HomeMy WebLinkAboutSierra Distribution Facility - DEIR
Sierra Distribution Facility
Project
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2023030788
Prepared for:
City of Fontana
Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA, 92335
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
September 2024
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 i Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Environmental Procedures .......................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Project Location .......................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 Areas of Controversy ................................................................................................... 1-3
1.6 Issues to be Resolved .................................................................................................. 1-3
1.7 Unavoidable Significant Impacts .................................................................................. 1-3
1.8 Alternatives to the Project ........................................................................................... 1-3
1.9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting .......................................................................... 1-4
1.10 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................... 1-4
2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report .............................................................. 2-1
2.2 Compliance with CEQA ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3 Notice of Preparation/Early Consultation .................................................................... 2-2
2.4 CEQA Components ...................................................................................................... 2-4
2.5 Format of the EIR ........................................................................................................ 2-6
2.6 Responsible and Trustee Agencies ............................................................................... 2-7
2.7 Incorporation by Reference ......................................................................................... 2-7
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Project Overview ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Project Location, Setting, Surrounding Land Uses, and Land Uses and Zoning
Designations ................................................................................................................ 3-2
3.4 Regional Planning Context ........................................................................................... 3-6
3.5 Proposed Project ......................................................................................................... 3-6
3.6 Project Objectives ....................................................................................................... 3-9
3.7 Discretionary Actions and Approvals............................................................................ 3-9
3.8 Required Agency Approvals ....................................................................................... 3-10
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 ii Table of Contents
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 4-1
4.0.1 Approach to the Environmental Analysis ..................................................................... 4-1
4.0.2 Section Content and Definition of Terms ..................................................................... 4-1
4.0.3 Cumulative Impact Methodology................................................................................. 4-4
4.0.4 Project Approach ......................................................................................................... 4-5
4.1 AESTHETICS .............................................................................................................. 4.1-1
4.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4.1-1
4.1.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.1-3
4.1.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.1-5
4.1.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ................................................. 4.1-7
4.1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4.1-8
4.1.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.1-11
4.1.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.1-11
4.1.8 References ................................................................................................. 4.1-12
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ............................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4.2-1
4.2.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.2-1
4.2.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-4
4.2.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ................................................. 4.2-7
4.2.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4.2-8
4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.2-10
4.2.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.2-11
4.2.8 References ................................................................................................. 4.2-11
4.3 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................. 4.3-1
4.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4.3-1
4.3.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.3-1
4.3.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.3-5
4.3.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.3-15
4.3.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.3-18
4.3.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.3-33
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 iii Table of Contents
4.3.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.3-35
4.3.8 References ................................................................................................. 4.3-35
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4.4-1
4.4.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.4-1
4.4.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.4-6
4.4.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.4-11
4.4.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.4-12
4.4.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.4-15
4.4.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.4-15
4.4.8 Reference .................................................................................................. 4.4-15
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 4.5-1
4.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4.5-1
4.5.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.5-1
4.5.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.5-7
4.5.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.5-13
4.5.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.5-14
4.5.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.5-19
4.5.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.5-20
4.5.8 References ................................................................................................. 4.5-20
4.6 ENERGY .................................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4.6-1
4.6.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.6-1
4.6.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.6-3
4.6.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ................................................. 4.6-7
4.6.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 4.6-8
4.6.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.6-12
4.6.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.6-12
4.6.8 References ................................................................................................. 4.6-13
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 iv Table of Contents
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................ 4.7-1
4.7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4.7-1
4.7.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.7-1
4.7.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.7-12
4.7.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.7-19
4.7.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.7-20
4.7.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.7-26
4.7.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.7-26
4.7.8 References ................................................................................................. 4.7-26
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................. 4.8-1
4.8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4.8-1
4.8.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.8-1
4.8.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.8-3
4.8.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.8-15
4.8.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.8-17
4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.8-23
4.8.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.8-23
4.8.8 References ................................................................................................. 4.8-23
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 4.9-1
4.9.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.9-1
4.9.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.9-8
4.9.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.9-18
4.9.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.9-19
4.9.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.9-26
4.9.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.9-26
4.9.8 References ................................................................................................. 4.9-27
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................................ 4.10-1
4.10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.10.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.10-1
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 v Table of Contents
4.10.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.10-5
4.10.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................. 4.10-16
4.10.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.10-17
4.10.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.10-24
4.10.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.10-25
4.10.8 References ............................................................................................... 4.10-25
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................................... 4.11 -1
4.11.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.11.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.11-3
4.11.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.11-5
4.11.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.11-6
4.11.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.11-13
4.11.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.11-14
4.11.8 References ............................................................................................... 4.11-14
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 4.12-1
4.12.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.12-1
4.12.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.12-3
4.12.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.12-4
4.12.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.12-5
4.12.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.12-6
4.12.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.12-6
4.12.8 References ................................................................................................. 4.12-7
4.13 NOISE ..................................................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.13.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.13.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.13-1
4.13.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.13-2
4.13.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.13-5
4.13.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.13-6
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 vi Table of Contents
4.13.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.13-13
4.13.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.13-14
4.13.8 References ............................................................................................... 4.13-14
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................. 4.14-1
4.14.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.14-1
4.14.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.14-7
4.14.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.14-8
4.14.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.14-9
4.14.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.14-11
4.14.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.14-11
4.14.8 References ............................................................................................... 4.14-12
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................................................... 4.15-1
4.15.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4.15-1
4.15.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.15-1
4.15.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.15-4
4.15.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.15-9
4.15.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.15-11
4.15.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.15-14
4.15.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.15-15
4.15.8 References ............................................................................................... 4.15-15
4.16 RECREATION........................................................................................................... 4.16-1
4.16.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4.16-1
4.16.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.16-1
4.16.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.16-3
4.16.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.16-5
4.16.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.16-6
4.16.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.16-7
4.16.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.16-7
4.16.8 References ................................................................................................. 4.16-7
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 vii Table of Contents
4.17 TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................. 4.17-1
4.17.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4.17-1
4.17.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.17-1
4.17.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.17-2
4.17.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.17-7
4.17.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.17-8
4.17.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.17-14
4.17.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.17-14
4.17.8 References ............................................................................................... 4.17-14
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 4.18-1
4.18.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4.18-1
4.18.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.18-1
4.18.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.18-4
4.18.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.18-5
4.18.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.18-6
4.18.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.18-12
4.18.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.18-12
4.18.8 References ............................................................................................... 4.18-12
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................ 4.19 -1
4.19.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4.19-1
4.19.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.19-1
4.19.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.19-6
4.19.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................. 4.19-12
4.19.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.19-13
4.19.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.19-18
4.19.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.19-18
4.19.8 References ............................................................................................... 4.19-18
4.20 WILDFIRE................................................................................................................ 4.20-1
4.20.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 4.20-1
4.20.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.20-1
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 viii Table of Contents
4.20.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.20-3
4.20.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.20-9
4.20.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.20-11
4.20.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.20-14
4.20.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.20-15
4.20.8 References ............................................................................................... 4.20-15
5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes .................................................... 5-1
5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts ............................................................................................ 5-3
5.3 References .................................................................................................................. 5-5
6.0 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Range of Alternatives .................................................................................................. 6-2
6.3 Project Objectives ....................................................................................................... 6-2
6.4 Criteria for Selecting Alternatives ................................................................................ 6-3
6.5 Alternatives Considered but Rejected .......................................................................... 6-3
6.6 Alternatives to the Project Selected for Analysis .......................................................... 6-4
6.7 Comparison of Project Alternatives ............................................................................. 6-4
6.8 Environmentally Superior Alternative ........................................................................ 6-22
7.0 EIR CONSULTATION AND PREPARATION ................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 EIR Consultation ......................................................................................................... 7- 1
7.2 List of Preparers .......................................................................................................... 7-2
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Assessor Parcel Numbers ..................................................................................................... 1-2
Table 1-2: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures .................................... 1-5
Table 3-1: Assessor Parcel Numbers ..................................................................................................... 3-2
Table 3-2: Surrounding Land Use Designations and Zoning ................................................................... 3-6
Table 3-3: Agency Approvals for the Project ....................................................................................... 3-10
Table 4.2-1: San Bernardino County 2014 -2016 Land Use Conversion ................................................ 4.2-3
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 ix Table of Contents
Table 4.2-2: San Bernardino County Top Ten Agricultural Products (by dollar value) .......................... 4.2-4
Table 4.3-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns............................................... 4.3-2
Table 4.3-2: Ambient Air Quality Data................................................................................................ 4.3-4
Table 4.3-3: Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................................................ 4.3-5
Table 4.3-4: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................................... 4.3-6
Table 4.3-5: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ...................................................................... 4.3-12
Table 4.3-6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds ............................. 4.3-16
Table 4.3-7: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations .......................................... 4.3-16
Table 4.3-8: Construction-Related Emissions ................................................................................... 4.3-20
Table 4.3-9: Operational Emissions .................................................................................................. 4.3-23
Table 4.3-10: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates .............................................................................. 4.3-26
Table 4.3-11: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions ........................................................ 4.3-27
Table 4.3-12: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions .......................................................... 4.3-28
Table 4.3-13: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment .................................................................................... 4.3-32
Table 4.3-14: Chronic Hazard Assessment ........................................................................................ 4.3-32
Table 4.4-1: Special-Status Wildlife .................................................................................................... 4.4-5
Table 4.6-1: Electricity Consumption in San Bernardino County 2010 -2020........................................ 4.6-2
Table 4.6-2: Natural Gas Consumption in San Bernardino County 2010-2020 ..................................... 4.6-3
Table 4.6-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in San Bernardino County 2011 -2021 ............................. 4.6-3
Table 4.6-4: Project and Countywide Energy Consumption ................................................................ 4.6-9
Table 4.7-1: Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale ......................................................................... 4.7-4
Table 4.7-2: Major Fault Zones Near Fontana .................................................................................... 4.7-5
Table 4.7-3: Earthquake Magnitude Classes ....................................................................................... 4.7-6
Table 4.7-4: Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity .............................................................................. 4.7-7
Table 4.8-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................... 4.8-2
Table 4.8-2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................... 4.8-17
Table 4.8-3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 4.8-18
Table 4.8-4: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency .............. 4.8-19
Table 4.8-5: Consistency with the City of Fontana General Plan Update ........................................... 4.8-21
Table 4.11-1: Assessor Parcel Numbers............................................................................................ 4.11-1
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 x Table of Contents
Table 4.11-2: Surrounding Land Use Designations and Zoning ......................................................... 4.11-2
Table 4.11-3: Consistency with the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS .......................................................... 4.11-7
Table 4.11-4: Consistency with the Fontana General Plan ................................................................ 4.11-8
Table 4.13-1: Existing Noise Measurements ..................................................................................... 4.13-2
Table 4.13-2: Sensitive Receptors .................................................................................................... 4.13-2
Table 4.13-3: Typical Construction Noise Levels ............................................................................... 4.13-6
Table 4.13-4: Project Construction Noise Levels ............................................................................... 4.13-8
Table 4.13-5: Existing and Project Traffic Noise Levels ................................................................... 4.13-10
Table 4.13-6: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ..................................................... 4.13-12
Table 4.14-1: San Bernardino County Existing Population ................................................................ 4.14-2
Table 4.14-2: San Bernardino County Projected Population ............................................................. 4.14-2
Table 4.14-3: City of Fontana Existing Population ............................................................................ 4.14-3
Table 4.14 4: City of Fontana Projected Population .......................................................................... 4.14-3
Table 4.14-5: Housing Types within San Bernardino County ............................................................. 4.14-4
Table 4.14-6: Housing Types within the City of Fontana ................................................................... 4.14-4
Table 4.14-7: San Bernardino County Employment by Industry (2021) ............................................. 4.14-5
Table 4.14-8: City of Fontana Employment by Industry (2021) ......................................................... 4.14-6
Table 4.14-9: Project Employment Generation .............................................................................. 4.14-10
Table 4.17-1: Consistency Analysis ................................................................................................... 4.17-8
Table 4.17-2: Trip Generation Comparison .................................................................................... 4.17-11
Table 4.19-1: WVWD Ground Water Pumped Last Five Years (AF) ................................................... 4.19-2
Table 4.19-2: WVWD Actual Water Supplies in 2020 (AF)................................................................. 4.19-3
Table 4.19-3: WVWD Projected Water Supply (AF) .......................................................................... 4.19-3
Table 4.19-4: WVWD Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ............................................... 4.19-3
Table 4.19-5: WVWD Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison............................................ 4.19-4
Table 4.19-6: WVWD Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparisons ..................................... 4.19-4
Table 4.19-7: Estimated Solid Waste Generation ........................................................................... 4.19-17
Table 6-1: Alternative 3 Design Comparison ....................................................................................... 6-16
Table 6-2: Comparison of Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts with the Project ...................... 6-23
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 xi Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Regional Vicinity ............................................................................................................... 3-11
Figure 3-2: Local Vicinity ..................................................................................................................... 3-12
Figure 3-3: General Plan Land Use Designations.................................................................................. 3-13
Figure 3-4: Existing Zoning .................................................................................................................. 3-14
Figure 3-5: Overall Site Plan ................................................................................................................ 3-15
Figure 3-6: Building Design and Elevations .......................................................................................... 3-16
Figure 3-7: Conceptual Landscape Plan and Fuel Modification Zone Plan ............................................ 3-17
Appendices (Provided under separate cover)
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting Notice
Appendix B: Air Quality and Health Risk Assessments
Appendix C: Habitat Assessment
Appendix D: Cultural Resource Assessment
Appendix E: Energy Assessment
Appendix F: Geotechnical Investigation, Results of Infiltration Testing, and Paleontological Resource
Assessment
Appendix G: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
Appendix H: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Results of a Soil and Soil Gas Investigation
Appendix I: Preliminary Hydrology Report and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix J: Acoustical Assessment
Appendix K: Trip Generation Assessment and Traffic Scoping
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 xii Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
1.0
Executive Summary
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 1-1 1.0 | Executive Summary
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) to be produced as a full disclosure document. In order to comply with CEQA
Guidelines, the EIR must (1) inform agency decision-makers and the general public of the direct and
indirect potentially significant environmental effects of a proposed action; (2) identify feasible or
potentially feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant adverse impacts;
and (3) identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project. In accordance with Section 15168 of
the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]), this Draft EIR
(State Clearinghouse No. 2023030788) that has been prepared for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project
(Project) and has been prepared by the City of Fontana (City).
1.2 Environmental Procedures
This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with
implementation of the Project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals. CEQA
established six main objectives for an EIR:
1. Disclose to decision-makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed
activities.
2. Identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.
3. Prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation
measures.
4. Disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental
effects.
5. Foster interagency coordination in the review of projects.
6. Enhance public participation in the planning process.
An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation in CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines; it is intended to provide an objective, factually supported analysis, and full disclosure of the
environmental consequences of a project with the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental
impacts.
An EIR is one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and
disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Before approving a project, the
lead agency must consider the information in the EIR; determine whether the EIR was prepared in
accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; determine that it reflects the independent judgment of
the lead agency; adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and
alternatives; and adopt a statement of overriding considerations if significant impacts cannot be avoided.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 1-2 1.0 | Executive Summary
1.3 Project Location
The Project site is located in northern Fontana, in San Bernardino County (County); refer to Figure 3-1:
Regional Vicinity. The Project site is comprised of six parcels; refer to Table 1-1: Assessor Parcel Numbers.
The Project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse
Drive within the City and is bounded to the north and south by existing warehouse/industrial buildings, to
the west by Sierra Avenue and residential development, and to the east by Mango Avenue and a landfill,
see Figure 3-2: Local Vicinity.
Table 1-1: Assessor Parcel Numbers
Parcel APN Number
1 1119-241-10
2 1119-241-13
3 1119-241-18
4 1119-241-25
5 1119-241-26
6 1119-241-27
Source: County of San Bernardino. 2022. Public San Bernardino County Parcel Viewer.
https://sbcounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=87e70bb9b6994559ba7512792588d57a&marker=-
116.34526321815805%2C34.11587161201653%2C%2C%2C%2C&markertemplate=%7B%22title%22%3A%22%22%2C%22longitude%22%3A -
116.34526321815805%2C%22latitude%22%3A34.11587161201653%2C%22isIncludeShareUrl%22%3Atrue%7D&level=19 (accessed June 2022).
Project Setting
The Project site is presently developed with four commercial/industrial buildings ranging from 5,000 to
25,000 square feet in size. The northwestern quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a
wooden pallet facility. The northeastern quadrant is developed with one buil ding and is utilized as a
carnival attraction repair facility with truck trailer parking. The southwestern quadrant is developed with
one building and open-graded gravel pavements and is utilized for truck trailer storage. The southeastern
quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a storage facility. The existing buildings are
single-story, metal-framed structures and are assumed to be supported on conventional shallow
foundations with concrete slab-on-grade floors. Ground surface cover consists mainly of open graded
gravel and exposed soil, with AC or PCC pavements surrounding the buildings. Little to no vegetation exists
on site. Few large trees are present between the northwest and northeast quadrants.
1.4 Project Description
The Project involves the development of a 398,514-square foot warehouse building within an
approximately 18.3-acre site, with associated facilities and improvements including approximately 10,000
square feet of office space, vehicle parking, loading dock doors, trailer parking, on -site landscaping, and
related on-site improvements; refer to Figure 3-5: Overall Site Plan. The Project would have a Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) of 0.5 and can have a maximum FAR of 0.60. Future occupant(s) of the building are not known
at this time.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 1-3 1.0 | Executive Summary
1.5 Areas of Controversy
The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123 (b)(2) and (3) require that a Draft EIR identify areas of
controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public and issues
to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether, or how to mitigate the significant
effects. No issues of concern were identified during the review period of the distribution of the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) and public scoping meeting.
1.6 Issues to be Resolved
The State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR present issues to be resolved by the Lead Agency. These
issues include the choice between alternatives and whether or how to mitigate potentially significant
impacts. The major issues to be resolved by the City regarding the Project are whether:
• Recommended mitigation measures should be adopted or modified;
• Different mitigation measures need to be applied to the Project; and
• The Project or an alternative should or should not be approved.
1.7 Unavoidable Significant Impacts
The Project’s potentially significant impacts are defined in Section 4.1: Aesthetics through Section 4.20:
Wildfire of this Draft EIR. As noted in these sections, all of the potentially significant impacts identified
can be reduced to a less than significant level by implementing feasible mitigation measures.
1.8 Alternatives to the Project
State CEQA Guidelines Section15126.6(a) requires a Draft EIR to “describe the range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic
objectives of the project but will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project
and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” In response to the potentially significant impacts
that were identified, the EIR includes the following alternatives for consideration by decision-makers upon
action related to the Project.
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The “No Project” Alternative allows decision-makers the ability to compare the impacts of approving the
Project with impacts of not approving the Project by leaving the Project site in its existing condition.
Alternative 2: Drop Lot/ Trailer Storage Alternative
The Drop Lot/Trailer Storage Alternative would utilize the Project site for drop lot and trailer storage,
instead of warehouse uses.
Alternative 3: Reduced Footprint Alternative
The “Reduced Building Footprint” Alternative presents a project variation in which the proposed
warehouse building would be developed at a smaller scale (approximately 298,886 square feet, or a
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 1-4 1.0 | Executive Summary
25 percent reduction in square footage when compared to the Project) and would be further distanced
from Sierra Avenue. Other components of the Project would remain as feasible.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
State CEQA Guidelines requires that an Environmentally Superior Alternative be identified; that is, an
alternative that would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. The No Project
Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it would avoid many of the proposed
Project’s impacts. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior Alternative, CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that another alternative that could feasibly attain most of the
Project’s basic objectives be chosen as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Therefore, in compliance
with CEQA requirements, this Draft EIR also identifies an environmentally superior alternative among the
other alternatives. Based on analysis conducted in Section 6.0: Alternatives, Alternative 3 was chosen as
the Environmentally Superior Alternative. These alternatives are further discussed in Section 6.0:
Alternatives.
1.9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
CEQA requires public agencies to adopt monitoring and reporting programs to ensure compliance with
mitigation measures adopted or made conditions of Project approval in order to mitigate or avoid the
significant environmental effects identified in EIRs. A M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) incorporating the mitigation measures set forth in this EIR will be prepared and presented for
consideration concurrently with the findings of this EIR and prior to approval of the Project.
