Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutInitial Study for MCN18-000069R1INITIAL STUDY CITY OF FONTANA 1. Project Title: Truck Sales/Rental/Repair and Business Park 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Fontana, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: DiTanyon Johnson, (909) 350-6678 4. Project Location: The project site is generally, located on the northwest corner of Valley Boulevard and Beech Avenue with frontage on Fontana Avenue (APNs: 0235-072-01,-04, -07, -08, 0235-063-11) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Stephanie Rivera, Andresen Architecture, 17087 Orange Way, Fontana, CA, 92335 6. General Plan Designation: Light Industrial (I-L) 7. Zoning: FID (Freeway Industrial District) within the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan 8. Description of the Project: Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018 is a request to for the site improvements and construction of multiple buildings totaling approximately 53,760 square feet for a proposed business park and three (3) trucks sales businesses. Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983 is a request to reconfigure the existing five (5) parcels into five (5) parcels. Conditional Use Permit No. 18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021 and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 are a request to operate the three (3) separate truck sales and repair businesses. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Project is bounded by Valley Boulevard on the south, Fontana Avenue on the west and portions of Beech Avenue on the east. Additional trucking and industrial businesses surround the project site. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: MWD (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below (®) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Public Services Emissions ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Resources Materials ❑ Recreation ❑ Air Quality ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Transportation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Energy ❑ Noise ❑ Wildfire ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. F1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. City of Fontana Page 4-2 Master Case 18-069, Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19993, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration Signature Printed Name Date For City of Fontana Page 4-3 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rapture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. City of Fontana Page 4-4 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration City of Fontana Page 4-5 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 1M21, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration I. AESTHETICS Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ N ❑ vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ N outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views arc those that are experienced from ❑ ❑ ❑ N publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ N ❑ views in the area? a) Less than Significant Impact. Under existing conditions, the Project site is perceived from abutting public viewpoints as flat land that is vacant and cleared with a chain -link fence with green privacy screening along its perimeter. The Project site does not contribute to a scenic vista under existing conditions and the City of Fontana General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas or scenic corridors on the Project site or in the vicinity of the Project site. (City of Fontana, 2018b, p. 5.1-1) Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or scenic resources in the Project vicinity. Impacts would be less than significant. b) No Impact. The Project site is not located within or adjacent to an officially designated State scenic highway corridor and does not contain scenic resources, such as trees of scenic value, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings (Caltrans, 2019). The nearest officially designated scenic highway to the Project site is the segment of State Route 38 (SR-38) that crosses the San Bernardino Mountains at Onyx Summit, located approximately 30 miles to the northeast of the Project area (Google Earth Pro, 2019; Caltrans, 2019). Because of distance and intervening infrastructure and topography, the Project would not obstruct views from SR-38. No impact would occur. City of Fontana Page 4-6 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration Based on the foregoing analysis, there is no potential for the proposed Project to adversely impact the viewshed within a scenic highway corridor. No impact would occur. c) No Impact. The United States Census Bureau defines "urbanized area" as a densely settled core of census tracts and/or census blocks that have 50,000 or more residents and meet minimum population density requirements while also being adjacent to territory containing non-residential urban land uses. The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Census -defined Riverside -San Bernardino urban area (USCB, 2012); therefore, regarding the determination of significance under this threshold, the Project would be considered to result in a significant adverse impact if the Project design would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As previously described, the Project's architecture incorporates a neutral color palette that would not be visually offensive and also incorporates accent elements, such as colored glass and decorative building elements at the building's office entries for visual interest. Additionally, the Project's landscape plan incorporates low -water -need plant species that can maintain vibrancy during drought conditions. The proposed visual features of the Project would ensure a high -quality aesthetic for the site. The City of Fontana reviewed the Project proposal in detail and determined that no component of the Project would conflict with applicable design regulations within the City of Fontana Development Code governing scenic quality. No impact would occur. d) Less than Significant Impact. Under the existing conditions, the Project site and contains minimal sources of artificial lighting. The Project Applicant proposes to develop the site with a buildings and would introduce new lighting elements on -site to illuminate the parking areas, and building entrances. The proposed Project would be required to adhere to the lighting requirements as set forth in the City of Fontana Municipal Code (Sections 30-265 and 30-266). The Municipal Code lighting standards govern the placement and design of outdoor lighting fixtures to ensure adequate lighting for public safety while also minimizing light pollution and glare and precluding public nuisances. The City would confirm compliance with applicable lighting requirements during future review of building permit applications/plans. Mandatory compliance with Municipal Code Sections 30-265 and 30-266 and the SWIP Specific Plan design guidelines would ensure that the Project would not introduce any permanent design features that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. City of Fontana Page 4-7 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration H. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Less than Potentially Significant Less than P Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural El El Eluse, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section ❑ ❑ ❑ 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of El ❑ forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, ❑ ❑ ❑ to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? a) No Impact. According to Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program mapping information available from the California Department of Conservation, the Project site does not contain any soils mapped as "Prime Farmland," "Unique Farmland," or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" (CDC, n.d.). As such, implementation of the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. No impact would occur. b) No Impact. The Project site is not subject to a land conservation (Williamson Act) contract (CDC, 2016; City of Fontana, 2018b, pp. 7-10). In addition, the Project site is zoned for "Light Industrial (M-1)" land uses under existing conditions. (City of Fontana, n.d.) Therefore, implementation of the Project has no potential to conflict with existing zoning for an agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. City of Fontana Page 4-8 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration c) No Impact. The Project site is not zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production, nor is it surrounded by forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production land. There are no lands located within the City of Fontana that are zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (City of Fontana., n.d.) Therefore, implementation of the Project has no potential to conflict with or cause the rezoning of any areas currently zoned as forest, timberland, or Timberland Production and would not result in the rezoning of any such lands. As such, no impact would occur. d) No Impact. The Project site does not contain a forest and is not designated as forest land (City of Fontana, n.d.). Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. As such, no impact would occur. e) No Impact. "Farmland" is defined in Section II(a) of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to mean "Prime Farmland," "Unique Farmland" or "Farmland of Statewide Importance." As noted above in Response Il(a), the Project site does not contain any soils mapped by the Department of Conservation as "Farmland." Additionally, as described above in Responses II(c) and II(d), the Project site and surrounding areas do not contain forest lands or areas designated for forest land uses. Thus, implementation of the Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non -forest use City of Fontana Page 4-9 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration III. AIR QUALITY Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district maybe relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively -considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial El El Z 0 pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of people? a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Historically and presently, State and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the State and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. The current AQMP, the 2016AQMP, was adopted by SCAQMD in March 2017. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12 of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). The Project's consistency with these criteria is discussed below. The Project's operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD localized emissions thresholds (refer to Response I I(c), below; thus, long-term operation of the Project would not increase the frequency or severity of existing NAAQS and/or CAAQS violations, cause or contribute to new violations, and/or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP City of Fontana Page 4-10 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project -related operational emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, Sox, PMio and PM2.5 would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria thresholds. Accordingly, the Project would not emit substantial concentrations of these pollutants during long-term operation and would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The Project's long-term emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, SOx, PMlo and PM2,s would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. Localized emissions of NOx, CO, and particulate matter (PMio) would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds during peak Project construction activities. Accordingly, Project construction would not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial NOx, CO, and PM,o concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. The Project could produce odors during proposed construction activities resulting from construction equipment exhaust, application of asphalt, and/or the application of architectural coatings; however, standard construction practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. Furthermore, any odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short- term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction. In addition, construction activities on the Project site would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during construction, and short-term impacts would be less than significant. During long-term operation, the Project would include truck sales and business park land use, which are not typically associated with objectionable odors. The temporary storage of refuse associated with the proposed Project's long-term operational use could be a potential source of odor; however, Project - generated refuse is required to be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City's solid waste regulations, thereby precluding any significant odor impact. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance, during long-term operation. As such, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. City of Fontana Page 4-11 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant pact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional ❑ ❑ N ❑ plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ N policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) ❑ ❑ ❑ N through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident ❑ ❑ N ❑ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑ N preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other ❑ ❑ N approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? City of Fontana Page 4-12 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration a) Less than Significant Impact. No special -status plants were observed on the Project site. Furthermore, clue to the disturbed nature of the Project site and lack of natural plant communities thereon, the site does not have potential to support special - status plant species known to occur in and around the City of Fontana. h) No Impact. The habitat observed on the Project site (Developed/Disturbed) is not classified as a riparian habitat or as a sensitive natural community in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Accordingly, implementation of the Project would result in no impacts to a riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. c) No Impact. The Project site does not contain any wetland features including, but not limited to, natural drainages or water courses, marsh, vernal pools, or coastal resources. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the direct or indirect removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of any State - or federally -protected wetlands. No impact would occur. d) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site does not contain natural, surface drainage or ponding features. Additionally, there are no water bodies on or adjacent to the Project site that could support fish. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish. The Project site also does not serve as a wildlife corridor nor is it connected to an established corridor, and there are no native wildlife nurseries on or adjacent to the Project site (City of Fontana, 2018b, pp. 5.3- 36 to 5.3-37, 5.3-49). Accordingly, there is no potential for the Project to impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site. Based on the foregoing information, the Project would result in no impact to any native resident or migratory fish, established wildlife corridor, or native wildlife nursery sites. e) No Impact. Under existing conditions, the Project site contains any specimen trees and thus, would not conflict with the City of Fontana's tree preservation ordinance. The City of Fontana does not have any additional policies or ordinances in place to protect biological resources that are applicable to the Project site. Impacts would be less than significant. fl No Impact. The Project site is not located within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur. City of Fontana Page 4-13 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant Impact . Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to ❑ ❑ ❑ Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) No Impact. No historical resources were observed within the Project site and the buildings located within the site have been demolished and removed from the subject property. Based on the foregoing observations the Project would not result in a substantial adverse change to any historical resource as defined by California Code of Regulations § 15064. No impact would occur. b) No Impact. Due to the lacy of known prehistoric archaeological resources in the vicinity of the Project site and the extensive nature of past ground disturbances, the likelihood of discovering buried prehistoric archaeological resources on the Project site is considered low. Based on the foregoing, the Project site would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5. No impact would occur. c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site does not contain a cemetery and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate site vicinity. Field surveys conducted on the Project site did not identify the presence of any human remains and no human remains are known to exist beneath the surface of the site. Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with the site's construction. If human remains are unearthed during the site's construction, the construction contractor would be required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 "Disturbance of Human Remains." According to § 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code § 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the City of Fontana Page 4-14 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-019, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. According to Public Resources Code § 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials. With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and Public Resources Code § 5097.98, any potential impact to human remains, including human remains of Native American ancestry, that may result from development of the Project site would be less than significant. City of Fontana Page 4-15 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 1"18, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration VI. ENERGY Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan ❑ ❑ ® ❑ for renewable energy or energy efficiency? a) Less than Significant Impact. Energy Use During Construction The Project's construction process would consume electricity and fuel. Project -related construction activities would represent a "single -event" demand and would not require on -going or permanent commitment of energy resources. Furthermore, construction equipment would be required to conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. For example, CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. As supported by the preceding discussion, the Project's construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Energy Use Project Operations Energy that would be consumed by Project -related traffic is a function of total vehicle miles traveled and the estimated vehicle fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site. Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and State regulatory actions, and related transition of passenger vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, bio fuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per mile traveled. The location of the Project site proximate to regional and local arterial roadways is expected to minimize the Project vehicle miles traveled within the region. Based on the foregoing, Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. City of Fontana Page 4-16 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration b) Less than Significant Impact. The following section analyzes the Project's consistency with the applicable federal and State regulations. Consistency with Federal Energy Regulations Intermodal Surface Transportation Effiiciency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) Transportation and access to the Project site is provided primarily by the local and regional roadway systems, which includes the I-10 Freeway, Beech Avenue, Valley Boulevard and Fontana Avenue. Implementation of the Project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be realized pursuant to the ISTEA because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities on or through the Project site. The Transportation Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) The Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the interstate freeway system (i.e., I-10 Freeway). The location of the Project site facilitates access, acts to reduce vehicle miles traveled, takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems, and promotes land use compatibilities through collocation of similar industrial uses. Accordingly, the Project supports the strong planning processes emphasized under TEA-21 and is therefore consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with or obstruct implementation of TEA-21. Consistency with State Energy Regulations Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) Electricity would be provided to the Project by SCE. SCE's Clean Power and Electrification Pathway (CPEP) white paper builds on existing State programs and policies that support the IEPR goals of improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in California. As such, the Project is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the goals presented in the IEPR. State of California Energy Plan The Project site is located along Valley Boulevard with proximate access to the I-10 Freeway. The location of the Project site facilitates access, acts to reduce vehicle miles traveled, and takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems. Therefore, the Project supports urban design and planning processes identified under the State of California Energy Plan, is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the State of California Energy Plan. California Code Title 24, Part G, Energy Efficiency Standards The Project would design building shells and building components, such as windows; roof systems: electrical and lighting systems: and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards. The Project also is required by State law to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet or exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. On this basis, the Project is determined to be consistent with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. City of Fontana Page 4-17 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration AB 1493 is applicable to the Project because model year 2009-2016 passenger cars and light duty truck vehicles traveling to and from the Project site are required by law to comply with the legislation's fuel efficiency requirements. On this basis, the Project is determined to be consistent, with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of AB 1493. Advanced Clean Cars Program The Advanced Clean Cars Program is applicable to the Project because model year 2017-2025 passenger car vehicles traveling to and from the Project site are required by law to comply with the legislation's fuel efficiency requirements. On this basis, the Project is determined to be consistent, with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of California's Advanced Clean Cars Program.. California Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB I078) Energy directly or indirectly supplied to the Project site by electric corporations is required by law to comply with SB 1078. Consistency with Local Energy Regulations Green Building Standards Code The City of Fontana will require the Project to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet or exceed the California Green Building Standards Code (as adopted by Article XVIII of the Fontana Municipal Code). On this basis, the Project is determined to be consistent with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of the Green Building Standards Code. Conclusion As supported by the preceding analysis, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and a less -than -significant impact would occur. City of Fontana Page 4-18 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less than Potentially Significant Less than O Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ iv) Landslides ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect ❑ ❑ ® ❑ risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not ` i ❑ ❑ ❑ available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 11 geologic feature? City of Fontana Page 4-19 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration a.i) No Impact. There are no known active — or dormant — earthquake faults on the Project site and the Project site is located outside of any Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone. Because there are no known faults extending through the Project site, there is no potential for implementation of the Project to directly or indirectly expose people or structures to adverse effects related to rupture of a known earthquake fault. Accordingly, no impact would occur. (NorCal Engineering, 2017a, pp. 2-3) a.ii) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in a seismically active area of Southern California and is expected to experience moderate -to -severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. This risk is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the Southern California area and is considered adequately mitigated to protect public health, safety, and welfare if buildings are designed and constructed in conformance with applicable building codes and sound engineering practices. As a mandatory condition of the approval of the Project, the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations) and the City of Fontana Municipal Code Article XVIH (which adopts the CBSC without amendments). With mandatory compliance to the CBSC and the City of Fontana Municipal Code, as well as the standard and Project -specific design and construction recommendations set forth in the Project's geotechnical report , the proposed project building would be constructed to withstand seismic ground shaking sufficiently to preclude a substantial risk to people or structures related to strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts involving strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. aid) No Impact. According to available mapping data, the Project site is not expected to be subjected to a significant risk associated with seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction Liquefaction hazards at the Project site are considered minimal due to the estimated depth of groundwater beneath the property (greater than 200 below ground surface [bgs]); liquefaction is a concern in areas where groundwater is at depths of 50 feet bgs or less. Regardless, as noted above, the Project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable seismic safety guidelines, including the standard requirements of the CBSC and City of Fontana Building Code. Furthermore, and pursuant to the requirements of City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 26, Division 4, the Project would be required (via conditions of approval) to comply with the grading and construction recommendations contained within the geotechnical report for the Project site to further reduce the risk of seismic -related ground failure due to liquefaction. The Project also proposes a retaining wall along the southern Project boundary with a height varying from 6 to 9 feet. Based on the foregoing, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial hazards associated with seismic -related ground failure and/or liquefaction hazards. Impacts would be less than significant. a.iv) No Impact. The Project site is topographically flat and does not contain any significant slopes or other topographic features. Accordingly, no slope or stability hazards are present at the Project site, and no impact would occur. City of Fontana Page 4-20 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction -Related Erosion Impacts Grading and construction activities associated with the Project would disturb soils on the Project site, which could be subject to erosion during rainfall events or high winds. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant is required to obtain coverage under the State's General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB's Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction -related activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be required to be implemented during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution — including erosion/sedimentation — is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro -seeding. Lastly, the Project would be required to implement an erosion and dust control plan pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article II (and to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimise water- and windborne erosion. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and the erosion control plan would ensure that the Project's implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Post Development Erosion Impacts Upon Project build -out, the Project site would be covered by multiple buildings, landscaping, and impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the Project site would be captured, treated to reduce waterborne pollutants (including sediment), and conveyed off -site via an on -site storm drain system. Accordingly, the amount of erosion that occurs on the Project site would be minimized upon build out of the Project and would be reduced relative to existing conditions. To meet the requirements of the City's Municipal Storm Water Permit — and in accordance with City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX — the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which is a site -specific post -construction water quality management program designed to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters, under long-term conditions via BMPs. The WQMP is required to identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., Best Management Practices) to reduce or eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from storm water and non -storm water discharges. The WQMP also is required to establish a post -construction implementation and maintenance plan to ensure on -going, long-term erosion protection. Compliance with the WQMP will be required as a condition of approval for the Project, as would the long-term maintenance of erosion and sediment control features. The preliminary WQMP for the Project is provided as to this EIR. Because the City of Fontana Page 4-21 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration Project would be required to utilize erosion and sediment control measures to preclude substantial, long- term soil erosion and loss of topsoil, the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts related to soil erosion. c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site does not contain substantial natural or man-made slopes under existing conditions. Additionally, there are no hillsides in the vicinity of the Project site with a potential to expose the site to landslide hazards. Lateral spreading is primarily associated with liquefaction hazards. Lateral spreading and liquefaction result when near -surface soils are saturated with water and are subject to seismic events, thereby causing land to behave and/or move in a fluid -like manner. The Project site is not located within a zone designated by the County of San Bernardino as being susceptible to soil liquefaction -related hazards (San Bernardino County, 2007). Accordingly, considering that the Project site is not located within a mapped liquefaction zone and groundwater depths exceed 200 feet bgs, the potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading at the Project site is low. As such, impacts associated with liquefaction and lateral spreading would be less than significant. Based on the conditions encountered at subsurface testing locations at the Project site, the geotechnical investigation determined that removal and re -compaction of the near surface native soils would result in shrinkage of 10 to 12 percent. However, the geotechnical report prepared for the Project site indicates that the site's shrinkage/subsidence and settlement potential can be attenuated through the removal of surface and near surface soils down to competent materials and replacement with properly compacted fill. As described in Response VII(a)(ii), the City will condition the Project to comply with the site -specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the Project site's geotechnical report. Based on the foregoing, potential impacts related to soil shrinkage/subsidence and collapse would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. Laboratory tests determined that the near -surface soils on the Project site have a very low expansion potential (NorCal Engineering, 2017a, p. 14). Accordingly, the Project would not create substantial risks to life or property from exposure to expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant. e) No Impact. The Project is designed to connect to the City -owned municipal wastewater conveyance system, with wastewater treatment services supplied by the Inland Empire Utilities Authority (IEUA). The Project does not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would result in no impact related to the use of or performance of septic tanks and/or alternative wastewater systems. f) Less than Significant Impact. According to the paleontological resource assessment prepared for the the Project site is overlain by the Quaternary Holocene young alluvial fan sediments (Qyfl), which are generally too young to contain important fossil deposits. Although, Older Pleistocene (greater than 10,000 years old) soils, which have a high to moderate paleontological resource sensitivity, could possibly be present below the younger Quaternary alluvial fan sediments across the Project site, Project grading activities are not anticipated to extend into depths where Older alluvium sediments may be present. City of Fontana Page 4-22 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No. 28-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration Therefore, implementation of the Project is not expected to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource cite. Impacts would be less than significant. City of Fontana Page 4-23 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration VIII, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing ❑ ❑ N ❑ the emissions of greenhouse gases? a) Less than Significant Impact. While estimated Project -related GHG emissions can be calculated, the direct impacts of such emissions on global climate change (GCC) and global warming cannot be determined on the basis of available science because GCC is a global phenomenon and not limited to a specific locale such as the Project site and its immediate vicinity. Furthermore, there is no evidence that would indicate that the emissions from a project the size of the proposed Project could directly or indirectly affect the global climate. Because global climate change is the result of GHG emissions, and GHGs are emitted by innumerable sources worldwide, the proposed Project would not result in a direct impact to global climate change; rather, Project -related impacts to global climate change only could be potentially significant on a cumulative basis. Therefore, the analysis below focuses on the Project's potential to contribute to global climate change in a cumulatively -considerable way. The Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,959.72 MTCO2e annually, which is less than the significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. Because the Project's total annual GHG emissions would not exceed 3,000 MTCO2e, the Project would not generate substantial GHG emissions — either directly or indirectly — that would have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not contict with the State's ability to achieve the State-wide GHG reduction mandates and would be consistent with applicable policies and plans related to GHG emissions reductions. Implementation of the Project would not actively interfere with any future federally- State, or locally -mandated retrofit obligations enacted or promulgated to legally require development projects to assist in meeting State -adopted GHG emissions reduction targets, including those established under Executive Order S-3-05, Executive Order B-30-15, or SB 32. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and would result in a less -than -significant impact. City of Fontana Page 4-24 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 1"18, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or El proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a ❑ ❑ ❑ result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or ❑ ❑ ❑ death involving wildland fires? City of Fontana Page 4-25 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration a & b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site does not contain any hazardous materials associated with historical or present/ongoing operations at the Project site. Through a review of historical records, a regulatory database search, a review of prior site assessments (from 2014), a site reconnaissance, and interviews with knowledgeable parties, the Phase I ESA did not identify any evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) or other environmental concerns in connection with the Project site. Accordingly, there are no existing conditions or features on the Project site that would represent a potential hazard to the public or the environment. c) Less than Significant Impact. The use of and transport of hazardous substances or materials to -and - from the Project site during construction and long-term operational activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations that would preclude substantial public safety hazards during routine and accident conditions. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect to a school due to the emission or handling of hazardous materials or substances. d) No Impact. The Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (CDTSC, n.d.). Accordingly, no impact would occur. e) No Impact. The Project would not interfere with flight operations at the QNT because the buildings proposed by the Project would be no greater than 30 feet tall and the Project does not include an air travel component (e.g., runway, helipad). Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people living or working on the Project area and impacts would be less than significant. f) No Impact. The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route (Project Application Materials, 2019). During construction and long-term operation, the proposed Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. As part of the City's discretionary review process, the City of Fontana reviewed the Project's application materials to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to -and - from the Project site and that the Project would not substantially impede emergency response times in the local area. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan, and no impact would occur. g) No Impact. The Project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area or a very high fire hazard severity zone. Neither Cal Fire nor the City of Fontana identify the Project site within an area susceptible to wildland fires and the Project site and surrounding areas generally consist of developed properties, which are generally not associated with wildland fire hazards (City of Fontana, 2018a, p. 11-4; CALFIRE, 2007; Google Earth Pro, 2019). Accordingly, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur. City of Fontana Page 4-26 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 1"18, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project. - a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede ❑ ❑ ® ❑ sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or off -site? ii) Substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result ❑ ❑ ® ❑ in flooding on- or off -site? iii) Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems of provide ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial additional sources of polluted runoM iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project ❑ ❑ I ❑ inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a J water quality control plan or sustainable ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundwater management plan? City of Fontana Page 4-27 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration a) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would involve site preparation, grading, paving, utility installation, building construction, and landscaping activities, which have the potential to generate water quality pollutants such as silt, debris, organic waste, chemicals, paints, and solvents. Should these materials come into contact with water that reaches the groundwater table or flows off -site, the potential exists for the Project's construction activities to adversely affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during long-term operation. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be served with potable water from the Fontana Water Company, and the Project Applicant does not propose the use of any wells or other groundwater extraction activities. Therefore, the Project would not directly draw water from the groundwater table. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project has no potential to substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies and the Project's impact to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. Development of the Project would increase impervious surface coverage on the Project site, which would, in turn, reduce the amount of water percolating down into the underground aquifer that underlies the Project site and a majority of the City and surrounding areas. However, a majority of the groundwater recharge in the Chino Groundwater Basin occurs in the northern and western portions of the Basin (and north and west of the City of Fontana), within percolation basins (also known as "recharge basins") (CBWM, 2017, Exhibit 44). The Project site is located in the east -central portion of the Chino groundwater basin and would not physically impact any of the major groundwater recharge facilities in the Basin and, therefore, would not result in substantial, adverse effects to local groundwater levels. Additionally, the Project includes design features that would maximize the percolation of on -site storm water runoff into the groundwater basin, such as underground infiltration chambers and permeable landscape areas. Accordingly, buildout of the Project with these design features would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge of the Chino groundwater basin. Impacts would be less than significant. c.i) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would alter existing ground contours of the Project site and install impervious surfaces, which would result in changes to the site's existing, internal drainage patterns. The Project would include an integrated, on -site system of catch basins, gutters, underground storm drain pipes, a Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) unit, and a subsurface infiltration chamber to capture on -site stormwater runoff flows, convey the runoff across the site, and treat the runoff with BMPs to minimize the amount of water -borne pollutants carried from the Project site, including soil/sediment. Upon development of the Project, all stormwater runoff discharged from the Project site would flow directly into a public storm drain pipe. City of Fontana Page 4-28 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No. 29993, Conditional Use Permit No.1"20, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration c. ii) Less than Significant Impact. Under post -development conditions, total peak flows leaving the Project site would not exceed 1.5 cubic feet per second (cfs), which matches the peak discharge from the Project site to existing conditions. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface water runoff discharged from the site in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site. Impacts would be less than significant. c. iii) Less than Significant Impact. The Project's construction contractors would be required to comply with a SWPPP and the Project's owner or operator would be required to comply with the Preliminary WQMP to ensure that Project -related construction activities and operational activities do not result in substantial amounts of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. c. iv) No Impact. The Project site is not located within a special flood hazard area (FEMA, 2008). Accordingly, development on the Project site would have no potential to place housing, or other structures, within a 100-year floodplain or impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year floodplain. No impact would occur. d) No Impact. The Pacific Ocean is located more than 40 miles southwest of the Project site; consequently, there is no potential for the Project site to be impacted by a tsunami because tsunamis typically can only reach up to a few miles inland. The site also is not subject to a flood hazard or seiche zone because the nearest large bodies of surface water are approximately 14.3 miles south of the Project site (Lake Mathews) and approximately 20.5 mules southeast of the Project site (Lake Perris), respectively, which are both too far away from the subject property to impact the property with a flood hazard or seiche. (Google Earth Pro, 2019) Accordingly, the Project would not risk release of pollutants due to inundation. No impact would occur. e) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the Santa Ana River Basin and Project -related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB's Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and SWQMP. Implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan and impacts would be less than significant. City of Fontana Page 4-29 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? a) No Impact. Development of the Project would not physically disrupt or divide the arrangement of an established community. Due to the existing barriers that already separate the Project site from abutting properties, implementation of the Project would not result in the physical disruption or division of an established community. No impact would occur. b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is designated for "I-L)" land use by the City's General Plan Land Use Plan and zoned for "Freeway Industrial" (FID) land use by the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan. The develop the subject property as truck sales/repair/rental and business park in accordance with its underlying General Plan land use and zoning designations and would comply with all applicable policies contained in the General Plan as well as all applicable development regulations/development standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with the City's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. City of Fontana Page 4-30 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration X1I. MINERAL RESOURCES Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant Impactwith Significant No. Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project: i a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a & b) No Impact. The Project site is not located within an area known to be underlain by regionally - important mineral resources. In addition, the Project site is not identified as a locally -important mineral resource recovery site in the City of Fontana General Plan (City of Fontana, 2018a, Chapters 7 and 15). Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State of California. City of Fontana Page 4-31 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 1"18, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration XIII. NOISE Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards ❑ ❑ ® ❑ established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ® ❑ airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the proj ect area to excessive noise levels? a) Less than Significant Impact. The analysis presented on the following pages summarizes the Project's potential construction noise levels and operational noise levels, including operational noise that would be generated on -site as well as off -site noise that would be generated by the Project's traffic. The Project operations would not expose any nearby receptor to excessive noise levels during daytime or nighttime hours. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the exposure of receivers near the Project site to stationary noise levels that exceed the standards established in the City of Fontana Municipal Code. Impacts would be less than significant. Operational Noise Impact Analvsis — Traffic c Noise To evaluate permanent, off -site noise increases that could result from Project -related traffic, noise levels were modeled for the following traffic scenarios: Existing: This scenario refers to the existing traffic noise conditions without and with the proposed Project. Project Opening Year (2020): This scenario refers to the background noise conditions in the year 2020 without and with the Project, including reasonably foreseeable cumulative development projects. Project Buildout 2040 : This scenario refers to the General Plan Buildout noise conditions in the year 2040 without and with the Project, including reasonably foreseeable cumulative development projects. City of Fontana Page 4-32 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-019, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration b) Less than Significant Impact. 1he Project construction would not generate temporary, excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels and a less -than -significant impact would occur. c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be a compatible use within the ONT Noise Impact Zone (60 to 65 dBA CNEL noise contour) and operation of the Project would not expose people working on the Project site to excessive noise levels. The Project's impact would be less than significant. City of Fontana Page 4-33 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or ❑ ® ❑ indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in an area of Fontana that is already developing with employment land uses — and on a site that is planned for employment land uses by the Fontana General Plan. Accordingly, development of the Project would sustain the ongoing trend of the development of employment land uses in the City of Fontana and would not generate job growth that substantially exceeds what was already anticipated by the City in their General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan FEIR. Additionally, the Project site is located in an area of Fontana that is served by existing roadways and public utility infrastructure and the Project would not require the extension or expansion of any infrastructure. Accordingly, the Project would not induce direct or indirect substantial growth in the area and impacts would be less than significant. b) No Impact. The Project site does not contain any residential structures and no people live on the site under existing conditions. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. City of Fontana Page 4-34 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration XV. PUBLIC SERVICES Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ i ii) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iv) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 v) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ a. i) Less than Significant Impact. Although the Project would not result in the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities, as a standard condition of approval, the Project Applicant would be required to pay impact fees for fire protection services in accordance with § 21-122 of the Fontana Municipal Code. The City will collect Development Impact Fees (DIF) for the Project based on building square footage. The Project's payment of DIF fees, as well as increased property tax revenues that would result from development of the Project, would be used by the City to help pay for fire protection services and other public services. (City of Fontana, 2019) a. ii) Less than Significant Impact. The existing structures on the Project site receive police protection services from the Fontana Police Department (FPD). The Project would introduce new logistics center buildings and employees and visitors to the Project site, which would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services, but is not anticipated to require or result in the construction of new or physically altered police facilities. Additionally, and pursuant to City of Fontana Municipal Code § 21- 122, the Project would be subject to payment of DIF fees. Furthermore, property tax revenues generated from development of the site would provide funding to offset potential increases in the demand for police services at Project build -out. The City of Fontana uses DIF fees and property tax revenues this fee to help pay for police protection needs and other public services. (City of Fontana, 2019) Because Project implementation would not result in or require new or expanded police protection facilities and because the Project is required to contribute appropriate DIF fees to offset the Project's increased City of Fontana Page 4-35 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration demand for police protection services, the Project's impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. a. iii) Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not include residential land uses and would not directly introduce new school -age children within the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD) boundaries. Furthermore, as discussed in detail in Response XIV(a), Project is not expected to draw a substantial number of new residents to the surrounding