HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 Hemlock Final SEIRSIGNAGE
HEMLOCK WAREHOUSE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SCH NO. 2009091089
Prepared for:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue,
Fontana, CA 92335
Prepared by:
EPD Solutions, Inc.
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
(949)794-1180
www.epdsolutions.com
February 2024
Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact
Repor t
0LFKHOVRQ'ULYH6XLWH,UYLQH&$
ZZZHSGVROXWLRQVFRP
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
(949)794-1180
www.epdsolutions.com
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project Table of Contents
City of Fontana
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 1-1
SECTION 1.1 FORMAT OF THE FINAL EIR ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1
SECTION 1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ............................................................................... 1-2
CHAPTER 2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ........................................................................................................... 2-1
PUBLIC COMMENTS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 LETTER A1: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ...................................................................................................... 2-2 RESPONSE TO LETTER A1: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT .............................................................................. 2-3
LETTER A2: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ...................................................................................................... 2-4
RESPONSE TO LETTER A2: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT .............................................................................. 2-5
LETTER A3: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ...................................................................................................... 2-6
RESPONSE TO LETTER A3: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT .......................................................................... 2-11
LETTER O1: BLUM COLLINS & HO, LLP ............................................................................................................................................ 2-15
RESPONSE TO LETTER O1: BLUM COLLINS & HO, LLP ................................................................................................................... 2-165
CHAPTER 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR ............................................................................... 3-1
CHAPTER 4.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM .............................................................................. 4-1
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project Table of Contents
City of Fontana
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees celsius
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AB 52 California Assembly Bill 52
AF acre-feet
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
BACM best available control measure
BACT best available control technology
Basin South Coast Air Quality Basin
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH4 methane CNEL community noise equivalent level CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CUP Conditional Use Permit
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibels
DIF Development Impact Fee
DPM diesel particulate matter
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EV Electric Vehicle
FAH Fraction of Time At Home
FAR floor area ratio
GPA General Plan Amendment
gpm gallons per minute
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HAPs hazardous air pollutants
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HDT Heavy Duty Trucks
HFCs hydroflourocarbons HP horsepower
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
I Interstate
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LID low impact development
LOS level of service
LSTs localized significance thresholds
MACT maximum available control technology
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project Table of Contents
City of Fontana
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MERV Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
mgd million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendent
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT million metric tons
MT metric tons
MT CO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
N2O nitrous oxide
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOP Notice of Preparation
NO2 nitrogen oxide NOx nitrogen oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O3 ozone OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Pb lead PFCs perflourocarbons
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter
ppb parts per billion PRC Public Resources Code ROG reactive organic gas RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEIR Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
SF square feet
SF6 sulfur hexaflouride
SIP state implementation plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SO3 sulfur trioxide
SO4 sulfates
SOx sulfur oxides
SP Specific Plan
SR State Route
SRA Source Receptor Area
SWIP Southwest Industrial Park
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB Storm Water Resources Control Board
TACs toxic air contaminants
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TMA Transportation Management Association
TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project Table of Contents
City of Fontana
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
VdB velocity levels expressed in decibel notation
VMT vehicle miles travelled
VOC volatile organic compounds
WAIRE Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 1.0 Introduction
City of Fontana 1-1
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Chapter 1.0 Introduction
This Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR; Final Subsequent EIR) has been prepared in
conformance with the environmental policy guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the environmental effects that may result from construction and operation of
the proposed Hemlock Warehouse Development Project (proposed Project).
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final Subsequent EIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR; Draft Subsequent EIR) or a revision of
the Draft Subsequent EIR;
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft Subsequent EIR, either verbatim or in
summary;
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft Subsequent EIR;
(d) The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process;
(e) Any other information added by the lead agency.
This document contains responses to comments received on the Draft Subsequent EIR during the public review period, which began October 10, 2023 and ended on December 11, 2023. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and represents the independent judgment
of the lead agency, the City of Fontana. This document and the circulated Draft Subsequent EIR comprise the
Final Subsequent EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132.
1.1 Format of the Final Subsequent EIR
The following chapters are contained within this document:
Chapter 1.0, Introduction. This chapter describes CEQA requirements and the content of the Final Subsequent
EIR.
Chapter 2.0, Response to Comments. This chapter provides a list of agencies and organizations who
commented on the Draft Subsequent EIR, as well as copies of their comment letters received during and
following the public review period, and individual responses to their comments.
Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft Subsequent EIR. This chapter contains revisions made to the Draft
Subsequent EIR as a result of the comments received by agencies and organizations as described in Chapter
3, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the Draft Subsequent EIR for public
review.
The City of Fontana has determined that none of this material constitutes significant new information that
requires recirculation of the Draft Subsequent EIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5. The additional material clarifies existing information prepared in the Draft Subsequent EIR and
does not present any new substantive information. None of this new material indicates that the Project would
result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft Subsequent EIR.
Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the
other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 1.0 Introduction
City of Fontana 1-2
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Chapter 4.0, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program. This chapter includes the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). CEQA requires lead agencies to “adopt a reporting and
mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of
project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (CEQA Section
21081.6, CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The MMRP was prepared based on the mitigation measures
included in this Final Subsequent EIR and has been included as Chapter 4.0.
1.2 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and
public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft Subsequent EIRs should be “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible … CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When
responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need
to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in
the EIR.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments,
and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion
supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered
significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also states, “Each responsible agency and
trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory
responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to
comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as
recommended by this section.”
In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to
public agencies are being forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final
Subsequent EIR, with copies of this Final Subsequent EIR document, which conforms to the legal standards
established for response to comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-1
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Chapter 2.0 Response to Comments
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency, the City of Fontana, to evaluate comments
on environmental issues received from public agencies, organizations, companies, and individuals who
reviewed the Draft Subsequent EIR and prepare written responses. This section includes copies of all written
comment letters received on the Draft Subsequent EIR and the City of Fontana’s responses to the comment
letters. Comment letters and specific comments are numbered for reference purposes which correspond with
the City’s response. A summary of each numbered comment in the commenter’s letter precedes the City’s
response.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following is a list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals or interested parties that submitted
comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR during the public review and comment period (October 10, 2023
through December 11, 2023). All of the comment letters received on the Draft Subsequent EIR and responses
to those comments are provided on the following pages.
Letter Number Agency/Organization/Name Comment Date Received
Agencies
A1 South Coast Air Quality Management District October 17, 2023
A2 South Coast Air Quality Management District October 18, 2023
A3 South Coast Air Quality Management District November 22, 2023
Organizations
O1 Blum Collins & Ho, LLP December 11, 2023
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-2
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Letter A1: South Coast Air Quality Management District (1 page)
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-3
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Response to Letter A1: South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated October 17, 2023
Comment A1.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the South Coast
AQMD has received the Draft Subsequent EIR and is reviewing. The comment requests all technical documents
related to air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses, electronic versions of all emission calculation files, and
air quality modeling and health risk assessment files (complete files, not summaries), that were used to
quantify the air quality impacts from construction and/or operation of the proposed Project to be uploaded
to a Dropbox link for South Coast AQMD review.
Response A1.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy
of the Draft Subsequent EIR. In response to the request for information, the technical documentation was
compiled, and a Dropbox link was emailed by the City to South Coast AQMD staff on October 18, 2023. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR, no further response is required or provided.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-4
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Letter A2: South Coast Air Quality Management District (1 page)
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-5
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Response to Letter A2: South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated October 18, 2023
Comment A2.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the South Coast
AQMD has received the Draft Subsequent EIR and is reviewing. The comment requests all technical documents
related to air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses, electronic versions of all emission calculation files, and
air quality modeling and health risk assessment files (complete files, not summaries), that were used to
quantify the air quality impacts from construction and/or operation of the proposed Project to be uploaded
to a Dropbox link for South Coast AQMD review.
Response A2.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy
of the Draft Subsequent EIR. In response to the request for information, the technical documentation was
compiled, and a Dropbox link was emailed by the City to South Coast AQMD staff on October 18, 2023.
Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR, no further response is required or provided.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-6
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Letter A3: South Coast Air Quality Management District (5 pages)
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-7
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-8
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-9
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-10
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-11
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Response to Letter A3: South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated November 22, 2023
Comment A3.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the South Coast
AQMD appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Subsequent EIR. The comment provides a
summary of the proposed Project and states that based on a review of aerial photographs, the nearest
sensitive receptor is approximately 900 feet southeast and southwest of the site.
Response A3.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy
of the Draft Subsequent EIR. As detailed on pages 5.1-16 and Figure 5.1-1, the closest sensitive receptors
are residences; the closest of which is approximately 918 feet (280 meters) southwest of the Project site.
Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft
Subsequent EIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment A3.2: This comment states that although CalEEMod defaults and SCAQMD recommended trip lengths were used that are based on the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan, the distance from the proposed Project site to the Port of Los Angeles or Long Beach is approximately 70 miles one-way. Thus, the comment
recommends that the truck emissions analysis be revised to use a more conservative trip length between 40 to 70 miles, of which 40 miles could be used for local and 70 miles for Port trips and include the revision in the final CEQA document. The comment states that tailoring these parameters and assumptions to be based on project-specific data ensures a more accurate assessment of emissions from the Project Response A3.2: The analysis was completed pursuant to SCAQMD’s recommended methodology and utilized the average trip length for light-heavy (15.3-miles), medium-heavy (14.2-miles) and heavy-heavy trucks (39.9-miles) which is based on SCAQMD’s recommendations outlined in their implementation of the
Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) adopted in 2021. These trip lengths
represent averages and therefore would include local trips as well as potential trips that may occur to the
ports. The comment’s recommended trip lengths are not supported by any substantial evidence provided by
the SCAQMD. As such, because it would be speculative to assume that all Project truck trips would extend to
the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and because the percentage of truck trips that would extend to
the ports is not known at this time, it is appropriate to be consistent with SCAQMD’s recommended
methodology, which is based on actual data from similar facilities in the region.
Comment A3.3: This comment states that the lot acreage and the floor square area use are all set to zero
under the “user-defined industrial” land use subtype, which possibly leads to underestimating the heavy-
duty truck emissions for warehouse activities since no data is filled under this “user-defined industrial” land
use subtype. Therefore, the comment recommends that it be explained why the land use is separated in the
CalEEMod analysis and why the truck information is not under the “unrefrigerated warehouse-no rail” and
“refrigerated warehouse-no rail” land use subtype and revise the analysis as necessary in the final CEQA
document.
Response A3.3: The user-defined industrial land use was modeled in CalEEMod in order to separate
passenger car and truck vehicle trips. The land use is separated in the CalEEMod analysis into the “user
defined industrial” land use to account for emissions resulting from truck trips only and allows the truck trip
lengths associated with industrial uses to be adjusted consistent with SCAQMD guidance. The number of truck
trips input into CalEEMod are based on the truck trips and the weighted fleet mix as calculated in the traffic
analysis for the Project. Therefore, emissions are appropriately calculated for each truck class by the
percentage weight identified in the analysis. Passenger car trips as well as area, energy, water, and waste
emissions were modeled under the unrefrigerated and refrigerated warehouse land use types and are
based on the trips calculated in the Traffic Analysis (Appendix F of the Draft Subsequent EIR) for the Project.
As such, inputting non-zero values for acreage, building square footage, and landscape area in the user
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-12
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
defined land uses would result in a double counting of emissions from area, energy, water, waste, and
refrigerants.
Comment A3.4: This comment states that CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond
what is required by law be utilized to minimize or eliminate any significant adverse air quality impacts. The
comment recommends additional mitigation measures requiring zero-emissions trucks, limiting the daily
number of trucks, and provision of electric vehicle charging stations to further reduce the proposed Project’s
air quality impacts.
Response A3.4: As detailed on pages 5.1-25 and 5.1-26 of the Draft Subsequent EIR operation of the
proposed Project would generate emissions that would exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold for NOx
after implementation of mitigation measures and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the Basin. It is important to note that over 88 percent of the Project’s NOx emissions are derived from vehicle and truck trips. The Project would implement the SWIP Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2c through 4.2-2g, and 4.2-2j, and 4.2-5a to reduce the operational NOx emissions; however, these measures would not be sufficient enough to reduce the NOx emissions to below the SCAQMD thresholds.
Thus, impacts related to NOx were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Neither the Project applicant nor the City have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions. Thus, no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less-than-significant. Currently, the use of zero-emissions light- and medium-duty trucks is limited and the infrastructure network to support their use is limited throughout southern California. Thus, commercial use and availability throughout the State is currently limited. However, CARB passed its updated Advanced Clean Truck Rule on July 1, 2020 that requires medium-and heavy-duty truck manufacturers to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing
percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales
are required to be 55% of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40% of
truck tractor sales1. The rule begins in 2024, at which point an infrastructure network to support zero-emission
trucks throughout southern California is anticipated to begin to become available. CARB estimates that by
2030, nearly one in three new trucks will be zero-emissions. Thus, it is anticipated that during operation of
the Project many of the trucks would be zero-emissions. However, to provide a conservative analysis of
potential impacts, the use of zero-emissions trucks was not accounted for in the CalEEMod modeling
completed for the Project.
CEQA requires that measures required for reduction of impacts be fully enforceable through permit
conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2)). Both the
City and future tenants of the Project building would not be able to enforce the types of new technology
(i.e., zero-emissions or near-zero emissions) on all of the trucks accessing the site. It is infeasible to both
implement and enforce the types of vehicles driving to the site that are not owned or contracted by
warehouse tenants and/or operators. For example, future tenants would not be able to control the types of
FedEx, UPS, USPS, or other delivery trucks that access the site. In addition, even if such a measure could be
implemented, it would be infeasible for the Project applicant to ensure. Warehouses in southern California
are not required to monitor or limit what types of trucks can enter warehouse properties. To impose such a
condition on the Project would highly limit the potential tenants/building operations and implementing the
measure would require extensive employee involvement to monitor each truck which enters the Project and
refuse entry to non-qualifying trucks. Due to the infeasibility and enforceability of this recommended
measure, it has not been included.
Regarding limiting the number of daily trucks, the Draft Subsequent EIR evaluates full occupation/capacity
of the proposed building and identifies the maximum daily emissions that would occur from both construction
1 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-clean-trucks-fact-sheet
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2019/advancedcleantrucks
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-13
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
and operation of the Project. Thus, the Project would not exceed the number of daily truck trips that was
evaluated in the Draft Subsequent EIR. Should there be future proposed changes to the Project, such as an
increase in square footage, that may have the potential to increase vehicle trips, truck trips, or other sources
of air quality emissions, a CEQA analysis would be required evaluate the potential impacts related to the
increase. Should additional potential impacts be identified, new mitigation measures would be applied.