1.10 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 1-2: Summary of Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures below provides a summary
of significant impacts and proposed mitigation measures associated with the Project as identified in this
EIR. Refer to Section 4.1: Aesthetics through Section 4.20: Wildfire for a detailed description of the
environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the Project. All impacts of the Project can be
mitigated to less than significant levels.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 1-5 1.0 | Executive Summary
Table 1-2: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures
Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Section 4.3, Air Quality
Impact 4.3-2
Would the Project 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
Potentially Significant MM AQ-1 Low VOC Paint (Construction). During
construction, the Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant) low VOC
paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC
limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth
by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural c oatings. Super-Compliant
low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance
of building permits, the City of Fontana Building and Safety
Department shall confirm that plans include the following
specifications:
• All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.
• Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household
hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water -based and oil-
based paints.
• Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent
VOC emissions and excessive odors.
• For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever
possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it
directly into the ground or the storm drain. Set aside the can of
cleanup water and take it to the hazardous waste center
(www.cleanup.org).
• Use compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint
application equipment.
• Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to
prevent VOC emissions.
• Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not
require painting and use pre-painted construction materials to the
extent practicable.
• Use high-pressure/low volume paint applicators with a minimum
transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application
techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Section 4.4, Biological Resources
Impact 4.4-1
Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through
Potentially Significant MM BIO-1 Bird nesting season generally extends from
February 1 through August 31 in southern California. To avoid impacts
to nesting birds (common and special-status) during the nesting
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 1-6 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance
After Mitigation
habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre‐construction
Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) three days prior to project‐related
disturbance to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found,
no further action will be required. If an active nest i s found, the
biologist will set appropriate no‐work buffers around the nest which
will be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance,
nesting stage and expected types, intensity, and duration of
disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly
by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no‐work buffer zone
shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance
activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined
the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.
Section 4.5, Cultural Resources
Impact 4.5-2
Would the Project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
Potentially Significant MM CUL-1 In the event that cultural resources are discovered
during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find
(within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist
meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the
find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered
area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department
(YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within MM TCR-1, regarding
any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information
after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature
of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance
and treatment.
MM CUL-2 If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era
cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are
discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall
develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be
provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within
MM TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the
project and implement the Plan accordingly.
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Impact 4.5-3
Would the Project disturb any human
remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
Potentially Significant MM CUL-3 If human remains or funerary objects are
encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in
the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease
and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and that code enforced for the
duration of the Project.
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 1-7 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.9-1
Would the Project create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Potentially Significant MM HAZ-1 If potentially contaminated soil is identified during
site disturbance activities for the Project, as evidenced by
discoloration, odor, detection by instruments, or other signs, a
qualified environmental professional shall inspect the site, determine
the need for sampling to confirm the nature and extent of
contamination, and provide a written report to the Site Developer or
Lead Agency, as applicable, stating the recommended course of
action. Depending on the nature and extent of contamination, the
qualified environmental professional shall have the authority to
temporarily suspend construction activity at that location for the
protection of workers or the public. If, in the opinion of the qualified
environmental professional, substantial remediation may be required,
Site Developer or Lead Agency, as applicable, shall contact
representatives of the San Bernardino County Fire Department and/or
DTSC for guidance and oversight and shall comply with all
performance standards and requirements of the respective agency for
proper removal and disposal of contaminated materials.
MM HAZ-2 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any
buildings or structures on-site, if hazardous substances are used
and/or stored greater than as specified by the applicable health and
safety code, the Project applicant shall prepare and implement a
Hazardous Materials Management Plan in accordance with all
applicable standards set forth by the Hazardous Material Division of
the San Bernardino County Fire Department, for facilities that store,
handle, or use regulated substances as defined in the California Health
and Safety Code Section 25532 in excess of threshold quantities,
identifying and developing methods of protection from the hazards
presented by the hazardous materials. This report shall also explain
the proposed facility's intended methods of operation and list all of
the proposed materials, their quantities, classifications, and the
effects of any chemical (material) inter-mixing in the event of an
accident or spill. This plan shall be prepared by a qualified person, firm,
or corporation and submitted to Fontana Building & Safety and
reviewed and approved by the San Bernardino County Fire
Department through the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA)
process prior to implementation as required by the California
Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program.
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 1-8 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 4.9-2
Would the Project 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?
Potentially Significant MM HAZ-3 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any
buildings or structures on-site, the Master Developer or Site
Developer, as applicable, shall conduct a comprehensive asbestos
containing materials (ACM) survey to identify the locations and
quantities of ACM in above-ground structures. The Master Developer
or Site Developer, as applicable, shall retain a licens ed or certified
asbestos consultant to inspect buildings and structures on-site. The
consultant’s report shall include requirements for abatement,
containment, and disposal of ACM, if encountered, in accordance with
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD’s) Rule 1403.
MM HAZ-4 All developments within 1000 feet of the Mid-
Valley Sanitary Landfill, shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the following, or in accordance with an equivalent
design which will prevent gas migration into the building as per 27 CCR
Section 21190(g):
1. a geomembrane or equivalent system with low permeability to
landfill gas shall be installed between the concrete floor slab of the
building and subgrade;
2. a permeable layer of open graded material of clean aggregate with
a minimum thickness of 12 inches shall be installed between the
geomembrane and the subgrade or slab;
3. a geotextile filter shall be utilized to prevent the introduction of
fines into the permeable layer;
4. perforated venting pipes shall be installed within the permeable
layer, and shall be designed to operate without clogging;
5. the venting pipe shall be constructed with the ability to be
connected to an induced draft exhaust system;
6. automatic methane gas sensors shall be installed within the
permeable gas layer, and inside the building to trigger an audible
alarm when methane gas concentrations are detected; and
7. periodic methane gas monitoring shall be conducted inside all
buildings and underground utilities in accordance with Article 6, of
Subchapter 4 of this chapter (Section 20920 et seq.).
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 4.18-1
Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal
Potentially Significant MM TCR-1 The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural
Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in MM
CUL-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 1-9 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance
After Mitigation
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), or
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
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe?
discovered during project implementation and be provided
information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal
input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be
deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural
resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the
archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds
shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be
present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should
YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.
MM TCR-2 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents
created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey
reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and
Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or
applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of
the project.
MM TCR-3 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to
Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities.
A. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American
Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the
commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject
project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site
locations that are included in the project description/definition
and/or required in connection with the project, such as public
improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but
is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing,
auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation,
drilling, and trenching.
B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted
to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any
ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary
to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide
descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type
of construction activities performed, locations of ground-
disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any
other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 1-10 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance
After Mitigation
the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered
TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and
historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc.,
(collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any
discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial
goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project
applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the
following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated
point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all
ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-
disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the
project are complete; or (2) a determination and written
notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that
no future, planned construction activity and/or
development/construction phase at the project site possesses the
potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the
immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than
the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered
TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Ki zh
archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs
in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the
Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems
appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or hi storic
purposes.
MM TCR-4 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and
Associated Funerary Objects.
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1)
as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition
or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave
goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be
treated according to this statute.
B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered
or recognized on the project site, then all construction activities
shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 1-11 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance
After Mitigation
immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground-
disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted
until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the
coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native
American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or
she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native
American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per
California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project
site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human
remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh determines in its sole
discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is
acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of
that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the
Kizh monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).)
E. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of
treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any
historic archaeological material that is not Native American in
origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution
with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if
such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution
accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local
school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
F. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept
confidential to prevent further disturbance.
MM TCR-5 Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:
A. As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nas-gna Burial
Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human
remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well
as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited
to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary
objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human
remains.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 1-12 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance
After Mitigation
B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials,
the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a
separate treatment plan shall be created.
C. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same
manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary
objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a
culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with
individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other
items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human
remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects.
Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as
necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.
D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully
documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be
covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by
heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect
the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24 -hour
guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will
make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping
the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted,
it may be determined that burials will be removed.
E. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith
efforts by the project applicant/developer and/or landowner,
before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the project site,
the landowner shall arrange a designated site location wi thin the
footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human
remains and/or ceremonial objects.
F. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary
objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains,
funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony
will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These
items should be retained and reburied within six months of
recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project
site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the
landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no
publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
G. The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified
archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully,
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 1-13 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance
After Mitigation
ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe,
documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum)
detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data
recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in
advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once
complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the
NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the
utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human
remains.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 1-14 1.0 | Executive Summary
This page intentionally left blank.
2.0
Introduction and Purpose
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 2-1 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Sierra Distribution Facility
Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq, and the California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. This Draft EIR has been
prepared for the City of Fontana (herein referred to as the “City”) and evaluates the potential
environmental impacts associated with planning, constructing, and operating of the proposed 398,514
square foot warehouse building project (Project) including approximately 10,000 square feet of office
area. The Project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse
Drive within the City and is bounded to the north and south by existing warehouse/industrial buildings, to
the west by Sierra Avenue and residential development, and to the east by Mango Avenue and a landfill.
The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Light Industrial Land Use Designations and the Light
Industrial Zoning. The CEQA Guidelines are located within the California Code of Regulations (CCR),
Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000-15387, while the CEQA Statute is codified as Public Resources
Code (PRC) Section 21000-21189.57.
This Draft EIR evaluates the potential effects on the environment resulting from implementation of the
Project. Section 3.0: Project Description, provides detailed descriptions of the construction and operation
components of the Project. Section 4.0: Environmental Impact Analysis, discusses the regulatory
environment, existing conditions, environmental impacts, and mitigation measures for the Project.
Following public review of the Draft EIR, a Final EIR will be prepared, in which the City of Fontana will
respond to public comments on the Draft EIR.
2.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report
According to Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is an informational document which will inform
public agency decision-makers and the public of the significant environmental effects of a project. The
purpose of this draft EIR for the Project is to review the existing conditions at and in the vicinity of the
Project site; identify and analyze the potential environmental impacts; and suggest feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives to reduce significant adverse environmental effects as described in Section 3.0:
Project Description and Section 6.0: Alternatives. The Potential impacts include both temporary
construction-related effects and the long-term effects of the development, operation, and maintenance
of the Project, as described in Section 3.0: Project Description.
The intent of this EIR is to address the potential Project impacts utilizing the most current and detailed
plans, technical studies, and related information available. This EIR will be used by the City as the lead
agency, other responsible and trustee agencies, interested parties, and the general public to evaluate the
potential environmental impacts of the Project (refer to Section 3.5: Discretionary Actions and Approvals,
for a list of anticipated responsible and trustee agencies and Project approvals).
2.2 Compliance with CEQA
According to the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Section 15064(f)(1)), preparation of an EIR is required whenever
a project may result in a significant effect on the environment. An EIR is an informational document used
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 2-2 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
to inform public agency decision-makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects
of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable
alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while
substantially lessening or avoiding any of the significant environmental impacts. Pu blic agencies are
required to consider the information presented in the EIR when determining whether to approve a
project. CEQA requires that state and local government agencies consider the environmental effects of
projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects.
This document analyzes the environmental effects of the Project to the degree of specificity appropriate
to the current proposed actions, as required by Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis
considers the activities associated with the Project, to determine the short-term and long-term effects
associated with their implementation. This EIR discusses both direct and indirect impacts of the Project,
as well as cumulative impacts associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects.
Based on significance criteria, the effects of the Project have been categorized as either “no impact ,”
“less than significant impact,” “less than significant with mitigation incorporated,” or “significant
unavoidable impact” (refer to Section 4.0: Environmental Impact Analysis). Mitigation measures are
recommended for potentially significant impacts, to avoid or lessen impacts. In the event the Project
results in significant unavoidable impacts, even with implementation of feasible mitigation measures, the
decision makers may approve the Project based on a “Statement of Overriding Considerations .” This
determination would require the decision-makers to balance the benefits of the Project to determine if
they outweigh identified unavoidable impacts. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 provides in part the
following:
• CEQA requires that the decision-makers balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of the Project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may
be considered “acceptable.”
• Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects that are
identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in
writing the reason to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information on the
record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the finding under Section 15091
(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
• If an agency makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement should be included
in the record of the Project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination.
2.3 Notice of Preparation/Early Consultation
In compliance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City provided opportunities for various agencies and the
public to participate in the environmental review process. During preparation of the Draft EIR, efforts
were made to contact various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies, and other
interested parties to solicit comments on the scope of review in this document. This included the
distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to various responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 2-3 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
interested parties. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 and CEQA Statute Section 21092, the City
circulated the NOP directly to public agencies (including the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and
Research), sent a mailing to property owners within 660 feet of the Project area, and provided notice to
members of the public who had requested such notice. In addition, the NOP was also uploaded to
CEQANet and the environmental documents were made available to the public on the website. The NOP
was distributed on April 3, 2023, with a 30-day public review period ending on May 3, 2023. The NOP and
comment letters received are provided in Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
Notice.
Public Scoping Meeting
The City included a notice of a public scoping meeting for the Project with the NOP referenced above. A
public scoping meeting was held on April 19, 2023, virtually via Zoom platform. The purpose of the scoping
meeting was to obtain comments from the public and agencies regarding the scope of the environmental
document. No oral comments were received during the Scoping Meeting. A total of five comment letters
were received in response to the NOP within the review period. The NOP, comment letters received, a nd
Scoping Meeting Materials are included in Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Materials.
Areas of concern identified during the scoping period include:
• Aesthetic Impacts • Traffic and circulation
• Air quality impacts • Community health risks
• Drainage and flood susceptibility • Bicycle transportation
• Greenhouse gas emissions • Utilities
Native American Consultation
Assembly Bill (AB) 52, further discussed in Section 4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources requires that the lead
CEQA agency, the City of Fontana, consult with California Native American tribes that have requested
consultation for projects that may affect tribal cultural resources. The lead CEQA agency shall begin
consultation with participating Native American tribes prior to the release of a negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration, or EIR. Under AB 52, a project that has potential to cause a substantial
adverse change to a tribal cultural resource constitutes a significant effect on the environment unless
mitigation reduces such effects to a less than significant level.
The City sent AB 52 notification to representatives of the following tribes on January 30, 2023:
• Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
• Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
• San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 2-4 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
PaleoWest (Cultural Resources Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, August 2022,
included in Appendix D: Cultural Resources) contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
for a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) on June 13, 2022. The NAHC responded on July 21, 2022, stating
that the SLF search resulted in positive results and recommended that the Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation be contacted to request information on known Native American cultural resources
in the Project vicinity. In addition, the NAHC provided a list of 18 individuals representing 12 Native
American tribal groups that may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area. Outreach
letters were sent to the Native American contacts on August 10, 2022, with follow-up correspondence
conducted on August 25, 2022.
PaleoWest contacted the individuals and tribes provided by the NAHC and received the following
requests. As of August 26, 2022, seven comments have been received. Arysa Gonzalez Romero, Cultural
Resources Analyst at the Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
(ACBCI) emailed on August 11, 2022, and stated that a record check of their cultural registry revealed that
the Project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. On August 22, 2022, Lacy Padilla a lso
responded via email and confirmed the previous response and stated that the ACBCI would defer to the
other tribes in the area. Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resource Analyst for the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel
Nation (formerly known as the San Manuel Band of M ission Indians), emailed on August 12, 2022, and
stated that the Project is not located near any known cultural resources. Andrew Salas, Chairperson of the
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, was reached via telephone on August 25, 2022, and
stated that the Project is located on the tribe’s ancestral land and that they had concerns regarding the
Project that they sent to the City of Fontana directly. Robert Dorame, Chairperson of the Gabrielino
Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, was reached via telephone on August 26, 2022, and stated that
since most of the families in their tribe reside in coastal areas he would defer to the Tribal Consultant and
Administrator, Christina Conley. Ms. Conley could not be reached for comment. Mark Cochrane,
Co-Chairperson of the Serrano Nation of Mission Indians, was reached via telephone on August 25, 2022,
and requested that he and Co-Chairperson Wayne Walker be contacted if any cultural materials are found
during construction activities. Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department Lead for the Soboba Band
of Luiseno Indians was reached via telephone on August 25, 2022, and stated that he would defer to the
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
The results of the Project’s cultural resources studies, along with the information received through the
AB 52 consultation process, are discussed in Section 4.5: Cultural Resource and Section 4.18: Tribal
Cultural Resources.
2.4 CEQA Components
The Draft EIR is available to the public for review at the locations listed below and on the City of Fontana
website at:
https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-Documents
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087 and 15105, this draft EIR will be circulated for a 45-day
public review period. The public is invited to comment in writing on the information contained in this
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 2-5 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
document. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on
the Draft EIR and are encouraged to provide information that they believe should be included in the EIR.
Comment letters should be sent to:
Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner
City of Fontana, Planning Division
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
squintanilla@fontana.org
Final EIR
Upon completion of the 45-day Draft EIR public review period, the City of Fontana will evaluate all written
comments received during the public review period on the Draft EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088, the City of Fontana will prepare written responses to comments raising environmental
issues. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 (Contents of Final Environmental Impact Report), the
Final EIR will be prepared and will include:
• The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft;
• Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary;
• A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR;
• The Lead Agency’s responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process; and
• Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 (Evaluation of and Response to Comments), after
the Final EIR is completed, the City of Fontana will provide a written proposed response to each public
agency on comments made by that public agency at least ten days prior to certifying the EIR.
Certification of the Final EIR
The Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR, will be considered by the City of Fontana City Council
(the decision-making body for the Project) for certification, consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15090, which states:
Prior to approve a project, the lead agency shall certify that:
• The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
• The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the leady agency, and the decision-
making body reviews and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving
the project; and
• The final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 2-6 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
Regarding the adequacy of an EIR, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, “An EIR should be
prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables
them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation
of the environmental effects of a project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be
reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among the experts does not make an
EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts . The
courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full
disclosure.”
Project Consideration
After certification of the Final EIR, the City of Fontana City Council may consider approval of the Project.
A decision to approve the Project would be accompanied by specific, written findings, in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and, if necessary, a specific, written Statement of Overriding
Considerations, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
2.5 Format of the EIR
The purpose of this EIR is to enable the City of Fontana and other responsible and trustee agencies and
interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project.
This Draft EIR is organized into seven sections:
Section 1.0 Executive Summary, provides a project summary and summary of environmental
impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures and alternatives.
Section 2.0 Introduction, provides CEQA compliance information
Section 3.0 Project Description, provides Project overview, as well as the environmental setting,
Project Purpose, and anticipated approvals that may be required for the Project.
Section 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis, provides a discussion of the existing conditions for each
of the environmental impact areas. This section also describes methodologies for
significance determinations, identifies both construction and operational environmental
impacts of the Project, recommends mitigation measures to reduce the significance of
environmental impacts, and identifies any areas of potentially significant and unavoidable
impacts. This section also includes a discussion of cumulative impacts that could arise as
a result of the implementation of the Project.
Section 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations, summarizes Significant and Irreversible Environmental
Changes and Growth-inducing Impacts.
Section 6.0 Alternatives, describes potential Project alternatives, including alternatives considered
but rejected from further consideration, analysis of alternatives to the Project,
comparison of the alternatives, and identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Section 7.0 EIR Consultation and Preparation , identifies the lead agency, public agencies,
organizations, and interested parties involved in the EIR consultation. This section also
identifies preparers of the EIR.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 2-7 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
2.6 Responsible and Trustee Agencies
Lead Agency
City of Fontana
For this Project, the City of Fontana is the lead agency under CEQA. This Draft EIR has been prepared in
accordance with PRC Section 21000 et seq. and the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15000 et seq.).
CEQA requires lead agencies to consider potential environmental effects that may occur with
implementation of a project and to avoid or substantially lessen significant effects to the environment
when feasible. When a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency with primary
responsibility for carrying out or approving the Project (the lead agency) is required to prepare an EIR.
Trustee, Responsible, and Cooperating Agencies
Other federal, state, and local agencies are involved in the review and approval of the project, including
trustee and responsible agencies under CEQA. Under CEQA, a trustee agency is a state agency that has
jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the
State of California. A responsible agency is an agency other than the lead agency that has responsibility
for carrying out or approving the project. Responsible and trustee agencies are consulte d by the CEQA
lead agency to ensure the opportunity for input and also review and comment on the Draft EIR.