area as the result of unplanned population or housing growth and would not, therefore, indirectly increase unplanned enrollment at FUSD schools. Because the Project would not directly generate students and is not expected to indirectly draw students to the area, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. Although the Project would not create a direct demand for public school services, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute development impact fees to the FUSD in compliance with the Leroy F, Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, which allows school districts to collect fees from new developments to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity needs. Mandatory payment of school fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Impacts to FUSD schools would be less than significant. a. iv) No Impact. The Project does not propose to construct any new on- or off -site recreation facilities. Additionally, the Project would not expand any existing off -site recreational facilities. In addition, the Project does not propose any type of residential use or other land use that may generate a population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. A public park is planned immediately north of the Project site; there is no evidence to suggest that the Project's adjacent location would result in physical environmental effects to the park. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in environmental effects related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities or the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park. No impact would occur. a. v) No Impact. The Project does not include any residential land uses and, theretore, is not expected to result in a demand for other public facilities/services, including libraries, community recreation centers, post offices, public health facilities, and/or animal shelters. As such, implementation of the Project would not adversely affect other public facilities or require the construction of new or modified public facilities. No impact would occur. City of Fontana Page 4-36 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 19-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration XVI. RECREATION Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact .. Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parrs or other recreational facilities ❑ El ❑ such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of ❑ El ❑ N facilities which might have an Lrecreational adverse physical effect on the environment? a) No Impact. The Project does not propose any type of residential use or other land use that may generate a population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park, thus, no impact would occur. b) No Impact. The Project does not propose to construct any new on- or off -site recreation facilities. Additionally, the Project would not directly or indirectly expand any existing off -site recreational facilities. Therefore, environmental effects related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not occur. City of Fontana Page 4-37 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration XVII. TRANSPORTATION Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant pact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, El El ® Elincluding transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3 or conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ❑ ® ❑ dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Less than Significant Impact. According to the City's General Plan, there will be as part of this development pedestrian facilities on the street frontages. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable City engineering design standards to ensure compatibility with existing bike lanes and sidewalks. In addition, the Project does not include any element that would prevent the implementation of or preclude the use of the existing or planned bike and pedestrian facilities in the Project site vicinity, including those along the Project site's frontages. The implementation of the Project would not conflict with local public transit service. As demonstrated by the foregoing analysis, the Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs related to alternative transportation, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities, and a less -than -significant impact would occur. b) No Impact. No San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) arterial roadways are located within the Project study area; therefore, there is no potential for the Project to cause or contribute to adverse effects to CMP arterial roadways. City of Fontana Page 4-38 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration The Project would contribute fewer than 50 two-way peak hour trips to the two nearest freeways to the Project site, I-10 and SR-60, which are part of the CMP roadway network. Projects that contribute fewer than 50 two-way peak hour trips to a freeway do not exceed Caltrans' typical screening threshold for requiring an analysis of potential impacts to freeway mainline segments because when a project's peak hour trips are less than 50 they become unrecognizable from other traffic on the State highway system. Accordingly, the Project would not contribute substantial traffic to I-10 and SR-60 mainline segments and impacts to these freeway facilities would be less than significant. All State highway system facilities that operate at an unacceptable LOS are considered to be cumulatively impacted; however, because the Project would contribute fewer than 50 peak hour trips to these congested freeway segments, the Project's effect on San Bernardino County CMP freeway mainline facilities and other freeway mainline facilities located outside of San Bernardino County would be less than cumulativcly-considerable under all traffic scenarios. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Proj ect would not conflict with the applicable CMP and impacts would be less -than -significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. 'l'he types of traffic generated during operation of the Project (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) would be compatible with the type of traffic in the area. In addition, all proposed improvements within the public right-of-way would be installed in conformance with City design standards. The City reviewed the Project's application materials and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced through implementation of the Project. Accordingly, the Project's construction and operation would not create or substantially increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Impacts would be less than significant. d) No Impact. The types of traffic generated during operation of the Project (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) would be compatible with the type of traffic observed along Study Area roadways under existing conditions. In addition, all proposed improvements within the public right-of-way would be installed in conformance with City design standards. The City of Fontana Engineering Department reviewed the Project's application materials and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced through implementation of the Project. Accordingly, the Project's construction and operation would not create or substantially increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. No impact would occur. City of Fontana Page 4-39 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? a. i) No archaeological or historic resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources are present on the Project site or previously recorded on the Project site. In addition, as described under Response V(b), the Project site is highly disturbed and no known significant cultural resources were determined to occur on the Project site or in the Project site's immediate vicinity. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. City of Fontana Page 4-40 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or ❑ telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable ❑ ® ❑ future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity or local ❑ ❑ ® ❑ infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulations related to solid waste? a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would construct an on -site network of water and sewer pipes and stormwater facilities that would connect to existing water, sewer, and storm drain lines beneath streets. The Project also would install connections to existing electricity, natural gas, and communications infrastructure that already exist in the area, and all such connections would be accomplished in conformance with the rules and standards enforced by the applicable service provider. The installation of water and sewer line connections, stormwater drainage facilities, electricity, natural gas, and communications infrastructure as proposed by the Project would result in physical impacts to the environment; however, these impacts are considered to be part of the Project's construction phase and are evaluated throughout this Initial Study/MND accordingly. The construction of utility infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed as part of this Initial Study. City of Fontana Page 4-41 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration b) Less than Significant Impact. The FWC is responsible for supplying potable water to the Project site and its region. As discussed in FWC's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, herein incorporated by reference as the "UWMP," adequate water supplies are projected to be available to meet the City's estimated water demand through 2040 under normal, historic single -dry and historic multiple -dry year conditions (FWC, 2017, pp. 7-5 through 7-7). FWC forecasts for projected water demand are based on the population projections of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which rely on the adopted land use designations contained within the general plans that cover the geographic area within FWC's service. Because the Project would be consistent with the City of Fontana General Plan land use designation for the Project site, the water demand associated with the Project was considered in the demand anticipated by the 2015 UWMP and analyzed therein. As stated above, the FWC expects to have adequate water supplies to meet all its demands until at least 2040; therefore, the FWC has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements/resources and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. The Project's impact would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities and would therefore result in less -than -significant impacts. d) Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would generate an incremental increase in solid waste volumes requiring off -site disposal during short-term construction and long-term operational activities. Solid waste generated by the Project would be disposed at the Mid -Valley Landfill. The Mid -Valley Landfill is permitted to receive 7,500 tons of refuse per day and has a total capacity of 101,300,000 cubic yards. According the CalRecycle, the Mid -Valley Landfill has a total remaining capacity of 67,520,000 cubic yards. The Mid -Valley Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2033. (CalRecycle, 2019a) In June 2019, the peak daily disposal at the Mid -Valley Landfill was 4,600 tons, which correlates to an excess daily disposal capacity of 2,900 tons (CalRecycle, 2019b). Non -recyclable solid waste generated during long-term operation of the Project would be disposed at the Mid -Valley Landfill. As described above, this landfill receives well below their maximum permitted daily disposal volume; thus, waste generated by the Project's operation is not anticipated to cause the landfill to exceed its maximum permitted daily disposal volume. Because the Project would generate a relatively small amount of solid waste per day as compared to the permitted daily capacities at the receiving landfill, impacts to the Mid -Valley Landfill facility during the Project's long-term operational activities would be less than significant. e) Less than Significant Impact. The Ualitorma integrated waste Management Act (AB 939), signed into law in 1989, established an integrated waste management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. In addition, the bill established a 50% waste reduction requirement for cities and counties by the year 2000, along with a process to ensure environmentally safe disposal of waste that could not be diverted. In order to assist the City of Fontana in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act, and pursuant to City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 24, the Project's building occupant(s) would be required to work with future refuse haulers to develop and implement feasible waste reduction programs, including source reduction, recycling, and composting. Additionally, in accordance with the California City of Fontana Page 4-42 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No. 18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No. 18-022 Negative Declaration Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (Cal Pub Res. Code § 42911), the Project is required to provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials where solid waste is collected. The collection areas are required to be shown on construction drawings and be in place before occupancy permits are issued. (CA Legislative information, 2005) Additionally, in compliance with AB 341 (Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program), the future occupant(s) of the proposed Project would be required to arrange for recycling services, if the occupant generates four (4) or more cubic yards of solid waste per week (CA Legislative Information, 2011). The implementation of these mandatory requirements would reduce the amount of solid waste generated by the Project and diverted to landfills, which in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations; as such, impacts related to solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant. City of Fontana Page 4-43 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-028, Tentative Parcel Map No. 19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration XX. WILDFIRE Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Significant Impactwith Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fare hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant ❑ ❑ concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines ❑ ❑ ❑ or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary on ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding El ❑ or landslides, as result of runoff, post -fire slope 11 instability, or drainage changes? a-d) No Impact. CAL FIRE adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps for State Responsibility Areas (SR -As) in November 2007. The fire hazard model considers the wildland fuels. Fuel is that part of the natural vegetation that burns during the wildfire. The model also considers topography, especially the steepness of the slopes. Fires burn faster as they burn up -slope. Weather (temperature, humidity, and wind) has a significant influence on fire behavior. The model recognizes that some areas of California have more frequent and severe wildfires than other areas. Finally, the model considers the production of burning fire brands (embers) how far they move, and how receptive the landing site is to new fires. All SRAs are rated moderate, high or very high fire hazard. ( (CALFIRE, 2012) According to CAL FIRE adopted FHSZ reaps for SRAs, the Project site is not located in or near an SRA or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (CALFIRE, 2007; City of Fontana, 2018a, p. 11- 4). Because the Project site is not located in an SRA, the Project has no potential to result in an environmental impact pursuant to Thresholds XX(a) through (d). City of Fontana Page 4-44 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No.18-0M, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less than Potentially Significant Less than No i Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ❑ ❑ ® ❑ community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively - considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project ❑ r are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ® ❑ human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Less than Significant. All impacts to the environment, including impacts to habitat for fish and wildlife species, fish and wildlife populations, plant and animal communities, rare and endangered plants and animals, and historical and pre -historical resources were evaluated as part of this Initial Study. Throughout this Initial Study, there where impacts were determined to be less than significant. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment and impacts would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant. As discussed throughout this Initial StudylMND, implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to result in effects to the environment that are individually limited, but cumulatively -considerable. City of Fontana Page 4-45 Master Case 18-069; Design Review No. 18-018, Tentative Parcel Map No.19983, Conditional Use Permit No.18-020, Conditional Use Permit No.18-021, and Conditional Use Permit No.18-022 Negative Declaration c)Lcss than Significant. The Project's potential to result in environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been discussed throughout this Initial Study. In instances where the Project has potential to result in direct or indirect adverse effects to human beings (air quality and associated effects on human health from air pollutants, and construction -related noise and potential effects on hearing impairment), project design feature best practices have been applied to ensure impacts to not rise above a level of significance. With required implementation of project design features and identified in this Initial Study, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not involve any activities that would result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. City of Fontana Page 4-46