The proposed Project would include provision of electric vehicle charging stations through compliance with
the CalGreen Building Code Standards that are verified by the City during the Project’s development
permitting process. The 2022 CalGreen Building code requires that new construction install EV systems to
support medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicles in parking areas for warehouses and commercial buildings.
The number of charging stations is required based on the size the building. Because the Project is required
to meet the existing Calgreen Building Code standards, no additional mitigation is required. In addition, the
City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards, requires that at least 10 percent of all passenger vehicle parking spaces be EV ready. Comment A3.5: This comment states that mitigation measures to reduce emissions from other sources should
include: use of solar energy, use of light-colored paving and roofing materials, use of only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices and appliances, clearly marking truck routes with trailblazer signs, keep truck entrances and exits away from sensitive receptors, ensure no trucks queuing outside the site and away from sensitive receptors, and restrict overnight truck parking in sensitive land uses. Response A3.5: As described in the previous response, the Project would be required to comply with the 2022 CalGreen Building code that would be verified during the City’s development permitting process that includes use of light colored roofing (also per SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2j), use of Energy Star
appliances. In addition, the City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial Commerce
Centers Sustainability Standards, requires that a truck routing plan with signs and pavement markings be
implemented that would buffer uses from sensitive receptors, and installation of solar panels to supply 100
percent of the power needed to operate all non-refrigerated portions of the Project including the parking
areas. In addition, the truck accesses to the Project site have been designed, such that trucks would pull
completely into the Project site and would not queue outside of the site. As shown in Figure 3-4 of the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the northern portion of the site has been designed to accommodate multiple trucks
simultaneously and guard shacks are located on both sides of the proposed building. Further, the Project
includes 308 truck/trailer parking spaces on the east and west sides of the building, which would adequately
accommodate parking on the site. Overall, the proposed Project is consistent with this comment.
Comment A3.6: This comment suggests that the City review a list of references from the State Department
of Justice, SCAQMD 2022 AQMP, and the USEPA and consider including additional recommended measures
in the Final Subsequent EIR.
Response A3.6: The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR.
As described in previous responses, the recommended measures that were identified in previous comments
are either implemented through existing regulations or are not included due to the infeasibility to implement
and/or enforce.
Comment A3.7: The comment states that if the proposed Project will require the use of stationary equipment
such as emergency generator(s) and fire pump(s), permit(s) from South Coast AQMD will be required. The
comment states that the Final Subsequent EIR should include a discussion of stationary equipment that will
require South Coast AQMD permits and that the South Coast AQMD may be a CEQA Responsible Agency
for the proposed Project.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-14
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Response A3.7: The proposed building would be used for warehouse distribution and logistics. Currently,
there is no plan for installation of an emergency generator or fire pump. It’s possible that there may be a
future need for an emergency generator and fire pump. However, future occupants’ proposed uses would
be processed through the City’s permitting system. Should future tenants require stationary equipment such
as an emergency generator, and fire pump, or other machinery, a permit from South Coast AQMD would
be required, and would be verified by the City’s permitting process. In addition, the South Coast AQMD has
been identified as a CEQA Responsible Agency in Chapter 3, of this Final Subsequent EIR for construction
permitting and permitting of onsite equipment as needed by building tenants.
Comment A3.8: The comment requests that the Lead Agency provide South Coast AQMD staff with written
responses to all comments 10 days prior to the certification of the Final Subsequent EIR. In addition, the
comments states that as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), if the Lead Agency’s position is at
variance with recommendations provided in this comment letter, detailed reasons supported by substantial
evidence in the record to explain why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted must be provided.
The comment also states that AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air
quality questions that may arise from this comment letter and provides AQMD contact information.
Response A3.8: The City will comply with the requirements imposed by Public Resources Code §21092.5
and CEQA Guidelines §15088(b), which require a Lead Agency to provide a written response to a public
agency on comments made on environmental issues by that public agency at least ten days prior to certifying
an EIR. The comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the
Subsequent EIR. No further response is required or provided.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-15
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Letter O1: Blum Collins & Ho, LLP (150 pages)
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-16
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-17
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-18
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-19
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-20
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-21
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-22
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-23
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-24
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-25
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-26
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-27
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-28
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-29
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-30
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-31
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-32
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-33
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-34
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-35
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-36
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-37
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-38
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-39
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-40
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-41
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-42
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-43
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-44
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-45
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-46
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-47
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-48
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-49
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-50
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-51
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-52
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-53
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-54
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-55
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-56
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-57
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-58
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-59
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-60
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-61
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-62
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-63
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-64
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-65
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-66
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-67
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-68
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-69
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-70
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-71
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-72
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-73
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-74
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-75
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-76
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-77
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-78
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-79
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-80
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-81
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-82
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-83
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-84
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-85
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-86
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-87
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-88
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-89
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-90
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-91
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-92
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-93
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-94
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-95
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-96
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-97
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-98
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-99
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-100
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-101
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-102
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-103
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-104
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-105
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-106
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-107
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-108
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-109
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-110
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-111
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-112
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-113
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-114
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-115
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-116
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-117
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-118
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-119
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-120
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-121
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-122
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-123
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-124
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-125
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-126
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-127
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-128
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-129
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-130
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-131
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-132
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-133
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-134
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-135
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-136
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-137
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-138
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-139
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-140
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-141
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-142
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-143
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-144
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-145
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-146
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-147
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-148
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-149
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-150
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-151
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-152
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-153
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-154
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-155
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-156
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-157
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-158
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-159
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-160
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-161
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-162
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-163
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-164
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-165
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Response to Letter O1: Blum Collins & Ho, LLP, dated December 11, 2023
Comment O1.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the comment is
submitted on behalf of the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA). Additionally, it states that
GSEJA requests to be notified regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, and public
hearings for the Project.
Response O1.1: GSEJA will be added to the notification list and will be notified of any subsequent
environmental documents, public notices, and public hearings regarding the proposed Project. The comment
is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR
or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O1.2: This comment provides a summary of the proposed Project. Response O1.2: The comment provides a summary of the proposed Project and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further
response is required or provided. Comment O1.3: This comment expresses a concern that the Project is a piecemealed portion of a larger project that was approved in 2019 that included a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to the Project site that changed the site designations from Jurupa North Research and Development District (JND) to Slover Central Manufacturing District (SCD), and states that the proposed Project should be analyzed along with the previously approved GPA and SPA.
Response O1.3: The comment does not provide any substantial evidence of an environmental impact or
substantial evidence of other related projects, and therefore the commenter’s assertions that Project is part
of a larger piecemealed project are based on speculation. Both the General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan Amendment that are referred to by the comment were approved by City Council on March 12, 2019,
which changed the designations of many parcels within the SWIP area, including the Project site, to provide
a community that is balanced between residential, commercial, and industrial (Ordinance 1796). The Project
site’s previous Jurupa North Research and Development District (JND) designation provides for a mix of
urban and freeway-oriented uses that are similarly allowed by the existing Slover Central Manufacturing
District (SCD) designation. As detailed in Section 7.1 of the SWIP Specific Plan document (and Table 7-2),
the Jurupa North Research and Development District (JND) allows development types and uses including light
industrial, warehousing, logistics-based distribution, and office uses at a maximum density of 0.55 floor area
ratio (FAR), which are consistent with the proposed Project. As detailed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the
proposed Project would develop a light industrial warehouse at a FAR of 0.543; and would therefore also
be within the allowable density of the previous SWIP designation. Thus, the comment’s statement that the
proposed Project did not comply with the previous zoning designation is inaccurate.
The 2019 amendment involved many landowners and was not limited to areas owned by this Project
applicant, and did not facilitate the proposed development, as the proposed use was allowed under the
previous SWIP designation. Therefore, no project piecemealing has occurred. Further, the Draft Subsequent
EIR appropriately evaluates the proposed Project with the existing SWIP designation, not the previous
designation prior to March 2019. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 describes that the existing setting
constitutes the baseline conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. The
existing setting is the Slover Central Manufacturing District (SCD) designation of the site. Therefore, the Draft
Subsequent EIR accurately represents the whole of the action and evaluates the potential environmental
impacts pursuant to CEQA. The proposed Project is limited to development and operation of the Project site,
and is not part of other development projects, other than being consistent with the buildout of the area as
anticipated by the SWIP. The Draft Subsequent EIR accurately analyzes all potential environmental impacts
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-166
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
from the Project and does not present unduly low environmental impacts. Conversely, as detailed in the
methodology and impacts sections throughout the Draft Subsequent EIR, the analysis provides a conservative
evaluation of peak construction and operational activities at the closest receptors at full occupancy. Lastly
and overall, the environmental analysis would not have been different under the previous Jurupa North
Research and Development District (JND) designation.
Comment O1.4: This comment states that the initial Study did not discuss the General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendments on the Project site. The comment states that the proposed Project was not included in the analysis
of the SWIP EIR and the increase of building area within the SCD is new information that could not have
been known at the time the SWIP FEIR was certified. The comment states that the EIR must include specific
analysis regarding conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
and mitigating an environmental effect. Response O1.4: The proposed Project does not require a General Plan Amendment or SWIP amendment. The Draft Subsequent EIR details that the proposed Project is consistent with the existing General Plan and SWIP designations. Also, as discussed in Response O1.3, the Project would be consistent with the previous
Jurupa North Research and Development District (JND) designation and allowable buildout. Thus, the proposed Project is not an increase of 881,826 SF, but within the previous and existing allowable buildout, as evaluated in the SWIP FEIR. There is no new information of substantial importance, and no information regarding potential conflicts with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect is provided by the comment. Comment O1.5: The comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR does not include any analysis regarding
the inconsistency of the proposed Project with the SWIP or General Plan goals and policies and does not
comply with CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure, including the potentially significant impacts to
the surrounding area and nearby sensitive receptors, such as the residences adjacent to the south of the site.
Response O1.5: The Draft Subsequent EIR provides detail of its consistency with the SWIP, which is inherently
required to be consistent with the General Plan. By statute, specific plans must be consistent with the General
Plan (Gov. Code, §§ 65454 (specific plans), 65680 (zoning). The Draft Subsequent EIR (Appendix A page
87) details that the Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of General Industrial (I-G) and is
within the SWIP Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD) that provides for light and heavy
manufacturing activities that are supported by trucking routes. The SCD allows for manufacturing, fabrication,
assembly, processing, trucking, warehousing and distribution, equipment, automobile and truck sales and
services uses.
The Draft Subsequent EIR details that consistent with the General Plan and SWIP SCD, the Project includes
development and operation of a warehouse facility. The use is consistent with the vicinity, which is highly
industrialized in nature, primarily supporting heavy industrial and trucking/distribution-related uses. The
SWIP provides development regulations that set specific requirements for development intensity, lot
dimensions, setbacks, structure heights, and accessory buildings that the proposed Project would adhere to.
For example, the Project’s FAR of 0.543 is within the allowable FAR of 0.80, and the Project’s building height
of 60 feet maximum is within the 100-foot allowable building height.
The Draft Subsequent EIR also details (Appendix A page 87) that the proposed Project would be
implemented in compliance with the SWIP, which is the main development implementation tool, and the
Municipal Code that applies in absence of a SWIP specification. The City’s development permitting process
would ensure that the proposed Project would be implemented in compliance with these existing regulations.
As such, the proposed Project would not result in conflicts with the City General Plan land use, SWIP, or
Municipal Code, and impacts would be less than significant.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-167
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
The Project would also not result in an environmental impact related to the policies and goals provided in
the comment, as detailed in the following Table.
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
EJ Goal 2: The City of Fontana incorporates health
considerations into the development review process.
Consistent. The Draft Subsequent EIR includes review of
health considerations in the analysis of air quality
(Section 5.1), noise (Section 5.3), and hazards and hazardous materials (Appendix A), which determined that impacts would be less than significant with
adherence to existing regulations that would be verified
by the City’s existing development review and permitting
process. Thus, the Project and the Project review process
is consistent with this goal.
Policy: Support including Healthy Fontana development
analysis in relevant development project reviews.
Consistent. As described in the previous response, the
Draft Subsequent EIR includes review of health
considerations, which determined that impacts would be
less than significant with adherence to existing
regulations that would be verified by the City’s existing
development review and permitting process. Thus, the
Project and the Project review process is consistent with this policy.
Healthier Fontana Goal 1 Policy 3: Support local and
regional initiatives to improve air quality in order to
reduce asthma while actively discouraging development
that may exacerbate asthma rates.
Consistent. Section 5.1, Air Quality, of the Draft
Subsequent EIR includes analysis of Project related
exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations, which determined that both localized construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. Also, a diesel health risk
assessment was included (as detailed in pages 5.1-29
through 5.1-31), which determined that emissions from
the Project would not exceed thresholds and that impacts
would be less than significant. Thus, the Project is
consistent with this goal/policy.
Sustainability and Resilience Element Goal 4: Reduce
GHG emissions by 2030.
Consistent. As detailed in Section 3.0, Project
Description, of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Project
would occur pursuant to the requirements of the Fontana
Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial
Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards that require
the proposed building to install rooftop solar panels that
supply 100 percent of the power need for non-refrigerated building space; and install electric plug-ins at all loading dock positions that would be utilized by
trucks fitted with transport refrigeration units (TRUs). In
addition, Section 5.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
identifies the reductions of emissions that would occur
from compliance with other existing regulations such as
CalGreen/Title 24, CARB Scoping Plan, and emissions
standards. Thus, the Project is consistent with this goal.
Circulation Element Goal 5: Fontana’s commercial and
mixed-use areas include a multifunctional street network
that ensures a safe, comfortable, and efficient movement of people, goods, and services to support a high quality of life and economic vitality.
Consistent. This goal is not applicable to the Project
because the Project is not located within a commercial
and mixed-use area. The Project site is surrounded by industrial uses. However, the site is adjacent to a functional street network as detailed on Draft
Subsequent EIR pages 5.4-4 through 5.4-6; and the
Project would not result in impacts to the roadway
network as detailed on pages 5.4-8 through 5.4-10.
Circulation Element Policy: Maintain levels of service for passenger vehicles, transit vehicles, trucks, bicyclists, Consistent. As described on Draft Subsequent EIR page 5.4-8, the proposed Project includes installation of new
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-168
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
and pedestrians that are appropriate for the context of
the area.
sidewalks, curbs, and gutter improvements along the
Hemlock Avenue and Beech Avenue frontages of the
Project site. All of the improvements would be ensured to
meet the City’s traffic engineering design standards through the City’s development review and permitting approval process; and therefore, would not conflict with
the City’s circulation system requirements.