Responsible agencies also use the CEQA document in their decision-making. Several agencies other than
the City of Fontana may require permits, approvals, and/or consultation in order to implement various
elements of the project, as listed in Section 3.5: Discretionary Actions and Approvals.
2.7 Incorporation by Reference
Pertinent documents relating to this EIR have been cited in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15148 or have been incorporate by reference in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150,
which encourages incorporation by reference as a means of reducing redundancy and the length of
environmental reports. The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this EIR and
are available for review online and at the City. Information contained within these documents has been
utilized for various sections of this EIR.
Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035. The City of Fontana adopted the Fontana Forward
General Plan in 2003 and was updated in 2018. The sixteen chapters or elements summarize the existing
conditions and current trends, the planning process, and goals, policies and actions for many different
topic areas that will affect the physical and economic development of the City over the next twenty years.
• The Community and Neighborhood (CN) Element focuses on attributes that contribute to the
form, character, and quality of life in the communities and neighborhoods where people live.
• The Housing (H) Element provides a summary of the state-approved 2014-2021 Housing Element,
prepared according to state requirements and on the state timetable.
• The Building a Healthier Fontana (BHF) element identifies a shared vision and set of values for
addressing health and wellness within Fontana, including goals for the future physical
development that will result in a healthier city.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 2-8 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
• The Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails (COPT) Element describes measures for the
preservation of open space for the protection of natural resources, and for public health and
safety.
• The Public and Community Services Department (PCS) Element focuses on three important
aspects of municipal service provisions: public safety, public facilities, and the many services
provided by the Community Services Department.
• The Community Mobility and Circulation Element (CMC) expand the options for transit and “active
transportation” (pedestrian and bicycle mobility) for Fontana. It is aligned with the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/
Sustainable Communities Strategy concepts of Neighborhood Mobility Areas and Livable
Corridors.
• The Infrastructure and Green Systems (IGS) Element focuses on maintenance of City property,
including parks and trails, streets, sewer lines and lift stations, and City buildings; for stormwater
management; and for maintaining the City fleet.
• The Noise and Safety (NS) Element’s goal is to combine the Goals and Policies of the Noise and
Safety Elements of the 2003 General Plan into one Noise and Safety Element supported by
detailed recent data in the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
• The Sustainability and Resilience (SR) element focuses especially on resource efficiency and
planning for climate change.
• The Economy, Education, and Workforce Development (EEWD) element focuses on providing
more jobs in Fontana for Fontana residents by promoting a diversified economy that builds on
existing businesses and develops, attracts, and retains future job-creating sectors.
• The Downtown Area Plan (DTAP) element ensure that new infill development is compatible in
scale and character with the existing neighborhood while ensuring that transportation and utility
infrastructure keeps pace with the neighborhood character.
• The Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design (LUZUD) element includes an amended Land Use Plan.
The amendments will provide new development opportunities in targets areas and along
corridors that can accommodate such development.
• The final element, Stewardship and Implementation (SI) discusses overall stewardship of the plan
to keep it useful and current by creating systems and procedures to make sure that the plan is
used to guide decision-making and that it is evaluated regularly to see if strategies are working
and if it continues to reflect community goals.
The General Plan was used throughout this EIR since it contains information, policies, and regulations
relevant to the Project. This document is available for review on the City’s website at:
https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035.
Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Final Environmental Impact Report . The Fontana
Forward General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report analyzes the potential environmental
impacts that would result from implementation of the Fontana Forward General Plan Update Goals,
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 2-9 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
Policies, and Actions. The Fontana General Plan Final EIR is used in this EIR as a source of baseline data
and cumulative impacts for the City’s General Plan relevant to the Project.
The Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Final Environmental Impact Report is available for
review on the City’s website at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29525/Final-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-
General-Plan-Update
City of Fontana Municipal Code. The Fontana Municipal Code (Fontana MC) regulates land use and
activities within the City’s jurisdiction including, zoning and development regulations (codified in
Chapter 30). Fontana MC Chapter 30 is the primary tool for implementing the City’s General Plan’s goals,
objectives, and policies. The Fontana MC is referenced throughout this EIR to establish the Project’s
baseline requirements according to the City’s municipal code regulations.
The Fontana MC can be accessed online at:
https://library.municode.com/search?stateId=5&clientId=2228&searchText=geology%20and%20soils
&contentTypeId=CODES
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 2-10 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
This page intentionally left blank.
3.0
Project Description
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 3-1 3.0 | Project Description
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Purpose
The City of Fontana (City), as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has
prepared this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project (Project). The
following Project Description is provided in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. It discusses
the geographic setting, Project location, Project setting, current City land use and zoning designations,
Project characteristics, Project objectives, and discretionary actions required to imp lement the Project.
This information will be the basis for analyzing the Project’s impacts on the existing physical environment
in Section 4.0: Environmental Impact Analysis of this EIR. The Project Description contains the following:
1. The precise location and boundaries of the Project shown on a detailed map, along with a regional
location map;
2. A statement of the objectives sought by the Project including the underlying purpose of the Project
and Project benefits;
3. A description of the Project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics along with
engineering and public service facilities details; and
4. A statement describing the intended uses of the EIR, including a list of all necessary approvals and
permits, a list of agencies that may use the document in their decision-making, and a list of related
consultation and environmental review necessary under local, state, and federal laws, regulations,
and policies.
The information presented within the Project Description will both accurately describe the Project and
assist in further review and assessment of its potential environmental impacts.
3.2 Project Overview
The Project includes the development of a 398,514 square foot warehouse building including
approximately 10,000 square feet of office area on a total of 18.3 net acres in the northern portion of the
City. Fifty-four dock-high doors would be constructed along the majority of the south building wall and
125 auto parking stalls and 118 trailer parking stalls would be provided. The proposed building is expected
to be surrounded by asphalt concrete (AC) pavement in the parking and drive areas, with an included 30-
foot-wide fire lane, Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements in the loading dock area, and concrete
flatwork and landscaped planters throughout the Project site. Development would include on-site
stormwater infiltration. The infiltration system would consist of a below-grade chamber system located
in the southeastern and southwestern portions of the Project site.
The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation and the zoning. The Project
site’s industrial land use designation is I-L: Light Industrial and the zoning is M-1: Light Industrial.1 I-L: Light
Industrial (0.1 to 0.6 FAR) allows for employee-intensive uses, including business parks, research and
1 City of Fontana. 2022. Zoning and General Land Use Designation Interactive Map.
https://fontanaca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ecc67f90c51440eca0d17fd5a6e59c92 . (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 3-2 3.0 | Project Description
development, technology centers, corporate and support office uses, clean industry, supporting retail
uses, truck and equipment sales and related services.
General uses permitted (either by right, minor use permit, or conditional use permit) under the industrial
zoning districts (Light Industrial [M -1]) includes manufacturing, food processing, service and repair,
storage and open yards, warehousing uses, retail sales, restaurants and bars, administrative and
professional offices, educational, and miscellaneous uses. For a detailed list of permitted uses, see
Table No. 30-530: Permitted Uses in Industrial Zoning Districts of the City’s Zoning and Development Code
here:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30ZODE
CO_ARTVIIINZODI.
3.3 Project Location , Setting, Surrounding Land Uses , and Land Use
and Zoning Designations
Project Location
The Project site is located in northern Fontana, in San Bernardino County (County); refer to Figure 3-1:
Regional Vicinity. The Project site is comprised of six parcels; refer to Table 3-1: Assessor Parcel Numbers.
The Project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse
Drive within the City and is bounded to the north and south by existing warehouse/industrial buildings, to
the west by Sierra Avenue and residential development, and to the east by Mango Avenue and a landfill,
see Figure 3-2: Local Vicinity.
Table 3-1: Assessor Parcel Numbers
Parcel APN Number
1 1119-241-10
2
1119-241-13
3 1119-241-18
4 1119-241-25
5 1119-241-26
6 1119-241-27
Source: County of San Bernardino. 2022. Public San Bernardino County Parcel Viewer.
https://sbcounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=87e70bb9b6994559ba7512792588d57a&marker=-
116.34526321815805%2C34.11587161201653%2C%2C%2C%2C&markertemplate=%7B%22title%22%3A%22%22%2C%22longitude%22%3A -
116.34526321815805%2C%22latitude%22%3A34.11587161201653%2C%22isIncludeShareUrl%22%3Atrue%7D&level=19. (accessed June 2022).
Project Setting
The Project site is bound to the west by Sierra Avenue, to the east by Mango Avenue, and Windflower
Avenue enters the Project site from Sierra Avenue. The Project site is presently developed with four
commercial/industrial buildings ranging from 5,000 to 25,000 square feet in size. The northwestern
quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a wooden pallet facility. The northeastern
quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a carnival attraction repair facility with truck
trailer parking. The southwestern quadrant is developed with one building and open-graded gravel
pavements and is utilized for truck trailer storage. The southeastern quadrant is developed with one
building and is utilized as a storage facility. The existing buildings are single-story, metal-framed structures
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 3-3 3.0 | Project Description
and are assumed to be supported on conventional shallow foundations with concrete slab -on-grade
floors. Ground surface cover consists mainly of open graded gravel and exposed soil, with AC or PCC
pavements surrounding the buildings. Little to no vegetation exists on site. Few large trees are present
between the northwest and northeast quadrants.
According to available historical sources, the Project site was historically undeveloped vacant land as early
as 1896 and was developed in phases from 1982 to 1990. The Project site was historically occupied by
light industrial businesses including: All American Pipe & Steel Distribution; Days Expr ess Inc.;
Anderson Trucking Services; Apollo Amusement; San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling; S.J. Steel Inc.;
Active Steel, Inc.; and National Pallets (1987-Present). The Project site is currently occupied by the
following active businesses:
1.) San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling, 6075 Sierra Avenue. This portion of the Project site is located
on the northwest and is used for manufacturing of wood molding and repair/sale of wooden
pallets. This property was developed in late 1980s and houses a metal structure and a mobile
office.
2.) 5975 Sierra Avenue/16899 Windflower Avenue. This parcel is located on the southwest portion
and is currently unoccupied. This property was last occupied by Anderson Trucking Services for
storage and distribution of furniture and was developed in early 1980s and houses a metal
structure.
3.) Davis Partners, 17010 Windflower Avenue. This parcel is located on the northeast portion and is
currently used for repair of carnival rides. This property was developed in the late 1980s and
houses two attached metal structures.
4.) Aluma Systems, 17051 Windflower Avenue. This parcel is located on the southeast portion and is
currently used for repair and rent of steel and aluminum scaffolding. This property was developed
in 1990 and houses a large metal structure. Two stormwater catch basins are present at this
property.
Topography
The Project site’s existing site topography generally slopes downward to the south at a gradient of three
percent. The elevation at the Project site ranges from 1,630 feet mean sea level (amsl) in the northern
portion of the site to 1,612 feet amsl in the southern portion.2
Biology
A Habitat Assessment was prepared for the Project by ELMT Consulting (September 2022). The Habitat
Assessment is included as Appendix C: Biological Resources. As a part of the Habitat Assessment prepared
for the Project, species and habitat information was gathered from relevant databases for the USGS
quadrangle surrounding the Project site to determine which species and/or habitats would be expected
to occur on-site. The literature review identified 20 special-status plant species, 42 special-status wildlife
species, and three special-status plant communities as having the potential to occur in the Devore
2 Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Infiltration Report.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 3-4 3.0 | Project Description
quadrangle. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the lack of availability and quality of
on-site habitats, and because the Project site already has been developed it was determined that the
Project site does not have the potential to support species that are found regionally. Refer to Section 4.4:
Biological Resources, for further discussion.
Hydrology
The Project site lies within the Chino Subbasin and is bound on the east by the Rialto-Colton fault; on the
southeast by the contact with impermeable rocks forming the Jurupa Mountains and low divides
connecting the exposures.3 On the south, the subbasin is bound by contact with impermeable rocks of the
Puente Hills and by the Chino fault; on the northwest by the San Jose fault; and on the north by
impermeable rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains and by the Cucamonga fault. San Antonio Creek and
Cucamonga Creek drain the surface of the subbasin southward to join the Santa Ana River. Annual mean
precipitation ranges from 13 to 29 inches across the surface of the subbasin and averages about 17 inches
and the depth to groundwater is reported approximately at between 150 and 250 feet below ground
surface (bgs) with a flow direction towards the south.4
Seismic Conditions
The Project site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes.
Numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the Project site.
However, the Project would be designed pursuant to the then current California Building Codes. Research
of available maps indicates that the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone.5 Furthermore, Southern California Geotechnical did not identify any evidence of faulting during the
geotechnical investigation.6
Flood Zone Information
According to the City of Fontana Flood Insurance Rate Map, published by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Map Number 06071C7920H, dated August 27, 2008, the Project site is located in
Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard.7
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted for the Project site in January 2021. The
site was historically undeveloped vacant land as early as 1896 and was developed with the existing
improvements in phases from 1982 to 1990. From 1987 to present, the site has been occupied by light
industrial businesses. The Phase I ESA for the site was conducted in accordance with the ASTM E1527-13
guidelines. There were no recognized environmental conditions (REC), Controlled RECs, or Historical RECs
found as part of this assessment with the exception of:
• Poor housekeeping practices at Davis Partners property at 17010 Windflower Avenue; and,
3 Hazard Management Consulting. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
4 Ibid.
5 DOC. ND. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed August 2022).
6 SCG. 2021. Geotechnical Investigation.
7 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2022. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer . https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 3-5 3.0 | Project Description
• The potential for landfill gases to be present beneath the site due to the presence of the
Mid-Valley Landfill east of the Project site across Mango Avenue.
While not a REC per the ASTM guidelines, given the age of the on-site structures, there is a moderate
likelihood that asbestos-containing materials are present in the building materials on site. Refer to
Section 4.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for further discussion.
Airport Influence Area
Rialto Municipal Airport
The Rialto Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) was adopted by the Rialto City Council
January 1991. The intent of a compatibility plan is to avoid conflicts between airport operations and
surrounding land uses. The Project site is within Safety Zone III of the Rialto Municipal Airport Overlay.8
Safety Zone III is also known as the Traffic Pattern/Overflight Zone. The traffic pattern for general aviation
airports is the envelope of aircraft flight paths associated with the pattern entry point, downwind, base,
and final legs, while the overflight area is the larger area where aircraft are maneuvering to enter the
pattern for landing. This is also detailed within the Airspace Restriction section of this report under
“Horizontal Surface.”
Generally, ALUCs place few restrictions on residential uses within this area. Strong emphasis is still placed
on limiting large assemblies of people in uses such as hospitals; stadiums and arenas; auditoriums and
concert halls; outdoor amphitheaters and music shells; regional shopping centers; and jails and dentition
centers. Additionally, land use activities which may present visual, electronic, or physical hazards to
aircraft in flight should be avoided in Safety Zone III and all other safety zones. Visua l hazards include
distracting lights (particularly lights which can be confused with airfield lights), glare, and sources of
smoke. Electronic hazards include any uses which interfere with aircraft radio communications. The
principal physical hazards, other than the height of structures, are bird strikes. Any land uses which can
attract birds should be avoided. Particularly inappropriate uses are artificial attractors and sanitary
landfills.
Surrounding Land Use Designations and Zoning
The City’s General Plan Update 2015 – 2035 (General Plan) Land Use Map was updated and adopted on
September 10, 2019. The Project site’s existing land use designation is Light Industrial (I-L); the existing
zoning is Light Industrial (M-1); refer to Figure 3-3: General Plan Land Use Designations, Figure 3-4:
Existing Zoning, and Table 3-2: Surrounding Land Use Designations and Zoning As previously discussed,
the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation and the zoning.
8 Rialto Municipal Airport. 1991. Final Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Figure III -7. http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/Airports/Rialto.pdf .
(accessed April 2023).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 3-6 3.0 | Project Description
Table 3-2: Surrounding Land Use Designations and Zoning
Location General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning
Project Site Light Industrial (I-L) Light Industrial (M-1)
North Light Industrial (I-L) Light Industrial (M-1)
South Light Industrial (I-L) Light Industrial (M-1)
East Public Facility with Specific Plan Overlay (City of Rialto) Rialto Airport Specific Plan (City of Rialto)
West Residential Planned Community (R-PC) – Sierra Lakes Sierra Lakes Specific Plan
Sources: City of Fontana. 2022. Zoning and General Land Use Designation Interactive Map.
https://fontanaca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ecc67f90c51440eca0d17fd5a6e59c92 (accessed June 2022).
City of Rialto. 2013. City of Rialto Official Zoning Map. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1513/Zoning-Map---July-2013
(accessed June 2022).
City of Rialto. 2010. Rialto General Plan. Exhibit 2.2 – Land Use Policy Plan. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1494/2010 -
General-Plan (accessed June 2022).
3.4 Regional Planning Context
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the nation's largest metropolitan planning
organization (MPO), representing six counties, 191 cities and more than 19 million residents. SCAG is
currently the MPO of six of the ten counties in southern California, serving Imperial County, Los Angeles
County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and Ventura County.
The SCAG Regional Council adopted the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS or Connect SoCal) in September 2020. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
includes goals and policies applicable to transportation and land use projects. The Project’s consistency
with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS goals and policies are discussed in Section 4.3: Air Quality, Section 4.11:
Land Use and Planning, and in Section 4.17: Transportation.
The City is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) which Is under South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) jurisdiction. The SCAB includes portions of San Bernardino County, Los Angeles County,
and Riverside County, and the entirety of Orange County. SCAQMD is the entity responsible for mitigating
emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. SCAQMD utilizes a sequence of Air Quality
Management Plans (AQMPs) that contain rules and regulations directed at attaining the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Refer to the
proposed AQMP discussion within Section 4.3: Air Quality.
3.5 Proposed Project
The Project involves the development of a 398,514-square foot warehouse building within an
approximately 18.3-acre site, with associated facilities and improvements including approximately
10,000 square feet of office space, vehicle parking, loading dock doors, trailer parking, on-site landscaping,
and related on-site improvements; refer to Figure 3-5: Overall Site Plan. The Project would have a Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5 and can have a maximum FAR of 0.6. Future occupant(s) of the building are not
known at this time.
Building Design
The single building for the Project would maintain a typical height of 48 feet. The maximum building height
allowed is 75 feet. The building elevations would be articulated with varying depths of recesses with
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 3-7 3.0 | Project Description
windows. The paint scheme includes a variable grey and white paint scheme to minimize the bulk and
scale of the building with a decorative paint feature in the recesses along the side (east and west) and
rear (north) elevations of the building. The dock doors (54) would be centered on the south side of the
building. Figure 3-6: Building Design and Elevations, shows the conceptual design, architecture, height,
and scale as seen from different directions.
Landscaping
Landscaping would be provided on approximately 21.4 percent (85,181 square feet) of the Project site.
Refer to Figure 3-7: Conceptual Landscape Plan. Landscaping would be installed in all areas not devoted
to buildings, parking, traffic, and specific user requirements, in accordance with the City’s Zoning and
Development Code Section 30-551 which specifies landscape design guidelines for industrial zoning
districts.
Project Circulation and Parking
Currently, the Project site is accessible from Windflower Avenue via one right-in/right-out driveway along
Sierra Avenue, approximately 400-feet north of Clubhouse Drive. There is currently no access between
the Project site and Mango Avenue. Access to the Project site would be provided via one right-in/right-out
driveway along Sierra Avenue (for auto traffic only) and two driveways along Mango Avenue (one full-
access and one for auto traffic only).
Regional Project access would be from State Route 210 (SR-210) via Sierra Avenue. Local access would be
provided via Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue. Project site ingress and egress would be via three
driveways: one 50 -foot-wide driveway on Sierra Avenue and one approximately 54-foot-wide (southerly)
driveway and one 35-foot-wide (northerly) driveway on Mango Avenue. Trucks would enter/exit the site
via Mango Avenue. Mango Avenue intersects with Sierra Lakes Parkway which reconnects with
Sierra Avenue. Trucks would access southbound Sierra Avenue from this point to reach SR-210 and
regional destinations beyond. Truck access to the Project site via Sierra Avenue is prohibited and limited
to access for auto traffic.
