table 4.11-4, Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal Goals, provides a consistency analysis of the goals from the Connect SoCal Plan that are relevant to the proposed Project. As demonstrated in Table 4.11-4, the proposed Project is consistent with applicable goals in the Connect SoCal Plan (note a number of the goals are not applicable due to the type of project) and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 108 City of Fontana Table 4.11-4 Consistency with SCAG Connect SoCal Goals Connect SoCal Plan Goals Consistency Analysis Goal 1: Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness. Consistent. The Southern California region, and the Inland Empire in particular, provides warehousing that supports the Ports of Los Angeles. The Project would help implement this policy as Fontana is just one of the many cities within the SCAG region that provide warehousing through comprehensive local and regional planning efforts. It should be noted that the Project would improve the local and regional economy by creating a new industrial center. Goal 2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods. Consistent. The Project will provide 355,995 square feet of new warehousing and office space which will support the activities of the Los Angeles Ports in terms of logistics and goods movement through Southern California. The Project provides connections to surrounding pedestrian networks, bicycle lanes, bus transit routes, and commuter rail services. Goal 3: Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system. Goal 4: Increase person and goods throughput and travel choices within the transportation system. Goal 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. Consistent. Sections 4.3 and 4.8 document the Project will help reduce its anticipated air pollutant and GHG emissions by various design features consistent with City goals and programs. Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable communities. Consistent. The Project will comply with the requirements of the Goal 7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network. Consistent. Section 4.8 documents the Project will help reduce its anticipated GHG emissions by various design features consistent with City goals and programs. Goal 8: Leverage new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel. Not Applicable. Project is a warehouse and would not directly influence the technologies used in transportation systems. Goal 9: Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options. Not Applicable. The Project is a warehouse which provides employment but does not propose new housing or an increase in population. Goal 10: Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of critical habitats. Consistent. The Project will not remove any prime agricultural land or soils, and does not contain any habitat for listed or otherwise sensitive species. Surveys for nesting birds and bats will be conducted to assure no impacts to those sensitive species. Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020–2045 Connect SoCal Plan. GHG= greenhouse gas Therefore, the Project will not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There will be no impact and no mitigation is required other than in specific sections for specific impacts identified in Tables 4.11-2 through 4.11-4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 109 4.12 – Mineral Resources Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? □ □ □ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? □ □ □ a) 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? No Impact The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) passed in 1975 provides guidelines to assist with classification and designation of mineral lands. These areas were designated based on several geologic factors but do consider existing land uses and ownership. These Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) are divided into the following four categories: • MRZ-1: An area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence; • MRZ-2: An area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence; • MRZ-3: An area containing mineral deposits of which their significance cannot be properly evaluated; and • MRZ-4: An area where information is not adequate enough to be able to assign to any other MRZ zone. Of these four categories, lands classified as MRZ-2 are most important as they are underlain by demonstrated mineral resources or are located where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ-2 areas are designated by the State of California Mining and Geology Board as being “regionally significant.” Such designations require that a lead agency’s land use decisions involving designated areas are to be made in accordance with its mineral resource management policies and that it consider the importance of the mineral resource to the region or the State as a whole, not just to the lead agency’s jurisdiction (CDMG 1981). The Project site is in an area that has been classified by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) as MRZ-4 which means it is in an area where information is inadequate for assignment to any other mineral resource zone (CDMG 2023). The City (and Project site) are not within or proximate to any MRZ-2 zones, and are surrounded by an MRZ-1 zone, indicating the absence of significant Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 110 City of Fontana mineral deposits in the area. Therefore, the Project will have no significant impacts related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. There will be no impact and no mitigation is required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact The Project site is in an area that has been classified by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) as MRZ-4 which means it is in an area where information is inadequate for assignment to any other mineral resource zone (CDMG 2022). The City (and Project site) are not within or proximate to any MRZ-2 zones, and are surrounded by an MRZ-1 zone, indicating the absence of significant mineral deposits in the area. In addition, the City’s General Plan Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails Element indicates there are no mineral resources as defined by the CDMG within the City (City 2015). Therefore, the Project will have no significant impacts related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and to the residents of the State, and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 111 4.13 – Noise Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ □ b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ □ c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? □ □ □ a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Introduction A detailed Noise Assessment was prepared for the Project by MIG in July 2023 (Appendix G). Characteristics of Sound. Sound is caused by increases in air pressure but to be “heard” by humans they must be received or sensed by the ear. Noise is simply defined as unwanted sound. Noise or sound level values are typically expressed in terms of decibels using the A scale of weighting which best approximates the hearing range and sensitivity of humans. Time-averaged noise levels are expressed by the symbol LEQ for a specified time period. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a calculated 24-hour weighted average, where sound levels during evening hours of 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. have an added 5 dB weighting, and sound levels during nighttime hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. have an added 10 dB weighting. This is similar to the Day-Night sound level, LDN which is a 24- hour average with an added 10 dB weighting on the same nighttime hours but no added weighting on the evening hours. Sound levels expressed in CNEL are always based on A-weighted decibels. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 112 City of Fontana These metrics are used to express noise levels for both measurement and municipal regulations, for land use guidelines, and for enforcement of noise ordinances. Sound pressure is the actual noise experienced by a human or registered by a sound level instrument. When sound pressure is used to describe a noise source, the distance from the noise source must be specified in order to provide complete information. Sound power, on the other hand, is a specialized analytical metric to provide information without the distance requirement, but it may be used to calculate the sound pressure at any desired distance. City Noise Thresholds. The applicable noise standards governing the Project site are the criteria in the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan. Municipal Code Chapter 18, Article II, and Chapter 30, Article VII, implement the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan Noise and Safety Element, establishes community-wide noise standards, and regulates excess noise that may be detrimental to citizen’s health, safety, welfare, and quality of life. The Municipal Code includes the following standards that would be applicable to the proposed Project: • Chapter 18, Article II, Section 18-62 (Prohibited noise generally, penalties, remedies) sets forth certain activities are unlawful, including: It shall be unlawful for any person within the city to make, cause, or to continue to make or cause, loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive sound or noise that annoys or disturbs persons of ordinary sensibilities. • Section 18-63 (Scope, enumeration of prohibited noises) sets forth unlawful acts that create loud, excessive, impulsive, or intrusive noise that annoys or disturbs persons of ordinary sensibilities including horns, signaling devices, exhaust, building repair, piledrivers, and blowers. * Chapter 30 Article VII Industrial Zoning Districts Section 30-543 (Noise and vibration) specifies noise and vibration level performance standards that shall not be exceeded, as measured at the property line of any residentially zone property: The noise level between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. shall not exceed 70 db(A). The noise level between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. shall not exceed 65 db(A). Furthermore, Section 30-543 specifies that no person shall create or cause to be created any activity which causes a vibration which can be felt beyond the property line with or without the aid of an instrument. Ambient Noise Levels. The City’s General Plan Chapter 11 Noise and Safety identifies traffic noise, including traffic on major roadways (e.g., Interstate 10 (I-10) and Interstate 15 (I-15) freeways, portions of SR-210, etc.), airport noise associated with Ontario International Airport, and non- transportation sources including industrial, commercial, and residential activities and equipment as the predominant noise sources in the City (City of Fontana, 2018). The proposed Project is located along Citrus Avenue and Slover Avenue, south of I-10 freeway. The segment of Citrus Avenue north of Jurupa Avenue and Slover Avenue are designated as truck routes by the City (City of Fontana, 2018). The closest air travel facility to the Project site is Ontario International Airport, located approximately 7.4 miles to the west. The ambient noise monitoring conducted for the Noise Report included one (1) long-term (LT) and five (5) short-term (ST) measurements at locations selected to be representative of the local noise environment and close to sensitive receptors (primarily residences) in the area immediately surrounding the Project site. The measured ambient noise levels at and near the Project site are consistently above approximately 55 dBA Leq during the daytime, evening, and nighttime. Measured noise levels were higher closer to Slover Avenue than on the interior of the Project site due to traffic noise. The 24-hour noise exposure level near the southwest portion of the site was 67.7 dBA CNEL. Sensitive Receptors. Noise sensitive land uses and receptors are buildings or areas where unwanted sound or increases in sound may have an adverse effect on people or land uses. The City’s Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 113 General Plan defines noise as unwanted sound, and the Municipal Code defines sensitive noise receptors as any residence including private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters, schools, preschools, daycare centers, in-home daycares, health facilities such as hospitals, long term care facilities, retirement and nursing homes, prisons, and dormitories (City of Fontana, 2018). Based on the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, the noise sensitive receptors near the proposed Project site include: (a) Single-family residences on Boyle Avenue (north of the Project site) and Oleander Avenue (adjacent to the site’s eastern property line); and (b) Single-family residences west of the Project site across Citrus Avenue. The noise analysis examines noise impacts at 12 different sensitive receptor locations (“R”) and all were residences adjacent to the Project site, as shown in Exhibit 15, Sensitive Noise Receptor Locations. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 114 City of Fontana Exhibit 15 Sensitive Noise Receptor Locations Source: Figure 5-1, MIG 2023 (Appendix G) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 115 Construction The proposed Project’s short-term construction-related noise and vibration levels were estimated using Project-specific information and standard noise and vibration estimation methodologies recommended by Caltrans, the FHWA, and FTA. The results of this modeling and a discussion regarding the significance of the Project’s construction noise and vibration levels are provided below. Table 4.13-1, Construction Noise Levels at Noise Receptors, summarizes modeled construction equipment noise levels at residential and non-residential receptors in the vicinity of the Project site for each anticipated Project construction activity. Table 4.13-1 Construction Noise Levels at Noise Receptors Construction Activity1 Days Estimated Noise Level (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 Demolition 20 71.1 76.6 77.8 75.6 71.1 81.1 74.0 77.2 68.1 61.2 65.3 65.8 Site Preparation (WC) 3 72.8 76.9 77.4 76.4 69.6 88.0 86.5 85.1 66.5 64.4 70.4 69.4 Site Preparation 10 62.2 66.8 64.8 67.5 60.7 64.8 64.6 62.4 58.2 57.3 59.7 59.7 Grading (WC) 3 79.1 83.3 83.8 82.8 75.9 94.4 92.8 91.5 72.8 70.7 76.8 75.7 Grading 30 68.5 73.1 71.1 73.9 67.1 71.1 71.0 68.7 64.5 63.7 66.1 66.0 Trenching 60 64.5 62.7 59.5 64.2 63.8 72.5 72.8 64.2 59.1 58.4 64.9 64.9 Building Construction 160 68.7 69.9 78.9 69.7 67.0 72.9 75.3 69.7 64.3 60.6 67.7 67.7 Paving 10 62.0 60.2 57.0 61.7 61.4 70.0 70.3 61.7 56.6 55.9 62.4 62.4 Architectural Coatings 25 56.2 57.4 66.5 57.2 54.5 60.4 62.8 57.2 51.8 48.2 55.2 55.2 Source: Table 5-1, MIG 2023c (Appendix G) 1 All measurements are for typical activities except for site preparation and grading which also have worst case activities included As shown in Table 4.13-1, the modeled worst-case construction noise level at any residential receptor location would be 94.4 dBA Leq. This would occur at the residence (R6) located east of the Project site during the Project’s grading phase. During typical construction periods, construction noise levels would not exceed 82 dBA Leq at any residential location and would generally be less than 75 dBA Leq. These noise level estimates are based on peak equipment usage during each construction phase.. The City’s Municipal Code does not establish numeric standards for construction noise levels (e.g., 90 dBA Leq) but does limit construction activities to the hours of 7 AM to 6 PM