SWIP Objective CIR-4: Ensure vehicular traffic Level of Service (LOS) meets or exceeds adopted City-wide Standards.
Consistent. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 states that except as provided for roadway capacity transportation projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental
impact. Therefore, LOS is not related to an environmental
impact. However, Appendix F of the Draft Subsequent
EIR details that no additional intersections would operate
at an unacceptable LOS with the addition of Project
traffic under Opening Year Cumulative (2024) With
Project traffic conditions. Further, as detailed on Draft
Subsequent EIR page 5.4-10, impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would be less than significant. Thus,
the Project is consistent with this objective.
SWIP Objective CIR-5: Ensure infrastructure capacity
within the Specific Plan area meets future demands.
Consistent. Appendix A to the Draft Subsequent EIR
details that the existing infrastructure in the Project area has the capacity to meet the Project and future
anticipated demands, as the proposed Project is within
the anticipated buildout of the SWIP as it is within the
allowable FAR. Thus, the Project is consistent with this
objective.
Potentially significant impacts to the surrounding area and nearby sensitive receptors, such as the residences
adjacent to the south of the site were evaluated throughout the Draft Subsequent EIR, including Section 5.1,
Air Quality and Section 5.3, Noise. The comment does not detail the type of additional environmental analysis
that assertedly should be included. Thus, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O1.6: This comment states that the Fair Share mitigation for the intersections with deficiencies in
LOS are not linked to a specific mitigation program. The comment explains that payment of fees is not
sufficient mitigation when there is no evidence that any mitigation will actually result. The comment calls for
a revised Draft Subsequent EIR to include cumulatively considerable impacts conflicts with Threshold A and
Threshold B as it is not consistent with certain General Plan and SWIP policies and objectives related to LOS.
Response O1.6: Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes included the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar
measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part
of the 2019 amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall
promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks,
and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as
described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not
be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), LOS related effects are not considered impacts on
the environment. Any recommended roadway improvements, as well as Project fair-share payments, would
not be part of the CEQA process or subject to the mitigation measures or mitigation monitoring as part of
the Draft Subsequent EIR. The Draft Subsequent EIR does not need to include any mitigation related to
roadway widening as it is not an environmental impact under CEQA. In addition, the proposed Project is
consistent with Circulation Element Goal 5, Circulation Element Policy, SWIP Objective CIR-4, and SWIP
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-169
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Objective CIR-5, as detailed in Response O1.5. Regarding SWIP Objective ENV-1, the Draft Subsequent
EIR ensures that potential environmental effects are mitigated to a less than significant level where feasible.
As detailed in Draft Subsequent EIR Section 5.6, Mandatory Findings, all potential impacts would be mitigated
to a less than significant level except for operational air quality (NOx) and greenhouse gas emissions, over
78 percent of which are derived from vehicle and truck emissions that neither the Project applicant nor the
City have regulatory authority to control; and thus, infeasible to substantially mitigate further. Therefore, the
Project would be consistent with SWIP Objective ENV-1, as the Project would mitigate potential impacts to
a less than significant level where feasible.
Comment O1.7: The comment states that an analysis of the Projects consistency with the 2020 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) is required. The comment also states that
that there are errors in modeling and states that the Project is inconsistent with Goal 5, Goal 6, and Goal 7 of SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Response O1.7: This comment does not identify any errors in modeling or other information that would identify an inconsistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS, and CEQA does not require the Draft Subsequent EIR to
include a consistency analysis with the SCAG RTP/SCS. However, pursuant to the comment’s request, the analysis has been provided below. The 2020 RTP/SCS Goals that are relevant to the proposed Project focus largely on maximizing mobility,
encouraging development patterns and densities that reduce infrastructure costs, and provide efficiency. The
proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS goals, as detailed in the
table below. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in conflict with RTP/SCS
goals, and impacts would not occur.
Consistency with SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
RTP/SCS Goal Statements Project Consistency
RTP/SCS G1: Encourage regional economic prosperity
and global competitiveness.
Consistent. The Project would provide new light
industrial warehousing uses near the freeway within an
industrial area that would enhance the region’s overall
economic development and competitiveness.
RTP/SCS G2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability,
and travel safety for people and goods.
Consistent. The proposed Project would develop an
industrial warehouse near a state freeway interchange
that would provide access to goods in the region. The
Project would not create traffic impediments or travel
safety impacts.
RTP/SCS G3: Enhance the preservation, security, and
resilience of the regional transportation system.
Consistent. There are no components of the Project that
would result in the deterioration of the regional
transportation system. As detailed in Draft Subsequent
EIR Section 5.4, Transportation, the Project would not
result in any new or increased significant impacts to the transportation system.
RTP/SCS G4: Increase person and goods movement and
travel choices within the transportation system.
Consistent. The proposed Project would develop an
industrial warehouse near a state freeway interchange
that would provide access to goods in the region. The
Project would not create traffic impediments or travel safety impacts. The Project provides bicycle racks onsite and sidewalks along the Hemlock Avenue and Beech
Avenue frontages to provide pedestrian travel choices.
RTP/SCS G5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. Consistent. The Project would not conflict with SCAG implementing actions to improve air quality and reduce
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-170
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
RTP/SCS Goal Statements Project Consistency
GHG emissions within the region. Also, the Project would
incorporate various features related to building design,
landscaping, and energy systems to promote the efficient use of energy, pursuant to the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards that require the proposed
building to install rooftop solar panels that supply 100
percent of the power need for non-refrigerated building
space; and install electric plug-ins at all loading dock
positions that would be utilized by trucks fitted with TRUs.
Also, Title 24 CALGreen Code, and other energy related
regulations would reduce emissions and improve air quality.
RTP/SCS G6: Support healthy and equitable
communities.
Consistent. As described on Draft Subsequent EIR page
5.4-8, the proposed Project includes installation of new
sidewalks along the Hemlock Avenue and Beech Avenue
frontages of the Project site that would provide for pedestrian travel. The Project would also provide job opportunities for Fontana region residents.
RTP/SCS G7: Adapt to a changing climate and support
an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network.
Consistent. This policy would be implemented by cities
and the counties within the SCAG region as part of the
overall planning and maintenance of the regional transportation system. However, the Project is located
near three freeways (I-10 to the north, I-15 to the west,
and SR-60 to the south) that would support the
transportation of goods stored in the proposed
warehouse.
RTP/SCS G8: Leverage new transportation technologies
and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient
travel.
Consistent. This policy would be implemented by cities
and the counties within the SCAG region as part of the
overall planning and maintenance of the regional
transportation system. The Project would not conflict with
this goal.
RTP/SCS G9: Encourage development of diverse housing
types in areas that are supported by multiple
transportation options.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is not located
within areas designated for housing development and
would not hinder the development of diverse housing
types in areas supported by multiple transportation
options.
RTP/SCS G10: Promote conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and restoration of habitats.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be consistent
with goals and policies of the City’s General Plan and
would not result in potentially significant environmental
impacts to agricultural lands or biological resources. The
Project site is located within an urban and developed
area that does not contain agricultural lands or sensitive
biological habitats.
Comment O1.8: This comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR must include an analysis of the Project’s
consistency with the SWIP Design Guidelines and lists seven of them.
Response O1.8: This comment does not identify a potentially significant impact related to the SWIP design
guidelines and the proposed Project. CEQA does not require the Subsequent EIR to include an analysis of
the related design guidelines. In addition, compliance with applicable design guidelines is completed as part
of the City’s review, processing, and permitting of each development project. However, Table AES-1 on
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-171
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
page 32 of Appendix A of the Draft Subsequent EIR provides a comparison of the proposed Project with
the Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District development standards, which shows that the Project
complies with applicable standards. In addition, pursuant to the comment’s request, an explanation of the
Project’s compliance with the SWIP Design Guidelines for the SCD that were listed in the comment are
provided in the table below.
SWIP Design Guideline Listed in Comment Project Consistency
Service and loading should not be located on building
side(s) adjacent to a public street.
Consistent. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project
Description, the proposed loading docks would not be located adjacent to public streets but would be setback over 185 feet from Beech Avenue and over 320 feet from Hemlock Avenue and would be set behind walls,
landscaping, and parking lot areas.
Loading bays and service areas shall be screened by building placement, decorative walls or landscaping to the fullest extent feasible so that views of loading areas
are minimized from adjacent public streets.
Consistent. The proposed Project includes a 20-foot landscaped setback along Hemlock Avenue and a 25-foot landscaped setback along Beech Avenue, which
would include trees, shrubs, groundcover, and 14-foot-
high concrete walls to screen views of the loading docks
and truck trailer parking areas.
Parking lots shall not be the dominant visual element on the site. Consistent. Parking lots would not be the dominant visual element on the site because views of the site would be
screened by landscaped setbacks and 14-foot-high
concrete walls. Further, views from driveways would be
screened by security gates.
Parking lots adjacent to and visible from public streets
shall be appropriately screened to minimize undesirable
visual impacts.
Consistent. Parking lots would be screened from public
streets by landscaped setbacks and 14-foot-high
concrete walls. Views from driveways would be screened
by security gates.
Surface parking areas shall integrate trees and landscape improvements to reduce the heat island effect. Consistent. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, Figure 3-6, Conceptual Landscape Plan,
parking areas include trees, shrubs, and other
landscaping that would reduce the heat island effect.
Large parking lots (usually over 100 spaces) shall be divided into multiple, smaller areas and provided with
canopy trees located throughout the parking area to
reduce the effects of heat and the visual impacts of large
parking areas.
Consistent. The proposed Project includes three parking areas that include trees, shrubs, and other landscaping
as detailed on Figure 3-6, Conceptual Landscape Plan, of
the Draft Subsequent EIR.
Employee parking areas should be located behind the building or alongside the building so as not to be visible
from adjacent streets.
Consistent. The proposed employee parking area is located alongside the building and behind the
landscaped setbacks and 14-foot-high concrete walls
and would not be visible from adjacent streets.
Comment O1.9: This comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR must include a discussion of the buildout
conditions of the SWIP and General Plan. The comment also states that the Draft Subsequent EIR must provide
a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since the General Plan and SWIP adoption as well as
upcoming projects to determine if they would exceed growth estimates.
Response O1.9: The proposed Project is within the previous development assumptions for the site and the
SWIP and no additional growth or cumulative effects would occur. As described in Response O1.3, the
Project site’s previous SWIP Jurupa North Research and Development District (JND) designation allows
development of light industrial, warehousing, logistics-based distribution, and office uses at a FAR of 0.55.
The existing SCD designation allows a FAR of up to 0.80. As detailed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the
proposed Project would develop a light industrial warehouse at a FAR of 0.543; and would therefore be
less than the allowable density of both previous and existing SWIP designations; and therefore, included in
previous buildout and growth assumptions. As the growth related to the Project is less than the allowable
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-172
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
SWIP buildout of the site, the Project would not result in any unplanned growth that could cumulatively
combine.
The comment refers to the SWIP Table 1-1, Build-Out that identify the SWIP development assumptions from
2012 when the site was identified as within the Jurupa North Research and Development District and included
within the 4,879,460 square foot industrial space buildout; not the 3,710,006 square foot industrial space
buildout identified by the comment. As detailed in Response O1.3, in 2019 the City adopted a SWIP
amendment which changed the mix of land uses to provide a community that is balanced between residential,
commercial, and industrial (Ordinance 1796). The proposed Project would be 10.8 percent of the
anticipated development within the Jurupa North Research and Development District as shown in the SWIP
Table 1-1, which would also not exceed growth estimates and buildout conditions for the City from SCAG,
the AQMP, the SWIP, and/or the City’s General Plan. No additional analysis regarding cumulative growth
is required to be included. Comment O1.10: This comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR incorrectly calculated the employees generated by the Project as 738 employees and that the Project would actually generate 763 employees
using the correct calculations. That would represent 4.1 percent of the City’s employment growth from 2016-2045. The comment states that a single project accounting for this amount of projected growth over 29 years represents a significant amount of growth. Response O1.10: The population and housing analysis within the Draft Subsequent EIR is accurate. The SCAG’s Employment Density Study, as referred to by the comment, identifies employment generation rates based on Land Use Category, not square footage of development space. The Land Use Category per the SCAG Employment Density Study is warehouse. The office space within the proposed Project is ancillary and
part of the operation of the warehouse. Thus, no change to the identified employment of the site is required.
As detailed in previous responses, both the existing and previous SWIP designations for the site allow
warehouse uses and the FAR proposed by the Project is under the maximum allowable development of both
designations. Therefore, the related number of employees from buildout of the Project site has always been
a part of the growth forecast of the SWIP area, and the proposed Project would not induce substantial
unplanned growth.
As discussed in Section 4.3.14 of the Initial Study (included as Appendix A to the Draft Subsequent EIR),
Population and Housing, the SWIP FEIR describes that buildout of the SWIP would result in 39,416 new
employment positions. The 738 employees that would result from the proposed Project is 1.9 percent of the
number of SWIP employees at buildout. Also, the 2019 SCAG Local Profile for the City of Fontana identified
that the City had 55,448 jobs in 2017 and the SCAG’s Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction estimates that
employment within the City of Fontana would grow to 75,100 by 2045. The increase of 738 employees that
would result from the proposed Project would equate to 3.8 percent of the projected growth. Therefore, the
growth that would result from the Project is within existing projections, and the additional jobs provided by
the proposed Project would not result in substantial unplanned growth in the area.
Comment O1.11: The comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR must include a cumulative analysis of
the impact of the proposed Project in combination with previous projects since 2016 and projects “in the
pipeline” to determine if the Project would result in a cumulative exceedance of employment and population
growth forecasts.
Response O1.11: As discussed in previous Response O1.3, the growth related to development of the Project
site has previously been planned for and substantial unplanned growth would not occur that could be
cumulatively considerable. The site’s previous SWIP designation of Jurupa North Research and Development
District (JND) allows for warehouse developments at a maximum FAR of 0.55 and the existing SWIP
designation of Slover Central Manufacturing District (SCD) allows a FAR of 0.80. The proposed Project would
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-173
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
develop a light industrial warehouse at a FAR of 0.543; and would therefore be within the expected
cumulative growth under both, the previous and existing, SWIP designations; and within the cumulative
growth as evaluated in the SWIP FEIR. Thus, the Project would not generate unplanned growth that could be
cumulatively considerable. Also, as described previously in Response O1.10, the 738 employees that would
result from the proposed Project is 1.9 percent of the number of projected employees within the SWIP and
3.8 percent of the SCAG projected growth forecast for the City. Thus, the proposed Project would not result
in unplanned growth of employees that could cumulatively combine with unplanned growth of other
development projects, such as those listed in the comment. No revisions to the Draft Subsequent EIR analysis
of cumulative growth impacts are required.