The Project would provide 125 parking stalls, 71 trailer stalls, 10 trailer tandem stalls, and 37 tractor trailer
stalls. Additionally, a total of 54 dock doors would be provided. Parking stalls would be provided as follows:
• Standard = 93 stalls
• ADA Standard = 5 stalls
• ADA Van = 1 stall
• EV ADA Van = 1 stall
• EV Charging Only = 5 stalls
• EV ADA = 1 stall
• EV Capable = 19 stall
The Project would require a 34-foot right-of-way dedication for Mango Avenue.
Project Phasing and Construction
The Project is anticipated to be developed in one phase. Should the Project be approved, construction is
anticipated to occur over a duration of approximately 15 months, commencing in summer of 2025; the
facility would be operational in fall of 2026. New construction would include: (1) demolition,
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 3-8 3.0 | Project Description
(2) grading/removal of concrete, (3) building construction, (4) paving, (5) architectural coating,
(6) landscaping, and the applicable off-site improvements conditioned by the City.
Off-Site Improvements
The Project applicant would dedicate 34 feet of right-of-way (ROW) for Mango Avenue. Within that
34-foot ROW, half width improvements would be conducted along southbound Mango Avenue where it
runs adjacent to the Project site. Improvements would include new pavement for the southbound lane
and a 12-foot-wide parkway with five-foot wide sidewalk.
Grading and Utilities
The following describes grading and utility work to be completed for the Project.
The Project site is relatively flat but would require grading to achieve the needed slopes and contour to
facilitate building design and connections to existing utilities. The existing site topography generally slopes
downward to the south at a gradient of 3± percent. The Project site would maintain the same general
drainage pattern and would be graded to conduct runoff to the new drainage facilities that would be
constructed as part of the Project. With regard to earthwork volumes, cut would total 82,237 cubic yards
and fill would total 87,574 cubic yards; a difference of 4,336 cubic yard short.
Overhead SCE powerlines are present along the northern, southern, and western property lines of the
Project site. The overhead powerlines would be removed from their existing location and undergrounded.
The applicant would work with SCE to tie into, relocate, and extend services into the site as required.
Site Utilities/Infrastructure
The Project site is minimally served by water, power, and natural gas. The Project site would tie into
existing utility lines within the existing roadways and rights-of-way adjacent to the site. The Project
applicant would work with the water supplier to access and tie into an existing line and extend services
into the Project site. Similarly, stormwater runoff would be captured and controlled on-site and released
to the existing stormwater drainage facilities. The Project would be required to connect to the following
utilities:
• Domestic water supply and distribution (West Valley Water District)
• Wastewater facilities (Fontana Department of Public Works and Inland Empire Utilities Agency
[IEUA])
• Electricity (Southern California Edison [SCE])
• Natural gas (Southern California Gas Company [SoCal Gas])
• Communication systems (AT&T)
• Solid waste (Burrtec)
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 3-9 3.0 | Project Description
3.6 Project Objectives
The following objectives have been established for the Project:
Objective 1: Implement the City of Fontana’s desire to create a revenue generating use that capitalizes
on nearby transportation corridors and truck routes, stimulates employment, and
responds to current market opportunities.
Objective 2: Revitalize a section of the City with new industrial use(s) to create an economic engine to
drive future growth in the City.
Objective 3 Develop the site with a more efficient use of the Property, to enhance the value of the
Property, generating increased property values.
Objective 3: Provide infrastructure and landscaping improvements to Sierra Avenue and
Mango Avenue vicinity to enhance aesthetics as well as improve safety and traffic flow.
Objective 4: Facilitate goods movement for the benefit of local and regional economic growth.
Objective 5: Provide new development that will generate a positive fiscal balance increasing the City
tax base and a potential for added point of sale tax base for the City moving forward.
Objective 6: Provide additional temporary and permanent employment opportunities while improving
the local balance of housing and jobs.
3.7 Discretionary Actions and Approvals
The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing and certifying the adequacy of
the EIR for the Project. It is expected that the City, at a minimum, would consider the data and analyses
contained in this EIR when making their permit determinations. Prior to development of the Project,
discretionary permits and approvals must be obtained from local and state agencies, as listed below.
• Tentative Parcel Map (TPM No. 22-025): The Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) would include a request
to consolidate six existing parcels (APN 1119-241-10, 1119-241-13, 1119-241-18, 1119-241-25,
1119-241-26, and 1119-241-27 ) to create one new parcel for the development Project.
Other permits required for the Project may include but are not limited to the following: issuance
of encroachment permits for driveways, sidewalks, and utilities; security and parking area lighting;
demolition permits; building permits; grading permits; tenant improvement permits; and permits
for new utility connections.
• Design Review (DRP No. 22-051): The Design Review of the site plan and architectural design for
the development of the warehouse building on an 18.3-acre (797,033 sf) site with parking and
landscaping improvements. The Project is being developed for a speculative end-user and the
future occupant(s) of the Project are unknown at this time.
• Water Quality Management Plan: The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Project
would comply with the policies presented in the City’s municipal code. The WQMP also includes
best practices intended to reduce potential impacts to the City’s stormwater conveyance system
due to the Project’s stormwater discharge. The statutes and best practices presented in the
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 3-10 3.0 | Project Description
WQMP would apply in the construction phase of the Project and throughout the duration of its
operation.
3.8 Required Agency Approvals
Section 15124 (d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR project description include a list of
permits and other approvals required to implement a project, the agencies expected to use the EIR in
their decision-making, and related environmental review and consultation requirements. The anticipated
approvals required to implement the Project are identified below in Table 3-3: Agency Approvals for the
Project, by agency:
Table 3-3: Agency Approvals for the Project
Agency Approval/Permit
City of Fontana • Final EIR Certification
• Development Agreement
• Tentative Parcel Map
• Building Plans/Permits
• Grading Plans/Permits
• Certificates of Occupancy
• Infrastructure Plans/Permits
• Landscape Plan
• Drainage Plan
• Water and Sewer Plan
• Site Development Plan
• Water Quality Management Plan
West Valley Water District • Approval of agreement for water facilities.
Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB)
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.
• Approval of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act (If necessary).
South Coast Air District • Dust Control Plan, and other permits as necessary .
Southern California Edison (SCE) • Undergrounding of transmission poles.
Fontana Fire Protection District • Fuel Modification Zone Plan and Fire Protection Plan
United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS)
• Endangered Species Act (No consultation is necessary/No impact).
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-1: Regional Vicinity
Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana
Project Site
Source: ESRI, 2022
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-2: Local Vicinity
Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana
Source: ESRI, 2022
Mid-Valley Landfill
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-3: General Plan Land Use Designations
Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana
Source: City of Fontana, 4/20/2022
CI
T
Y
O
F
R
I
A
L
T
O
CI
T
Y
O
F
F
O
N
T
A
N
A
Mid-Valley Landfill
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-4: Existing Zoning
Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana
Source: City of Fontana, 6/13/2022
CI
T
Y
O
F
R
I
A
L
T
O
CI
T
Y
O
F
F
O
N
T
A
N
A
Mid-Valley Landfill
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-5: Overall Site Plan
Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana
Source: HPA Architecture, 05/06/2024
Source: HPA Architecture, 10/31/2023
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-6: Building Design and Elevations
Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-7: Conceptual Landscape Plan and Fuel Modification Zone Plan
Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana
Source: HPA Architecture, 6/16/2023
40
PLANT SCHEDULE
BUILDING
PROPERTY LINE (TYP)
PROPERTY LINE (TYP)
PROPERTY LINE (TYP)
PROPERTY LINE (TYP)30
.
0
'
20
.
0
'
30.0' FIRE
LANE
TYP.30.0'
TYP.
30
.
0
'
14
.
0
'
TRASH ENCLOSURE BY OTHERS (TYP)
PUMP ROOM BY OTHERS (TYP)
14' WALL ALONG SOUTHERN PROPERTY
LINE, SEE ARCHITECTURE PLAN (TYP)
8' HT FENCE ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE,
SEE ARCHITECTURE PLAN (TYP)
20.0' SETBACK
TRANSFORMER BY
OTHERS (TYP)
ZONE A (30' FROM BUILDING)
ZONE B (30'-100' FROM BUILDING)
ZONE C (100'-200' FROM BUILDING)
30
.
0
'
20
0
.
0
'
10
0
.
0
'
FIRE LANE (TYP)
SI
E
R
R
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
N
G
O
A
V
E
N
U
E
TREES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' / MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE
CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA / CAMPHOR TREE
LAURUS X 'SARATOGA' / SARATOGA HYBRID LAUREL
LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS / BRISBANE BOX
OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' / SWAN HILL FRUITLESS OLIVE
PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR / FERN PINE
PRUNUS CERASIFERA `KRAUTER VESUVIUS` / PURPLE-LEAF PLUM
SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA / QUEEN PALM
X CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS / CHITALPA
PLANT SCHEDULE
ZONE
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
SHRUBS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
AGAVE ATTENUATA / FOXTAIL AGAVE
ALOE STRIATA / CORAL ALOE
BACCHARIS X 'STARN' / STARN THOMPSON® COYOTE BRUSH
BOUGAINVILLEA X 'LA JOLLA' / LA JOLLA BOUGAINVILLEA
BOUTELOUA CURTIPENDULA / SIDE OATS GRAMA
DIETES BICOLOR / FORTNIGHT LILY
FESTUCA MAIREI / ATLAS FESCUE
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA / RED YUCCA
LANTANA X 'NEW GOLD' / NEW GOLD LANTANA
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS 'CANYON PRINCE' / CANYON PRINCE GIANT WILD RYE
MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA / PINE MUHLY
ZONE
A
A
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
SHRUBS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME ZONE
MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA / PINE MUHLY
MYRTUS COMPACTA / COMPACT MYRTLE
PENSTEMON EATONII / FIRECRACKER PENSTEMON
SALVIA GREGGII / AUTUMN SAGE
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'MORNING LIGHT' / MORNING LIGHT COAST ROSEMARY
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
BOULDER / 3' DIA
B
B
A
A
A
ROCK COBBLE / 1" - 3"
ROCK MULCH / 1/8" SCREENED
WOOD BARK MULCH
GROUND COVERS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ACACIA REDOLENS 'LOW BOY' / LOW BOY BANK CATCLAW
BACCHARIS PILULARIS 'TWIN PEAKS LL' / TWIN PEAKS LL COYOTE BRUSH
DALEA GREGGII / TRAILING INDIGO BUSH
MYOPORUM X 'PUTAH CREEK' / PUTAH CREEK MYOPRORUM
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'PROSTRATUS' / DWARF ROSEMARY
TEUCRIUM COSSONII MAJORICUM / GERMANDER
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ZONE
B
B
B
B
B
A
0
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
40
20 40NORTH
4.0
Environmental Impact Analysis
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4-1 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
4.0.1 Approach to Environmental Analysis
Organized by environmental resource category, Section 4.0: Environmental Impact Analysis, provides an
integrated discussion of the affected environment including regulatory and environmental settings and
environmental impacts and mitigation measures to reduce or potentially avoid significant impacts
associated with implementation of the Project.
Additional analysis and other required chapters under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
are provided in Section 5.0: Other CEQA Considerations, which discusses mandatory findings of
significance and other required CEQA topics, and Section 6.0: Alternatives which describes and discusses
the impacts associated with two alternatives to the Project.
4.0.2 Section Content and Definition of Terms
The environmental setting, impacts, and mitigation measures related to each environmental impact area
are described in Sections 4.1: Aesthetics through 4.20: Wildfire. Section 4.0: Environmental Impact
Analysis is organized into the following environmental topic areas:
• Section 4.1 Aesthetics
• Section 4.2 Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
• Section 4.3 Air Quality
• Section 4.4 Biological Resources
• Section 4.5 Cultural Resources
• Section 4.6 Energy
• Section 4.7 Geology and Soils
• Section 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Section 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
• Section 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
• Section 4.11 Land Use and Planning
• Section 4.12 Mineral Resources
• Section 4.13 Noise
• Section 4.14 Population and Housing
• Section 4.15 Public Services
• Section 4.16 Recreation
• Section 4.17 Transportation
• Section 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
• Section 4.19 Utilities and Services
• Section 4.20 Wildfire
Each potentially significant environmental issue area is addressed in a separate EIR Section (4.1 through
4.20) and is organized into the following Subsections:
• “Environmental Setting” provides an overview of the existing physical environmental conditions
in the study area that could be affected by implementation of the Project (i.e., the “affected
environment”).
• “Regulatory Setting” identifies the plans, policies, laws, and regulations that are relevant to each
resource area and describes permits and other approvals necessary to implement the Project. The
EIR needs to address possible conflicts between the Project and the requirements of federal,
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4-2 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
State, regional, or local agencies, including consistency with adopted land use plans, policies, or
other regulations for the area. Therefore, this subsection summarizes or lists the potentially
relevant policies and objectives, such as from the applicable City of Fontana General Plan and
Municipal Code.
• “Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria” provides the criteria used in this document to
define the level at which an impact would be considered significant in accordance with CEQA.
Significance criteria used in this EIR are based on the checklist presented in Appendix G of the
State CEQA Guidelines, factual or scientific information and data, and regulatory standards of
federal, State, and local agencies.
• “Impacts and Mitigation Measures” are listed numerically and sequentially throughout each
section. A bold font impact statement precedes the discussion of each impact and provides a
summary of each impact and its level of significance. The discussion that follows the impact
statement includes the analysis on which a conclusion is based regarding the level of impact and
its effect pursuant to local, State, and federal regulation and laws.
• “Cumulative Impacts” identifies potential environmental impacts of past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects, in combination with the Project.
• “Significant Unavoidable Impacts” identifies potentially significant unavoidable Project impacts.
• “References” identifies sources cited.
“Mitigation Measures” are recommended where feasible to avoid, minimize, offset, or otherwise
compensate for significant and potentially significant impacts of the Project, in accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.4. Each mitigation measure is identified by resource area, numerically, and
sequentially. For example, mitigation measures in Section 4.3: Air Quality, are numbered MM AQ-1, AQ 2,
AQ-3, and so on. Pursuant to CEQA, the EIR provides a brief discussion of potential significant impacts of
a given mitigation measure, if applicable.
The level of impact of the Project is determined by comparing estimated effects with baseline conditions,
in light of the thresholds of significance identified in the EIR. Under CEQA, the existing environmental
setting normally represents baseline conditions against which impacts are compared to determine
significance. The environmental baseline is typically set as the date of Notice of Preparation (NOP)
publication.
Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15125: Environmental Setting states:
(a) An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the
project. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by
which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. The description of the
environmental setting shall be no longer than is necessary to provide an understanding of the
significant effects of the project and its alternatives. The purpose of this requirement is to give
the public and decision-makers the most accurate and understandable picture practically possible
of the project's likely near-term and long-term impacts.
1) Generally, the lead agency should describe physical environmental conditions as they
exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4-3 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and
regional perspective. Where existing conditions change or fluctuate over time, and where
necessary to provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project’s
impacts, a lead agency may define existing conditions by referencing historic conditions,
or conditions expected when the project becomes operational, or both, that are
supported with substantial evidence. In addition, a lead agency may also use baselines
consisting of both existing conditions and projected future conditions that are supported
by reliable projections based on substantial evidence in the record.
Project component-specific analyses are conducted to evaluate each potential impact on the existing
environment. This assessment also specifies why impacts are found to be significant, potentially
significant, or less than significant, or why there is no environmental impact.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21068 define a significant effect
on the environment as a “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical
conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna,
ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall
not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change rel ated to a
physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.”
A potentially significant effect is one that, if it were to occur, would be considered a significant impact;
however, the occurrence of the impact is uncertain. PRC Section 21100(b)(3) states that mitigation
measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment, including, but not limited to,
measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, shall be inclu ded
in the EIR. Subsection (d) of PRC Section 21100 adds that for the purposes of this section (PRC Section
21100), any significant effect on the environment shall be limited to substantial, or potentially substantial,
adverse changes in physical conditions which exist within the area as defined in PRC Section 21060.5.
Therefore, a “potentially significant” effect and “significant” effect are treated the same under CEQA in
terms of procedural requirements and the need to identify feasible mitigation. CEQA G uidelines
Section 15364 and PRC Section 21061.1 states that “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
social, and technological factors. A mitigation measure is determined to be feasible if it would avoid or
substantially lessen a significant effect on a resource (PRC Section 21082.3). A “less than significant”
impact is one that would not result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment
(applicable significance thresholds would not be exceeded in consideration of PDFs and existing laws,
ordinances, standards, or regulations).
Both direct and indirect effects of the Project are evaluated for each environmental resource area
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 and PRC Section 21065.3). Direct effects are those that are caused by
the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are reasonably foreseeable
consequences that may occur at a later time or at a distance that is removed from the Project area, such
as growth-inducing effects and other effects related to changes in land use patterns, population density,
or growth rate, and related effects on the physical environment.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4-4 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
Cumulative impacts are discussed below and throughout Section 4.0: Environmental Impact Analysis, at
the end of each individual resource section.
There are no mitigation measures proposed when there is no impact, or the impact is determined to be
“less than significant” prior to mitigation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(3)). Where sufficient
feasible mitigation is not available to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, the impacts are
identified as remaining “significant and unavoidable.”
4.0.3 Cumulative Impact Methodology
CEQA Requirements
Under the CEQA Guidelines, “a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the
combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts”
(14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15130(a)(1)). According to CEQA, an EIR must discuss
cumulative impacts if the incremental effects of a project, combined with the effects of other projects is
“cumulatively considerable” (14 CCR Section 15130(a)). Together, these projects compose the cumulative
scenario which forms the basis of the cumulative impact analysis.
Cumulative impacts analysis should highlight past actions that are closely related either in time or location
to the project being considered, catalogue past projects, and discuss how they have harmed the
environment and discuss past actions even if they were undertaken by another agency or another person.
Both the severity of impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence are to be reflected in the discussion,
“but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the
project alone. The discussion should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness and should
focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes
of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact” (14 CCR Section 15130(b)).
For the purposes of this EIR, the Project would cause a cumulatively considerable and therefore significant
cumulative impact if:
• The cumulative effects of other past, current, and probable future projects without the Project
are not significant and the Project’s incremental impact is substantial enough, when added to the
cumulative effects, to result in a significant impact.
• The cumulative effects of other past, current, and probable future projects without the Project
are already significant and the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
the already significant effect. The standards used herein to determine whether the contribution
is cumulatively considerable include the existing baseline environmental conditions, and whether
the Project would cause a substantial increase in impacts, or otherwise exceed an established
threshold of significance.
The approach and geographic scope of the cumulative impact evaluation vary depending on the
environmental topic area being analyzed. The individual “Cumulative Impacts” subsections within each
environmental topic presents impacts and mitigation measures for the Project. Each section of the Draft
EIR begins with a summary of the approach and the geographic area relevant to that environmental topic
area. For most environmental topic areas, the list approach is used. The list of potentially relevant projects
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4-5 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
as well as methodology and relevant planning documents are discussed in each impact section’s
discussion of “Cumulative Impacts.”
The cumulative analysis must be in sufficient detail to be useful to the decision-maker in deciding whether,
or how, to alter the Project to lessen cumulative impacts. Significant adverse impacts of the cumulative
projects would be required to be reduced, avoided, or minimized through the application and
implementation of mitigation measures. The net effect of these mitigation measures is assumed to be a
general lessening of contribution to cumulative impacts. This discussion, found at the end of each impact
section, provides an analysis of overall cumulative effects of the Project taken together with other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.
Geographic Scope
With respect to this EIR analysis, cumulative effects can generally be geographically classified as localized,
site-specific resource issues, regional, watershed level resource issues and global resource issues. At the
localized, site-specific resource scale, the Project’s cumulative impacts have been analyzed for all
20 resource topics.
Each of the cumulative impact categories (EIR Section 4.0: Environmental Impact Analysis) are analyzed
and regulated by different agencies and associated regulatory or policy documents, in order to best
protect the resource in question. The analysis of cumulative effects considers a number of variables,
including geographic (spatial) limits, time (temporal) limits, and the characteristics of the resource being
evaluated. The geographic scope of each analysis is based on the topography sur rounding the Project site
and the natural boundaries of the resource affected, rather than jurisdictional boundaries. The geographic
scope of cumulative effects will often extend beyond the scope of the direct effects, but not beyond the
scope of the direct and indirect effects of the project. The EIR addresses the Project’s potentially
significant impacts, recommends Project-specific mitigation measures, and then also identifies existing or
recommended measures to address potential cumulative impacts.