during weekdays and 8 AM to 5 PM on Saturday (Municipal code Section 18-63). Although Project construction may result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels, it is not anticipated to result in physical harm (e.g., temporary or permanent hearing loss or damage) to any sensitive noise receptor near the Project area for several reasons. First, the construction phases that use most of the large pieces of equipment – site preparation and grading – are anticipated to occur for no more than 40 days (not necessarily consecutive) out of the Project’s approximately 10- month construction schedule. Second, during this 40-day period, the estimated worst-case noise levels would only occur at receptor locations during the time when multiple pieces of equipment are operating directly adjacent to that receptor. As equipment moves along the property line and throughout the site, noise levels would decrease at one receptor and increase at a different receptor. Thus, receptors would not be continuously exposed to the estimated worst-case noise levels (noise levels would decrease as equipment moves away and return to ambient conditions when construction ceases for the day). Finally, the estimated construction noise levels presented in Table 5-4 are exterior noise levels, whereas receptors would be likely to be inside residential buildings during active construction operations. Interior noise levels would be approximately 12 dBA to 30 dBA lower depending on façade construction and whether windows or doors were open or closed. Physiological Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 116 City of Fontana effects occur when the human ear is subjected to extremely high noise levels (e.g., above 110 dBA) for a short period or prolonged exposure to high noise environments. For example, to protect workers from noise-induced hearing loss, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits worker noise exposure to 90 dBA as averaged over an 8-hour time period (29 CFR 1910.95). Similarly, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends workers limit noise exposure to no more than 85 dBA over an 8-hour period to protect against noise-induced hearing loss (NIOSH, 1998). Although unmitigated hourly construction noise levels may approach 88 dBA Leq to 94 dBA Leq during certain construction phases, such noise levels would not be sustained over an 8-hour period (due to movement of equipment and changes in operations that occur during daily construction activities). Therefore, at worst-case, noise from construction activities may pose a temporary interference or annoyance effect on nearby sensitive receptors but would not result in adverse physiological effects on human receptors in the surrounding area. To reduce the potential for Project construction activities to result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site that could annoy adjacent residential receptors and/or interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of residential properties, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is recommended which includes installation of a temporary noise barrier around the site during Project construction. The implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce construction noise levels by 5 dBA to 10 dBA at individual receptor locations during the daytime. Based on the estimated worst-case scenario (94 dBA Leq), exterior noise levels at individual receptors could reach 84 dBA Leq to 89 dBA Leq for limited periods of time. Such noise levels would be similar to the maximum measured daytime noise levels in the Project vicinity, but noticeably louder (approximately 12 dBA to 30 dBA) than the typical measured daytime noise levels (approximately 57 dBA Leq to 72 dBA Leq, see Table 5-4). Although worst-case noise levels could be noticeably louder than typical hourly daytime noise levels, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require the project proponent to provide advance warning of the proposed Project’s potentially noisy construction activities, restrict work hours to periods when humans are less sensitive to elevated noise levels in accordance with Municipal Code requirements, implement equipment noise control measures, install a temporary noise barrier between work areas and affected residences, and prepare and plan for potential unanticipated or unexpected construction noise issues. By providing advanced notice of loud construction activities and implementing equipment control measures and temporary noise barriers, the potential for sensitive residential receptors to be surprised or annoyed by loud exterior noises would be substantially reduced. In addition, daytime noise levels inside potential residential buildings would be approximately 12 dBA to 30 dBA lower, depending on whether windows and doors were open or closed. Thus, interior noise levels at individual receptor locations could potentially reach 54 dBA Leq to 77 dBA Leq during the daytime. At no time would the proposed Project’s exterior or interior construction noise be loud enough to result in physical harm to adjacent residential receptors. Finally, although worst-case construction noise levels could be noticeably louder than typical conditions, this impact would occur intermittently (anticipated to be no more than four (4) hours per day) for several days during the Project’s anticipated 40-day site preparation and grading phases, which would not constitute sustained or prolonged exposure to substantial temporary noise increases. The implementation of Mitigation NOI-1 would lower overall Project construction noise levels, reduce the potential for Project construction noise levels to surprise or annoy residential receptors, and reduce the potential for Project construction noise levels to interfere with normal use of residential properties. The implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would, therefore, reduce the proposed Project’s potential construction noise impacts to less than significant levels. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 117 Operation Impacts from Onsite Activities. The proposed Project’s potential noise levels were estimated using the reference and calculated hourly Leq noise levels adjusted for distance between the onsite noise source and property line and activity levels (e.g., number of automobile trips, trucks idling, etc.). For multiple noise sources such as cars parking, trucks idling, HVAC units, etc., noise levels were modeled from a single location to conservatively aggregate noise levels from an area (i.e., overestimate noise levels coming from any single point). Project noise levels were estimated at eight (8) property line receiver locations surrounding the site, as shown in the previous Exhibit 4.13-1. Only Project noise sources within 700 feet of a noise receiver that had a direct line of sight to the receiver were included in the noise prediction estimates. Consistency with City Standards. The Noise Study estimates the cumulative operational noise levels of the Project will not exceed City standards. The primary reasons for this is the Project’s design includes dock door location away from sensitive receptors, sufficient setbacks from surrounding uses and buffering with walls and landscaping. The Noise Study estimated Project noise levels would be consistent with City’s General Plan Noise and Safety policies pertaining to noise. The Project’s energy-averaged hourly noise levels at modeled receiver locations are summarized in Table 4.133-2, Project Noise Compared to City Standards. As shown in Table 4.133-2, the proposed Project’s stationary noise sources would not generate noise levels that exceed the City’s Municipal Code exterior noise standards for residential land uses. This impact would be less than significant. In addition, Table 4.133-2 also demonstrates the Project would not generate noise levels that exceed the City’s exterior noise standards for residential land uses. The maximum estimated hourly Leq values at any residential receptor (R8) would be 55.2 dBA Leq. Typical residential- type construction achieves a minimum of 12 to 30 db of exterior-to-interior noise reduction, depending on whether windows and doors are open or closed, which would be sufficient to ensure the City’s 45 dBA interior noise standard (Municipal Code Section 30-469) is met inside nearby residential buildings. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Table 4.133-2 Project Noise Compared to City Standards Source Estimated Noise Level at Property Line Receiver R1-R3 R4-R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11-R12 Truck Entrance 1 39.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- 29.3 Truck Entrance 2 24.3 -- -- -- -- -- 31.9 27.5 Truck Entrance 3 -- -- -- -- 33.4 -- -- -- Truck Entrance 4 -- -- 28.7 32.2 43.5 33.2 -- -- Drive Aisle 1 35.7 -- -- -- -- -- 28.9 35.5 Drive Aisle 2 32.3 -- -- -- -- -- 34.8 35.1 Drive Aisle 3 -- -- 30.1 34.0 44.8 33.5 Docks 1-5 -- -- -- -- -- -- 45.1 49.8 Docks 6-9 47.5 -- -- -- -- -- 45.9 50.1 Docks 10-14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Docks 15-21 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Docks 22-28 -- -- -- -- 45.4 -- -- -- Docks 29-35 -- -- -- -- 46.8 -- -- -- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 118 City of Fontana Source Estimated Noise Level at Property Line Receiver R1-R3 R4-R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11-R12 Docks 36-42 -- -- -- -- 48.4 -- -- -- Docks 43-49 -- -- -- -- 50.3 45.6 -- -- Docks 50-55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Parking Area 1 35.5 -- -- -- -- -- 28.9 37.0 Parking Area 2 -- 34.4 47.5 41.2 31.1 -- -- -- Parking Area 3 -- -- 39.1 53.5 33.9 -- -- -- Parking Area 4 -- -- 33.4 40.0 39.5 -- -- -- HVAC 1 -- -- 30.7 35.4 37.0 29.6 -- -- Total Combined Noise Level 48.8 34.4 48.4 54.1 55.2 46.2 48.9 53.2 Exterior Standard 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Standard Exceeded? No No No No No No No No Source: Table 5-7, MIG 2023c (Appendix G) Offsite Noise Impacts from Project Traffic. Once constructed, the proposed Project would generate noise from off-site vehicle travel on Boyle Avenue, Oleander Avenue, Slover Avenue, and Citrus Avenue. The proposed Project would generate 498 total daily passenger car trips and 633 total daily truck trips as measured in passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips (Ganddini Group, 2023b). The proposed Project would generate vehicle trips that would be distributed onto the local roadway system and potentially increase noise levels along travel routes. Caltrans considers a doubling of total traffic volume is required to result in a three (3) dBA increase in traffic-related noise levels (Caltrans, 2013). A 3dbA or less noise increase is considered to be a less than significant noise impact in an urban setting because that is the limit at which a noise increase is barely perceptible to the human ear. If the proposed Project would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes on the local roadway system, it would not result in a substantial permanent increase in traffic-related noise levels. The proposed Project would result in a net increase in trip generation equal to 498 total vehicle trips or 633 PCE truck trips on a daily basis, which would be distributed onto Oleander Avenue, Slover Avenue, and Citrus Avenue (Ganddini Group, 2023a). According to the City’s General Plan, average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on Citrus Avenue were estimated to be between approximately 5,600 and 34,600 for the road segment near the proposed Project. ADT volumes on Slover Avenue were estimated to be approximately 13,400 for the road segment near the proposed Project. ADT volumes were not described for Boyle Avenue or Oleander Avenue (City of Fontana, 2018 Exhibit 9.5 Average Daily Trips). The addition of Project trips to these roadways would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes or a substantial change in off-site traffic noise levels. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Additional Review Standards The California Supreme Court in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal.4th 369 (2015) ruled that CEQA review is focused on a project’s impact on the environment “and not the environment’s impact on the project.” Per this ruling, a Lead Agency is not required to analyze how existing conditions might impact a project’s future users or residents; however, a Lead Agency may elect to disclose information relevant to a project even if it not is considered an impact under CEQA. The following discusses the existing noise environment and the degree to which the existing environment is compatible and consistent with City goals, policies, and standards for the proposed Project’s noise environment. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 119 The existing noise environment is reviewed against the following goals, policies, and standards. Would the Project: • Expose people working in the Project area to existing noise levels that exceed the standards established in: o General Plan Noise and Safety; or o The California Building Code. Land Use Compatibility – Exterior Noise Exposure. The City’s General Plan Noise and Safety does not establish noise and land use compatibility standards for industrial land uses because such land uses are not considered to be noise-sensitive uses. As described in Section 4.2.1, the 24-hour CNEL value at LT-1 was determined to be 67.7 dBA CNEL (see Table 4-1). This CNEL value is within the normally acceptable noise level (75 CNEL) identified for industrial land uses in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) most recently published General Plan Guidelines (OPR, 2020, Appendix D Figure 2). The proposed Project, therefore, would not be exposed to unacceptable exterior noise levels that exceed City General Plan noise and land use compatibility standards. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Interior Noise Level Compatibility. Part 2, California Building Code, Section 1206.4 establishes that interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources shall not exceed 45 dBA DNL or CNEL (as set by the local General Plan) in any habitable room. In addition, Chapter 5 of the California Green Building Standards Code sets forth that buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 CNEL (where noise contours are available) or 65 dBA Leq (1-hour where noise levels are not available) shall: 1) have exterior wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source that meeting a composite STC rating of at least 50 (or a composite OITC) rating no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC 30 (Section 5.507.4.1); or 2) provide an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed 50 dBA Leq in occupied areas during any hour of operation. In addition, County Code Section 83.01.080 (h) sets forth that warehousing areas shall be sound attenuated to meet an interior sound level of 65 dBA. As described above, the proposed building’s southern façade would be subjected to noise levels of approximately 70.4 dBA CNEL. Standard construction techniques and materials for new commercial/industrial buildings are commonly accepted to provide a minimum exterior to interior noise attenuation (i.e., reduction) of 30 to 32 dBA with all windows and doors closed, which would result in interior noise levels of approximately 41 dBA Leq for occupied rooms fronting Slover Avenue. Thus, with standard construction techniques, the proposed Project would satisfy interior building code noise requirements. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. General Plan Consistency The Project must also be consistent with the applicable noise policies of the City’s General Plan Chapter 11: Noise and Safety is summarized in Table 4-12-3, General Plan Consistency – Noise Policies. Table 4-12-3 demonstrates the Project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies of the Noise and Safety Elements. There will be no impacts and no mitigation measures are required. . Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 120 City of Fontana Table 4.13-3 General Plan Consistency – Noise Policies General Plan Noise and Safety Goal/Policy Consistency Analysis Goal 8: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning through 2035. Policy 2: Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into areas irrevocably committed to land uses that are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors. Consistent. The proposed Project would be located in a light-industrial zoned area. Policy 4: Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial and educational land uses shall be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-sensitive uses. Consistent. the Project operations would not generate noise levels exceeding the City’s exterior noise standards for residential or commercial land uses. Goal 10: Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover” noise. Policy 1: Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected from excessive noise from non-transportation sources including industrial, commercial, and residential activities and equipment. Consistent. The proposed Project’s temporary construction related noise with mitigation incorporated would not result in a significant impact to the surrounding land uses. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Noise Report determined that Project noise impacts during construction could be reduced to less than significant levels by implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1. In addition, the estimate of noise impacts was based on a number of project design features outlined in Section 2.10 of the Project Description, and Table 2.10-5, Benefits of Project Design Features to Comply with Ordinance 1891. These PDFs were incorporated into the computer noise modeling for the Project to comply with the regulatory requirements of the City’s Ordinance 1891 which regulates the design and operation of warehouses in proximity to residential uses. With implementation of this regulatory compliance (i.e., PDFs in compliance with Ordinance 1891) and Mitigation Measure NOI-1 for construction noise, the Project will have less than significant noise impacts from both short-term construction and long-term operations. Mitigation Measures NOI-1 Limit Construction Activities. The developer and all project contractors shall adhere to the following requirements: 1) Notify Adjacent Land Use of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the Project, and include the name and phone number of a designated contact for the project proponent and the City of Fontana responsible for handling construction-related noise complaints (per action #5 below). This notice shall be provided to the owner/occupants of all occupied properties within 250 feet of the Project site. 2) Restrict construction work hours/equipment noise. All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section 18-63. Construction activities, including deliveries, shall only occur during the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays. The project proponent and/or their construction contractor shall post a sign at Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 121 all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of this requirement. 3) Construction equipment selection, use, and noise control measures. The following measures shall apply during construction activities: a) Contractors shall use the smallest size equipment capable of safely completing work activities. b) Construction staging shall occur as far away from the adjacent residential properties as possible. c) The project proponent and/or his construction contractor shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary power generators. This measure shall be subject to the approval of the local electric utility. If electric service is denied, the project proponent shall ensure actions 3a, subject 3b, and 3d are implemented. d) All stationary noise-generating equipment such as pumps, compressors, and welding machines shall be shielded and located as far from residential land uses as possible given site and active work constraints. Shielding may consist of a three- or four-sided enclosure provided the structure/enclosure breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provides for proper ventilation and equipment operation. e) Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with standard noise suppression devices such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, and be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities. f) Pneumatic tools shall include a noise suppression device on the compressed air exhaust. g) No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site. 4) Install Construction Noise Barrier. During all demolition, site preparation, grading, trenching, and structure foundation work (e.g., excavation, pad pour, etc.), the project proponent shall install and maintain a physical noise barrier along the eastern perimeter of the site. The noise barrier shall extend to a height of eight (8) feet above grade. Potential barrier options capable of reducing construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to: a) A plywood or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at- grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) that has a minimum rated transmission loss value of 20 dB. b) Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB. c) Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB. The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site). Furthermore, the noise barrier shall not be required if the 10-foot-tall perimeter concrete masonry unit wall included in the project’s site plan is fully constructed prior to the start of substantial Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 122 City of Fontana demolition, site preparation, and grading activities at the site (i.e., only clearing and grubbing and grading necessary to access the site and install the perimeter wall may occur). 5) Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan: The project proponent shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan that shall: a) Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated Project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues. b) Includes procedures describing how the designated Project representative will receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints. c) At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the Project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint with physical or operational changes if needed. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact Characteristics of Vibration. Ground-borne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of ground-borne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels, damage to buildings may occur. Although ground-borne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. Ground-borne noise is an effect of ground-borne vibration and only exists indoors since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves. Several different methods are used to quantify vibration amplitude. The most common measure of vibration impacts is the peak particle velocity (PPV) which is the maximum instantaneous peak in vibration velocity, typically given in inches per second. According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) fragile buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.3 inches per second without experiencing structural damage. Construction Impacts. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and its effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the buildings. The potential for ground-borne vibration and noise is typically greatest when vibratory or large equipment such as rollers, impact drivers, or bulldozers are in operation. For the proposed Project, these types of equipment would primarily operate during demolition, site preparation, grading, and paving work. This equipment would, at worst-case and for very limited period of times, operate adjacent to the site’s property lines and within approximately 30 feet of the residential building façade to the east of the site. Table 4 12-4, Construction Vibration Levels, summarizes predicted ground vibration levels from Project construction. As shown in Table 4 12-4, the proposed Project’s construction activities would have the potential to generate worst-case ground-borne vibration levels of approximately 0.172 in/sec PPV at residential buildings to the east. This level of vibration could be strongly perceptible per the Caltrans criteria but would be well below the FTA threshold of 0.3 inches per second for experiencing structural damage. Therefore, construction vibration impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 123 Table 4.13-4 Construction Vibration Levels Scenario / Receptor Estimated Duration Maximum PPV, Vibratory Roller (inches/second) Maximum PPV Typical Equipment (inches/second) Worst-Case Construction (30 feet from residential building to the east) 1 day 0.172 0.073 Typical Construction (90 feet from residential building to the east) 1 week 0.051 0.022 Source: Table 5-5, MIG 2023c (Appendix G) 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 Impact The proposed Project is located approximately 7.4 miles east of the nearest runway associated with the Ontario International Airport. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people to excess continuous or single-event airport-related noise levels. Therefore, less than significant noise impacts related to airports are anticipated and no mitigation is required. 4.14 – Population and Housing Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ □ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? □ □ □ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 124 City of Fontana a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from commercial to light industrial use on 1.2 acres, which will not have a substantial effect on potential employment that could be generated on the site. The Project will be entirely light industrial, which is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations of the site and surrounding area. Therefore, the Project will increase future employment in the area consistent with the growth projections of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in their 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) now referred to as “Connect SoCal” (SCAG 2020). The Project will not result in a substantial unplanned population growth in the area as it is not a residential or mixed-use development project which will result in an increase in overall population (City 2001g, 2001h). Rather, the Project proposes a new warehouse (i.e., light industrial use) which will generate additional employees and visitors to the site but no residents. The additional employees do not necessarily represent new residents (i.e., additional population) for the City. Therefore, the Project would not represent a permanent increase in City population or housing. There would be no impact and no mitigation is required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact The Project site is currently vacant with no housing or other related structures present. Therefore, Project impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 125 4.15 – Public Services Would the Project 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 any of the public services: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Fire protection? □ □ □ b) Police protection? □ □ □ c) Schools? □ □ □ d) Parks? □ □ □ e) Other public facilities? □ □ □ a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact Fire protection services to the area are provided by the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) and the nearest fire station is Station 74, located at 11500 Live Oak Avenue in Fontana. Station 74 is staffed with one captain, one engineer, one firefighter/paramedic and is equipped with one Type 1 medic engine and one Type 3 brush engine. The FFPD has a response time goal of 5 minutes. Station 74 is located approximately 2.8 roadway miles southwest of the Project Site; therefore, the response time to the Project Site from Station 74 is estimated to be approximately 5.1 minutes (2.8 miles traveled at 35 miles per hour average vehicle travel speed = 5.1 minutes). Implementation of the Project would not substantially impact the Station’s 5-minute response time goal. The site is currently vacant so construction and operation of the Project will incrementally increase the demand for fire protection of the Project site. However, the site contained residential uses in the past which were served by the FFPD, so the addition of a new warehouse building on the site is not expected to substantially increase demand for fire protection services such that it would extend FFPD’s response time. In addition, the Project would incorporate fire prevention and fire suppression design features to minimize the potential demand placed on the FFPD. The proposed buildings would be of concrete tilt- up construction. Concrete is non-flammable and concrete tilt-up buildings have a lower fire hazard risk than typical wood-frame construction. The Project would install fire hydrants onsite and the FFPD has reviewed the Project’s Site plan to ensure proper spacing of hydrants to provide adequate coverage. In addition, the Project will provide paved primary and secondary emergency access to the site to Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 126 City of Fontana support the FFPD in the event fire suppression activities are needed on-site. Finally, the proposed warehouse building would feature a fire alarm system and ceiling-mounted sprinklers. Based on the Project Site’s proximity to an existing fire station, the incremental increase in the demand for FFPD services would not result in or require new or expanded fire protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. The proposed Project would receive adequate fire protection service and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Impacts to fire protection facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Although the Project would not result in the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities, as a standard condition of approval, the Project would also be required to pay impact fees for fire protection services in accordance with Fontana Municipal Code Section 21-122 of the Fontana Municipal Code. The City will collect Development Impact Fees (DIF) for the Project based on building square footage. The Project’s payment of DIF fees, as well as increased property tax revenues that would result from development of the Project, would be used by the City to help pay for fire protection services and other public services. b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact The Project site is currently vacant but in the past it contained residential uses which received police protection services from the Fontana Police Department (FPD) located at 17005 Upland Avenue approximately 3.9 roadway miles northeast of the Project site. The Project would introduce a new industrial warehouse building and employees and visitors to the Project site which could result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services over its current condition (i.e., vacant). Service demand in and of itself is not an environmental impact under CEQA unless such demand causes a physical change to the environment, and there is no aspect of the Project’s construction, design, or operation that would result in the need to construct new police protection facilities. During the building plan check process, the FPD reviews the building plans before the City issues a building permit to determine the needs for crime prevention, such as installation of lighting systems, emergency notification systems, and/ or crime prevention through environmental design. This pre- construction review process is intended to prevent or deter crime and the demand for police protection services to new developments. For these reasons, the Project is not anticipated to generate crime nor would the Project precipitate crime which would necessitate the construction of new or physically altered police facilities. Therefore, the Project’s impacts on police protection services would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Additionally, per City Municipal Code Section 21-122, the Project would be subject to payment of DIF fees which the City uses a portion of to fund police services. Furthermore, property tax revenues generated from development of the site would provide funding to offset potential increases in the demand for police services at Project build-out. The City of Fontana uses DIF fees and property tax revenues to help pay for police protection needs and other public services. The Project will contribute appropriate DIF fees to offset the Project’s increased demand for police protection services. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 127 c) Schools? No Impact The Project does not include residential land uses and would not directly introduce new residents including school-age children within the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD) boundaries. The Project is also consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the site, so it is not expected to result in unplanned population or housing. Thus, it would not indirectly increase unplanned enrollment at FUSD schools. Because the Project would not directly generate students and is not expected to indirectly draw students to the area, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. Although the Project would not create a direct demand for public school services, it would be required to contribute development impact fees to the FUSD in compliance with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, which allows school districts to collect fees from new developments to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity needs. Payment of school fees is required prior to the issuance of building permits and is considered full mitigation under CEQA for potential school- related impacts. Therefore, Project impacts to FUSD schools would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Parks? No Impact The Project does not contain any housing and so is not expected to generate any new residents who would need additional park facilities or services. The Project also does not propose to construct any new on- or off-site recreation facilities. And would not expand any existing off-site recreational facilities. For these reasons, the Project will have no impact on parks and no mitigation is required. No impact would occur. e) Other Public Facilities? No Impact The Project does not propose a residential component which could increase the total population within the City so the Project will not increase the demand for services such as libraries or hospitals. The Project would have no impact and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 128 City of Fontana 4.16 – Recreation Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ □ b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? □ □ □ a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No impact The Project proposes only warehousing and no residential uses that could generate additional residents who could increase the use of existing neighborhood parks, regional parks, or other recreational facilities. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact The Project does not propose to construct any new onsite or off-site recreation facilities, nor does it propose to expand any existing off-site recreational facilities. Therefore, environmental effects related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not occur and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 129 4.17 – Transportation Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ □ □ b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? □ □ □ c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ □ d) Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ □ a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact A detailed Traffic Access Memorandum (TAM) was prepared for the Project (Appendix H) by Ganddini Group in April 2023 and revised in December 2023 (Ganddini 2023a). In addition, Ganddini prepared a Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment Memo in October 2023 (Ganddini 2023b). According to the City of Fontana Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and a Level of Service Assessment (February 6, 2023) “[the City TIA Guidelines”], certain types of projects, because of their size, nature, or location, are exempt from the requirement of preparing a traffic impact analysis. Historically the significance of traffic impacts under CEQA was determined by calculating changes in congestion on local streets and intersections, with congestion measured by using a metric called “Level of Service” (LOS). With the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 743, the California Natural Resource Agency certified and adopted new CEQA Guidelines in December 2018 which now identify Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impact under CEQA (Section 15064.3). Effective July 1, 2020, the previous LOS CEQA metric would no longer constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the following discussion of Project effects on LOS is provided for informational purposes only. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 130 City of Fontana The City of Fontana has established guidelines for Level of Service (LOS) impact for General Plan operational compliance. As specified in the City TIA Guidelines, a traffic impact analysis must be prepared when a proposed change in land use, development project, or at local discretion, a group of projects are forecast to equal or exceed the Congestion Management Program (CMP) threshold of 250 two-way peak hour trips generated, based on trip generation rates published for the applicable use or uses in the current Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual or other approved data source. Pass-by trips shall not be considered in the threshold determination. Additionally, industrial, warehousing, and truck-oriented projects must convert vehicle trip forecasts to passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips before applying the above threshold. As specified in the City TIA Guidelines, the need for and level of analysis required is determined as follows: • If a project is forecast to generate between 100 and 249 two-way peak hour trips, a traffic impact analysis will be required, but the extent of the analysis will be lesser. • If a project generates between 50 and 100 two-way peak hour trips, a focused traffic analysis will be required. If a project generates less than 50 peak hour trips, a traffic analysis shall not be required, and a trip generation memo will be considered sufficient unless the City has specific concerns related to project access and interaction with adjacent intersections. Presuming Project access will be designed in accordance with applicable engineering standards, the proposed Project is forecast to generate fewer than 50 peak hour PCE trips and therefore satisfies the City-established exemption criteria for preparation of a traffic analysis with Level of Service analysis. The TAM calculates trip generation using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). Based on review of the ITE land use descriptions, trip generation rates for High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 154) were determined to adequately represent the proposed uses and were selected for this analysis. The Project trip generation forecasts were determined by multiplying the trip generation rates by the land use quantities. The two Ganddini studies indicated the proposed Project would generate approximately 498 new vehicle trips with 29 AM peak hour and 34 PM peak hour trips. The Project would generate a total of 633 PCE trips with 43 and 38 PCE trips added during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. PCE trips reflect the impact of large trucks, buses, and recreational vehicles on traffic flow. By their size alone, these vehicles occupy the same space as two or more passenger cars. In addition, the time it takes for them to accelerate/decelerate is much longer than for passenger cars and varies depending on the type of vehicle and number of axles. PCE factors of 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 were applied to the 2-, 3-, and 4-axle trucks, respectively, that were associated with the proposed Project. The proposed Project would result in approximately 498 total new vehicle trips on the local roadway infrastructure per day with 29 and 34 of those trips occurring during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively (Ganddini 2023b). The Project access will be designed in accordance with applicable engineering standards, and the proposed Project is forecast to generate fewer than 50 peak hour PCE trips and therefore satisfies the City-established exemption criteria for preparation of a traffic analysis with Level of Service analysis. It should also be noted that Slover Avenue immediately south of the site, Sierra Avenue to the west, and Citrus Avenue to the east are designated as “truck routes” by the City (General Plan Exhibit 9.7, Truck Routes). Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 131 Traffic Conditions of Approval. After review of the proposed site plan, City staff recommended the following COAs in January 2024 to assure the project would not result in adverse traffic circulation or congestion-related conditions in the vicinity of the Project site: a) The applicant shall design and construct a modification to the existing raised planted median along Slover Ave to allow for a minimum of 240’ of full-width queuing area for each of the westbound dual-left-turn lanes and to accommodate a minimum of 240’ of full-width queueing area for an eastbound left-turn lane into the project site. b) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the westernmost project driveway shall be at least 400’ east of the intersection of Slover Ave and Citrus Ave, as measured from the limit-line along westbound Slover Ave to the western edge of the driveway. c) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the central project driveway shall be separated by at least 250’ from adjacent driveways, as measured from the closest edge of each driveway. d) Left-turn ingress and/or egress at all access locations shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer and may be restricted in the future due to traffic operational or safety concerns. Alternatives to such restrictions may be considered. e) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the westernmost project driveway shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to right-in and right-out movements only. f) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the central project driveway shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to right-in, left-in, and right-out movements only. g) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the easternmost project driveway shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to right-in and right-out movements only. h) Of the three access points along Slover Ave, the easternmost project driveway shall be restricted to vehicular access only, until such time as the adjacent land use is no longer deemed a sensitive receptor, or until such time that the distance between the driveway and the sensitive receptor is sufficiently large per the relevant state and local regulations. i) Intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance must be shown to meet the required standards both horizontally and vertically at all ingress/egress locations including consideration for walls, landscaping, grading, and vegetation. j) The location of bicycle parking shall be depicted on the site plan. Bicycle parking shall comply with the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals k) All gated ingress locations shall provide a visual indication to drivers prior to entering the gated driveway whether the gate is closed or open. This may be excluded if sufficient turn-around space is provided for the design vehicle or if the gate is manned with personnel who would permit an errant driver to enter the gate to turn around and depart. At no time shall the project cause vehicles entering the site to need to reverse into a travel lane in the public right-of-way in order to depart or turn-around. l) The applicant shall design and construct any signal modifications needed to accommodate all project-implemented improvements. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 132 City of Fontana It should be noted these measures are recommended to address Level of Service (LOS) or congestion-related impacts of the Project which are no longer considered environmental issues under CEQA. They are considered planning and engineering concerns since the Initial Study did not identify any significant traffic impacts related to the Project that require mitigation. Transit. Bus service to the City of Fontana is provided by Omnitrans which also serves surrounding portions of the San Bernardino Valley. Route 82 serves the Project area and site with service along Citrus Avenue to the west and Slover Avenue immediately south of the site. Buses run approximately 60 minutes on weekdays. This route also connects to other routes and transit centers in the surrounding region. The closest transit center is South Fontana Transit Center northeast of the site at San Bernardino Avenue and Sierra Avenue (Omnitrans 2022). Since bus service is available in the area, transit-related impacts of the Project will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access. According to the City’s Circulation Element, bicycle routes and trails provide access to schools, parks, open space areas, as well as commercial and employment centers within the community. A bikeway can either be an on-road bikeway, which would include both striped bike lanes and signed-only bikeways; or an off-road paved bikeway. In some cases, off-road bikeways utilize City sidewalks, where there is sufficient width to accommodate both bicycles and pedestrians. The trail system within the City includes Class I, II, and III paths. Class I bike paths are separate from the street and are the highest quality bike path. Class II and III are both located on the street. Class II paths include a designated bike lane and Class III paths are only marked by a sign. The Project area does not currently contain any bicycle routes or trails (GP Exhibit 9.3, Mobility). However, Class II bikeways are eventually proposed to be constructed along Sierra Avenue to the east and Citrus Avenue to the west of the site (GP Exhibit 9.6, Bicycle Facilities). There are sidewalks on both sides of Slover Avenue just south of the site that connect to other major streets to the west and east (e.g., Citrus Avenue, Sierra Avenue). Therefore, there are at least some non-vehicular transportation options available for area residents and future Project employees. Summary. Based on this information, the Project will not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact In response to Senate Bill (SB) 743, the California Natural Resource Agency certified and adopted new CEQA Guidelines in December 2018, which now identify Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impact under CEQA (Section 15064.3). Effective July 1, 2020, the previous CEQA metric of level of services (LOS), typically measured in terms of automobile delay, roadway capacity and congestion, will no longer constitute a significant environmental impact. As discussed in Threshold 4.17.A above, a Trip Generation and VMT Transportation Memorandum was prepared for the Project (Appendix H) in April 2023 and revised in October 2023. The Project VMT impacts have been assessed in accordance with the City’s TIA Guidelines which establish screening thresholds for certain types of projects that may be presumed to cause a less than significant VMT impact based on substantial evidence provided in the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 133 2018). The City TIA Guidelines specify the following four screening criteria or steps: 1) Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening; 2) Low VMT Area Screening; 3) Low Project Type Screening; and 4) Project net daily trips less than 500 ADT. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening Projects located within a TPA (half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project: 1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75; 2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking) 3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the City with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization): or 4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate or high-income residential units. The San Bernardino Council Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool was used to determine if the project is located within a TPA. The Project site is not located within a TPA based on the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool assessment. Therefore, the proposed Project does not satisfy the City-established screening criteria for projects located within a TPA. Low VMT Area Screening Residential and office projects located within a low VMT generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment-related and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area. For this screening in the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool, the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) travel forecasting model was used to measure VMT performance for individual jurisdictions and for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs). TAZs are geographic polygons similar to census block groups used to represent areas of homogenous travel behavior. Total daily VMT per service population (population plus employment) was estimated for each TAZ. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project land uses would alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips. The proposed Project is consistent with existing industrial land uses in the TAZ and there does not appear to be anything unique about the Project that would otherwise be misrepresented utilizing the data from the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool. In accordance with the City TIA Guidelines, a low VMT area for industrial projects is defined as a TAZ where VMT per service population does not exceed 15 percent below the current County of San Bernardino baseline VMT per service population. Based on the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool assessment, the proposed Project is located within TAZ 53724302. The project TAZ 2023 OD VMT per service population is equal to 49.5. The County baseline is 33.4 VMT per service population and the threshold (15% below County baseline) is equal to 28.4 VMT per service population. Therefore, the proposed Project does not satisfy the City- established screening criteria for projects located in low VMT areas. Project Type Screening Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 134 City of Fontana Some project types have been identified as having the presumption of a less than significant impact as they are local serving by nature, or they are small enough to not warrant assessment. Local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Local serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel. Local serving retail include the following: • Supermarket • Restaurant/café/bar • Coffee/donut shop • Dry cleaners • Barbershop • Hair/nails salon • Walk-in medical clinic • Urgent care • Auto repair/tire shop • Gyms/health club • Dance/yoga/fitness/martial arts studio In addition to local serving retail, the following uses can also be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary as their uses are local serving in nature: • Local-serving K-12 schools • Local parks • Day care centers • Local-serving gas stations • Local-serving banks • Local-serving hotels (e.g., non-destination hotels) • Student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses • Local-serving assembly uses (places of worship, community organizations) • Community institutions (Public libraries, fire stations, local government) • Local serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in the RTP/SCS • Affordable or supportive housing • Assisted living facilities • Senior Housing (as defined by HUD) The Project site is not local-serving retail and is also not a land use listed as being presumed to have a less than significant impact. Therefore, the proposed Project does not satisfy the City-established screening criteria for project type screening. Project Net Daily Trips Less Than 500 ADT Screening Projects that generate fewer than 500 average daily trips (ADT) would not cause a substantial increase in the total citywide or regional VMT and are therefore presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. Projects which generate less than 500 ADT include the following: • Single family residential – 52 Dwelling Units or fewer • Multi-family residential – 68 Dwelling Units or fewer • General Office – 51,000 square feet of less • Light Industrial – 100,000 square feet or less Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 135 • Warehousing – 287,000 square feet or less • High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse – 357,000 square feet or less The Project proposes 355,995 square feet of high cube warehousing and is forecast to generate 498 total daily vehicle trips. Therefore, the proposed Project satisfies the City-established screening criteria for projects generating less than 500 net daily and may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact and no mitigation is required. In addition, and outside of requirements of CEQA, the Project access will be designed in accordance with applicable engineering standards, the proposed Project is forecast to generate fewer than 50 peak hour PCE trips and therefore satisfies the City-established exemption criteria such that a traffic analysis, including a Level of Service analysis, is not required. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact The Project is bounded by Slover Avenue on the south which provides excellent local and regional east-west access through this portion of southern Fontana and western San Bernardino County. The site also has relatively close access to the I-10 Freeway with ramps at Citrus Avenue approximately 2,000 feet (0.4-mile) from the site via Slover Avenue. The proposed warehouse Project also provides emergency access and contains no geometric design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) that would hinder emergency access. Final Project site plans will be subject to review and approval by City planning and engineering staff, as well as police and fire personnel, who will ensure that site access and internal circulation are safe, have adequate sight distance, and driveway widths and stop signs are placed where necessary for entering and exiting the site. The Project is expected to have less than significant impacts due to a hazardous geometric design feature or incompatible uses and no mitigation is required. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact The Project is bounded by Slover Avenue on the south which provides local and regional east-west access through this portion of southern Fontana and western San Bernardino County. The site also has relatively close access to the I-10 Freeway with ramps at Citrus Avenue approximately 2,000 feet (0.4-mile) from the site via Slover Avenue. The proposed warehouse Project has emergency access via Slover Avenue and Citrus Avenue, the I-10 Freeway to the north, which contain no geometric design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) that would hinder emergency access. Per state Fire and Building Codes, sufficient space will have to be provided around the planned building for emergency personnel and equipment to access the entire site. All improvements will be required to comply with the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Section 9) in terms of emergency access to the new building. Project site plans will be subject to review and approval by City planning and engineering staff, as well as police and fire personnel, who will ensure that site access and internal circulation are safe, have adequate sight distance, and driveway widths and stop signs are placed where necessary for entering and exiting the site. Therefore, the Project will not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 136 City of Fontana 4.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources 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 Cultural Native American tribe, and that is: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or □ □ □ b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. □ □ □ a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), Less Than Significant Impact Documentation of the City’s Native American consultation is included in Appendix I. Local Native American tribal representatives have repeatedly stated the entire area is sensitive for tribal artifacts, and Native Americans have inhabited this region for thousands of years. As discussed in Cultural Resources Response 4.5(a), the Project site does not contain any “historical resources” as defined by CEQA. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines or PRC 5020.1(k). The City has standard conditions of approval relative to cultural resources, including the unanticipated discovery of resources during grading. In this case, a local consulting tribe recommended specific mitigation language which was incorporated into this Initial Study per the requirements of AB 52 as discussed in Response 4.18(b) below. As discussed in Response 4.5(b), the Project site is not likely to contain any precontact site or archaeological resources based on archival research and field surveys conducted in the City. There is little potential for the proposed Project to impact precontact resources due to significant prior Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 137 disturbance from past grading and development activities on the Project site and in the surrounding area. However, in the unlikely discovery of archaeological resources on the Project site, work will be halted and the City will retain qualified personnel to evaluate and take appropriate steps depending on what is found per applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources will be less than significant. As discussed in Response 4.5(c), the Project site is not likely to contain any human remains due to the fact that soils on the site have been previously disturbed associated with prior disturbance from past grading and development activities on the Project site and surrounding area. However, state law addresses the discovery of human remains, including those determined to be of Native American descent, on the Project site. Based on this analysis, the Project will not affect any 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). Therefore, impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated SB 18 was passed by the State Legislature in 2013 to require local governments (e.g., cities, counties) to consult with local Native American tribal groups regarding certain kinds of development. California Government Code Section 65352.3 adopted pursuant to SB 18 requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a General Plan, Specific Plan, or change open space designations. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction and are identified, upon request, by the NAHC. As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005), “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.” The proposed Project involves a general plan amendment to one of its parcels so tribal consultation is required under SB 18. Similarly, AB 52 specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change to a defined Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) that may result in a significant effect on the environment. AB 52 requires tribes interested in development projects within a traditionally and culturally affiliated geographic area to notify a lead agency of such interest and to request notification of future projects subject to CEQA prior to determining if a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. The lead agency is then required to notify the tribe within 14 days of deeming a development application subject to CEQA complete to notify the requesting tribe as an invitation to consult on the Project. AB 52 identifies examples of mitigation measures that will avoid or minimize impacts to TCR. It also makes the above provisions applicable to Projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration circulated on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 amends Sections 5097.94 and adds Sections 21073, 21074, 2108.3.1., 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 to the California Public Resources Code (PRC), relating to Native Americans. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 138 City of Fontana The Project Site has already been highly disturbed by historic and modern human activities that would have likely already displaced surface and subsurface archaeological resources relating to TCR. Moreover, a review of City-related cultural records indicate there are no TCR or archaeological resources relating to TCR (precontact and historic) located within the Project’s boundaries or in the vicinity of the Project site. In accordance with SB 18 and AB 52, the City contacted local tribes requesting to be notified of development projects. The City commenced the AB 52 and SB18 processes by transmitting letters of notification about the Project on November 9, 2023. The City transmitted letters of notification to the following tribes: • Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation; • Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians; • San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; • Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians; and • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. The 30-day notification period for AB 52 ended on December 9, 2023 and the 90-day notification period for SB 18 ended on February 5, 2024. The City received two responses from local tribes requesting consultation during those times, from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation (GBMI-KN) and the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN). No other tribes contacted the City regarding consultation on this project. The possibility remains that previously undiscovered TCR could be uncovered during development of the proposed Project. With incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 and TCR-1 through TCR-5, as recommended by the GBMI-KN and the YSMN, the Project will not impact TCR's or archaeological resources relating to TCRs. Impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the tribal groups that have indicated they wish to consult with the City on this project pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (the “Tribes” or the “Consulting Tribes”) for all ground-disturbing construction activities on the project site (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground- disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. A copy of the executed contract shall be obtained by the City Community Development Director, or designee, prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 139 resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Tribe(s) from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Tribe(s) to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Tribal TCRs. TCR-2 Unanticipated Discoveries. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Tribe(s) monitor(s) and/or Tribe(s) archaeologist(s). The Tribe(s) will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe(s) deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe(s) deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. TCR-3 Human Remains. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. Per State law, if Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance. TCR-4 Coordination. The Tribe(s) shall be contacted, as detailed in CUL-1, of any pre-contact cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with the Tribe(s), and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents the Tribe(s) for the duration of grading of the project, should the Tribe(s) elect to place a monitor onsite. TCR-5 Consultation. Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to the Tribe(s). The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the Tribe(s) on treatment methods of finds through the completion of project grading. In addition, the Tribe(s) shall establish a mutually agreeable process by which they will resolve a situation where both tribes claim ownership of an identified tribal cultural resource. At this time, the City considers the formal tribal consultation processes for this Project completed. The City will accept additional tribal comments if provided as part of the CEQA public review process. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 140 City of Fontana 4.19 – Utilities and Service Systems Would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? □ □ □ b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ □ c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ □ d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? □ □ □ e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? □ □ □ a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact The Project area is currently developed with lower intensity commercial and residential uses which are served by typical urban utility systems (water, sewer, storm drain, etc.) in the adjacent streets (i.e., Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 141 Boyle Avenue to the north and Slover Avenue to the south). There is an 18-inch water main and a 3- inch natural gas line in Boyle Avenue. In addition, there is a 12-inch water line, a 6-inch sanitary sewer line, and a 6-inch gas line in Slover Avenue. The Project will extend a 2-inch potable water line and a 10-inch fire service water line around the site from a connection to the 18-inch line in Boyle Avenue. The Project will also extend a 6-inch sewer line along the eastern portion of the site connecting Boyle Avenue to Slover Avenue. New storm drain lines onsite will connect the two proposed underground water quality basins to the existing storm drain line in Slover Avenue. Water is provided by the Fontana Water Company, the City provides sewer and local storm drain service while San Bernardino County provides regional flood control, Southern California Edison provides electricity, and the Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas services. The Project site will be developed as a light industrial use consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site. The Fontana Water Company’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is based on the approved land uses in the City’s General Plan, so the Project will not result in an increase in overall population or employment over that anticipated in the General Plan and UWMP. The Project area is already urbanized, and urban-level utilities are already present. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations so it would not require additional infrastructure to provide water, wastewater treatment, energy services, or telecommunication services. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact regarding all utility systems and no mitigation measures are required. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact The Fontana Water Company (FWC) supplies potable water to the Project site and the surrounding area. As discussed in FWC’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), adequate water supplies are projected to be available to meet the estimated water demand for the FWC’s service area through at least 2045 under normal, historic single-dry and historic multiple-dry year conditions (FWC, 2021). The FWC forecasts of projected water demand are based on the population projections of the SCAG, which rely on the adopted land use designations contained within the general plans that cover the geographic area within FWC’s service (i.e., the current Fontana General Plan). Because the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation, the water demand associated with the Project was considered in the FWC’s projected demand in the UWMP. Based on the UWMP, the FWC expects to have adequate water supplies to meet all its demands until at least 2045; therefore, the FWC has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements/resources and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. The Project’s impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact Wastewater treatment for the Fontana area is provided by the Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEUA) at either Regional Treatments Plant No. 1 (RP-1) or RP-4. The IEUA estimates wastewater generation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 142 City of Fontana for warehousing uses to be 2,200 gallons per day per acre. The Project site occupies 16.12 acres so it would generate 35,464 gallons per day (gpd). The RP-1 facility has an existing treatment capacity of approximately 44 million gallons of wastewater per day and treats approximately 28 million gallons of wastewater per day on average. Therefore, the RP-1 facility has approximately 16 million gallons (44 million gpd – 28 million gpd = 16 million gpd) of excess treatment capacity under existing conditions, and the Project’s wastewater would represent 0.2 percent of RP-1’s excess capacity. The RP-4 facility has an existing treatment capacity of approximately 14 million gallons of wastewater per day and treats approximately 10 million gallons of wastewater per day on average. Therefore, the RP-4 facility has approximately 4 million gallons (14 million gpd – 10 million gpd = 4 million gpd) of excess treatment capacity under existing conditions, and the Project’s wastewater would represent 0.9% of RP-4’s excess capacity. Based on this data, the Project would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities and would therefore result in less than significant impacts and no mitigation is required. 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? Less Than Significant Impact It is estimated the Project’s combined demolition and construction activities could generate approximately 400 tons of solid waste requiring disposal at a landfill. In addition, the Project’s building construction could generate an additional 1.2 tons of construction waste each day during construction. Non-recyclable demolition debris and construction waste generated by the Project would be disposed of at the Mid-Valley Landfill. As of October 2022, the Mid-Valley Landfill’s peak daily disposal was approximately 4,636 tons which represents 62 percent of the Landfill’s maximum permitted daily capacity of 7,500 tons (CalRecycle, 2022). The Project’s estimated construction-related wastes represent approximately 0.04 percent of Mid-Valley Landfill’s excess available daily disposal capacity maximum daily capacity (1.2 tons ÷ 2,864 tons). For operational waste, CalRecycle uses a daily generation factor of 1.42 pounds of waste per 100 square feet of industrial/warehouse building area. The Project is proposing 355,995 square feet of warehousing/office so long-term operation of the Project would generate approximately 5,190 pounds or 2.6 tons of solid waste per day. A minimum of 50 percent of all solid waste would be required to be recycled pursuant to AB 939, consistent with the State’s solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, Project operation would generate approximately 1.25 tons per day of solid waste requiring disposal at a landfill. Non-recyclable waste generated by the Project would be disposed of at the Mid-Valley Landfill. As of October 2022, the Mid-Valley Landfill’s peak daily disposal was approximately 4,636 tons, which represents 62 percent of the Landfill’s maximum permitted daily capacity of 7,500 tons (CalRecycle, 2022). The Project’s estimated operational waste represents approximately 0.04 percent of Mid-Valley Landfill’s excess available daily disposal capacity maximum daily capacity (1.25 tons ÷ 2,864 tons). Thus, waste generated during Project operation is not anticipated to cause the landfill to exceed its maximum permitted daily disposal volume. Furthermore, the Mid-Valley Landfill is estimated to have adequate long-term capacity to accept waste from the Project as the landfill would not reach capacity until 2045 at the earliest time and has opportunities for future expansion. Therefore, the Project would Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 143 generate a relatively small amount of solid waste per day as compared to the permitted daily capacities at the receiving landfill. Therefore, neither the Project’s construction waste nor its operational waste are anticipated to cause the landfill to exceed its maximum permitted daily disposal volume. The Project would generate a relatively small amount of solid waste per day as compared to the permitted daily capacity of the receiving landfill, so impacts to the Mid-Valley Landfill facility during Project construction and operational activities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact The Project would be required to comply with mandatory waste reduction requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (Cal Pub Res. Code Section 42911), and Chapter 24 (Solid Waste) of the City of Fontana Municipal Code. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, County and City statutes and regulations related to solid waste as a standard project condition of approval. Through adherence with the current requirements and regulations related to solid waste, the Project will have no impact and no mitigation is required. 4.20 – Wildfire If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ □ b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire? □ □ □ c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities), that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? □ □ □ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 144 City of Fontana 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? □ □ □ a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact The Project site is located within an urbanized area and there are no wildland conditions in the surrounding area. The Project site is not located within a fire hazard zone, as identified on the latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire 2022). Therefore, the proposed Project will not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact will occur as part of the Project. 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 wildfire? No Impact The Project site is located within an urban area with relatively flat topography. The site is not located within a designated wildfire hazard area per the FHSZ maps prepared by CalFire. The proposed improvements and development of the Project site will not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose Project users to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. No impact will occur as a result of the proposed Project. 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? No Impact The Project site currently contains a number of residences which are located in an urban area with relatively flat topography and not in an area subject to high fire hazards. Based on the location and topography of the site, the proposed light industrial development will not require the installation of roads, fuel breaks, power lines, or emergency water sources. The Project will have no impact. 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? No Impact The Project site is located within an urbanized area and the topography of the site and neighboring area is relatively flat and is not subject to wildfires. Based on the overall setting and topography of the Project site and neighboring area, there is no potential for people or structures to be exposed to significant risks of wildland fire, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, and drainage changes. No impacts will occur. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 145 4.21 – Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? □ □ □ b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? □ □ □ c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? □ □ □ a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No endangered or threatened species were identified onsite during the biological resource survey. As stated in Section 4.4, development of the proposed Project would not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels or restrict the movement/distribution of a rare or endangered species. The proposed Project would also not affect any threatened or endangered species or habitat. Impacts to migratory and nesting bird species would be mitigated to a less than significant level with adherence to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 which requires a burrowing owl and nesting bird survey prior to ground-disturbing activities in the event nesting species are present on site. Impacts to onsite biological resources are reduced to a less than significant level with adherence to the identified mitigation measure. There are no unique ethnic or cultural values associated with the site, nor are there any Native American, religious or sacred uses associated with the site. There are also no structures to be Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 146 City of Fontana demolished that would be eligible for listing in either the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, so they are not considered historical resources under CEQA and thus there will be therefore no significant impacts resulting from the development of the Project on these resources. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 and TCR-1 through TCR-5 will mitigate potential impacts associated with the discovery of unanticipated subsurface archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources, including human remains, during excavation operations by involving Native American tribal representatives in monitoring of grading. Adherence to regulatory requirements and the recommended mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts associated with cultural or historic resources to a less than significant level. b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The proposed Project site is designated for light industrial uses. While short-term construction-related air quality and greenhouse gas impacts would result from construction of the proposed Project, both short- and long-term impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels by implementation of a number of Project design features (PDFs) to reduce air pollutant impacts. These PDFs are explained in the Project Description, Section 2, of the Initial Study. Other impacts related to biological resources, geologic and soil conditions, hydrology and water quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and archaeological resources are similarly reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to established regulations. Potential impacts related to geologic and soil constraints and hazardous materials are less than significant due to the type, scale, and location of the proposed Project. It is also consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations and is compatible with surrounding development, including the small parcel near the southwest corner of the site that will be rezoned from commercial to light industrial use. Based on the analysis in Sections 4.1 through 4.20, the Project will not make any significant contributions to cumulatively considerable impacts related to the following: • Air Quality by implementation of the PDFs outlined above and standard Regulatory Compliance; • Biological Resources by implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1; • Cultural and Tribal Resources by implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 and TCR-1 through TCR-5 and Regulatory Compliance (for human remains); • Geological Constraints regarding unstable soils by implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and Regulatory Compliance, or potential impacts to paleontological resources by implementation of Mitigation Measure PAL-1; • Hazardous Materials by implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 and Regulatory Compliance; • Water Quality by implementation of Regulatory Compliance; and • Noise from Project construction by implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1. Potential impacts related to geologic and soil constraints and hazardous materials are less than significant due to the type, scale, and location of the proposed Project. It is also consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations although it is not compatible with surrounding non-conforming development. No cumulative impacts greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR would result from either the construction or occupation of the proposed warehouse Project. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 147 All potential impacts have been thoroughly evaluated and have been deemed to be neither individually significant nor cumulatively considerable in terms of any adverse effects upon the region, the local community or its inhabitants. c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Potential geological impacts related to unstable onsite soils are addressed by Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Potential noise impacts related to construction of the proposed light industrial uses are addressed by Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and regulatory compliance. Potential hazmat-related impacts are addressed by Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 and regulatory compliance. In addition, air quality impacts with potential implications on human health are also addressed by the PDFs outlined in the Project Description and regulatory compliance. In addition to the identified mitigation, the Project will be required to meet standard conditions of approval and regulatory compliance applicable to the Project. It is anticipated that the recommended mitigation, conditions of approval, and regulatory compliance will ensure that no potential for adverse impacts will be introduced by construction activities or future light industrial activities proposed by the Project. As detailed in the preceding responses, development of the proposed Project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in adverse effects to human beings. Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 148 5 Mitigation Summary BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1 Pre-construction Survey for Burrowing Owl and Ground Nesting Birds. Burrowing Owl. No more than 14 days prior to ground disturbance a focused survey for burrowing owl will be required to ensure take avoidance. Even though burrowing owls were not located as part of the general biological survey, a pre-construction survey for burrowing owl is required because burrowing owls may encroach or migrate to the property at any time, and therefore steps should be taken to ensure avoidance, including reevaluating the locations/presence of burrowing owl or burrows. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the survey requirements outlined in Appendix D of the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl, dated March 7, 2012. If burrowing owl are found on the Project Site during pre-construction surveys, the biologist conducting surveys shall immediately contact the CDFW to develop a plan for avoidance and/or translocation prior to construction crews initiating any ground disturbance on the Project Site. Ground Nesting Birds. To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in San Bernardino County extends from February 1 through September 1. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds will be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project implementation. These surveys will be conducted no more than 5 days prior to the initiation of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization, including tree, shrub, or vegetation removal, fence installation, grading, etc. If project activities are delayed by more than 5 days, an additional nesting bird survey will be performed. During this survey, the biologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees and shrubs) in and immediately adjacent to the impact area for nests. Active nesting is present if a bird is building a nest, sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the surveys will be documented. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically up to 300 feet for raptors and up to 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during project implementation. Within the buffer zone, no site disturbance and mobilization of heavy equipment, including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, demolition, and grading will be permitted until the chicks have fledged. A qualified biologist is an individual who has a degree in biological sciences or related resource management with a minimum of two seasonal years post-degree experience conducting surveys for nesting birds. During or following academic training, the qualified biologist will have achieved a high level of professional experience and knowledge in Mitigation Summary Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 149 biological sciences and special-status species identification, ecology, and habitat requirements. CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1 Unanticipated Resources. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Consulting Tribe(s) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-4, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. CUL-2 Treatment Plan. If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-4. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly. In addition to its standard requirements, the Plan shall indicate the process by which the two tribes will resolve a situation of both tribes claim ownership of an identified tribal cultural resource. CUL-3 Human Remains. If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that Code enforced for the duration of project grading. GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1 Remedial Grading. The Project geotechnical study (Southern California Geotechnical 8- 9-22) concluded there was undocumented fill beneath the site and recommended its removal and remedial grading so that onsite soils would be stable and can safely support the proposed building and other improvements from soil movement, especially during strong seismic events. During grading, the grading contractor shall, consistent with the recommendation of the Project geotechnical study, remove any undocumented fill discovered and mix it with appropriate fill materials (in terms of volume and content). The combined materials shall be graded per applicable State standards for industrial properties including but not limited to those outlined in “Use of California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) in Evaluation of Contaminated Properties” issued by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) in January 2005 or subsequent approved volumes. This measure shall be implemented by the Project grading contractor in consultation with the Project geotechnical and civil engineers to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES PAL-1 Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project proponent shall retain a qualified professional to prepare a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) and submit it to the City for review and approval. The PRIMP shall be developed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, as well as the proposed Mitigation Summary 150 City of Fontana guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The PRIMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following: • Periodic monitoring of earth-moving activities shall be required during earth-moving operations and continuous monitoring shall be conducted when ground disturbance reaches or exceeds a depth of five feet, or if the older Pleistocene-age sediments are encountered at lesser depths. • The monitor shall be prepared to quickly salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and shall collect samples of sediments that are likely to contain fossil remains of small vertebrates or invertebrates. The monitor shall have the power to temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens. • Collected samples of sediment shall be processed to recover small fossils, and all recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage. • A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, will be prepared upon completion of the procedures outlined above. The report will include a discussion of the significance of the paleontological findings, if any. The report and the inventory, when submitted to the City of Fontana, shall signify completion of the program to mitigate potential impacts on paleontological resources. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1 Soil Testing. The City of Fontana, including the project area, supported agriculture in the past, including citrus production. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall retain a qualified environmental professional (QEP). The QEP must be experienced with remediating hazardous materials from private development sites. The QEP shall design and supervise the sampling and laboratory testing to determine if onsite soils have been contaminated by past application of agricultural chemicals. This sampling and testing procedure shall generally follow the general guidance of the “Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Fields for School Sites (Second Revision)” issued by the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on August 26, 2002 (DTSC 2002) or any subsequent guidance document in this regard. However, the specific parameters of this study are up to the discretion of the QEP in consultation with the City Planning Department. Contaminants of concern (COC) generally include any fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, rodenticide, etc. that was used extensively for the kind of agricultural activities conducted in Fontana over the years. For a more specific list, the County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division can be consulted. Primary COCs include organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) including Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) and Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and inorganic heavy metals (referred to as CAM 17 metals) such as arsenic-containing compounds that were once used as a citrus insecticide. Sampling and testing procedures should follow the guidance in DTSC 2002 or later documents. Selecting the number of samples should be guided by Table 1 in DTSC 2002. The sampling depth should be guided by Section 3.2 of DTSC 2002. Recommended testing methods include U.S. EPA 8081A or equivalent for OCPs. Metals must be analyzed using U.S. EPA 6000/7000 series or equivalent. After completing the soil sampling and laboratory testing, the QP shall prepare a summary report of the results and clearly state whether or not the underlying soils are contaminated Mitigation Summary Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 151 by any of the COCs at or above the applicable health standards for industrial land uses. If the QEP determines that all onsite soil meets industrial standards, no further action is required. To assure that onsite soils meet applicable health standards for industrial land uses, the QEP will work with the developer and grading contractor to determine if or to what degree onsite soils can be mixed with clean onsite or offsite imported soils to achieve the industrial standard for the entire site. The QEP, developer, and grading contractor shall also identify if or how much soil needs to be removed from the site and disposed of at an appropriate landfill certified to accept hazardous materials. The collection and disposal of any excavated contaminated soils shall be in accordance with applicable hazmat regulations. Prior to issuance of any building permit, it must be demonstrated through adequate sampling and testing that onsite soils meet established industrial health standards. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Department by providing empirical evidence that onsite soil meets established standards. HAZ-2 Inadvertent Hazmat Discovery. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall retain a qualified environmental professional (QEP) experienced with remediating hazardous materials from private development sites. The QEP must be on-call and summoned to the site immediately if any potentially hazardous materials are found during grading. Grading must be halted within 100 feet of an area that appears to contain hazardous materials. The QEP will halt grading as necessary to effectively identify the potential contaminated materials, including directing any sampling and laboratory testing that may be required. Remediated areas must be retested to assure potential contaminant levels are below applicable industrial standards. The results of any testing shall be provided to the San Bernardino County Fire Department - Hazardous Materials Division as the County’s Consolidated Unified Protection Agency (CUPA) and the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health if necessary. Any contaminated soil that must be removed from the site shall be done by a licensed contractor and hauled to a landfill approved for such materials. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the San Bernardino County Fire Department - Hazardous Materials Division as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the County. NOISE NOI-1 Limit Construction Activities. The developer and all project contractors shall adhere to the following requirements: 1) Notify Adjacent Land Use of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the Project, and include the name and phone number of a designated contact for the project proponent and the City of Fontana responsible for handling construction-related noise complaints (per action #5 below). This notice shall be provided to the owner/occupants of all occupied properties within 250 feet of the Project site. 2) Restrict work hours/equipment noise. All construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be subject to the requirements of City Municipal Code Section 18- Mitigation Summary 152 City of Fontana 63. Construction activities, including deliveries, shall only occur during the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays. The project proponent and/or their construction contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of this requirement. 3) Construction equipment selection, use, and noise control measures. The following measures shall apply during construction activities: a) Contractors shall use the smallest size equipment capable of safely completing work activities. b) Construction staging shall occur as far away from the adjacent residential properties as possible. c) The project proponent and/or their construction contractor shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary power generators. This measure shall be subject to the approval of the local electric utility. If electric service is denied, the project proponent shall ensure actions 3a, subject 3b, and 3d are implemented. d) All stationary noise-generating equipment such as pumps, compressors, and welding machines shall be shielded and located as far from residential land uses as possible given site and active work constraints. Shielding may consist of a three- or four-sided enclosure provided the structure/enclosure breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor and provided for proper ventilation and equipment operation. e) Heavy equipment engines shall be equipped with standard noise suppression devices such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, and be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations during active construction activities. f) Pneumatic tools shall include a noise suppression device on the compressed air exhaust. g) No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site. 4) Install Construction Noise Barrier. During all demolition, site preparation, grading, trenching, and structure foundation work (e.g., excavation, pad pour, etc.), the project proponent shall install and maintain a physical noise barrier along the eastern perimeter of the site. The noise barrier shall extend to a height of eight (8) feet above grade. Potential barrier options capable of reducing construction noise levels could include, but are not limited to: a) A plywood or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at- grade, such as a K-Rail), and consisting of a solid material (i.e., free of openings or gaps other than weep holes) that has a minimum rated transmission loss value of 20 dB. b) Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB. c) Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products that have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) or transmission loss value of 20 dB. Mitigation Summary Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 153 The noise barrier may be removed following the completion of building foundation work (i.e., it is not necessary once framing and typical vertical building construction begins provided no other grading, foundation, etc. work is still occurring on-site). Furthermore, the noise barrier shall not be required if the 10-foot-tall perimeter concrete masonry unit wall included in the project’s site plan is fully constructed prior to the start of substantial demolition, site preparation, and grading activities at the site (i.e., only clearing and grubbing and grading necessary to access the site and install the perimeter wall may occur). 5) Prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan: The project proponent shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan that shall: a) Identify the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) for a designated Project and City representative responsible for addressing construction-related noise issues. b) Includes procedures describing how the designated Project representative will receive, respond, and resolve construction noise complaints. c) At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the Project representative shall notify the City contact, identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES TCR-1 Tribal Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the tribal groups that have indicated they wish to consult with the City on this project pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (the “Tribe(s)” or the “Consulting Tribe(s)”) for all ground-disturbing construction activities on the project site (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. A copy of the executed contract shall be obtained by the City Community Development Director, or designee, prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe(s). Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe(s). On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Tribe(s) from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a Mitigation Summary 154 City of Fontana determination and written notification by the Tribe(s) to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Tribe(s) TCRs. TCR-2 Unanticipated Discoveries. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Tribe(s) monitor(s) and/or Tribe(s) archaeologist(s). The Tribe(s) will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe(s) deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe(s) deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. TCR-3 Human Remains. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance. TCR-4 Coordination. The Consulting Tribe(s) shall be contacted, as detailed in CUL-1, of any pre-contact cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with the Tribe(s), and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents Tribe(s) for the duration of grading of the project, should Tribe(s) elect to place a monitor onsite. TCR-5 Consultation. Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to the Tribe(s). The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with Tribe(s) on treatment methods of finds through the completion of project grading. In addition, the Tribe(s) shall establish a mutually agreeable process by which they will resolve a situation where both tribes claim ownership of an identified tribal cultural resource. Mitigation Summary Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 155 - This Page Intentionally Left Blank Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 156 6 References 6.1 – List of Preparers City of Fontana (Lead Agency) Planning Division 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, California 90630 • Patty Nevins, Director of Planning • Gia Kim, Public Works Director • DiTanyon Johnson, Principal Planner • Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner • Irene Romero, Associate Planner • Keith Tolliver, Associate Engineer MIG (Environmental Analysis) 1650 Spruce Avenue, Suite 106 Riverside, California 92507 951-787-9222 • Pamela Steele, Principal • Bob Prasse, Director of Environmental Services • Kent Norton, AICP, Senior Project Manager • Betty Kempton, PhD, Biological Resources Specialist • Chris Dugan, Director of Air Quality, GHG, and Noise Services • Phillip Gleason, Senior Environmental Analyst 6.2- Persons and Organizations Consulted None 6.3 – Bibliography California Department of Conservation, (DOC), 2022a, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). “California Important Farmland Finder” Website accessed July 10, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ California Department of Conservation, (DOC), 2020b. Williamson Act GIS Coverage, San Bernardino County Parcels Under Agricultural Contract. 2022. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Pages/stats_reports.aspx California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 1981. Mineral Land Classification Map. Los Alamitos Quadrangle. Special Report 143, Plate 3.17. Department of Conservation, 1981. References Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 157 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) 2022. Forest Practice Geographical Information System Website accessed July 6, 2022. https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/resource-management/forest-practice/forest-practice-geographical- information-system-gis/ California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2022. EnviroStor Database Website accessed July 14, 2022. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=city+of+Fontana California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2022. State Scenic Highway Program Website accessed June 20, 2022. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and- community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways# California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2022a. Geotracker Database Website accessed July 10, 2022. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=city+of+Fontana California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2022b. Groundwater Adjudication Mapping. Website accessed July 10, 2022. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management California Natural and Terrestrial Communities Database (CDFW), 2022. Website accessed July 5, 2022 (Appendix A). https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/NCDatasetViewer/sitedocs California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines. Sacramento, California. 2017. California State Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. 2018. City Fontana (City), 2015-2035 General Plan, 2015 (unless noted): Chapter 1 - Vision and Principles Chapter 2 - Trends for Fontana's Future Chapter 3 - Engaging the Fontana Community Chapter 4 - Community and Neighborhoods Chapter 5 - Housing Chapter 6 - Building a Healthier Fontana Chapter 7 - Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails Chapter 8 - Public and Community Services Chapter 9 - Community Mobility Circulation Chapter 10 - Infrastructure and Green Systems Chapter 11 - Noise and Safety Chapter 12 - Sustainability and Resilience Chapter 13 - Economy, Education, and Workforce Development Chapter 14 - Downtown Area Plan Chapter 15 - Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Development CRM TECH. Historical Archaeological Resources Survey Report, CHIPT Citrus-Boyle Warehouse Project, Fontana, California. September 18, 2023a (Appendix C) CRM TECH. Paleontological Resources Assessment Report, CHIPT Citrus-Boyle Warehouse Project, City of Fontana, California. September 18, 2023b (Appendix D) References 158 City of Fontana Fontana Police Department (FPD), 2023. Website accessed March 6, 2023. https://www.Fontanaca.org/departments/police/crime-information Ganddini Group. Citrus Avenue Warehouse Project Site Access Memorandum. Original issued April 6, 2023, Revised December 22, 2023a (Appendix H) Ganddini Group. Citrus Avenue Warehouse Project Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis. October 3, 2023b (Appendix H) Langan Engineering and Environmental Services. Preliminary Hydrology Study for Fontana Citrus Industrial Warehouse. April 2023a (Appendix F) Langan Engineering and Environmental Services. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Fontana Citrus Industrial Warehouse. May 12, 2023b (Appendix F) MIG, Inc. Fontana Citrus Industrial Building, Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment Report. July 2023a (Appendix A) MIG, Inc. Fontana Citrus Industrial Building, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Report. July 2023b (Appendix A) MIG, Inc. General Biological Resources Assessment, Citrus Avenue Project, Fontana, California. September 6, 2023c (Appendix B) MIG, Inc. Fontana Citrus Industrial Building, Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report. July 2023d (Appendix A) Omnitrans 2023. https://omnitrans.org/ Website accessed April 1, 2023. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), 2023. Information on MS4 permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Plan. Website accessed March 8, 2023. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/ South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 1993. Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA. 1993. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2003a. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. Diamond Bar, CA. August 2003. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2003b. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. Available online at: <http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt- plan/2003-aqmp> South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2005. Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than 5 Acres in Size. Diamond Bar, CA. February 2005. <http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final- sample-construction-scenario-report.pdf> South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2022 AQMP. Website accessed April 1, 2023: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2022-aqmp References Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse IS/MND 159 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2019. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA. Revised April 2020. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Adopted April 7, 2016. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2020. 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Final. Adopted on September 3, 2020. Southern California Edison Company (SCEC) 2022. Website accessed March 8, 2023. https://www.scecleanenergy.com/ Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), 2022. About SoCalGas. Website accessed March 6, 2023. https://www3. socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCG), 2021a. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Warehouse, Boyle Avenue, West of Oleander Avenue, Fontana, California. August 9, 2022 (Appendix D). Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCG), 2021b. Results of Infiltration Testing, Proposed Warehouse, Boyle Avenue, West of Oleander Avenue, Fontana, California. August 2, 2022 (Appendix D). Southern California Geotechnical. Updated Results of Infiltration Testing, Proposed Warehouse, City of Fontana, California. August 2, 2022b (Appendix D) United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Inundation Maps and Emergency Action Plans and Incident Management for Dams and Levee Systems. Publication No. EC 1110-2-6075. October 1, 2020. United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2022. National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer (Firmette Maps). Website accessed March 10, 2023. https://hazards- fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd United States Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123. September 2018. United States Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 1980. Soil Survey for San Bernardino County, California. Published 12-1980. Vertex Companies, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Citrus and Boyle Site, City of Fontana, California. March 28, 2022 (Appendix E)