Comment O1.12: This comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR does not provide any geographic
information regarding the location of available workers which can increase project VMT and increase GHG emissions. Response O1.12: The information requested is provided on page 5.6-3 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, where it states that the proposed Project would accommodate the forecasted employment in an environmentally
sustainable manner by providing job opportunities for nearby residents that would reduce vehicle miles traveled. As listed in Draft Subsequent EIR Table 5.6-1, the City of Fontana has had unemployment rates ranging between 3.6 and 9.5 percent over the last 5 years and the County’s unemployment has been slightly higher between 3.9 and 9.7 percent (EDD 2022). The Draft Subsequent EIR details that the jobs would provide new employment opportunities for people living in Fontana and the surrounding cities. Most of the new labor and office jobs that would be created by the proposed Project would be positions that are anticipated to be filled by people who would already be living within the City and surrounding communities and would not induce an unanticipated influx of new labor into the region. Providing jobs in the area is a
benefit of the proposed Project because providing jobs for local residents would help to reduce vehicle miles
traveled and the related emissions from motor vehicles.
Comment O1.13: This comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR does not include a floor plan, grading
plan, or detailed site plan for the proposed Project, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for
adequate informational documents or meaningful disclosure. Additionally, the comment states that the figures
of the plans in the Draft Subsequent EIR remove pertinent information. The comment also states that there is
no method to verify that grading work of soils would balance onsite.
Response O1.13: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a
significant environmental impact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the Project Description “should
not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for the evaluation and review of the environmental impact”.
The proposed Project is thoroughly described within Draft Subsequent EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, on
pages 3-1 through 3-18. As such, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the Project by the public
and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project
Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. Figure 3-5 provides a conceptual elevation
for the proposed building. As demonstrated by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of
San Francisco (2014) 227 CA4th 1036, 1053, the EIR’s description of the proposed Project should identify
the Project’s main features and other information needed for an analysis of the Project’s environmental
impacts. As long as the requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 are met, the Project
Description may allow for the flexibility needed to respond to changing conditions that could impact the
Project’s final design. As such, detailed plans and elevations for all buildings are not required to be included
in the Draft Subsequent EIR’s Project description and a general description of the Project and conceptual
plans are allowed. Furthermore, a differentiation in building height between 60 and 63 feet would not result
in any increased impacts within the area, which allows buildings up to 100 feet in height.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-174
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Comment O1.14: The comment refers to comments provided by SWAPE, which are included as an
attachment to the comment letter.
Response O1.14: Refer to Responses to Comments O1.15 through O1.39 in which the comments presented
by SWAPE are addressed.
Comment O1.15: This comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR does not include analysis of relevant
environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed
Project to the surrounding community. The comment states that the Project is within a census tract ranked in
the 95th percentile for ozone burden, the 94th percentile for PM2.5 burden, the 78th percentile for diesel
particulate matter burden, and the 80th percentile for traffic impacts which are all typically attributed to
heavy truck activity in the area. The comment also states that the census tract is ranks in the 96th percentile for contaminated drinking water, the 85th percentile for toxic releases, the 87th percentile for solid waste facility impacts and the 94th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts. The comment also states that the census tract consists of a diverse community that is especially vulnerable to impacts of pollution. Response O1.15: CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential environmental justice effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the Draft Subsequent EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of environmental justice. CalEnviroscreen is a general policy tool. It is generally inappropriate for CEQA review. However, the Draft Subsequent EIR provides a detailed evaluation of the
potential cumulative air quality related impacts of the proposed Project upon the surrounding community
(localized impacts) pursuant to SCAQMD methodology and thresholds, which is the appropriate due to the
project’s location within the South Coast Air Basin. The Initial Study (included as Appendix A to the Draft
Subsequent EIR) also provides a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative water supply, water quality,
hazardous waste, and solid waste impacts of the proposed Project. Regarding the existing pollution burden,
the existing air quality in the Project area is described in Draft Subsequent EIR Section 5.1, Air Quality. Table
5.1-2 provides data from the closest air quality monitoring station to the Project site (located at 14360
Arrow Boulevard, Fontana, California) between 2019 and 2021. Data from the air quality monitoring
stations indicates that the PM2.5 federal standard had 2 exceedances in 2019, 4 exceedance in 2020, and
2 exceedances in 2021. The 1-hour ozone State standard was exceeded 41 times in 2019, 56 times in
2020, and 44 times in 2021. The 8-hour ozone State standard was exceeded 67 times in 2019, 89 times
in 2020, and 81times in 2021. While the Project vicinity has experienced exceedances of State and federal
standards, the thresholds set forth by the SCAQMD are intended to be health protective and are based on
Clean Air Act standards and recommendations by the EPA. Although there has been an increase in
development in the South Coast Area Basin, emissions concentrations have declined, and air quality has
generally improved over the last 30 years largely due to cleaner air vehicles and fuel requirements.
As detailed under Impact AQ-2 in Section 5.1, Air Quality, of the Draft Subsequent EIR, pollutant emissions
associated with construction of the Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds and the Project would not
result in a net increase of a pollutant for which the region in in non-attainment. Operation of the proposed
Project would generate regional emissions that would exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold for NOx
and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the entire Basin. The Project would
implement the SWIP Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2c through 4.2-2g, and 4.2-2j to reduce the
operational NOx emissions; however, these measures would not be sufficient enough to reduce the NOx
emissions to below the SCAQMD thresholds. Neither the Project applicant nor the City have regulatory
authority to control tailpipe emissions. Thus, no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce these
emissions to levels that are less-than-significant, and impacts related to regional cumulative air quality
emissions would be significant and unavoidable, which is consistent with the determination of the SWIP SP
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-175
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
FEIR. It should be noted that these are regional emissions that would be generated throughout the
transportation network used by Project related vehicles and would not be concentrated around the Project
site. Those emissions are localized emissions, which as described previously, were determined to be under
the SCAQMD threshold and therefore, less than significant.
Also, as detailed on page 5.1-29 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, a Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment
(included as Appendix C to the Draft Subsequent EIR) was prepared to evaluate the health risk impacts as
a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks and equipment
activities from Project construction. The results of the health risk assessment determined that at the maximum
incremental cancer risk attributable to construction DPM source emissions from the proposed Project is 0.06
in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The work
receptor risk would be 0.69 in one million, which would also not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk thresholds.
As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity. An operational diesel mobile source health risk (included as Appendix C to the Draft Subsequent EIR) was also prepared to evaluate the operational health risk impacts as a result of exposure to DPM from heavy-
duty diesel trucks traveling to and from the Project site, maneuvering onsite, and entering and leaving the site during operation of the Project. The Draft Subsequent EIR details that the results of the operational health risk assessment identified that the maximum cancer risk would be 0.98 in one million for the nearby residential land uses, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. The worker receptor risk would be lower at 0.69 in one million. Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. In addition, the Draft Subsequent EIR determined that the maximum incremental cancer risk impact attributable to the Project is calculated to be 0.20 in one million at the nearest school receptors, which is less than the significance threshold of 10 in one
million. At this same location, non-cancer risks attributable to the Project were calculated to be <0.01, which
would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Therefore, all health risk levels to nearby
residents from operation-related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds and
impacts would be less than significant.
The Draft Subsequent EIR also included a long-term microscale (CO Hot Spot) analysis which determined
Project-related vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly to result in the CO concentrations
exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Therefore, as concluded in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the
Project would not impact nearby residences or schools.
Comment O1.16: This comment states that the Fair Share mitigation for the intersections with deficiencies in
LOS are not linked to a specific mitigation program. The comment explains that payment of fees is not
sufficient mitigation when there is no evidence that any mitigation will result. The comment calls for a revised
Draft Subsequent EIR to include cumulatively considerable impacts conflicts with Threshold A and Threshold
B as it is not consistent with certain General Plan and SWIP items.
Response O1.16: See Response O1.6.
Comment O1.17: This comment states the Project was incorrectly exempt from a project-specific VMT
analysis as the trip generation was compared to the entire SCD and concluded that there were less than
500 ADT trips. The comment states that this conflicts with the goals of SB 743 and that a VMT analysis is
necessary in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Response O1.17: The comment’s description of the VMT analysis from the Draft Subsequent EIR is inaccurate.
Draft Subsequent EIR Table 5.4-2 (page 5.4-10) provides a comparison of the proposed Project’s trip
generation and the trip generation identified for the site from the SWIP SP EIR traffic analysis. The
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-176
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
comparison shows that the proposed Project would generate 1,368 fewer ADT, with 216 fewer AM peak
hour trips and 217 fewer PM peak hour trips than previously anticipated from buildout of the site. Therefore,
because the Project would not generate a net increase of more than 500 ADT, it would satisfy the
requirements for Screening Criteria 4 – Net Daily Trips less than 500 ADT. Therefore, the Project would
result in a less than significant impact related to VMT. The Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines
for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment details that VMT analysis applies to
projects that have the potential to increase the average VMT per service population (e.g. population plus
employment). As the proposed Project would not generate an increase in unplanned growth (as detailed in
previous responses) and the jobs generated by the Project would be positions that are anticipated to be
filled by people who would already be living within the City and surrounding communities. Providing jobs in
the area is a benefit of the proposed Project because providing jobs for local residents would help to reduce
vehicle miles traveled and the related emissions from motor vehicles.
Refer to Response O1.3 regarding the SWIP FEIR anticipated buildout of the Project site pursuant to the previous Jurupa North Research and Development District (JND) SWIP designation that allows warehousing uses greater than the proposed density. As the proposed Project would be less than the allowable onsite density that was anticipated by the SWIP FEIR, the Project would not result in an increase of anticipated trips
from the site. As described previously, a reduction in daily trips would occur in comparison to those that were anticipated from buildout of the site. Refer to Response O1.4 regarding the consistency of the Project with the existing SWIP designation. No General Plan or SWIP amendments are required for the proposed Project. Comment O1.18: This comment states that because the Project site previously had a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, the Projects trips were not included in the SWIP EIR’s calculation of 12,106 average daily trips in the SCD. The trips associated with the proposed Project would be new information
that was not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIR was certified thus the Project EIR
must include a project-specific VMT analysis.
Response O1.18: See Response O1.3, Response O1.4, and Response O1.17. The previous Jurupa North
Research and Development District (JND) SWIP designation allows warehousing uses greater than the
proposed density. As the proposed Project would be less than the allowable onsite density that was
anticipated by the SWIP FEIR, the Project would not result in an increase of anticipated trips from the site.
Conversely, a reduction in daily trips would occur in comparison to those that were anticipated from buildout
of the site pursuant to the SWIP.
Comment O1.19: This comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR does not adequately analyze the
Projects potential impacts regarding hazards due to a geometric design feature. The comment explains that
there are areas of overlap between truck movements and an inadequate depiction of the onsite turning
radius for truck moving through the site.
Response O1.19: The driveways along Hemlock Avenue and Beech Avenue would be 50-feet wide and
developed to truck access standards, and there are no unique bends or obstacles along Hemlock Avenue or
Beech Avenue. The onsite circulation design provides truck accessibility and turning ability throughout the
site. Therefore, there is no geometric design feature that would prevent trucks or result in impacts from trucks
accessing the site. In addition, the plans provided in the Draft Subsequent EIR are conceptual plans. Should
the Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s
engineering staff prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable turning
and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code
requirements, as included in the City’s Municipal Code (Sections 5-425 and 5-61). Thus, no impacts related
to hazards due to a geometric design feature would occur from the proposed Project.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-177
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Comment O1.20: This comment states that there are no exhibits depicting emergency vehicle access and the
Draft Subsequent EIR defers the analysis of emergency vehicle access to the Project site.
Response O1.20: Figure 3-4, Proposed Conceptual Site Plan, depicts emergency vehicle access to the site.
As detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Project would provide emergency access to the
site from a 50-foot-wide driveway along Hemlock Avenue and a 50-foot-wide driveway along Beech
Avenue within the northern portion of the site, and two 40-foot-wide driveways within the southern portion
of the site from Hemlock Avenue and Beech Avenue. As detailed in Response O1.19, the proposed onsite
conceptual circulation design provides emergency vehicle accessibility and turning ability throughout the site
and does not identify potential significant environmental impacts. Should the Project be approved, design
level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to
issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable emergency access standards are
met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements, as included in the City’s Municipal Code (Sections 5-425 and 5-61). This is not a deferral of analysis, but the City’s standard development review and permitting process to ensure that all applicable design requirements are met, including emergency access.
Comment O1.21: This comment states that the Project has not provided any analysis of horizontal and vertical sight distance at the intersection of Project driveways and adjacent streets. Response O1.21: Issues related to horizontal and vertical sight distance are design level civil engineering issues that are verified by the City’s engineering division during permitting of development projects and are regulated by the California Fire and Building Codes, which are included in the City’s Municipal Code as detailed previously. The Project site currently has four driveways, two along Hemlock Avenue and two along
Beech Avenue. The proposed Project would redevelop the driveways, providing greater distance between
driveways along the site frontages that would separate truck and vehicle circulation and provide adequate
site distance.
As detailed on Figure 3-4, Proposed Conceptual Site Plan, the driveways would provide site distance via a
20-foot minimum setback to the screening wall along Hemlock Avenue and a 25-foot minimum setback to
the screening wall along Beech Avenue. This proposed conceptual design does not identify potential
significant environmental impacts. The City’s traffic engineering would review and approve plans prior to
issuance of construction-related permitting to ensure that all applicable sight distance standards are met.
Thus, potential impacts related to geometric designs that involve site distance would not occur.
Comment O1.22: The comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR must include a cumulative analysis of
the impact of the proposed Project in combination with previous projects since 2016 and projects “in the
pipeline” to determine if the Project would result in a cumulative exceedance of employment and population
growth forecasts.
Response O1.22: See Response O1.9.
Comment O1.23: The comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR must include a cumulative analysis of
the impact of the proposed Project in combination with previous projects since 2016 and projects “in the
pipeline” to determine if the Project would result in a cumulative exceedance of employment and population
growth forecasts.
Response O1.23: See response O1.11.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-178
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Comment O1.24: This comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR does not evaluate a reasonable range
of alternatives and should include alternatives such as a project that reduces the Projects significant and
unavoidable impacts or a mixed use project that provides affordable housing and local-serving commercial
uses that would reduce impacts.
Response O1.24: The DEIR included a comprehensive analysis of Project Alternatives as required by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6. The “range of alternatives” to be evaluated is governed by the “rule of reason”
and feasibility, which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives that are feasible and necessary to
permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) emphasizes
that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce impacts relative to the
proposed project.