4.0.4 Project Approach
There are two commonly used approaches, or methodologies, for establishing the cumulative impact
setting or scenario. One approach is to use a “list of past, present, and probable future projects producing
related or cumulative impacts including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency…”
(14 CCR Section 15130(b)(1)(A)). The other is to use a “summary of projections contained in an adopted
local, regional or Statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions
contribution to the cumulative effect” (14 CCR Section 15130(b)(1)(B)).
The City of Fontana General Plan and other planning documents (such as recent City of Fontana
CEQA documents) were used as additional reference points in establishing the cumulative scenario for
the analysis. The previous CEQA documents provide further context as to cumulative impacts considered
for prior projects. The intent of the cumulative impact discussions is to provide sufficient information to
inform decision makers and the public, rather than “tiering” off of prior CEQA documents for cumulative
impacts.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4-6 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.
4.1
Aesthetics
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.1-1 4.1 | Aesthetics
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to
aesthetics and other visual resources in the vicinity of the Sierra Distribution Facility Project (Project),
within the City of Fontana (City). This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies
potential impacts that could result from the Project including construction and operation of the
warehouse, including office space, vehicle parking, loading dock doors, trailer parking, on -site
landscaping, and related on-site and off-site improvements. This chapter discusses the visual changes that
would occur upon implementation of the Project, and as necessary, recommends mitigation measur es to
avoid and/or reduce the significance of impacts. Aesthetic and other visual resources include both natural
and built environments. Impacts are discussed in terms of the changes that would result from Project
implementation and includes analysis of adverse effects on a scenic vista(s), changes to scenic resources
(e.g., trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings) within a state scenic highway, and/or degradation of
the sites or the surrounding visual character. Impacts could also result from the c reation of a new source
of substantial light or glare.
This section and environmental discussion use information from the following City documents:
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental
Impact Report.
• City of Fontana Municipal Code.
Visual Resource Terminology and Concepts
When viewing a landscape, people can have different responses to that landscape based on what is seen,
their expectations of views, and because of proposed or current changes to the visual landscape. Viewer
responses will vary based upon the viewer’s values, familiarity, concern, or expectations of that landscape
as well as the scenic quality. Because each person’s attachment to and value for a landscape is unique,
visual changes to that landscape inherently affect viewers differently. Nonetheless, generali zations can
be made about viewer sensitivity to scenic quality and visual changes. Recreational users (e.g., hikers,
equestrians, tourists, and people driving for pleasure) generally have high concern for scenery and
landscape character. People commuting daily through the same landscape generally have a moderate
concern for scenery, while people working at an industrial site would generally have a lower concern for
scenic quality or changes to existing landscape character. Regarding travelers navigating thr ough a
landscape, the visual sensitivity of these types of viewers is affected by the travel speed at which they are
moving, the landscape they are viewing, and area in which they are traveling, for example, an interstate
or scenic highway. Other considerations may include changes as seen by viewers from hiking trails or
stationary viewers from a residence.
The visual sensitivity of a viewer also is affected by variables such as the viewing distances to the
landscape. For example, a project feature or natural environment can be perceived differently by people
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.1-2 4.1 | Aesthetics
depending on the distance the observer is from the viewed object. At closer ranges greater detail of an
object or landscape is visible. In these instances, changes to viewed object have a greater potential to
influence the visual quality of the object because changes to form or scale (the object’s relative size in
relation to the viewer) are more noticeable. When the same object is viewed at background distances,
details may be imperceptible while changes to the overall forms of terrain and vegetation may be evident.
In the middle ground, some detail is evident (e.g., the foreground), and landscape elements are seen in
context with landforms and vegetative patterns (e.g., the background). Nonetheless, changes in views
from all distances can result in negative consideration from viewers.
Specific terms and concepts are used to assess the visual elements, aesthetic setting, and potential for a
project to have effects on visual resources. These terms are included in the discussions throughout this
section and are listed below.
Scenic Vista. An area that is designated, signed, and accessible to the public for the express purposes of
viewing and sightseeing. This includes any such areas designated by a federal, state, or local agency.
Scenic Highway. Any stretch of public roadway that is designated as a scenic corridor by a federal, state,
or local agency.
Sensitive Receptors. Viewer responses to visual settings are inferred from a variety of factors, including
distance and viewing angle, types of viewers, number of viewers, duration of view, and viewer activities.
The viewer type and associated viewer sensitivity are distinguished among project viewers in recreational,
residential, commercial, military, and industrial areas. Viewer activities can range from a circumstance
that encourages a viewer to observe the surroundings more closely (such as recreational activities) to one
that discourages close observation (such as commuting in heavy traffic). Viewers in recreational areas are
considered to have high sensitivity to visual resources. Residential viewers generally have moderate
sensitivity but extended viewing periods. Viewers in commercial, military, and industrial areas are
generally considered to have low sensitivity.
Viewshed. A project’s viewshed is defined as the surrounding geographic area from which the project is
likely to be seen, based on topography, atmospheric conditions, land use patterns, and roadway
orientations. “Project viewshed” is used to describe the area surrounding a project site where a person
standing on the ground or driving a vehicle can view the project site.
Visual character typically consists of landforms, vegetation, water features, and cultural modifications that
impart an overall visual impression of an area’s landscape. Scenic areas typically include open space,
landscaped corridors, and viewsheds. Visual character is influenced by many different landscape
attributes including color contrasts, landform prominence, repetition of geometric forms, and uniqueness
of textures among other characteristics.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.1-3 4.1 | Aesthetics
4.1.2 Environmental Setting
Visual Setting
The Project site is an 18.3-acre site comprised of six parcels. According to available historical sources, the
Project site was historically undeveloped vacant land as early as 1896 and was developed in phases from
1982 to 1990. The Project site was historically occupied by light industrial businesses including: All
American Pipe & Steel Distribution; Days Express Inc.; Anderson Trucking Services; Apollo Amusement;
San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling; S.J. Steel Inc.; Active Steel, Inc.; and National Pallets (1987-Present).
Aerial photographs covering the Project site were obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
(EDR). Photographs were available from the period 1930 through 2016. A summary of the observations
noted from the aerial photography is as follows1:
1930-1975 The photographs from this period show the Project site and site vicinity as undeveloped.
1985-1995 The photographs from this period show the site developed with the existing
improvements. The surrounding properties are undeveloped.
2002-2009 The photographs from this period show the Project site developed with the existing
improvements. The areas to the north and south are undeveloped. The area east of the
Project site appears to be the boundary of a landfill. The area west of the Project site
across Sierra Avenue is developed with residential buildings.
2012-2016 The photographs from this period show the Project site developed with the existing
improvements. The area to the north is developed with a large industrial warehouse
building. The area immediately south is undeveloped. The area east of the site appears to
be part a landfill. The area west of the site across Sierra Avenue is developed with
residential buildings.
The Project site is currently occupied by the following operating businesses:
1.) San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling, 6075 Sierra Avenue. This portion of the Project site is located on
the northwest and is used for manufacturing of wood molding and repair/ sale of wooden pallets. This
property was developed in late 1980s and houses a metal structure and a mobile office.
2.) 5975 Sierra Avenue/16899 Windflower Avenue. This parcel is located on the southwest portion and
is currently unoccupied. This property was last occupied by Anderson Trucking Services for storage
and distribution of furniture and was developed in early 1980s and houses a metal structure.
3.) Davis Partners, 17010 Windflower Avenue. This parcel is located on the northeast portion and is
currently used for repair of carnival rides. This property was developed in the late 1980s and houses
two attached metal structures.
4.) Aluma Systems, 17051 Windflower Avenue. This parcel is located on the southeast portion and is
currently used for repair and rent of steel and aluminum scaffolding. This property was developed in
1990 and houses a large metal structure. Two stormwater catch basins are present at this property.
1 Hazard Management Consulting Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 5975 and 6075 Sierra Avenue 16899, 17010 and 17051
Windflower Avenue Fontana, California 92336. January 14, 2021.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.1-4 4.1 | Aesthetics
The Project site’s existing site topography generally slopes downward to the south at a gradient of three
percent. The elevation at the Project site ranges from 1,630 feet mean sea level (amsl) in the northern
region of the site to 1,612 feet amsl in the southern region.2
The Project site is located at the northeast corner of Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive within the City
and is bounded to the north and south by existing warehouse/industrial buildings, to the west by
Sierra Avenue and residential development, and to the east by Mango Avenue and a landfill. Views of the
Project site are primarily available to travelers on Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue. Existing trees and
development block views of the San Gabriel Mountains from the Project site.
Scenic Vistas
A scenic vista can be defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape
for the benefit of the public. Within the City, views of elevated features with such scenic quality include
the San Gabriel Mountains located approximately 2.5 miles northwest from the Project site, as well as the
Jurupa Hills located approximately seven miles south from the Project site. Open space in Fontana
generally consists of a mix of the foothills, utility corridors, parks, Lytle Creek, and other dry washes. Open
space in the foothills can be seen to the north at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains and to the south
in the Jurupa Hills.3
The Fontana General Plan (Fontana GP) does not officially designate any scenic vistas near the Project site.
The Draft EIR for the City General Plan update (GP DEIR) does note that the San Gabriel Mountains are
the City’s most prominent visual feature and that scenic views of the mountains ar e provided especially
from the Jurupa Hills.
Scenic Highways
There are no scenic highways officially designated by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
within or adjacent to the Project site. There are no roadways that are currently eligible for scenic highway
designation in the City. The closest scenic highway is the segment of State Route (SR) 330 from SR 30 at
North Highland to SR 18 in Running Springs. The closest point of this segment is approximately 8.8 miles
to the east of the Project site.4
Light and Glare
Light and glare sources around the Project site are typical to those found in urban environments. Sources
of light and glare include adjacent residential uses, warehouses, and roadways both from streetlights and
vehicle headlights. Industrial uses in the vicinity of the Project site also produce some light and glare
generally from stationary light sources from exterior building lighting (i.e., building illumination, security
lighting, parking lot lighting, and landscape lighting) as well as interior lighting visible through windows
and exterior sources. There is currently minimal light and glare being emitted from the Project site.
2 Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Infiltration Report.
3 City of Fontana. 2019. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035, page 5.1-1 – Draft Environmental Impact Report.
4 California Department of Transportation. 2014.California Scenic Highways – GIS.
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f0259b1ad0fe4093a5604c9b838a486a#visualize (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.1-5 4.1 | Aesthetics
4.1.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
No Federal laws, regulations, or executive orders apply to aesthetics and scenic resources in the Project
site.
State5
California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the
California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy
Commission [CEC]) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2022 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code
of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve
energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of
new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The CEC adopted the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2023. Title 24 requires outdoor lighting controls to reduce
energy usage; in effect, this reduces outdoor lighting.
State Scenic Highways
California’s Scenic Highway Program was created in 1963 with a purpose to protect and enhance the
natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, through special conservation
treatment. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can
be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes
upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view.
The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as
scenic highways or have been officially designated. The status of a proposed state scenic highway changes
from eligible to officially designated when the local governing body applies to Caltrans for scenic highway
approval, adopts a Corridor Protection Program, and receives notification that the highway has been
officially designated a Scenic Highway.
When a city or county nominates an eligible scenic highway for official designation, it must identify and
define the scenic corridor of the highway. Scenic corridors consist of land that is visible from the highway
right of way and is comprised primarily of scenic and natural features. Topography, vegetation, viewing
distance, and/or jurisdictional lines determine the corridor boundaries. The city or county must also adopt
ordinances, zoning and/or planning policies to preserve the scenic quality of the cor ridor or document
such regulations that already exist in various portions of local codes. These ordinances and/or policies
make up the Corridor Protection Program.
5 County of San Bernardino. 2019. San Bernardino Countywide Plan Draft EIR. Aesthetics Element. Pages 5.1-1 through 5.1-2.
https://countywideplan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/68/2021/01/Ch_05-01-AE.pdf (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.1-6 4.1 | Aesthetics
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
There are no goals or policies in the General Plan that are pertinent to the Project and aesthetics.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
The Project site is within the limits of the City of Fontana and would be required to comply with the
regulations set forth in the Fontana Municipal Code (MC).
The MC directs that all lights shall be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting
adjacent properties. No structure or lighting feature shall be permitted which creates adverse glare. A
photometric plan shall be provided that indicates the amount of light emanating from the proposed/
existing light fixtures.6
All lighting must have the following characteristics, as is outlined in Fontana MC Section 30 -550 – Site plan
design:
• All exterior lighting shall be adequately controlled and shielded to prevent glare and undesirable
illumination to adjacent properties or streets.
• On-site lights shall provide a safe, functional, and aesthetic design. Enough lighting should be
provided to ensure a safe environment while at the same time not cause areas of intense light or
glare.
• Light fixtures and poles shall be designed and placed in a manner consistent and compatible with
the overall site and building design.
• High-intensity security lighting fixtures shall not be substituted for site or landscape lighting or
general building exterior illumination but shall be limited to loading and storage locations or other
similar service areas only.
Section 28-61 of Chapter 28 – Vegetation, Article III Preservation of Heritage and Significant Specimen
Trees7 was adopted to establish regulations for the preservation and protection of heritage, significant,
and/or specimen trees within the City located on both private and public property . The City notes that
these trees are worthy of preservation in order to enhance the scenic beauty of the City as well as other
benefits.
Section 30-664 of Chapter 30 – Zoning and Development Code, Article X – General Landscape
Requirements8 discusses the design guidelines for landscape in developments within the City. This section
encourages harmonious landscape design, is responsive to physical characteristics of the site, includes
xeriscape design, and other elements to ensure it is a visually appealing element of design.
6 City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 30-544 – Light and Glare. (accessed June 2022).
7 City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 28-61 - Purpose. (accessed June 2022).
8 City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 30-664 - Purpose. (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.1-7 4.1 | Aesthetics
4.1.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning aesthetics. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized
as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the
environment if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from 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; or
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project site is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning aesthetics. This analysis considers the existing
regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, a nd standards) that avoid or reduce the
potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with
the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the
potentially significant environmental impacts at the Project site.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on aesthetic resources examines the temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent
(i.e., operational) effects based on significance criteria/threshold’s application outlined above. For each
criterion, the analyses are generally divided into two main categories: (1) temporary impacts and
(2) permanent impacts. Each criterion is discussed in the context of Project site and the surrounding
characteristics and geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in
environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the
environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are from review of Project site plan, maps, and drawings;
analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records,
including local planning documents. The determination that a Project component would or would not
result in “substantial” adverse effects on scenic resources or visual character considers the site’s aesthetic
resource value and the severity of the Project component’s visual impact (e.g., the nature and duration of
the impact). For example, a Project component resulting in a severe impact on a site with a low aesthetic
resource value would result in a less than significant impact concerning scenic or visual character. In other
words, new conspicuous structures or visual changes in areas with a low aesthetic resource value may not
necessarily result in substantial adverse effects on visual resources.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.1-8 4.1 | Aesthetics
4.1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.1-1 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
Construction activities would result in temporary changes to the visual characteristics of the site as viewed
from the surrounding uses from temporary grading, equipment staging, and associated building activities.
Construction activities would be visible to area residents and passers-by along Sierra Avenue and Mango
Avenue. The Project is anticipated to be constructed in one phase and construction activities are
anticipated to last approximately 15 months, during which a certain level of aesthetic changes will occur
on the site.
As noted in Section 3.0: Project Description, the Project site’s existing land u se designation is Light
Industrial (I-L), and the existing zoning is Light Industrial (M-1). The Project is consistent with the City’s
General Plan land use designation and zoning. The maximum allowed building height is 75 feet under both
the existing land use designation and zoning. The warehouse building would be approximately 45.5 feet
in height and would be consistent with the existing land use, zoning, and allowed building height within
the Fontana MC for the site. The Project site is presently developed with four commercial/industrial
buildings ranging from 5,000 to 25,000 square feet in size. The northwestern quadrant is developed with
one building and is utilized as a wooden pallet facility. The northeastern quadr ant is developed with one
building and is utilized as a carnival attraction repair facility with truck trailer parking. The southwestern
quadrant is developed with one building and open-graded gravel pavements and is utilized for truck trailer
storage. The southeastern quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a storage facility.
As previously discussed, the Fontana GP, the northern and southern portions of the City have direct lines
of sight to the San Gabriel Mountains and the Jurupa Hills, two scenic vistas within the City. However, the
Project would not significantly alter views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills due to the nature
of the surrounding buildings and compliance with the Fontana GP land use designation and zoning.
Additionally, the Project would be constructed to not exceed the maximum of 75 feet height requirement
set forth in the Fontana MC. Lastly, the Project would introduce a new, state of the art distribution facility,
replacing the existing uses, such as the storage of pallets and trailers, which are of a less appealing visual
character. As such, the Project would cause a less than significant impact to scenic vistas .
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.1-2 Would the Project Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
Level of Significance: No Impact
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.1-9 4.1 | Aesthetics
Construction and Operations
There are no state scenic highways within the City.9 The nearest State Scenic Highway, SR-330, is
approximately 8.8 miles east of the Project site. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project site
would not damage or obstruct a scenic resource (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings) within
a State Scenic Highway. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.1-3 Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are
experienced from 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 ?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Public Resources Code Section 21071 defines an urbanized area as:
a) An incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria:
1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons.
2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than
two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau10, the 2020 population of Fontana was 208,393 and therefore meets
criterion a-1. This discussion will analyze whether or not the Project would conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic quality.
Construction and Operations
The Project applicant proposes the development of an approximately 398,514-square foot warehouse
building within an 18.3-acre site, with associated facilities and improvements including approximately
10,000 square feet of office space, vehicle parking, loading dock doors, trailer parking, on -site landscaping,
and related on-site and off-site improvements; refer to Figure 3-5: Overall Site Plan. Additionally, the
Project applicant proposes approximately 21.4 percent of landscape coverage. The Project site would be
designed to provide landscape areas at all frontages. The landscape buffers would separate vehicle and
truck parking areas from the sidewalks and streets. Additionally, off-site improvements would be
implemented as part of the Project which include curb, gutter, underground utilities, sidewalks, and
landscaping, as appropriate, along Mango Avenue.
9 City of Fontana. 2019. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035, page 5.1-1 – Draft Environmental Impact Report.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed
June 2022).
10 U.S. Census Bureau. Quickfacts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fontanacitycalifornia/PST045222 (accessed April 2023).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.1-10 4.1 | Aesthetics
Construction activities would involve earthmoving and grading activities and views from off -site areas of
the work and construction equipment. In addition, building of the structure and interior site elements
such as paving, installation of utilities, and installation of landscaping, among others would be visible
during the temporary construction time frame. However, because the Project site already is developed
and does not contain substantial variation in landforms, these activities would not result in su bstantial
alteration of existing grades or any slopes that represent areas of substantial scenic quality. Project site
grading would comply with City standards, ordinance, and codes, including City codes related to grading
and other construction work including but not limited to Article IV of Chapter 28 - Vegetation,
Section 28-95 – which requires a Landscape Documentation Package, and Section 28-102, which requires
a Grading Design Plan. Construction activities also would have to comply with all other appl icable
requirements. Conformance to these codes would help reduce the potential stark changes to the visual
environment during construction.
Project construction activities would temporarily affect the visual character of the surrounding area.
However, as previously discussed, the Project is located in an urbanized area and in close proximity to
other industrial uses. Furthermore, the Project adheres to the Fontana GP land use designation and
zoning, as well as the Fontana MC, meaning the Project corresponds with the vision for the future for the
City. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and would not create a lasting impact to the
surrounding visual character.
Project implementation and operation would allow for new development within an existing developed
area, including the Project site, which would not significantly alter the developed existing landforms and
visual quality in the area. The Project would involve grading, landform alteration, and the development of
a high-cube warehousing building. High quality development with visually appealing elements including
landscaping and natural-like building materials would create cohesive designs with other similar facilities
in the general vicinity.
The development would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or public views.