As detailed in DEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, the proposed Project is consistent with the SWIP designation for the site and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality (operational NOx emissions from vehicle exhaust) and greenhouse gas emissions (also from operational vehicles). Two alternatives (Alternate Site Alternative and Alternative Land Use Alternative) were considered but ultimately
rejected due to their infeasibility and lack of ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while still meeting Project objectives. Instead, a No Project/No Build Existing Site Use Alternative, a Reduced Intensity Alternative, and SWIP Buildout Alternative was considered, all of which are consistent with the SWIP. As such, the alternatives utilized by the EIR (No Project/No Build Existing Site Use Alternative, a Reduced Intensity Alternative, and SWIP Buildout Alternative) provide a reasonable range of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The Project site is not designated for mixed-uses or housing. Thus, any alternative related to mixed-uses and housing would require a SWIP amendment. In addition, as detailed in Draft Subsequent EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, the site is developed with light industrial uses and
surrounded by light industrial, heavy manufacturing, and trucking related uses (detailed in Table 4-1), which
is consistent with the Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD) designation of the area, as shown
in Figure 4-1. The existing and planned SCD uses are not consistent with housing; and new housing on the
site would likely be impacted by surrounding industrial uses; and provision of housing and local-serving
commercial uses are not consistent with the Project Objectives (as listed on page 6-3). Thus, a mixed-use
housing related alternative was not included, and is not required to be included, in the Draft Subsequent EIR
alternatives evaluation.
Comment O1.25: This comment states that the commentor believes the Draft Subsequent EIR is flawed and
a revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed Project and circulated for public review. The commentor
requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public
notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this Project.
Response O1.25: The comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise any specific concerns with the
adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR or raise any other specific CEQA issue. As substantiated by the
responses above and below, none of the conditions arise which would require recirculation of the Draft
Subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact
would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no
substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation
measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of
the proposed Project, and the Draft Subsequent EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in
nature.
Comment O1.26: This comment states that SWAPE has reviewed the Draft Subsequent EIR and states that
the EIR fails to adequately evaluate the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts and suggests
that a revised EIR be prepared.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-179
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Response O1.26: This comment is general in nature and does not provide any substantial evidence that the
Project would result in a significant environmental impact. As substantiated by the responses above and
below, none of the conditions arise which would require recirculation of the Draft Subsequent EIR pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project
or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity
of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different
from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the
Draft Subsequent EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.
Comment O1.27: This comment states that the CalEEMod default data was changed for modeling of the
proposed Project and that CEQA requires such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The comment states that when default values in the program are changed, output files are produced which disclose to the
reader which values within the program have been changed.
Response O1.27: The comment is informational in nature and does not raise any specific concerns with the
adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR or raise any other specific CEQA issue. It is typical that default
CalEEMod data is revised, so that the modeling accurately depicts construction and/or operation of each
proposed Project. No revisions per this comment are required and no further response is required or
provided.
Comment O1.28: This comment states that CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-
specific information and that the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but
CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The comment states that once all of
the values are inputted into the model, the project’s construction and operational emissions are calculated,
and “output files” are generated that disclose what parameters are utilized in calculating the project’s air
pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for
the values selected. The comment claims that CalEEMod version 2022.1 is relied upon to estimate project
emissions, which poses a problem as the currently available version of CalEEMod 2022.1 is described as a
“soft release” which fails to provide complete output files. Further, the comment states that the “User Changes
to Default Data” table no longer provides the quantitative counterparts to the changes to the default values
and that previous CalEEMod Versions, such as 2020.4.0, include the specific numeric changes to the model’s
default values. The commenter claims that to remedy this issue, the Draft Subsequent EIR should have
provided access to the model’s “.JSON” output files, which allow third parties to review the model’s revised
input parameters.
Response O1.28: The commenter is incorrect that CalEEMod 2022.1 is a “soft release”. As indicated in the
CalEEMod release notes, CalEEMod version 2022.1 was approved for full launch on 12/21/2022 and the
“soft release” message was removed2. As such, CalEEMod version 2022.1 is appropriate for use and the
analysis is adequate as presented.
In addition, as discussed on pages 10 and 11 of the CalEEMod User’s Guide for CalEEMod version 2022.1,
CalEEMod was designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project-specific
information when available. Thus, modifications to CalEEMod defaults are used when more detailed
information is known about the project such as the construction timeline and the mix of equipment use.
Modifications made to the CalEEMod defaults as a part of this Project were done in order to provide an
accurate snapshot of the Project’s construction and operational details. Modifications to defaults and the
explanations are noted in the output report. Pages 32 and 33 of the CalEEMod outputs (Appendix 3.1 of
2 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Release Notes. Website: https://www.caleemod.com/release-
notes (accessed September 2022).
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-180
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
the Air Quality Impact Analysis) identifies the user changes that were made CalEEMod. The “.JSON” files
are input files, not output files. As such, all output files were included in Appendix 3.1 of the Air Quality
Impact Analysis.
Comment O1.29: This comment states that the construction schedule was altered without justification and
asserts that by altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths, the model assumes
there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the extended phases
resulting in less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day.
Response O1.29: The Project’s construction duration in CalEEMod was based on the Project’s anticipated
construction schedule, as provided by the applicant, shown in Table 3-2 in the Project Description of the Draft
Subsequent EIR, which assumes that construction would be completed in 15 months. As such, the Project's construction schedule in CalEEMod is consistent with the Project Description. This is consistent with the instructions in the CalEEMod User’s Guide that directs the user to use site-specific phasing. As discussed in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, pages 33 through 35, the construction tab contains default information obtained from a survey of construction sites with a range of project types and sizes and provides default construction
equipment lists and phase length data based on the total lot acreage of a project. The User’s Guide states that if the user has more detailed site-specific equipment and phase information, the user should override the default values. The analysis properly relied on Project-specific construction phases that accurately reflect the required construction activities necessary for Project buildout. The commenter has not provided any supporting documentation as to why the construction assumptions used in the analysis would not be representative of the Project’s construction. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or
provided.
Comment O1.30: This comment states that the use of coatings and solvents with a low VOC content is not
substantiated as The SCAQMD Rule 1113 VOC limits varies greatly and there is no information on what
category of coating would be used. In addition, the CalEEMod output files do not provide the architectural
emissions factors used in the model.
Response O1.30: The commentor asserts that the air quality modeling and related application of CalEEMod
is deficient, which is incorrect. All Project air quality modeling has been conducted in conformance with
SCAQMD requirements and applicable CalEEMod protocols, including modeling of VOCs. SCAQMD (the
CEQA Responsible Agency for air quality considerations) has been provided all air quality modeling input
and outputs, as detailed in Responses A1.1 and A2.1. SCAQMD has not found the VOC modeling in
CalEEMod to be deficient in any manner.
The commentor states that supporting air quality modeling has not been provided. This is inaccurate.
Complete and accurate modeling of the Project air pollutant emissions is provided as Appendix 3.1 of the
Draft Subsequent EIR Appendix B. Modeling of Project air quality impacts reflects characteristics and
attributes of this specific Project and its context. Any and all modeling inputs are consistent with applicable
CalEEMod parameters and SCAQMD guidance and reflect extensive practical experience of the Project air
quality expert. The intent of the Project air quality modeling is to establish a likely maximum impact scenario
available to decision-makers for their consideration when evaluating the Project and its potential
environmental impacts. Further, the excerpt provided in the comment identifies the square footage of the
existing baseline use from the operational run and is not representative of the proposed Project.
Comment O1.31: This comment states that the commenter prepared an updated CalEEMod model, using the
Project-specific information provided by the Draft Subsequent EIR, omitting the changes to architectural
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-181
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
coating emissions factor and altered the construction phases lengths to match the proposed construction
schedule and states that VOC emissions would increase by approximately 708 percent and exceed the
applicable significance threshold resulting in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not
previously identified or addressed in the Draft Subsequent EIR.
Response O1.31: The commenter removed the Project specific information to generate a false potential
impact and removed compliance with existing regulations that would be required pursuant to construction
permitting, as required to reduce potential impacts to the environment. Modeling the Project over an artificial
timeline and without compliance with existing regulations, such as provided by the Comment, is not an
accurate representation of the Project. As detailed in Draft Subsequent EIR Section 5.1.2.3, various
regulations related to architectural coatings are required for construction, including SCAQMD Rule 481
Spray Coatings, Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings, and Rule 1143, Paint Thinners and Solvents. These
regulations reduce VOC emissions to avoid the types of environmental impacts identified by the comment, and compliance is verified through the City’s construction permitting and inspection process. Additionally, SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b requires that contractors conform to SCAQMD construction measures (such as Rule 481, Rule 1113, and Rule 1143). Thus, further incorporating the VOC reducing standards into the Project process. In addition, SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1c requires that all
paints and coatings meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113 and that projects shall use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required under AQMD Rule 1113, construct or build with materials that do not require painting and require the use of pre-painted construction materials. Therefore, it is appropriate to include emissions reductions from compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113 in the CalEEMod of the proposed Project. As detailed in Table 5.1-9, Maximum Peak Construction Emissions Without Mitigation, construction of the proposed Project would not exceed thresholds for VOCs or any other criteria pollutant without consideration of required mitigation measures.
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1d requires the Project to apply paints either by hand or high-volume
low pressure (HVLP) spray that may reduce VOCs by 60 to 75 percent; or, the contractor may specify the
use of low volatility paints and coatings. SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1d details that several
currently available primers have VOC contents of less than 0.85 pounds per gallon (e.g., dulux professional
exterior primer 100 percent acrylic), and topcoats can be less than 0.07 pounds per gallon (8 grams per
liter) (e.g., Lifemaster 2000-series). This latter measure would reduce these VOC emissions by more than 70
percent. SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1d requires larger projects, such as the proposed Project, to
incorporate both the use of HVLP or hand application and the requirement for low volatility coatings.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would further ensure that impacts related to VOCs would not
occur. Therefore, the proposed Project would not exceed VOC thresholds and no additional mitigation
measures are required.
Comment O1.32: This comment states that warehouse developments disproportionately impact communities
of color, and the proposed Project would worsen air quality conditions in an area that is already in the 81st
percentile of highest cancer risk in the South Coast Air Basin. The comment also states that San Bernardino
County has the worst ozone pollution in the nation, which has a disproportionate impact on children. The
comment requests a revised Draft Subsequent EIR to evaluate the disproportionate impacts the proposed
warehouse would bring to the community, including children and people of color. The comment also requests
a revised cumulative health assessment to quantify the effects of all the warehouses in the area.
Response O1.32: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a
significant environmental impact. Regarding the existing pollution burden, the existing air quality in the
Project area is described in Draft Subsequent EIR Section 5.1, Air Quality. Table 5.1-2 provides data from
the Central San Bernardino 1 monitoring station that is located approximately 3.68 miles northwest of the
Project site and details that in 2021 there were 44 days that exceeded the state ozone standard and 81
days that exceeded the federal standard. In addition, 4 days exceeded the PM10 state standard and 2
days exceeded the federal standard for PM2.5. However, ambient air quality standards (NAAQS and
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-182
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
CAAQS) were exceeded on one or more days for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 at most monitoring locations
throughout the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). CalEnviroscreen is a general policy too and it is generally
inappropriate for CEQA review. Refer to Response 01.15 regarding the Draft Subsequent EIR evaluation of
potential localized impacts to the area surrounding the Project site.
Comment O1.33: This comment asserts that the health risk assessment (HRA) is flawed due to the inputting
of several purportedly incorrect values into the CalEEMod analysis. In addition, the comments claim that the
Draft Subsequent EIR underestimates the exposure assumptions for fraction of time at home, and that the
HRA uses the incorrect equation that does not include Age Sensitivity Factors when calculating the Project’s
cancer risks, and is therefore inconsistent with guidance set forth by the Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).
Response O1.33: As detailed in Section 5.1, Air Quality, of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the HRA that was completed for the Project provides the appropriate conservative analysis pursuant to SCAQMD, CARB, and OEHHA recommended methodology. Per OEHHA methodology, the HRA included refinements to identify potential effects to smaller human body weights and breathing rates to assess risk to children, which was
done as detailed in the methodology provided on page 20 of the HRA (Appendix C of the Draft Subsequent EIR). In addition, the HRA provides a conservative analysis by evaluating the closest receptors with the maximum potential emissions and continuous exposure (24-hours per day). Thus, stringent significance thresholds and methodology that is consistent with resource agency direction was utilized in the Draft Subsequent EIR to determine potential impacts to residents and school children, which determined that impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required. The thresholds utilized were based on the City’s discretion (as Lead Agency) and are supported by substantial evidence from SCAQMD, CARB, and OEHHA.
Comment O1.34: This comment states that while the commenter agrees with the significant and unavoidable
GHG impact, the Draft Subsequent EIR fails to review all possible mitigation measures. The commenter also
states that they have provided additional mitigation measures later in the comment letter.
Response O1.34: As discussed in Section 5.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 78 percent of GHG emissions would
be generated from employee vehicles and trucks accessing the site that neither the Project applicants nor
the City have the ability to reduce emissions from. The emissions from the Project site would be consistent
with what is analyzed for the Project site in the SWIP EIR. The proposed Project would include SWIP
Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2c, 4.2-2d, 4.2-2e, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2g, 4.2-2j, 4.2-2k, and 4.2-5a, which
includes measures to provide alternate modes of transportation and encourage carpooling, using energy
efficient appliances, installing solar infrastructure in compliance with Municipal Code. In addition, the Project
would occur pursuant to the requirements of the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial
Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards, that require the proposed building to install rooftop solar
panels that supply 100 percent of the power need for non-refrigerated building space; and install electric
plug-ins at all loading dock positions that would be utilized by trucks fitted with transport refrigeration units
(TRUs). As the impact is related to vehicle emissions that cannot be controlled by the Project applicant or
City, there is no nexus for additional mitigation measures as they would not significantly reduce the Project
impacts beyond what has already been mitigated.
Comment O1.35: This comment states that the commenter’s analysis shows that Air Quality and GHG impacts
would be potentially significant and provides a list of mitigation measures found in the California Department
of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document.
Response O1.35: As described previously in Response O1.5 and Response O1.15, implementation of the
proposed Project would not exceed thresholds related to DPM and LSTs, and impacts related to human
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-183
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
health, cancer risks, and localized air quality would be less than significant. Thus, additional mitigation to
reduce DMP or localized emissions is not required.
The Project would implement existing regulations and the SWIP FEIR mitigation measures related to air
quality and greenhouse gas emissions, many of which are consistent with the comment’s recommended
measures. The Table below compares the comment’s recommended measure with the measures currently
applied to the Project. As detailed below, many of the recommended measures are required to be
implemented by existing regulations and/or are included in SWIP SP Final EIR mitigation measures. The
measures that are not included are either not applicable to the Project, not required as Project impacts
related to the recommended measure would not occur, or because the Project applicant and the City do not
have the authority to require the measure and therefore are infeasible, as detailed below.
Comment’s Recommended Measure Project Inclusion/Applicability
Requiring off-road construction equipment to be zero-emission, where available, and all diesel fueled off-road construction equipment, to be equipped with CARB Tier
IV-compliant engines or better, and including this
requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase
orders, and contracts, with successful contractors
demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant
construction equipment for use prior to any ground-
disturbing and construction activities.
The City of Fontana Chapter 9, Section V, Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability, requires all construction equipment to meet or exceed CARB Tier 4
Interim emission standards, which would be verified
during the City’s construction permitting process. Table
5.1-9 of the Draft Subsequent EIR shows that construction
emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, and
that impacts would be less than significant. Thus, there is
no nexus to provide additional measures such as
requiring off-road construction equipment to be zero-emission.
Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from
being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per
day.
Diesel-powered equipment is not anticipated to be in the
“on” position for more than 10 hours per day. As
detailed, on page 42 of Appendix B of the Subsequent
Draft EIR, the Project Equipment is anticipated to be on a maximum of 8 hours per day, which is more than two-thirds of the period during which construction activities
are allowed pursuant to the Municipal Code. In addition,
Table 5.1-9 of the Draft Subsequent EIR shows that
construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD
thresholds, and that impacts would be less than
significant. Thus, there is no nexus to provide additional
measures such as prohibiting equipment usage.
Using electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure
washers, and providing electrical hook ups to the power
grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled generators to
supply power.
As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V:
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards,
requires onsite motorized equipment to be zero
emissions.
Designating an area in the construction site where
electric-powered construction vehicles and equipment
can charge.
This may be included by the City in construction
permitting requirements. However, Table 5.1-9 of the
Draft Subsequent EIR shows that construction emissions
would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, and that impacts
would be less than significant. Thus, there is no nexus to provide additional measures such as requiring electric-
powered construction vehicles and equipment.
Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area. As detailed on page 5.1-28 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
the proposed Project would disturb a maximum of 4
acres per day during grading activities.
Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index
forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone
for the project area.
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1f requires
scheduling activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-
stage smog alerts, discontinuing operation during
second-stage smog alerts, and not grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-184
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Comment’s Recommended Measure Project Inclusion/Applicability
Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than
three minutes.
As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V:
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards,
prohibits idling for more than three minutes.
Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or
other regulators upon request, all equipment
maintenance records and data sheets, including design
specifications and emission control tier classifications.
This measure would be required as part of
implementation of the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter
9, Section V: Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability
Standards that requires the use of equipment that meets or exceeds CARB Tier 4 Interim emission standards. This measure would be implemented as part of meeting Project inspection permitting requirements.
Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance
with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts.
This measure is implemented through the City’s standard
on-site construction inspections and permitting processes.
Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial
maintenance coatings that have volatile organic
compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
This measure is included in SWIP Mitigation Measures
4.2-1c and 4.2-1d, as listed on pages 5.1-33 and 5.1-
34 of the Draft Subsequent EIR.
Providing information on transit and ridesharing
programs and services to construction employees.
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2a requires the
Project Applicant to provide incentives to use mass transit
including the placement of bus stop shelters along major
thoroughfares if not so equipped.
Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the
facility and nearby meal destinations for construction
employees.
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2e requires
industrial areas to incorporate food service.
Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles engaged in drayage
to or from the project site to be zero-emission beginning
in 2030.
The Project applicant and the City do not have the
authority to require future tenants and vendors to utilize
heavy-duty vehicles for trips to and from the site that are
zero-emissions. Thus, this measure is infeasible.
Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard
trucks, to be electric with the necessary electrical
charging stations provided.
As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V:
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards,
requires onsite motorized operational equipment to be
zero emissions.
Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and
medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V:
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards,
requires onsite motorized operational equipment to be
zero emissions.
Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including
signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying
idling restrictions and contact information to report
violations to CARB, the air district, and the building
manager.
As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V:
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards,
requires signs and pavement markings to clearly identify
truck routes and SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-
2c requires signage related to idling restrictions.
Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s
recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration
systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of
facility for the life of the project.
There is no nexus to provide additional measures such as
air filtration systems at sensitive receptors near the
Project, as impacts related to localized emissions and
health risks would be less than significant as previously
detailed. Thus, this measure is not included or required for the proposed Project.
Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s
recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring
station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of
a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community
There is no nexus to provide additional measures such as
an air monitoring station near the Project, as impacts
related to localized emissions would be less than significant as previously detailed. Also, as described in Response O.1.32, the Central San Bernardino 1 monitoring station is located approximately 3.68 miles
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-185
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Comment’s Recommended Measure Project Inclusion/Applicability
by providing information that can be used to improve air
quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
northwest of the Project site. This measure is not included
or required for the proposed Project.
Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of
a specified electrical generation capacity that is equal
to or greater than the building’s projected energy needs,
including all electrical chargers.
As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V:
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards,
requires the proposed Project to install rooftop solar
panels that supply 100 percent of the power need for
non-refrigerated building space.
Designing all project building roofs to accommodate the
maximum future coverage of solar panels and installing
the maximum solar power generation capacity feasible.
As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V:
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards,
requires the proposed Project to install rooftop solar
panels that supply 100 percent of the power need for non-refrigerated building space.
Constructing zero-emission truck charging/fueling
stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the
project.
The Project does not include onsite truck charging stations.
However, the Project would install rooftop solar panels
that supply 100 percent of the power need for non-refrigerated building space and electric plug-ins at all loading dock positions that would be utilized by trucks fitted with transport refrigeration units (TRUs).
Running conduit to designated locations for future electric
truck charging stations.
No future electric truck charging stations are included in
the proposed Project. The Project would meet the City’s Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards regarding vehicle charging infrastructure.
Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the
title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and
requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration
units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks.
The proposed Project includes, and the Draft Subsequent
EIR evaluates (as detailed on page 3-9), that the Project would include storage of refrigerated goods within 220,500 SF of the warehouse. As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Fontana Municipal
Code Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial Commerce Centers
Sustainability Standards, requires the proposed Project
to install electric plug-ins at all loading dock positions to
be utilized by trucks fitted with transport refrigeration
units.
Oversizing electrical rooms by 25 percent or providing
a secondary electrical room to accommodate future
expansion of electric vehicle charging capability.
As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V:
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards,
requires the proposed Project to install rooftop solar
panels that supply 100 percent of the power need for
non-refrigerated building space. The Project is planned to meet the maximum electricity requirements and the
need for future expansions of electrical rooms would not
be required.
Constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of employee parking spaces (for example, requiring at
least 10% of all employee parking spaces to be
equipped with electric vehicle charging stations of at
least Level 2 charging performance)
As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards,
requires at least 10 percent of all passenger vehicle
parking spaces to be EV ready.
Running conduit to an additional proportion of employee
parking spaces for a future increase in the number of
electric light-duty charging stations.
As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V:
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards,
requires at least 10 percent of all passenger vehicle
parking spaces to be EV ready. Additional areas for
future charging would not be required.
Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be
powered by a non-diesel fuel.
As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V:
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-186
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Comment’s Recommended Measure Project Inclusion/Applicability
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards,
requires onsite motorized operational equipment to be
zero emissions.
Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards,
including all provisions related to designated parking for
clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle
parking.
The Project would be required to meet the Fontana
Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial
Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards that includes
many CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards. As
detailed on page 3-9 of the Draft Subsequent EIR parking spaces include bicycle racks, electric vehicle, vanpool, and accessible spaces.
Designing to LEED green building certification standards. The Project would be required to meet the Fontana
Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial
Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards that includes many LEED green building standards.
Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the
facility and nearby meal destinations.
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2e requires the
industrial area to incorporate food service.
Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing
directional information to the truck route.
As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V:
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards,
requires signs and pavement markings to clearly identify
truck routes.
Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy
for residents in and around the project area.
The Project includes installation of vegetative barriers
that separate the Project site from offsite areas. As
detailed on page 3-9 of the Draft Subsequent EIR,
landscaping would be focused along the perimeters of
the site, building exterior, and screen walls. A variety of trees, shrubs, accents, and groundcover would be planted. The conceptual landscape plan is shown in Draft EIR Figure 3-6.
Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of
keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB approved courses. Also require facility operators to
maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and
make records available for inspection by the local
jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.
The Project’s operational permitting may require CARB
compliance training and vehicle record keeping to demonstrate compliance with existing regulations. This determination is part of the City’s development review
and operational permitting process. This consists of
ensuring compliance with existing regulations and does
not consist of a mitigation measure.
Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program
and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay
carriers.
The Project applicant and the City do not have the authority to require future tenants and vendors to enroll
into these programs. Thus, this measure is infeasible.
Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher
Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.
The future operational permitting requirements may include provision of trucking fleet incentives. However,
the Project applicant and the City do not have the
authority to require future tenants and vendors to enroll
into incentive programs; and fleet upgrades are
generally driven by existing SCAG and CARB emissions
requirements. Further, there is no nexus related to a
reduction in impacts to require this recommendation to be
included as a mitigation measure.
Comment O1.36: This comment states that as it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy
resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to California end-use
customers by December 31, 2045, the comment emphasizes the energy mix that will charge the batteries
and power electrical equipment must be 100 percent renewable energy sources.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-187
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Response O1.36: As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Fontana Municipal Code
Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards, requires the proposed Project
to install rooftop solar panels to supply 100 percent of the power need for non-refrigerated building space.
Thus, solar power would be generated onsite and incorporated into the Project design. The sources of
electricity for retail sales within the State is not related to the proposed Project. The comment provides the
commenter’s opinion and does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent
EIR. Also, the comment provides no substantial evidence of a potentially significant impact. Therefore, no
further response is required or provided.
Comment O1.37: This comment states that a revised Draft Subsequent EIR should be prepared to include all
feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality, health risk and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. Response O1.37: As substantiated by the previous responses above and below, none of the conditions arise which would require recirculation of the Draft Subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Comment O1.38: This comment states that the commenter has received limited discovery regarding the Project, additional information may become available in the future; and the commentor retains the right to
revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available.
Response O1.38: The comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise any specific concerns with the
adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is
required.
Comment O1.39: These are attachments to the comment letter that provide multiple CalEEMod model runs
used to substantiate the comments provided and responded to above and provides resumes of SWAPE
professionals who provided the SWAPE comments.
Response O1.39: This comment provides modeling used to substantiate previous comments that were
responded to above. The comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the Draft
Subsequent EIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 2.0 Response to Comments
City of Fontana 2-188
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 3.0 Revisions to the Draft Subsequent EIR
City of Fontana 3-1
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Chapter 3.0 Revisions to the Draft Subsequent EIR
This section contains revisions to the Draft Subsequent EIR based upon: (1) clarifications required to prepare
a response to a specific comment; and/or (2) typographical errors. The provision of these changes and
additional information does not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the Draft Subsequent
EIR. Changes made to the Draft Subsequent EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and
in double underline text to signify additions.
REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS AND CITY CHANGES
TO TEXT
The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the Draft Subsequent EIR and corrections identified by the City.
Chapter 1.0, Executive Summary
The second full paragraph on page 1-12 is deleted as follows: SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2b: All “large-scale” (e.g., over 10 acres per day) project Applicants
shall incorporate a bike/walking path between these shelters, the proposed residential areas, and the
proposed commercial areas. These paths shall be lit and configured so as to avoid potential conflict with
roadways and railroad activities.
The second paragraph on page 1-21 is revised as follows:
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2c, 4.2-2d, 4.2-2e, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2g, 4.2-2j, and 4.2-2k
through 4.2-2j: As listed previously in Section 5.1, Air Quality.
Chapter 3.0, Project Description
The first set of bullet points on page 3-11 is revised as follows:
The discretionary actions to be considered by the City as part of the proposed Project include:
Design Review
Tentative Parcel Map to merge the parcels and right-of-way dedication for Hemlock Avenue and
Beech Avenue
Development Agreement (DA)
The last bullet point on page 3-11 is revised as follows:
In addition, the proposed industrial development will require ministerial approvals by other agencies that
include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Regional Water Quality Control Board and City for approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan and a Water Quality Management Plan
• South Coast Air Quality Management District construction and operational permits
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 3.0 Revisions to the Draft Subsequent EIR
City of Fontana 3-2
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Chapter 5.1, Air Quality
The second sentence of the third paragraph on page 5.1-23 is revised as follows:
As detailed below in Impact AQ-2, the proposed Project would result in regional operational-source
emissions that would exceed the thresholds of significance for NOX emissions after implementation of
requirements and SWIP SP FEIR mitigation measures that are applicable to the Project Mitigation Measure
4.2-1a through SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2l; and therefore, would result in an increase in the
frequency or severity of existing air quality violations and contribute to new violations or delay the timely
attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
The second sentence of the second paragraph on page 5.1-25 is revised as follows:
In addition, the Project would be required to implement the SWIP mitigation measures related to air quality,
which include Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a through 4.2-2i (as listed in Section 5.1.11).
The second sentence on page 5.1-26 is revised as follows:
The Project would implement the SWIP Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2c through 4.2-2g, and 4.2-2j and 4.2-2ki to reduce the operational NOx emissions; however, these measures would not be sufficient enough to reduce the NOx emissions to below the SCAQMD thresholds.
The third sentence of the first full paragraph on page 5.1-27 is revised as follows:
An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the State’s one-hour
standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. The 2003 AQMP estimated traffic
volumes that could generate CO concentrations to result in a “hot spot”. As shown on Table 5.2-110, the
busiest intersection had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, and the 1-hour
CO concentration was 4.6 ppm.
The last paragraph on page 5.1-27 is revised as follows:
As summarized on Table 5.1-12 below, the highest trips on a segment of road in the Project study area
during AM and PM traffic is 4,013 4,083 vehicles per hour (vph) and 3,904 4,273 vph, respectively, on
Cherry Citrus Avenue and the I-10 EB Ramps Slover Avenue. Operation of the proposed Project would result
in 1,598 2,476 trips per day, which includes 137 157 AM peak hour trips and 145 183 PM peak hour trips.
These trips would not result in daily traffic volumes of 100,000 vehicles per day or more. As such, Project-
related traffic volumes are less than the traffic volumes identified in the 2003 AQMP; and are not high
enough to generate a CO “hot spot”. Therefore, impacts related to CO “hot spots” from operation of the
proposed Project would be less than significant.