To further reduce changes in the visual environment, the Project would incorporate perimeter
landscaping, trees, and ground covers to visually buffer the structures. For this reason, it is anticipated
that implementation of the Project would not degrade the visual characteristics that are already
considered low. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.1-4 Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
Existing sources of light and glare exist in the Project’s immediate vicinity. Existing lighting sources include
streetlights, outdoor safety and security lighting from adjacent developments including the residential
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.1-11 4.1 | Aesthetics
developments to the west and warehouses to the north and south, and vehicle headlights from adjacent
roadways. Construction of the warehouse building would be limited to the daytime hours of construction
permitted in the Fontana MC (unless otherwise approved by the City), and nighttime lighting would not
be required until the site is operational. Therefore, no short-term impacts associated with light and glare
would occur.
Once operational, the building would use interior and exterior security lighting. Consistent with Section
No. 30-544 (Light and Glare) of the City’s Zoning and Development Code,11 all lighting used on the Project
site is required to be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent
properties, and no structures or features that create adverse glare effects are permitted. Thus, all exterior
lighting would be shielded/hooded to prevent light trespass onto nearby properties. Additionally, the
single warehouse building for the Project would use a variety of non-reflective building materials, and
although some new reflective improvements (i.e., windows and building front treatments) would be
introduced to the site, the warehouse building would not be a source of glare in the area. Therefore,
long-term impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.1.6 Cumulative Impacts
When evaluating cumulative aesthetic impacts, several factors must be considered. The context in which
the Project is being viewed would also influence the potential significance of a cumulative aesthetic
impact. The Project is consistent with the existing Land Use and Zoning of the site and would reflect the
existing and surrounding development. The Project, taken in sum with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects would not substantially affect the already diminished and limited views of the San
Gabriel Mountains. The City is becoming more urbanized and the contrast of the potential development,
in comparison to the surrounding natural environment would be minimal.
In order for a cumulative aesthetic impact to occur, the cumulative nature of the Project site taken with
other projects, as seen together or in proximity to each other must be cumulatively considerable. In the
case of the Project, the potential aesthetic impacts related to views, aesthetics, and light and glare are
less than significant. Mitigation measures beyond the required conformance to applicable policies and
guidance in the Fontana MC and Fontana GP, are not required. As discussed above, Project -related
impacts would be less than significant.
4.1.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
11 City of Fontana. 2019. Chapter 30 – Zoning and Development Code .
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30ZODECO_ARTVIIINZODI_DIV6PEST_S30 -
544LIGL (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.1-12 4.1 | Aesthetics
4.1.8 References
California Department of Transportation. 2014. California Scenic Highways.
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f0259b1ad0fe4093a5604c9b838a486a#visualize .
City of Fontana. 2019. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact
Report. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update.
City of Fontana. 2019. Chapter 30 – Zoning and Development Code.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH30ZODECO .
City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 30-544 – Light and Glare.
City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 28-61 – Purpose.
City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 30-664 – Purpose.
County of San Bernardino. 2019. San Bernardino Countywide Plan Draft EIR. Aesthetics Element.
Pages 5.11 through 5.1-2. https://countywideplan.com/wp-
content/uploads/sites/68/2021/01/Ch_05 -01-AE.pdf.
Hazard Management Consulting Inc. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 5975 and 6075 Sierra
Avenue 16899, 17010 and 17051 Windflower Avenue Fontana, California 92336 .
Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Infiltration Report.
U.S. Census Bureau. Quickfacts.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fontanacitycalifornia/PST045222 .
4.2
Agriculture and Forestry
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.2-1 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry Resources
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and analyzes the Sierra Distribution
Facility Project (Project) and its potential impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. This section will
describe the environmental setting of the Project along with any applicable federal, state, regional and
local regulations. Any identified environmental impacts on agricultural and forestry resources will be
assessed for their significance along with any potentially cumulative impacts associated with the Project
development. The current condition was used as the baseline against which to compare potential impacts
associated with the implementation of the Project. As necessary, mitigation measures may be provided
to minimize any potentially significant environmental impact to less than significant levels.
The following sources were reviewed to prepare this section:
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015 – 2035.
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015 – 2035 Draft Environmental
Impact Report.
• California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP).
• Other sources found in Section 4.2.8: References.
4.2.2 Environmental Setting
Project Site
The Project site is bound to the west by Sierra Avenue, to the east by Mango Avenue, and Windflower
Avenue enters the Project site from Sierra Avenue. The Project site is presently developed with four
commercial/industrial buildings ranging from 5,000 to 2 5,000 square feet in size. The northwestern
quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a wooden pallet facility. The northeastern
quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a carnival attraction repair facility with truck
trailer parking. The southwestern quadrant is developed with one building and open -graded gravel
pavements and is utilized for truck trailer storage. The southeastern quadrant is developed with one
building and is utilized as a storage facility. The existing buildings are single-story, metal-framed structures
and are assumed to be supported on conventional shallow foundations with concrete slab-on-grade
floors. Little to no vegetation exists on site. Few large trees are present between the northwest and
northeast quadrants. The Project site’s existing site topography generally slopes downward to the south
at a gradient of three percent. The elevation at the Project site ranges from 1,630 feet mean sea level
(amsl) in the northern region of the site to 1,612 feet amsl in the southern region.1
1 Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Warehouse, NEC Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive, Fontana,
California.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.2-2 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The Project site is currently occupied by the following businesses:
1.) San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling, 6075 Sierra Avenue. This portion of the Project site is located
on the northwest and is used for manufacturing of wood molding and repair/sale of wooden
pallets. This property was developed in late 1980s and houses a metal structure and a mobile
office.
2.) 5975 Sierra Ave./ 16899 Windflower Avenue. This parcel is located on the southwest portion and
is currently unoccupied. This property was last occupied by Anderson Trucking Services for storage
and distribution of furniture & was developed in early 1980s and houses a metal structure.
3.) Davis Partners, 17010 Windflower Avenue. This parcel is located on the northeast portion and is
currently used for repair of carnival rides. This property was developed in the late 1980s and
houses two attached metal structures.
4.) Aluma Systems, 17051 Windflower Avenue. This parcel is located on the southeast portion and is
currently used for repair and rent of steel and aluminum scaffolding. This property was developed
in 1990 and houses a large metal structure. Two stormwater catch basins are present at this
property.
The City of Fontana (City) is an urbanized city and has few small agricultural enterprises.2 Additionally, the
Angeles Forest is located about 28 miles from the Project site and the San Bernardino Natural Forests are
about 20 miles from the Project site. Both forests are located adjacent to the City of Fontana but are
outside the boundary of the City and its Sphere of Influence.3 The City has Open Space Zones (OS-R) that
are intended to remain as open space and only structures related to the management of resources are
permitted, with some exceptions.4 The Project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance.5 There are no Williamson Act Contract-designated parcels
within the Project site or within the Fontana Sphere of Influence surrounding the Project Site.6 There were
4,993 acres of Williamson Act lands in San Bernardino County in 2016 .7 The Valley Region, where the
Project is located, contributed 854 acres to that total.8
Regional
According to the most recent California Department of Conservation Farmland Conversion Report, the
state has experienced a net loss of 44,869 acres of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide
Significance.9 During this same period, the state added 33,704 acres of Unique farmland.10 Urban and
2 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035. Chapter 7 – Conservation, Open Space, Parks, and Trails.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26746/Chapter -7---Conservation-Open-Space-Parks-and-Trails (accessed June 2022).
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 California Department of Conservation. 2019. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed
June 2022).
6 County of San Bernardino. 2019. Draft Environmental Impact Report. Section 5.2: Agriculture and Forestry Resources . Page 5.2-6.
https://countywideplan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/68/2021/01/Ch_05-02-AG.pdf (accessed August 2022).
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 California Department of Conservation. 2019. 2014-2016 Farmland Conversion Report. Appendix B. Table B-1. Retrieved from:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/2014-2016_Farmland_Conversion_Report.aspx (accessed August 02, 2022).
10 Ibid.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.2-3 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Build-Up land remained generally consistent from the previous observation period (2012 through 2014)
at 44,942 acres.11
Currently, the California DOC regularly reviews and reports on the status of farmland by county
jurisdiction. Table 4.2-1: San Bernardino County 2014-2016 Land Use Conversion, presents information
from the 2014-2016 California Farmland Conversion Report for the County, the most recent data available.
Table 4.2-1: San Bernardino County 2014-2016 Land Use Conversion
Land Use Category
Total Acreage Inventoried 2014 – 2016 Acreage Changes
2014 2016 Acres Lost Acres
Gained
Total Acreage
Changed
Net Acreage
Changed
Prime Farmland 11,715 11,323 850 458 1,308 -392
Farmland of Statewide Importance 5,702 5,770 184 252 436 68
Unique Farmland 2,675 2,738 92 155 247 63
Farmland of Local Importance 605 562 118 75 193 -43
Important Farmland Subtotal 20,697 20,393 1,244 940 2,184 -304
Grazing Land 900,735 898,633 3,629 1,527 5,156 -2,102
Agricultural Land Subtotal 921,432 919,026 4,873 2,467 7,340 -2,406
Urban and Built-up Land 282,905 286,407 419 3,921 4,340 3,502
Other Land 244,700 243,604 2,540 1,444 3,984 -1,096
Water Area 510 510 0 0 0 0
Total Area Inventoried 1,449,547 1,449,547 7,832 7,832 15,664 0
Source: California Department of Conservation. 2019. California Farmland Conversion Report 2014-2016. Table A-28.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/2014 -2016_Farmland_Conversion_Report.aspxx (accessed August 2022).
In addition, the San Bernardino County Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures (SBCDA) 2020
Crop Report provides an overview of agricultural production in the County, pursuant to the provisions of
Sections 2272 and 2279 of the California Food and Agriculture Code.12 This report provides the estimated
production, acreage, and gross value of the agricultural industry in the County for the year 2020.
Table 4.2-2: San Bernardino County Top Ten Agricultural Products (by dollar value) represents
information from the SBCDA 2020 Crop Report summarizing primary sources of County agricultural
production by dollar value.
In 2020, the total value of agricultural commodities in the County was $420,251,000, representing a
$36,028,000 increase in value from 2019.13 This increase is primarily due to an increase in prices for navel
oranges, milk, turf, and strawberries, and an increase in egg production due to recovery from Exotic
Newcastle Disease, a deadly bird disease.14 Agriculture remains a critical part of the economy in San
Bernardino County.15
11 Ibid.
12 County of San Bernardino Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures. 2022. 2020 Crop Report. https://awm.sbcounty.gov/wp-
content/uploads/sites/84/2022/04/AWM-CROP-REPORT-2020-080521-1.pdf (accessed August 2022).
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.2-4 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Table 4.2-2: San Bernardino County Top Ten Agricultural Products (by dollar value)
2020 Rank Product Value % of Total 2019 Rank
1 Milk & Milk Products $112,451,000 26.76% 1
2 Cattle, Calves & Dairy Cull $64,937,000 15.45% 2
3 Eggs $50,526,000 12.02% 3
4 Replacement Heifers $25,266,000 6.01% 4
5 Citrus Fruit $19,130,000 4.55% 8
6 Indoor Decorative $18,127,000 4.31% 6
7 Trees & Shrubs (Incl. Roses) $17,161,000 4.08% 5
8 Alfalfa (All Types) $15,612,000 3.71% 10
9 Turf $12,427,000 2.96% 7
10 Groundcover/Bedding Plants $8,198,000 1.95% 9
Total Top Ten: $343,835,000
Source: County of San Bernardino Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures. 2022. 2020 Crop Report.
https://awm.sbcounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/84/2022/04/AWM-CROP-REPORT-2020-080521-1.pdf
(accessed August 2022).
4.2.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Farmland Protection and Policy Act
The Farmland Protection and Policy Act (FPPA), United States Code (USC) Title 7 Section 4201, was enacted
in 1981 to minimize the loss of prime and unique farmlands due to federal actions converting these lands
to nonagricultural uses. It ensures that federal programs are consistent with state, local, and private
programs and policies to protect farmland.
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act
The purpose of the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 is to protect or restore soil
functions on a permanent sustainable basis. Protection and restoration activities include prevention of
harmful soil changes, rehabilitation of the soil of contaminated sites and of water contaminated by such
sites, and precautions against negative soil impacts. Disruptions of natural soil functions and function as
an archive of natural and cultural history should be avoided, as far as practicable. In addition, the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (also referred to as the Clean Water Act [CWA]) requirements, through the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process, provide guidance for
protection of soil resources.
State
California Government Code Sections 51290-51295
The acquisition and use of agricultural preserve lands for any local, state, or federal public improvements
and public utility improvements are regulated by these sections. Notification of the Director of
Conservation by the public agency and/or person acquiring land is required if the use of agricultural
preserve land is deemed necessary for public use or if agriculture preserve land has been acquired.
Exceptions to a public agency and/or person locating public improvements on agricultural preserve land
are (1) when the location is not based primarily on lowering the cost of acquiring land in an agricultural
preserve, and (2) if the land is under a contract for any public improvement and there is no other land
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.2-5 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry Resources
within the preserve on which it is feasible to locate the public improvement. Because the Project site is
not located within the County’s designated Agricultural Preserves or the City’s Open-Space Zone (refer to
the EIR Section 4.11: Land Use and Planning; Table 4.11-2: Surrounding Land Use Designations and
Zoning), Government Code Sections 51290-51295 are not applicable to the Project.
California Government Code Section 65570
California Government Code (Section 65570) requires the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP) to report the conversion of grazing land and farmland, and to provide the data and maps to the
public and local government on a biennial schedule. To create the maps, the FMMP utilizes data from the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey
and current land use information. Maps and statistics are produced using a process that integrates current
and historic aerial photo imagery, field verification, a computerized mapping system, and public review.
Additional data on land management and land use conversion may also be provided by other federal,
state, and local government agencies. These maps delineate land use in eight mapping categories (and
one overlay category) and represent an inventory of agricultural soil resources within San Bernardino
County. The categories of land shown, as defined on these maps, are listed as follows:
• Prime Farmland (P). Prime Farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical features
able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season,
and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been u sed for
irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
The Project site does not contain Prime Farmland.
• Farmland of Statewide Importance (S). Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime
Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture.
Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years
prior to the mapping date. The Project site does not contain Farmland of Statewide Importance.
• Unique Farmland (U). Unique Farmland consists of lesser quality soils used for the production of
the state’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non -irrigated
orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped
at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. The Project site does not contain
Unique Farmland.
• Farmland of Local Importance (L). Farmland of Local Importance is defined by each county’s local
advisory committee and adopted by its board of supervisors. This refers to all farmable lands in
the county that do not meet the definitions of Prime, Statewide, or Unique. This includes land
that is or has been used for irrigated pasture, dryland farming, confined livestock and dairy,
poultry facilities, aquaculture, and grazing land.
• Grazing Land (G). Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. The
Project site does not contain Grazing Land.
• Urban and Built-up Land (D). Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit
to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include
residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf cours es,
sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.2-6 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Other Land (X): Land not included in any of the other mapping category. Common examples
include low-density rural developments, brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable
for livestock grazing, confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities, strip mines, borrow pits,
and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides
by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.
• Water (W): Perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres.
• Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use: This category was developed in cooperation with local
government planning departments and county boards of supervisors during the public workshop
phase of the FMMP's development in 1982. Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use information
is available both statistically and as an overlay to the important farmland information. Land
Committed to Nonagricultural Use is defined as existing farmland, grazing land, and vacant areas
which have a permanent commitment for development.
Note that CEQA focuses on impacts to three categories of mapped farmland – Prime Farmland, Farmland
of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland.
California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
Also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, the Williamson Act is a nonmandated state
program administered by local governments for the preservation of agricultural land. This program
enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict specific parcels of
land to agriculture or related open space use. In return, the landowners receive substantially reduced
property tax assessments because the assessments are based on generated income rather than the
potential market value of the property.
Participation is voluntary on the part of both landowners and local governments, and it is implemented
through the establishment of Agricultural Preserves and the execution of Williamson Act contracts.
Individual landowners enter into a contract that restricts the uses of agricultural and open space lands to
farming/ranching uses during the term of the contract in return for lower property taxes. Initially signed
for a minimum 10-year period, the contracts are automatically renewed on each anniversary date of the
contract unless a notice of nonrenewal is filed, or a contract cancellation is approved by the local
government. The Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act Conservation contract.
State Forestry Laws
Division 1.5 of Title 14 of the California Public Resources Code governs the designation and monitoring of
forests and forest resources within the state. In addition, the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection
administers the “Forest Practice Rules” for professional foresters and their activities in the state.
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails
The Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails chapter of the City of Fontana’s General Plan (Fontana
GP) provides guidance to promote the City’s goals of conserving sensitive lands. This chapter also focuses
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.2-7 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry Resources
on the City’s vision of valuing their system of parks and natural open spaces, community centers, and
recreational opportunities.
Goal 3: Fontana has a healthy, drought-resistant urban forest.
Policy 3.1: Support tree conservation and planting that enhances shade and drought resistance.
Policy 3.2: Expand Fontana’s tree canopy.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-1
The City of Fontana Municipal code (Fontana MC) Section 30 -1 summarizes the City’s various land use
zones and zoning districts and describes their development standards and purposes. Fontana MC Section
30-609 explains that Open Space-Natural and Open Space-Resource Zone’s allows for Open Space, Flood
Control and Utility Corridor, low-intensity development, and recreational activities. The Project site is not
located in either the Open Space-Natural or Open Space-Resource Zoning District.
4.2.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning agriculture and forestry. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have
been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect
on the environment if it would:
• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agriculture use;
• Conflict with existing zones for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract;
• Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 122200(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g));
• Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or
• Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agriculture use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning agriculture and forestry resources. This analysis
considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid
or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite
compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or
reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.2-8 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts from agriculture and forestry examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction)
and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on significance criteria/threshold’s application outlined
above. For each criterion, the analyses are generally divided into two main categories: (1) construction
impacts and (2) operational impacts. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in
environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to prote ct the
environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on field observations conducted by Kimley-Horn,
review of Project maps and drawings, analysis of aerial and ground-level photographs, and review of
various data available in public records, including review of relevant local planning documents. The
determination that a Project component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on
agriculture and forestry resources considers the available policies and regulations established by local and
regional agencies and the amount of deviation from these policies in the Project’s components.
4.2.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.2-1 Would the Project 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?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical attributes that is conducive
to sustained agricultural uses and production of the nation’s short and long term needs for food and fiber.
Prime farmland is limited and therefore requires conservation when able. Unique farmland is classified as
any farmland other than prime farmland that is used to generate high-value food and fiber crops, such as
citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, and other fruits and vegetables. Like prime farmland, unique farmland
contains an adequate combination of physical and chemical attributes that is conducive to the growth of
those high-value crops. Farmland of statewide importance is delineated by individual states and includes
land that may not meet the standards of prime or unique farmland but is still able to be an area of
significant production for a state.16
The City’s land use map shows that there are no zones which allow agricultural uses within or nearby the
Project site.17 The Project would occupy a portion of the City which has been classified for Light Industrial
land use and zoning. The Project, being a warehousing development with some office uses, would be
consistent with the goals and standards intended for these zones. Additionally, the entire Project site is
16 United States Department of Agriculture. 2020. Prime & Other Important Farmlands Definitions.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/pr/soils/?cid=nrcs141p2_037285 (accessed June 2022).
17 City of Fontana. 2022. Land Use Map. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-04-20-
2022?bidId= (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.2-9 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry Resources
categorized as Urban and Built-Up Land according to the California Important Farmland Finder.18 Due to
the lack of agricultural uses and land classifications, the Project would not impact or convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.2-2 Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
See response to Impact 4.2-1 above. The Project site contains Light Industrial land use designations, and
the California Department of Conservation lists the area as Urban and Built-Up Land which would preclude
it from being agriculturally active. Additionally, there are no Williamson Act Contract-designated parcels
within the Project site or within the Fontana Sphere of Influence surrounding the Project Site.19 Therefore,
the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract, and
no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.2-3 Would the Project 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))?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
See Impact 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 above. The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and would be
located on land with a Light Industrial zoning.20 The City does not contain areas with land use designations
for either Forest Land or Timberland.21 Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland and no impacts would occur.
18 California Department of Conservation. 2019. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed
June 2022).
19 County of San Bernardino. 2019. Draft Environmental Impact Report. Section 5.2: Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Page 5.2 -6.
https://countywideplan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/68/2021/01/Ch_05-02-AG.pdf (accessed August 2022).
20 City of Fontana. 2022. Zoning and General Land Use Designation Interactive Map.
https://fontanaca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ecc67f90c51440eca0d17fd5a6e59c92 (accessed June 2022).
21 City of Fontana. 2022. Land Use Map. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-04-20-
2022?bidId= (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.2-10 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.2-4 Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
Refer to Impact discussion 4.2-3. Because this area of the City is developed, it is not conducive to forest
land or forestry activities. Further, the City has zoned the area for Light Industrial use which would be
consistent with the proposed developments associated with the Project. The Project’s location in a
previously developed, urbanized area would lead to no impacts on forest land. Therefore, no impact
would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.2-5 Would the Project 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?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
Refer to Impact discussions, 4.2-1, 4.2-2, and 4.2-3. The location of the Project is currently designated as
a Light Industrial land use zone. The California Department of Conservation also classifies the Project’s
location as Urban Built-Up Land which is not Unique Farmland, Prime Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance. Therefore, no impacts related to the conversion of farmland or forest land would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts
As concluded above, implementation of the Project would have no impact on agricultural or forestry
resources. The Project site is within light industrial zoned land within the City and there are no agricultural,
forest land, or timberland zoning designated resources in the City of Fontana. Further, the redevelopment
of the Project site would not pose an impact to the County’s agricultural economy since the land is not
classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, this land
would not be considerable for sustained agriculture activities. The Project site is classified instead as
Urban Build-Up Land by the California Department of Conservation. Land of this type is commonly
developed with structures for residential, commercial, infrastructure, or other developmental purposes.
While the conversion of farmland may have an adverse cumulative effect on the County’s agricultural
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.2-11 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry Resources
economy, the incremental loss of this Project site’s potential as farmland would not be considered
cumulatively considerable.
4.2.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
4.2.8 References
California Department of Conservation. 2019. California Important Farmland Finder .
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
California Department of Conservation. 2019. 2014-2016 Farmland Conversion Report. Appendix B.
Table B-1. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/2014 -
2016_Farmland_Conversion_Report.aspx.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035. Chapter 7 – Conservation,
Open Space, Parks, and Trails.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26746/Chapter-7---Conservation-Open-Space-
Parks-and-Trails.
City of Fontana. 2022. Land Use Map. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-
Plan-Land-Use-Map-04-20-2022?bidId=.
City of Fontana. 2022. Zoning and General Land Use Designation Interactive Map.
https://fontanaca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ecc67f90c51440eca0d1
7fd5a6e59c92.
County of San Bernardino. 2019. Draft Environmental Impact Report. Section 5.2: Agriculture and
Forestry Resources. Page 5.2-6. https://countywideplan.com/wp-
content/uploads/sites/68/2021/01/Ch_05 -02-AG.pdf.
County of San Bernardino Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures. 2022. 2020 Crop Report.
https://awm.sbcounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/84/2022/04/AWM-CROP-REPORT-2020-
080521-1.pdf.
Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Warehouse, NEC Sierra
Avenue and Clubhouse Drive, Fontana, California.
United States Department of Agriculture. 2020. Prime & Other Important Farmlands Definitions.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/pr/soils/?cid=nrcs141p2_037285 .
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.2-12 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
4.3
Air Quality
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-1 4.3 | Air Quality
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) discusses potential air quality impacts
associated with development and implementation of the Fontana Sierra Business Center Project (Project).
The current conditions were observed as the baseline for the analysis and were compared to the potential
effects anticipated for the Project. The ambient air quality of the local and regional area is described, along
with relevant federal, state, and local air pollutant regulations. Information and analysis presented in this
section are derived from the following found in Draft EIR Appendix B:
▪ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Air Quality Assessment.
▪ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Health Risk Assessment.
See Appendix A of Draft EIR Appendices B1 and B2 for modeling data.
Environmental Setting
Climate and Meteorology
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the state into 15 air basins that share similar
meteorological and topographical features. The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB),
which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, as well as
all of Orange County. The SCAB is on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded
by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest and high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter . Air
quality in this area is determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in
addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions. These factors along with
applicable regulations are discussed below.
The SCAB is part of a semi-permanent high-pressure zone in the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is
mild and tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is occasionally interrupted by
periods of extreme heat, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The annual average temperature
throughout the 6,645-square-mile SCAB ranges from low 60 to high 80 degrees Fahrenheit with little
variance. With more oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and
maximum temperatures than inland areas.
Contrasting the steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost
all annual rainfall occurs between the months of November and April. Summer rainfall is reduced to widely
scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier activity in the east and over the mountains.
Although the SCAB has a semiarid climate, the air closer to the Earth’s surface is typically moist because
of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for occasional periods when dry, continental air is
brought into the SCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog are
frequent and low clouds known as high fog are characteristic climatic features, especially along the coast.
Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SCAB.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-2 4.3 | Air Quality
Wind patterns across the SCAB are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds during the
day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is typically higher during the dry summer
months than during the rainy winter. Between periods of wind, air stagnation may occur in both the
morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on
any given day. During winter and fall, surface high-pressure systems over the SCAB, combined with other
meteorological conditions, result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally
continue for a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished.
The mountain ranges to the east affect the diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of
pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of
coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during
prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions.
In addition to the characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant
transport, two distinct types of temperature inversions control the vertical depth through which air
pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of
the base of the inversion at any given time is called the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and
inversions is a critical determinant leading to highly degraded air quality for the SCAB in the summer and
generally good air quality in the winter.
Air Pollutants of Concern
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by state
and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized
into primary and secondary pollutants.
Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases
(ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NO X, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants.
ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical
and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant ozone (O3) is formed
by a chemical reaction between ROG and NO X in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
are the principal secondary pollutants. Sources and health effects commonly associated with criteria
pollutants are summarized in Table 4.3-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns.
Table 4.3-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns
Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants,
unpaved roads and parking lots, wood-burning
stoves and fireplaces, automobiles, and others.
Increased respiratory symptoms, such as
irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty
breathing; asthma; chronic bronchitis; irregular
heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature
death in people with heart or lung disease.
Impairs visibility.
Ozone (O3) Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases/volatile organic
compounds (ROG or VOC)1 and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle
Irritates and causes inflammation of the mucous
membranes and lung airways; causes wheezing,
coughing, and pain when inhaling deeply;
decreases lung capacity; aggravates lung and
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-3 4.3 | Air Quality
Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
exhaust industrial emissions, gasoline storage
and transport, solvents, paints, and landfills.
heart problems. Damages plants; reduces crop
yield.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) A colorless gas formed when fuel containing
sulfur is burned and when gasoline is extracted
from oil. Examples are petroleum refineries,
cement manufacturing, metal processing
facilities, locomotives, and ships.
Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart
problems. In the presence of moisture and
oxygen, sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid
which can damage marble, iron, and steel.
Damages crops and natural vegetation. Impairs
visibility. Precursor to acid rain.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) An odorless, colorless gas formed when carbon
in fuel is not burned completely; a component
of motor vehicle exhaust.
Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to
vital tissues, affecting the cardiovascular and
nervous system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness,
and can lead to unconsciousness or death.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel
combustion for motor vehicles and industrial
sources. Sources include motor vehicles,
electric utilities, and other sources that burn
fuel.
Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Precursor to O3. Contributes to global
warming and nutrient overloading which
deteriorates water quality. Causes brown
discoloration of the atmosphere.
Lead (Pb) Lead is a metal found naturally in the
environment as well as in manufactured
products. The major sources of lead emissions
have historically been motor vehicles (such as
cars and trucks) and industrial sources. Due to
the phase out of leaded gasoline, metals
processing is the major source of lead emissions
to the air today. The highest levels of lead in air
are generally found near lead smelters. Other
stationary sources are waste incinerators,
utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers.
Exposure to lead occurs mainly through
inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food,
water, soil, or dust. It accumulates in the blood,
bones, and soft tissues and can adversely affect
the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other
organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause
neurological impairments such as seizures,
mental retardation, and behavioral disorders.
Even at low doses, lead exposure is associated
with damage to the nervous systems of fetuses
and young children, resulting in learning deficits
and lowered IQ.
1 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs or Reactive Organic Gases [ROG]) are hydrocarbons/organic gases that are formed solely of hy drogen
and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases including ROGs and VOCs. Both ROGs and VOCs are emitted from the inc omplete
combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon -based fuels. The major sources of hydrocarbons are combustion engine exhaust, oil
refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and p aint (via
evaporation).
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Air Quality Assessment, Table 1.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short‐term (acute) or long‐term
(i.e., chronic, carcinogenic or cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs
include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common
sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting
operations. The current California list of TACs includes more than 200 compounds , including particulate
emissions from diesel‐fueled engines.
CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a TAC. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a
single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex
mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it
causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. Some of these compounds
include arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, and nickel. CARB estimates that about 70 percent of the cancer
risk that the average Californian faces from breathing TACs stems from diesel exhaust particles. DPM
includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of
DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions
(idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-4 4.3 | Air Quality
short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel
exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk
among the TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their
extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar
regions of the lung.
Ambient Air Quality
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the state. These
stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is
often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Existing levels of ambient air quality, historical
trends, and projections near the Project are documented by measurements made by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the air pollution regulatory agency in the SCAB that mai ntains
air quality monitoring stations which process ambient air quality measurements.
Pollutants of concern in the SCAB include O 3, PM10, and PM2.5. The closest air monitoring station to the
Project that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Fontana -Arrow Highway
Monitoring Station (located approximately 4.5 miles to the southwest ). Local air quality data from 20 19
to 2021 are provided in Table 4.3-2: Ambient Air Quality Data, which lists the monitored maximum
concentrations and number of exceedances of state or federal air quality standards for each year.
Table 4.3-2: Ambient Air Quality Data
Criteria Pollutant 2019 2020 2021
Ozone (O3) 1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.124 0.151 0.125
8-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.109 0.112 0.104
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 41 56 44
NAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 67 89 81
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 2.75 1.01 1.10
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.088 0.094 0.057
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns (PM 10) 1
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 88.8 76.8 73.8
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 85.1 73.6 70.7
State Annual Average Concentration (CAAQS=20 µg/m3) — — —
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0
CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3) 11 0 0
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5) 1
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 81.3 57.6 55.1
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 81.3 57.6 55.1
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-5 4.3 | Air Quality
Criteria Pollutant 2019 2020 2021
NAAQS 24-hour (>35 µg/m3) 3 12.3 5.9
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million.
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; – = not measured
1 Measurements taken at the Fontana -Arrow Highway Monitoring Station at 14360 Arrow Boulevard, Fontana, California 92335 (CARB# 36197)
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Air Quality Assessment, Table 2.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than is the general population.
Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics are of particular concern. Land uses
considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term
health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Sensitive land
uses surrounding the Project consist mostly of single-family residential communities, a middle school, and
a high school. Sensitive land uses nearest to the Project are shown in Table 4.3-3: Sensitive Receptors.
Table 4.3-3: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the Project
Single-Family Residences 130 feet to the west
Single-Family Residences 1,385 feet to the north
Single-Family Residences 3,440 feet to the south
Wayne Ruble Middle School 4,880 feet to the southwest
A.B. Miller High School 5,000 feet to the southwest
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Air Quality Assessment, Table 3.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
Air quality is federally protected by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and its amendments. Under the FCAA,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the primary and secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria air pollutants including O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10,
PM2.5, and lead. Proposed projects in or near nonattainment areas could be subject to more stringent air-
permitting requirements. The FCAA requires each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan to
demonstrate how it will attain the NAAQS within the federally imposed deadlines.
The EPA can withhold certain transportation funds from states that fail to comply with the planning
requirements of the FCAA. If a state fails to correct these planning deficiencies within two years of Federal
notification, the EPA is required to develop a federal implementation plan for the identified
nonattainment area or areas. The provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 51 and 93 apply in
all nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants for which the area
is designated nonattainment or has a maintenance plan. The EPA has designated enforcement of air
pollution control regulations to the individual states. Applicable federal standards are summarized in
Table 4.3-4: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Federal Emissions Standards for On-Road Trucks
To reduce emissions from on-road, heavy-duty diesel trucks, the U.S. EPA established a series of
increasingly strict emission standards for new engines, starting in 1988. The U.S. EPA promulgated the
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-6 4.3 | Air Quality
final and cleanest standards with the 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule. The PM emission standard of 0.01
gram per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr) is required for new vehicles beginning with model year 2007. Also,
the NOX and nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) standards of 0.20 g/hp-hr and 0.14 g/hp-hr, respectively,
were phased in together between 2007 and 2010 on a percent of sales basis: 50 percent from 2007 to
2009 and 100 percent in 2010.
Emission Standards for Nonroad Diesel Engines
To reduce emissions from off-road diesel equipment, the U.S. EPA established a series of cleaner emission
standards for new off-road diesel engines. Tier 1 standards were phased in from 1996 to 2000 (year of
manufacture), depending on the engine horsepower category. Tier 2 standards were phased in from 2001
to 2006. Tier 3 standards were phased in from 2006 to 2008. Tier 4 standards, which generally require
add-on emission control equipment to attain them were phased in from 2008 to 2015
State
California Air Resources Board
CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS)
were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. These standards, included with the NAAQS
in Table 4.3-4, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to
the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide,
and sulfates.
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was approved in 1988, requires that each local air district
prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with CAAQS. These
AQMPs also serve as the basis for the preparation of the State Implementation Plan for meeting federal
clean air standards for the State of California. Like the EPA, CARB also designates areas within California
as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been
achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows
that a state standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years.
Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events such as wildfires, volcanoes, etc.
are not considered violations of a state standard, and are not used as a basis for designating areas as
nonattainment. The applicable state standards are summarized in Table 4.3-4.
Table 4.3-4: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time State Standards1 Federal Standards2
Ozone (O3) 2, 5, 7 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) NA
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.10 ppm11
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 8
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic Mean NA 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m3)
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-7 4.3 | Air Quality
Pollutant Averaging Time State Standards1 Federal Standards2
Particulate Matter
(PM10) 1, 3, 6
24-Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 NA
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) 3, 4, 6, 9
24-Hour NA 35 µg/m3
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4-2) 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 NA
Lead (Pb) 10, 11
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 NA
Calendar Quarter NA 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month Average NA 0.15 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (0.42 µg/m3) NA
Vinyl Chloride (C2H3CI) 10 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) NA
Notes:
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; – = no information available.
1 California standards for O3, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 -hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended
particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe
carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1 -hour, 8-hour or
24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measure ments may be excluded.
Measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide
standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the state standard.
2 National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other than for O 3,
particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1 -hour O3 standard is attained if,
during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the
standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour O3 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily
concentrations is 0.070 ppm or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of
monitored concentrations is less than 150 μg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles
is less than 35 μg/m3.
3 Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at eve ry site. The
national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5
standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the
standard.
NAAQS are set by the EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety.
4 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet
the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour O3 concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than
0.070 ppm. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1,
2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varyi ng based on the
O3 level in the area.
5 The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked by the EPA on June 15, 2005.
6 In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM 2.5 and PM10.
7 The 8-hour California O3 standard was approved by the CARB on April 28, 2005, and became effective on May 17, 2006.
8 On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3 -year average of the
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24 -hour SO2 NAAQS
however must continue to be used until one year following EPA initial designations of the new 1 -hour SO2 NAAQS.
9 In December 2012, EPA strengthened the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 to 12.0 μg/m3. In December 2014, the EPA issued final area
designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to
prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015.
10 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no
adverse health effects determined.
11 National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Air Quality Assessment, Table 4.
Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP)
The identification of DPM as a TAC in 1998 led CARB to adopt the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate
Matter Emissions from Diesel‐Fueled Engines and Vehicles (DRRP) in October 2000. The DRRP's goals
include an 85 percent reduction in DPM by 2020 from the 2000 baseline. CARB estimates that emissions
of DPM in 2035 will be less than half those in 2010, further reducing statewide cancer risk and non-cancer
health effects. The DRRP includes regulations to establish cleaner new diesel engines, cleaner in‐use diesel
engines (retrofits), and cleaner diesel fuel.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-8 4.3 | Air Quality
Truck and Bus Regulation Reducing Emissions from Existing Diesel Vehicles
On December 12, 2008, CARB approved the Truck and Bus Regulation to significantly reduce particulate
matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X) emissions from existing diesel vehicles operating in California.
The regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce
emissions. Heavier trucks must be retrofitted with PM filters beginning January 1, 2012, and older trucks
must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses would ne ed to
have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.
The regulation applies to most privately and federally‐owned diesel fueled trucks and buses and to
privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds.
Small fleets with three or fewer diesel trucks can delay compliance for heavier trucks and there are several
extensions for low‐mileage construction trucks, early PM filter retrofits, adding cleaner vehicles, and other
situations. Privately and publicly owned school buses have different requirements.
Heavy‐Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program
The purpose of the CARB ATCM to Limit Diesel‐Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling is to reduce public
exposure to diesel particulate matter and criteria pollutants by limiting the idling of diesel‐fueled
commercial vehicles. The driver of any vehicle subject to this ATCM is prohibited from idling the vehicle’s
primary diesel engine for greater than five minutes at any location and is prohibited from idling a diesel-
fueled auxiliary power system for more than five minutes to power a heater, air conditioner , or any
ancillary equipment on the vehicle if it has a sleeper berth and the truck is located within 100 feet of a
restricted area (homes and schools).
CARB Final Regulation Order, Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In‐Use Trucks,
beginning in 2008, requires that new 2008 and subsequent model‐year heavy‐duty diesel engines be
equipped with an engine shutdown system that automatically shuts down the engine after 300 seconds
of continuous idling operation once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park ,”
and the parking brake is engaged.
Section 2485 and Section 2449 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) limits diesel‐fueled
motor vehicle idling to no more than five minutes. Section 2485 limits idling for diesel-fueled commercial
motor vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds that are or must be
licensed to operate on publicly maintained highways and streets within California. Section 2449 limits
idling for off-road diesel-fueled fleets.
CARB 2017 Technical Advisory (Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High -Volume
Roadways)
CARB published a Technical Advisory in 2017 to provide planners and other stakeholders involved in land
use planning and decision-making with information on scientifically based strategies to reduce exposure
to traffic emissions near high-volume roadways. Near-roadway development is a result of a variety of
factors, including economic growth, demand for built environment uses, and the scarcity of developable
land in some areas. The Technical Advisory notes that research has demonstrated the public health,
climate, financial, and other benefits of compact, infill development along transportation corridors, and
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-9 4.3 | Air Quality
demonstrates that planners, developers, and local governments can pursue infill development while
simultaneously reducing exposure to traffic-related pollution. On-site strategies to remove air pollution
identified in the Technical Advisory include the use of particle filtration systems (i.e., high efficiency
filtration in mechanical ventilation systems), solid barriers, and vegetation.
California Energy Commission - Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in CCR Title 24
Part 6, were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy
consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation
of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2019 Energy Standards include requirements for
mandatory mechanical ventilation intended to improve indoor air quality in homes, and requirements for
Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 air filtration on space conditioning systems, and
ventilation systems that provide outside air to a dwelling’s occupiable space. The Residential Compliance
Manual for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards notes that air filter efficiencies of at least MERV
13 protect occupants from exposure to the smaller airborne particles (i.e., PM 2.5) that are known to
adversely affect respiratory health. CCR Title 24 Part 6 requires a particle size efficiency rating equal to or
greater than 85 percent in the 1.0 to 0.3 μm range.
CalEnviroScreen
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has developed
CalEnviroScreen 4.0, which is a mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most
affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s
effects. CalEnviroScreen uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores
for every census tract in the state. The scores are mapped so that different communities can be compared.
An area with a high score is one that experiences a much higher pollution burden than areas with low
scores.
According to CalEnviroScreen, the Project site and the nearest residences to the northeast are located
within Census Tract 6071002704, which is within the 80 th percentile. It should be noted that the
CalEnviroScreen scores are relative to other census tracts and are not an expression of health risk, and do
not provide quantitative information on increases in cumulative impacts for specific sites or projects.
Further, as a comparative screening tool, the results do not provide a basis for determining when
differences between scores are significant in relation to public health or the environment.