The Project Applicability for the first mitigation measure on page 5.1-35 is revised as follows:
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2b: All “large-scale” (e.g., over 10 acres per day) project Applicants
shall incorporate a bike/walking path between these shelters, the proposed residential areas, and the
proposed commercial areas. These paths shall be lit and configured so as to avoid potential conflict with
roadways and railroad activities.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measure 4.2-2b is not applicable to the proposed Project and
would be included in the Project MMRP because the Project does not include residential and commercial
structures.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 3.0 Revisions to the Draft Subsequent EIR
City of Fontana 3-3
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Chapter 5.2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The second sentence of the first paragraph on page 5.2-14 is revised as follows:
The proposed Project would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e /yr. Although, SWIP Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-
2c, 4.2-2d, 4.2-2e, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2g, 4.2-2j, 4.2-2k through 4.2-2j, and 4.2-5a would be implemented to
require implementation of various measures to reduce GHG emissions.
The first sentence of Section 5.2.10, Mitigation Measures, on page 5.2-20 is revised as follows:
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2c, 4.2-2d, 4.2-2e, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2g, 4.2-2j, and 4.2-2k
through 4.2-2j: As listed previously in Section 5.1, Air Quality.
Proposed Project Applicability: Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2c, 4.2-2d, 4.2-2e, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2g, 4.2-2j,
and 4.2-2k through 4.2-2j are applicable to the proposed Project and would be included in the Project
MMRP.
Chapter 5.6, Mandatory Findings of Significance
The second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 5.6.1., Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, on
page 5.6-1 is revised as follows:
The Project would implement the SWIP FEIR Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a, 4.2-2c through 4.2-2g, and SWIP
SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2jl that would reduce the operational NOx emissions; however, these
measures would not be sufficient enough to reduce the NOx emissions to below the SCAQMD thresholds.
The third and fourth sentences of the fourth paragraph of Section 5.6.1., Significant and Unavoidable
Impacts, on page 5.6-1 is revised as follows:
Although, SWIP Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2c, 4.2-2d, 4.2-2e, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2g, 4.2-2j, 4.2-2k through
4.2-2j, and 4.2-5a would be implemented to require implementation of various measures to reduce GHG
emissions,. Tthe large majority (78 percent) of GHG emissions would be generated by Project vehicles that
neither Project applicants nor the City have the ability to reduce emissions of.
Chapter 6.0, Alternatives
The second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 6.2., Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, on
page 6-2 is revised as follows:
The Project would implement the SWIP FEIR Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a, 4.2-2c through 4.2-2g, and SWIP
SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2jl that would reduce the operational NOx emissions; however, these
measures would not be sufficient enough to reduce the NOx emissions to below the SCAQMD thresholds.
The third and fourth sentences of the fourth paragraph of Section 6.2., Significant and Unavoidable
Impacts, on page 6-2 is revised as follows:
Although, SWIP Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2c, 4.2-2d, 4.2-2e, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2g, 4.2-2j, 4.2-2k through
4.2-2j, and 4.2-5a would be implemented to require implementation of various measures to reduce GHG
emissions,. Tthe large majority (78 percent) of GHG emissions would be generated by Project vehicles that
neither Project applicants nor the City have the ability to reduce emissions of.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 3.0 Revisions to the Draft Subsequent EIR
City of Fontana 3-4
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
The first sentence of the last paragraph on page 6-7 is revised as follows:
The No Project/No Build Existing Site Use Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable
impacts related to air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation that would occur from
implementation of the proposed Project.
The first sentence of the last paragraph on page 6-12 is revised as follows:
This alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, and
greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project.
The fourth paragraph on page 6-13 is revised as follows:
However, significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation would
continue to occur from implementation of this alternative. This alternative would reduce potential impacts
related to air quality and tribal cultural resources compared to the proposed Project; but the mitigation
required for implementation of the proposed Project would continue to be required. The volume of impacts
would be reduced by the Reduced Intensity Alternative in comparison to the proposed Project and would be
less than the other alternatives evaluated herein, as detailed in Table 6-3. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity
Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, the Reduced Intensity Alternative
would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project to greenhouse gas
emissions or transportation or eliminate the need for mitigation.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-1 Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Chapter 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead or public agency that approves or carries
out a project for which an Mitigated Negative Declaration has been certified which identifies one or more
significant adverse environmental effects and where findings with respect to changes or alterations in the
project have been made, to adopt a “…reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project
which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects
on the environment” (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.6).
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required to ensure that adopted mitigation
measures are successfully implemented. The City of Fontana is the Lead Agency for the project and is
responsible for implementation of the MMRP. This report describes the MMRP for the Project and identifies
the parties that will be responsible for monitoring implementation of the individual mitigation measures in
the MMRP.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The MMRP for the Project will be active through all phases of the Project, including design, construction, and
operation. The attached table identifies the mitigation program required to be implemented by the City for
the Project. The table identifies mitigation measures required by the City to mitigate or avoid significant
impacts associated with the implementation of the Project, the timing of implementation, and the responsible
party or parties for monitoring compliance.
The MMRP also includes a column that will be used by the compliance monitor (individual responsible for
monitoring compliance) to document when implementation of the measure is completed. As individual Plan,
Program, Policies; and mitigation measures are completed, the compliance monitor will sign and date the
MMRP, indicating that the required actions have been completed.
In addition to the proposed project mitigation measures identified in the Final Subsequent EIR, this MMRP
incorporates various mitigation measures from the Final EIR for the SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation,
State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2009091089, which are identified as SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measures.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-2 Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-3
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
TABLE 4-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
AIR QUALITY
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a: All construction
equipment shall be maintained in good operation condition so as
to reduce emissions. The construction contractor shall ensure that all
construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained
as per the manufacturer’s specification. Maintenance records shall
be available at the construction site for City verification. The following additional measures, as determined applicable by
the City Engineer, shall be included as conditions of the Grading
Permit issuance:
• Provide temporary traffic controls such as flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow.
• Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction
trucks and equipment on- and off-site.
• Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or
sensitive receptor areas.
• Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community
liaison concerning on-site construction activity including
resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.
• Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization and ensure that
all vehicles and equipment will be properly tuned and
maintained according to manufactures’ specifications.
• Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export). If the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel
trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks
that meet EPA 2007 model year NOX and PM emissions
requirements.
• During project construction, all internal combustion engines/construction equipment operating on the project site
shall meet EPA-Certified Tier 3 emissions standards, or higher
according to the following: o Post-January 1, 2015: All off-road diesel-powered
construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the
Tier 4 emissions standards, where available. In addition,
Prior to final plan
approval and issuance of
grading permits;
During construction
Project
developers/applicants
and construction
contractors
Equipment
maintenance records
and equipment
design specification
data sheets shall be
kept on site and available for review by the City during
construction.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-4 Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT
devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device
used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions
that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. o A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification, BACT
documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit
shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each
applicable unit of equipment.
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b: Prior to the issuance of
any grading permits, all applicants shall submit construction plans
to the City of Fontana denoting the proposed schedule and
projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide
evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be
utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be
infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any
construction measures imposed by the SCAQMD as well as City Planning Staff.
Prior to final plan
approval and issuance of
grading permits;
During construction.
Project
developers/applicants
and construction
contractors
The City will review
construction plans
denoting the
proposed schedule
and projected
equipment use
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1c: All paints and coatings
shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD
Rule 1113. Specifically, the following measures shall be implemented, as feasible:
• Use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than
that required under AQMD Rule 1113.
• Construct or build with materials that do not require painting.
• Require the use of pre-painted construction materials.
Prior to final plan
approval;
During construction
Construction
contractors
The City Building
and Safety
Department will confirm that this requirement appears in the construction
specifications
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1d: Projects that result in the
construction of more than 19 single-family residential units, 40
multifamily residential units, or 45,000 square feet of retail/commercial/industrial space shall be required to apply paints either by hand or high-volume low pressure (HVLP) spray. These
measures may reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) associated
with the application of paints and coatings by an estimated 60 to
75 percent. Alternatively, the contractor may specify the use of low
volatility paints and coatings. Several currently available primers
have VOC contents of less than 0.85 pounds per gallon (e.g., dulux
professional exterior primer 100 percent acrylic). Top coats can be
Prior to final plan
approval;
During construction
Construction
contractors
The City Building
and Safety
Department will confirm that this requirement appears
in the construction
specifications and
will verify
compliance
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-5
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
less than 0.07 pounds per gallon (8 grams per liter) (e.g., Lifemaster
2000-series). This latter measure would reduce these VOC emissions
by more than 70 percent. Larger projects should incorporate both the use of HVLP or hand application and the requirement for low volatility coatings.
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1e: All asphalt shall meet or
exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108.
Prior to final plan
approval; During construction
Construction
contractors
The City Building
and Safety Department will confirm that this requirement appears
in the construction
specifications and
will verify
compliance
Initials: ______ Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-1f: Prior to the issuance of
grading permits or approval of grading plans for future
development projects within the project area, future developments
shall include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract
standard specifications. The dust control plan shall include measures
to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such
measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and
first-stage smog alerts.
• Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts.
• All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas.
• Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive
dust and noise to surrounding areas.
• Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth
of soil cut.
• Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions, and as often as needed on windy days or during
very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and
minimize the release of visible emissions from the construction
site.
• Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with
a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with
vegetation.
Prior to issuance of
grading permits and final
plan approval;
During construction
Project applicants;
Construction
contractors
The City Building
and Safety
Department will
confirm that this
requirement appears
in the construction
specifications
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-6 Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
• Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites.
• Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways
to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites.
• Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight-
fitting tarp.
• Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles
per hour.
• Provide for permanent sealing of all graded areas, as
applicable, at the earliest practicable time after soil
disturbance.
• Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment.
• Use electric equipment whenever practicable.
• Shut off engines when not in use.
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2a: All “large-scale” (e.g.,
over 10 acres per day) project Applicants shall provide incentives to use mass transit including the placement of bus stop shelters along
major thoroughfares if not so equipped. (City Staff shall determine
what denotes a “large-scale” project.)
Prior to final plan
approval; During construction and
operation
Project
developers/applicants and tenants
Prior to final plan
approval; the City will verify
compliance prior
to the issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2c: All industrial and
commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be
left idling for prolonged periods pursuant to Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations, Section 2485, which limits idle times
to not more than five minutes.
After construction Project Developers
/Applicants;
construction contractors
Prior to final plan
approval; the City
will verify
compliance prior
to the issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2d: The City shall require
that both industrial and commercial uses designate preferential
parking for vanpools.
After construction Project Developers The City of Fontana
will verify
compliance prior to
the issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-7
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2e: The proposed
commercial and industrial areas shall incorporate food service.
Project
planning/approval;
After construction
Project
developers/applicants
The City of Fontana
will verify
compliance prior to the issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2f: All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and MetroLink schedules in conspicuous areas.
After construction; during operation Industrial and commercial site tenants The City of Fontana will verify compliance prior to the issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
Initials: ______ Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2g: All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be
requested to configure their operating schedules around the
MetroLink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible.
During project entitlement City of Fontana Planning Department Planning Department will make request
and verify
compliance
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2j: All residential, commercial, and industrial structures shall be required to incorporate light colored roofing materials.
Plan check prior to construction Project developers The City will verify compliance at plan check and prior to
issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2k: Prior to approval of
future development projects within the project area, the City of
Fontana shall conduct project-level environmental review to
determine potential vehicle emission impacts associated with the
project(s). Mitigation measures shall be developed for each project
as it is considered to mitigate potentially significant impacts to the
extent feasible. Potential mitigation measures may require that
facilities with over 250 employees (full or part-time employees at a
worksite for a consecutive six-month period calculated as a monthly
average), as required by the Air Quality Management Plan,
implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs.
Prior to Project Approval City of Fontana
Planning Department
The City Planning
Department will
obtain and review
Project employment
to implement a TDM
program prior to
issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2l: New warehouse facilities
or distribution centers that generate a minimum of 100 truck trips
per day, or 40 truck trips with transport refrigeration units (TRUs)
per day, or TRU operations exceeding 300 hours per week shall not
be located closer than 1,000 feet from any existing or proposed
sensitive land use such as residential, a hospital, medical offices, day
Prior to Project Approval City of Fontana
Planning Department
The City Planning
Department will
review project
location and sensitive
land uses.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-8 Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
care facilities, and/or fire stations (pursuant to the recommendations
set forth in the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a: The City of Fontana
Planning Department shall require that all future project applicants prepare a Biological Assessment prior to the issuance of grading
permits. The Biological Assessment shall include a vegetation map of
the proposed project area, analysis of the impacts associated with
plant and animal species and habitats, and conduct habitat
evaluations for burrowing owl, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, San
Diego pocket mouse, western mastiff bat, western yellow bat, and
San Diego desert woodrat. If any of these species are determined
to be present, then coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish and Game shall be conducted to determine what, if any, permits or clearances are
required prior to development.
Prior to grading permits Project developer/City
Planning Department
The City Planning
Department will obtain and review
vegetation info prior
to issuance of
grading permits.
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b: Any future land disturbance for site-specific developments within the Project site shall be conducted outside of the State-identified bird nesting season (February 15 through September 1). If construction during the
nesting season must occur, the site shall be evaluated by a City-
approved biologist prior to ground disturbance to determine if
nesting birds exist on site. If any nests are discovered, the biologist
shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest,
depending on the species and type of construction activity. Only
construction activities approved by the biologist shall take place
within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated.
Before and during construction Construction contractors; site supervisors
The City Building and Safety Department will examine project
contracts for these
requirements and
monitor for
compliance
Initials: ______ Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-1c: Prior to any ground
disturbance, trees scheduled for removal shall be evaluated by a
City-approved biologist for roosting bats. If a roost is present the
biologist will develop a plan to minimize impacts to the bats to the greatest extent feasible.
Prior to grading permits Project developer/City
Building and Safety
Department
The City Building
and Safety
Department will
examine project contracts for these requirements and monitor for
compliance
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-9
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.4-3b: Should mitigation
monitoring be recommended for a specific project within the Project
site (Specific Plan Update), the Mitigation Program shall include, but
not be limited to, the following measures:
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow
the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, earth-disturbing activities shall be diverted elsewhere until the
monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make
the discovery, the grading contractor shall immediately divert
construction and notify the monitor of the find.
• All recovered fossils shall be prepared, identified, and curated
for documentation in the summary report and transferred to an
appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum).
• A summary report shall be submitted to City of Fontana. Collected specimens shall be transferred with copy of report to
San Bernardino County Museum.
Before and during
grading
Project developer,
Qualified
paleontological
monitor,
City Building and
Safety Department
The City will verify
project specifications
include requirement
to halt work until a
monitor is present;
City shall also monitor to ensure protection/ preservation
measures are
implemented for
discovered resources
by requiring periodic
reports from the
developer for review and approval
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Proposed Project Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Paleontological
Resources Management Program (PRMP). A paleontological resource management program (PRMP) is required prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. The PRMP shall, at a minimum,
implement the following standard procedures:
1. The applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist (Project
Paleontologist) approved by the City to create and implement a
Project-specific plan for monitoring site grading/earthmoving
activities.
2. The Project paleontologist retained shall monitor mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. Starting at the
surface, monitoring should be conducted full-time in areas of
grading or excavation in undisturbed sediments of alluvial fan
deposits.
3. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as
they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor
must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to
allow removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely
Before and during
grading
Project developer,
Qualified paleontological
monitor,
City Building and
Safety Department
The City will verify
project specifications include requirement
to halt work until a
monitor is present;
City shall also
monitor to ensure
protection/
preservation
measures are implemented for discovered resources by requiring periodic
reports from the
developer for
review and approval
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-10 Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially
fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or, if present,
are determined on exposure and examination by qualified
paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. The monitor shall notify the Project paleontologist, who will then notify the concerned parties of the discovery.
4. Paleontological salvage during trenching and boring activities is
typically from the generated spoils and does not delay the
trenching or drilling activities. Fossils are collected and placed in
cardboard flats or plastic buckets and identified by field
number, collector, and date collected. Notes are taken on the
map location and stratigraphy of the site, which is photographed
before it is vacated, and the fossils are removed to a safe place. On mass grading projects, discovered fossil sites are protected by flagging to prevent them from being overrun by earthmovers (scrapers) before salvage begins. Fossils are collected in a
similar manner, with notes and photographs being taken before
removing the fossils. Precise location of the site is determined with
the use of handheld GPS units. If the site involves remains from a
large terrestrial vertebrate, such as large bone(s) or a mammoth
tusk, that is/are too large to be easily removed by a single
monitor, a fossil recovery crew shall excavate around the find, encase the find within a plaster and burlap jacket, and remove it after the plaster is set. For large fossils, use of the contractor’s
construction equipment may be solicited to help remove the
jacket to a safe location.
5. Isolated fossils are collected by hand, wrapped in paper, and
placed in temporary collecting flats or five-gallon buckets. Notes
are taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which
is photographed before it is vacated, and the fossils are removed
to a safe place. 6. In accordance with the “Microfossil Salvage” section of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (2010:7), bulk sampling
and screening of fine-grained sedimentary deposits (including
carbonate-rich paleosols) must be performed if the deposits are
identified to possess indications of producing fossil
“microvertebrates” to test the feasibility of the deposit to yield
fossil bones and teeth.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-11
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
7. In the laboratory, individual fossils are cleaned of extraneous
matrix, any breaks are repaired, and the specimen, if needed,
is stabilized by soaking in an archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B-72). 8. Recovered specimens are prepared to a point of identification
and permanent preservation (not display), including screen-
washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and
vertebrates. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often
more time-consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate
fossils.
9. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional,
accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g.,
SBCM) shall be conducted. The paleontological program should
include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of
mitigation activities. Prior to curation, the lead agency (e.g., the
City of Fontana) will be consulted on the repository/museum to
receive the fossil material.
10. A final report of findings and significance will be prepared,
including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). The report, when submitted to and accepted by the appropriate lead agency, will signify satisfactory completion of the Project
program to mitigate impacts to any potential nonrenewable
paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) that might have been lost
or otherwise adversely affected without such a program in place.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a: Prior to the issuance of
building permits, future development projects shall demonstrate the incorporation of project design features that achieve a minimum of 28.5 percent reduction in GHG emissions from business as usual conditions. Future project shall include:
Energy Efficiency
• Design buildings to be energy efficient and exceed Title 24 requirements by at least 5 percent.
• Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Site and
design building to take advantage of daylight.
• Use trees, landscaping and sun screens on west and south
exterior building walls to reduce energy use.
Prior to project approval Project
Developers /applicants, architects and construction contractors
The City of Fontana
Planning Department will review project plans for compliance and the City will
verify compliance
after construction,
prior to issuance of
Certificate of
Occupancy
Initials: ______ Date: ______
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-12 Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
• Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements.
• Provide information on energy management services for
large energy users.
• Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems,
appliances and equipment, and control systems (e.g., minimum
of Energy Star rated equipment).
• Implement design features to increase the efficiency of the
building envelope (i.e., the barrier between conditioned and
unconditioned spaces).
• Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street, and other
outdoor lighting.
• Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
Renewable Energy
• Install infrastructure and facilities in compliance with Municipal
Code Chapter 9, Article V, Industrial Commerce Centers
Sustainability Standards.
• Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
• Create water-efficient landscapes with a preference for a xeriscape landscape palette.
• Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls.
• Design buildings to be water efficient. Install water-efficient
fixtures and appliances (e.g., EPA WaterSense labeled
products).
• Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply
water to non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff.
• Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and
vehicles.
• Implement low-impact development practices that maintain
the existing hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-
intensive imported water at the site).
• Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-13
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific
project.
• Provide education about water conservation and available
programs and incentives.
Solid Waste Measures
• Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste
(including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber,
metal, and cardboard).
• Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables
and green waste and adequate recycling containers located
in public areas.
• Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
• Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery
and construction vehicles.
• Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by designating a certain
percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles,
designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and
waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a website or message board for coordinating rides).
• Create local “light vehicle” networks, such as neighborhood
electric vehicle (NEV) systems.
• Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to
encourage the use of low or zero-emission vehicles (e.g.,
electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located
alternative fueling stations).
• Promote “least polluting” ways to connect people and goods
to their destinations.
• Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments.
• Incorporate bicycle-friendly intersections into street design.
• For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking
near building entrances to promote cyclist safety, security,
and convenience. For large employers, provide facilities that
encourage bicycle commuting (e.g., locked bicycle storage or
covered or indoor bicycle parking).
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-14 Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
• Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks, and other destination points.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-1a: The City shall require that
new proposed facilities involved in the production, use, storage, transport,
or disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from land
uses that may be adversely impacted by such activities. Conversely, new sensitive facilities, such as schools, child-care centers, and senior enters, shall not to be located near existing sites that use, store, or generate hazardous
materials.
Prior to Certificate of
Occupancy
Project
applicants / City of
Fontana Building
Department
The City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Department shall
verify compliance
prior to Certificate
of Occupancy issuance
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b: The City shall assure the
continued response and capability of the San Bernardino County Fire
Department/Fontana Fire Protection District to handle hazardous materials incidents in the City and along the sections of freeways that extend across the City.
Prior to Certificate of
Occupancy
City of Fontana
Building Department
The City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Department shall verify prior to Certificate of Occupancy
Issuance for uses that
involve substantial
hazardous materials
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-1c: The City shall require all
businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable
quantity to submit an inventory of the hazardous materials that they
manage to the San Bernardino County Fire Department – Hazardous
Materials Division in coordination with the Fontana Fire Protection
District.
Prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
City of Fontana
Building Department
The City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Department shall
verify compliance
prior to Certificate
of Occupancy
issuance
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-1d: The City shall identify
roadways along which hazardous materials are routinely
transported. If essential facilities, such as schools, hospitals, childcare
centers, or other facilities with special evacuation needs are located
along these routes, identify emergency response plans that these
facilities can implement in the event of an unauthorized release of hazardous materials in their area.
Prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
The City of Fontana
Building Department
The City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Department shall
verify compliance
prior to Certificate
of Occupancy issuance
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-6a: Prior to the issuance of
grading permits, future developers shall prepare a Traffic Control
Plan for implementation during the construction phase. The Plan may include the following provisions, among others:
• At least one unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both
directions on surrounding roadways.
Prior to issuance of
Grading Permit
City of Fontana
Planning Department
The City of Fontana
Building and Safety
Department shall approve Traffic
Control Plan prior to
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-15
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
• At any time that only a single lane is available, the developer
shall provide a temporary traffic signal, signal carriers (i.e.,
flagpersons), or other appropriate traffic controls to allow
travel in both directions.
• If construction activities require the complete closure of a
roadway segment, the developer shall provide appropriate
signage indicating detours/alternative routes.
issuance of grading
permits
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-6b: Prior to construction, the City of Fontana Engineering Department shall consult with the City of Fontana Police Department to disclose temporary closures and
alternative travel routes, in order to ensure adequate access for
emergency vehicles when construction of future projects would result
in temporary lane or roadway closures.
Prior to Construction City of Fontana Engineering Department
The City of Fontana Engineering Department shall
approve Traffic
Control Plan prior to
issuance of
demolition,
construction, or
grading permits
Initials: ______
Date: ______
NOISE
PPP NOI-1: Construction Noise. As required by Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7), construction activities shall only take
place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays
and 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction activities
conducted outside of these hours would require previous approval
from the City of Fontana.
During construction Project developer/ Construction
contractor/ City of
Fontana Building
Department
The City of Fontana Building and Safety
Department
demolition, grading,
and construction
permitting; and
monitor for
compliance
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-1b: Should potential future
development facilitated by the proposed project require off-site
import/export of fill material during construction, trucks shall utilize
a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably
major roadways (Interstate 10, Interstate 15, State Route 60, Sierra Avenue, Beech Avenue, Jurupa Avenue, and Slover Avenue).
Construction trucks should, to the extent practical, avoid the
weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).
Prior to Construction Project developer/
Construction contractor
/ City of Fontana
Building Department
The City of Fontana
Engineering
Department shall
approve Traffic
Control Plan prior to issuance of
demolition,
construction, or
grading permits; and
monitor for
compliance
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-16 Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b: If any historical
resources and/or human resources are encountered before or
during grading, the developer shall retain a qualified
archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take
appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study.
Before and during
grading
Project developer,
Qualified
archaeologist;
City Building and
Safety Department
The City will verify
project specifications
include requirement
to halt work until a
monitor is present;
City shall also
monitor to ensure protection/ preservation measures are
implemented for
discovered resources
by requiring periodic
reports from the
developer for
review and approval
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a: A qualified
archaeologist shall perform the following tasks, prior to construction
activities within project boundaries:
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests
the potential for prehistoric resources, a field survey for
prehistoric resources within portions of the project site not
previously surveyed for cultural resources shall be conducted.
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests
the potential for sacred land resources, the Native American
Heritage Commission shall be contacted for information
regarding sacred lands.
• All prehistoric resources shall be inventoried using appropriate
State record forms and two (2) copies of the completed forms
shall be submitted to the San Bernardino County Archaeological
Information Center.
• The significance and integrity of all prehistoric resources within
the project site shall be evaluated using criteria established in
the CEQA Guidelines for important archaeological resources.
• If human remains are encountered on the project site, the San Bernardino County Coroner’s Office shall be contacted within 24 hours of the find, and all work shall be halted until a
Before and during
grading
Project developer,
Qualified
archaeologist;
City Building and
Safety Department
The City will verify
project specifications
include requirement
to halt work until a
monitor is present; City shall also monitor to ensure protection/
preservation
measures are
implemented for
discovered resources
by requiring periodic
reports from the developer for review and approval
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-17
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
clearance is given by that office and any other involved
agencies.
• All resources and data collected within the project site shall be
permanently curated at an appropriate repository within the
County.
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b: If any prehistoric
archaeological resources are encountered before or during
grading, the developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to
monitor construction activities and to take appropriate measures to
protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the
archaeologist, the City of Fontana shall:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from
demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for
the City to establish its archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of
archaeological sites within new developments, using their special
qualities as a theme or focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the area’s archaeological
heritage.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of
approval (if a local government action) to eliminate adverse Project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric
resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report,
documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the Project area. Submit one copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, to the San
Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for
permanent archiving.
Before and during
grading
Project developer,
Qualified
archaeologist;
City Building and
Safety Department
The City will verify
project specifications
include requirement
to halt work until a
monitor is present;
City shall also monitor to ensure protection/ preservation
measures are
implemented for
discovered resources
by requiring periodic
reports from the
developer for review and approval
Initials: ______
Date: ______
SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c: Where consistent with applicable local, State and federal law and deemed appropriate by the City, future site-specific development projects shall consider
the following requests by the consulting tribes as appropriate:
• In the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction for future development, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified
archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be
Before and during grading Project developer, Qualified archaeologist, Native
American Monitor,
the City of Fontana
The City will verify project specifications include requirement
to halt work until a
monitor is present;
City shall also
monitor to ensure
protection/
preservation
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-18 Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
hired to assess the find. Work on the overall Project may
continue during this period;
• Initiate consultation between the appropriate Native American
tribal entity (as determined by a qualified archaeologist
meeting Secretary of Interior standards) and the City/Project
Applicant;
• Transfer cultural resources investigations to the appropriate
Native American entity (as determined by a qualified
archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards) as soon
as possible;
• Utilize a Native American Monitor from the appropriate Native
American entity (as determined by a qualified archaeologist
meeting Secretary of Interior standards) where deemed
appropriate or required by the City, during initial ground-
disturbing activities, cultural resource surveys, and/or cultural
resource excavations.
measures are
implemented for
discovered resources
by requiring periodic reports from the developer for
review and approval
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring. Prior to
the issuance of the first grading permit, the applicant shall provide
a letter to the City Planning Department, or designee, from a
qualified professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of
Interior’s Professional Qualifications for Archaeology as defined at 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A and with knowledge of tribal resources, stating that qualified archaeologists have been retained
and will be present at pre-grade meetings and for all initial ground
disturbing activities, up to five feet in depth.
• Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity
of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and
archaeological and tribal monitor/consultant, if the resources
are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of
correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the
landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources.
Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or
recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.
• Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of
treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may
Prior to the issuance of the
first grading permit
Project developer,
Qualified
archaeologist,
the City of Fontana
The City will verify
project specifications
include requirement
to not commence
work until a monitor is present; City shall also monitor to
ensure protection/
preservation
measures are
implemented for
discovered resources
by requiring periodic
reports from the developer for review and approval
Initials: ______
Date: ______
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-19
Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Responsible Party Verification Method Date Completed and Initials
include implementation of archaeological data recovery
excavation to remove the resource along the subsequent
laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated
at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the
materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If
no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be
offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the
area for educational purposes.
• Archaeological and Native American monitoring and
excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with
current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any
unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of
human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken.
Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with Native
American archaeological sites in southern California. The
Qualified Archaeologists shall ensure that all other personnel
are appropriately trained and qualified.
Hemlock Warehouse Development Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fontana 4-20 Final Subsequent EIR
February 2024
This page intentionally left blank.