CARB Advanced Clean Truck Regulation
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020 requiring truck manufacturers to
transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every
new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. This rule directly addresses disproportionate
risks and health and pollution burdens and puts California on the path for an all zero-emission short-haul
drayage fleet in ports and railyards by 2035, and zero-emission “last-mile” delivery trucks and vans by
2040. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero -emission medium and
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-10 4.3 | Air Quality
heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. The regulation has two components including a manufacturer
sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
▪ Zero-Emission Truck Sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete
vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing
percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero -emission
truck/chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 – 8
straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales.
▪ Company and Fleet Reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers, and
others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet
owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations.
This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available
zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.
Executive Order N-79-20
Signed in September 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 establishes as a goal that where feasible, all new
passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold
in California, will be zero-emission by 2035. The executive order sets a similar goal requiring that all
medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045 where feasible. It also directs CARB to
develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where
feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new zero
emission vehicles (ZEVs) “towards the target of 100 percent.” The executive order directs the California
Environmental Protection Agency, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, and the California
Natural Resources Agency to transition and repurpose oil production facilities with a goal toward meeting
carbon neutrality by 2045. Executive Order N-79 -20 builds upon the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks
regulation, which was adopted by CARB in July 2020.
Warehouse Best Practices and Mitigation
The California Department of Justice published recommended best practices and mitigation measures to
comply with CEQA, updated in September 2022. The purpose of this document is to provide information
on feasible best practices and mitigation measures that have been adapted from warehouse projects in
California. Project-specific best practices and measures include warehouse sitting and design
considerations such as distance to sensitive receptors, setback requirements, perimeter screening,
parking considerations, limitations on idling time, use of zero-emissions operational equipment
(e.g., forklifts and yard trucks), and constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging
stations, among others.
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles,
Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The agency’s primary responsibility is ensuring that state and
federal ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the SCAB. The SCAQMD is also
responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-11 4.3 | Air Quality
permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding
to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to
reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, and many other activities. All
projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.
The SCAQMD is also the lead agency in charge of developing the AQMP, with input from the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) and CARB. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that includes
control strategies for stationary and area sources, as well as for on-road and off-road mobile sources.
SCAG has the primary responsibility for providing future growth projections and the development and
implementation of transportation control measures. CARB, in coordination with federal agencies,
provides the control element for mobile sources.
The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017. The purpose of the
AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that would lead the SCAB into compliance
with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAQMD’s
commitments towards meeting the federal 8-hour O3 standards. The AQMP incorporates the latest
scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for
various source categories. As part of its air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the Connect SoCal – The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
was determined to conform to the federally mandated state implementation plan (SIP) for the attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS will be incorporated into the forthcoming
2022 AQMP. Both the Regional Comprehensive Plan and AQMP are based, in part, on projections
originating with county and city general plans.
The SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board
in 1993 and augmented with guidance for Local Significance Thresholds [LST] in 2008). The SCAQMD
guidance helps local government agencies and consultants to develop environmental documents required
by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and provides identification of suggested thresholds of
significance for criteria pollutants for both construction and operation (see discussion of thresholds
below). With the help of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and associated guidance, local land use planners
and consultants are able to analyze and document how proposed and existing projects affect air quality
in order to meet the requirements of the CEQA review process. The SCAQMD periodically provides
supplemental guidance and updates to the handbook on their website.
The SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and Imperial counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy,
community development, and the environment. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan
Planning Organization and under state law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of
Governments.
The state and federal attainment status designations for the SCAB are summarized in Table 4.3-5: South
Coast Air Basin Attainment Status. The SCAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-12 4.3 | Air Quality
to the state O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards, as well as the national 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 standards. The
SCAB is designated as attainment or unclassified for the remaining state and federal standards.
Table 4.3-5: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State Federal
Ozone (O3)
(1 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Extreme)
Ozone (O3)
(8 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Extreme)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(24 Hour Standard) – Non-Attainment (Serious)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(Annual Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Moderate)
Particulate Matter (PM10)
(24 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Particulate Matter (PM10)
(Annual Standard) Non-Attainment –
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(8 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(Annual Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Lead (Pb)
(30 Day Standard) – Unclassifiable/Attainment
Lead (Pb)
(3 Month Standard) Attainment –
Sulfates (SO4-2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
(1 Hour Standard) Unclassified –
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Air Quality Assessment, Table 5.
The following is a list of SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the
Project:
▪ Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such
quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the
comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or wh ich cause, or have a
natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to
odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of
fowl or animals.
▪ Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available
control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from
crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation,
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-13 4.3 | Air Quality
handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM 10
suppression techniques are summarized below.
a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be
seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
b) All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically
stabilized.
c) All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be
minimized at all times.
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be
swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved
surface.
▪ Rule 431.2 (Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels) – This rule limits the sulfur content in diesel and other
liquid fuels for the purpose of both reducing the formation of sulfur oxides and particulates during
combustion and to enable the use of add-on control devices for diesel fueled internal combustion
engines.
▪ Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users
of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of
these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories.
▪ Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) - Rule 2305 was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing
Board on May 7, 2021, to reduce NO X and particulate matter emissions associated with
warehouses and mobile sources attracted to warehouses. This rule applies to all existing and
proposed warehouses over 100,000 square feet located in the SCAQMD. Rule 2305 requires
warehouse operators to track annual vehicle miles traveled associated with truck trips to and
from the warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouses WAIRE (Warehouse
Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points Compliance Obligation. WAIRE Points are
earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators are required to submit
an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures.
Reduction strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero emission (ZE) or near zero
emission (NZE) trucks; require ZE/NZE truck visits; require ZE yard trucks; install on -site ZE
charging/fueling infrastructure; install on-site energy systems; and install filtration systems in
residences, schools, and other buildings in the adjacent community. Warehouse operators that
do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance
Obligation would be required to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used
to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities
nearby.
Air Toxics Control Plan
The Air Toxics Control Plan (March 2000, revised March 26, 2004) is a planning document designed to
examine the overall direction of the SCAQMD’s air toxics control program. It includes development and
implementation of strategic initiatives to monitor and control air toxics emissions. Control strategies that
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-14 4.3 | Air Quality
are deemed viable and are within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction will each be brought to the SCAQMD Board
for further consideration through the normal public review process. Strategies that are to be implemented
by other agencies will be developed in a cooperative effort, and the progress will be reported back to the
Board periodically.
Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
The SCAQMD conducted an in‐depth analysis of the TACs and their resulting health risks for all of southern
California. The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the SCAB (MATES V) (August 2021) shows that
carcinogenic risk from air toxics in the SCAB, based on the average concentrations at the 10 monitoring
sites, is approximately 40 percent lower than the monitored average in MATES IV and 84 percent lower
than the average in MATES II.
MATES V is the most comprehensive dataset documenting the ambient air toxic levels and health risks
associated with the SCAB emissions. Therefore, MATES V study represents the baseline health risk for a
cumulative analysis. MATES V estimates the average excess cancer risk level from exposure to TACs is 424
in one million basin wide. In comparison, the MATES IV basin average risk was 897 per million. These
model estimates were based on monitoring data collected at ten fixed sites within the SCAB. None of the
fixed monitoring sites are near the Project site. However, MATES V has extrapolated the excess cancer
risk levels throughout the SCAB by modeling the specific grids. MATES V modeling predicted an excess
cancer risk of 455 to 484 in one million for the Project area. DPM is included in this cancer risk along with
all other TAC sources. DPM accounts for a majority of the total risk shown in MATES V in this area.
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
The City adopted the General Plan Update 2015-2035 on November 13, 2018. Chapter 6 of the General
Plan Update1 identifies goals and policies that will result in a healthier city. The following goal and policy
focusing on improving air quality are applicable to the Project.
Goal 1: The average lifespan in Fontana is consistently within the top ten of all southern
California cities.
Policy 1.3 Support local and regional initiatives to improve air quality in order to reduce asthma while
actively discouraging development that may exacerbate asthma.
City of Fontana Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance (Fontana
Municipal Code Article V Section 9 -70)
The City approved and adopted the Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 1891) on April 12, 2022. It is applicable to all warehouse uses throughout the City,
including the Project. The Ordinance will meet and exceed all state and federal environmental standard
and would foster the balancing of public health and quality of life issues with the economic and
1 City of Fontana. 2018. Chapter 6: Building a Healthier Fontana. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26745/Chapter -6---
Building-a-Healthier-Fontana (accessed October 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-15 4.3 | Air Quality
employment opportunities that the goods movement provides the City and its residents . Requirements
include, but are not limited to, the following:
▪ Buffering and Screening / Adjacent uses (Sec. 9 -71): include appropriate landscaping buffer
between warehouse building and adjacent sensitive receptors; all landscaping shall be drought
tolerant, loading docks and truck entries shall be oriented away from abutting sensitive receptors.
▪ Signing and Traffic Patterns (Sec. 9-72): Post anti-idling signage indicating a 3-minute diesel truck
idling restriction, prepare and submit a Truck Route Map, provide adequate stacking depth within
property (minimum 140 feet).
▪ Alternative Energy (Sec. 9.73): On-site motorized operational equipment shall be zero emission,
all building roofs shall be solar ready, at least 10 percent of all passenger vehicle parking spaces
shall be electric vehicle (EV) ready, at least five percent of all passenger vehicle park ing spaces
shall be equipped with working Level 2 Quick charge EV charging stations, electric plug -in units
shall be installed at every dock door servicing refrigerated space, provide bicycle parking.
▪ Operation and Construction (Sec. 9-74): Ensure that electrical rooms are sized to accommodate
potential need for additional electrical panels, use super-compliance VOC coatings, use the
highest-rated CARB Tier technology for construction equipment, use electric-powered hand tools
and forklifts.
Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning air quality. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized
as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the
environment if it would:
▪ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
▪ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project
region is in nonattainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard.
▪ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
▪ Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people.
SCAQMD Thresholds
The significance criteria established by SCAQMD may be relied upon to make the above determinations.
According to the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if the Project would violate any
ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established
thresholds of significance for air quality during construction and operational activities of land use
development projects, as shown in Table 4.3-6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions
Thresholds.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-16 4.3 | Air Quality
Table 4.3-6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds
Criteria Air Pollutants and
Precursors
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Construction-Related Operational-Related
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150
Coarse Particulates (PM10 ) 150 150
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55 55
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Air Quality Assessment, Table 6.
Localized Carbon Monoxide
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, development associated with the Project would also be
subject to the ambient air quality standards. These are addressed though an analysis of localized CO
impacts. The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels near the Project are
above state and federal CO standards (the more stringent California standards are 20 ppm for 1-hour and
9 ppm for 8-hour). The SCAB has been designated as attainment under the 1-hour and 8-hour standards.
Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the CO hotspot analysis, the SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO 2, CO, PM10, and
PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off-site mobile source emissions are not included in the
LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project without expecting
to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent state or federal ambient air
quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Project
source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive
receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable to all projects that disturb five acres or less on a single
day. The County of San Bernardino is located within SCAQMD SRA 34. Table 4.3-7: Local Significance
Thresholds for Construction/Operations shows the LSTs for a 1-acre, 2-acre, and 5-acre project in SRA 34
within 25 meters of the Project. The nearest sensitive receptor is a residential property located at
approximately 40 meters to the west. Therefore, the lowest threshold distance of 25 meters was used for
a conservative analysis based on the SCAQMD LST methodology guidance. LSTs associated with all acreage
categories are provided in Table 4.3-7 for informational purposes. Table 4.3-7 shows that the LSTs
increase as acreages increase. It should be noted that LSTs are screening thresholds and are therefore
conservative. The construction LST acreage is determined based on daily acreage disturbed. The
operational LST acreage is based on the total area of the Project site. Although the Project site is greater
than five acres, the 5-acre operational LSTs are conservatively used to evaluate the Project as it assumes
the pollutants are concentrated in a smaller area.
Table 4.3-7: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations
Project Size
Pounds Per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
1 Acre 118/118 657/657 4/1 3/1
2 Acres 170/170 957/957 7/2 4/1
5 Acres 270/270 1,720/1,720 14/4 8/2
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5
microns in diameter or less
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Air Quality Assessment, Table 7.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-17 4.3 | Air Quality
Health Risk Analysis Thresholds
Project health risks are determined by examining the types and levels of air toxics generated and the
associated impacts on factors that affect air quality. While the final determination of significance
thresholds is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD
recommends that the following air pollution thresholds be used by lead agencies in determining whether
the impacts from the Project are significant. If the lead agency finds that the Project has the potentia l to
exceed the air pollution thresholds, the Project should be considered significant. The thresholds for air
toxic emissions are as follows.
▪ Cancer Risk: Emit contaminants that equal or exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in
one million.
▪ Non‐Cancer Risk: Emit contaminants that equal or exceed the maximum hazard index of 1.0.
Cancer risk is expressed in terms of expected incremental incidence per million population. The SCAQMD
has established an incidence rate of 10 persons per million as the maximum acceptable incremental
cancer risk due to DPM exposure. This threshold serves to determine whether or not a given project has
a potentially significant development‐specific and cumulative impact. The 10 in one million standard is a
health‐protective significance threshold. A risk level of 10 in one million implies a likelihood that up to 10
persons, out of one million equally exposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously
(24 hours per day) to the levels of TACs over a specified duration of time. This risk would be an excess
cancer that is in addition to any cancer risk borne by a person not exposed to these air toxics.
The SCAQMD has also established non‐carcinogenic risk parameters for use in Health Risk Assessments
(HRAs). Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a "hazard index," expressed as the ratio
between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL
is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index of less than
1.0 means that adverse health effects are not expected. Within this analysis, non‐carcinogenic exposures
of less than 1.0 are considered less than significant.
Methodology
This air quality impact analysis considers construction and operational impacts associated with the
Project. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer
model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and
operations from a variety of land use projects. Air quality impacts were assessed according to
methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD.
Construction equipment, trucks, worker vehicles, and ground-disturbing activities associated with
Project construction would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Daily regional
construction emissions are estimated by assuming construction occurs at the earliest feasible date
(i.e., a conservative estimate of construction activities) and applying off-road, fugitive dust, and on-road
emissions factors in CalEEMod.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-18 4.3 | Air Quality
Project operations would result in emissions of area sources (consumer products), energy sources (natural
gas usage), and mobile sources (motor vehicles from Project generated vehicle trips). Project -generated
increases in operational emissions would be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. The
increase of traffic over existing conditions as a result of the Project was obtained from the Project’s Trip
Generation Assessment and Traffic Scoping prepared by Kimley-Horn (August 2022, Draft EIR Appendix K).
Other operational emissions from area, energy, and stationary sources were quantified in CalEEMod
based on land use activity data.
As discussed above, the SCAQMD provides significance thresholds for emissions associated with Project
construction and operations. The Project’s construction and operational emissions are compared to the
daily criteria pollutant emissions significance thresholds in order to determine the significance of a
Project’s impact on regional air quality.
The localized effects from the Project’s on-site emissions were evaluated in accordance with the
SCAQMD’s LST methodology, which uses on-site mass emissions rate look-up tables and Project-specific
modeling. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or
contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards
and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area
and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.
This HRA evaluates potential health risks associated with the emission of DPM resulting from the
implementation of the Project. Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generate
diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site
poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. Operational activities would also include the use of
heavy-duty diesel trucks. See Draft EIR Appendix B2 for HRA methodology.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.3-1 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to
prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates the means to attain the federal
standards. The State Implementation Plan must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and
regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination
of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under state law, the CCAA requires an
air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment regarding the state and
federal ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control
measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.
The Project is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is
required, pursuant to the FCAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-19 4.3 | Air Quality
nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP
establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state
(California) and national air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including
the SCAQMD, the CARB, the SCAG, and the EPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest
scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s growth projections and
RTP/SCS, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth
forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with
reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMP.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
▪ Consistency Criterion No. 1 : The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity
of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely
attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
▪ Consistency Criterion No. 2 : The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or
increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase.
According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to
determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans,
and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with CAAQS and NAAQS.
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Table 4.3-8:
Construction-Related Emissions and Table 4.3-9: Operational Emissions below, the Project, with
mitigation employed, would not exceed the construction or operational standards. Therefore, the Project
would not contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project would be consistent with the
first criterion.
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on
SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local
governments and with reference to local general plans. The City’s General Plan Update 2015 – 2035
(General Plan) Land Use Map was updated and adopted on September 10, 2019. The Project site’s existing
land use designation is Light Industrial (I-L); the existing zoning is Light Industrial (M-1). The Project is
consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation and the zoning. As such, the Project would
not result in substantial unplanned growth or unaccounted for growth in the General Plan or job growth
projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the AQMP. Thus, a less than significant impact would occu r
as the Project is also consistent with the second criterion.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.3-2 Would the Project 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?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-20 4.3 | Air Quality
Construction Emissions
Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants.
The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O 3-precursor pollutants (i.e.,
ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary
duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air
quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.
Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road paving,
motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of
construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are
largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well
as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.
The duration of construction activities associated with the Project is estimated to last approximately 15
months. Construction-generated emissions associated the Project were calculated using the CARB-
approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development
projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data of Draft
EIR (Appendix B1) for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis.
Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the Project are summarized in
Table 4.3-8.
Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive
dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from
construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out
requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust
emissions.
Table 4.3-8: Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Unmitigated Emissions1
2024 1.71 12.30 33.65 0.09 7.99 3.86
2025 91.00 9.72 51.19 0.11 5.38 1.57
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? Yes No No No No No
Mitigated Emissions1, 2
2024 1.71 12.30 33.65 0.09 7.99 3.86
2025 11.45 9.72 51.19 0.11 5.38 1.57
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-21 4.3 | Air Quality
Construction Year
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Notes:
▪ SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and oth er
construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with
tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. The Fontana Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards requires the
highest rated CARB Tier technology for construction equipment. Tier IV Final compliant equipment was assumed for all construc tion
equipment greater than 50 horsepower. Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data of Draft EIR Appendix B1 for Model Data
Outputs.
▪ Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ-1, which requires super-compliant low VOC paints.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Air Quality Assessment, Table 8.
Table 4.3-8 shows that unmitigated construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for
ROG. The majority of ROG emissions occur from architectural coating activity. Mitigation Measure (MM )
AQ-1 requires that all architectural coatings be super -compliant low VOC paints, consisting of no more
than 10 grams per liter (g/L) of VOC. Implementation of MM AQ-1 would reduce construction impacts to
below the SCAQMD’s thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Operational Emissions
The Project’s operational emissions would be associated with area sources (e.g., landscape maintenance
equipment, architectural coatings, off-road equipment, etc.), energy sources, mobile sources (i.e., motor
vehicle use), and off-road equipment. Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants are from motor
vehicle use and area sources. Long -term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized
in Table 4.3-9. The operational emissions sources are described below.
▪ Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to on-site equipment,
architectural coating, and landscaping that were previously not present on the site.
▪ Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and
natural gas usage associated with the Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the
Project would be for miscellaneous warehouse equipment, space heating and cooling, water
heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics.
▪ Mobile Source. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and
evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality
impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NO X, PM10, and PM2.5 are all
pollutants of regional concern. NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O 3, known as
photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM 10 and PM2.5. However, CO
tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
▪ Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Project’s Trip
Generation Assessment and Traffic Scoping and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by
the SCAQMD. Per the Project Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memorandum, the Project
would generate a total of 68 2 daily vehicle trips.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-22 4.3 | Air Quality
▪ Off-Road Equipment Emissions. Pursuant to the City of Fontana’s Industrial Commerce Center
Sustainability Standards Ordinance, all on-site motorized operational equipment shall be zero
emission vehicles. Therefore, off-road equipment would not contribute to operational emissions.
Existing site conditions include approximately 48,000 square feet of warehouse space that generates
395 daily trips. The Project would generate a total of 68 2 daily vehicle trips (not passenger car equivalent
trips), resulting in an increase of 287 daily trips over existing conditions. Existing emissions were calculated
utilizing CalEEMod and subtracted from project emissions to obtain net new emissions associated with
the Project.
The City of Fontana adopted the Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance
(Ordinance) in April 2022, applicable to all warehouse uses throughout the City. The Ordinance requires
warehouse uses to meet and exceed all state and federal environmental standards. Standards include
providing adequate buffering and screening from adjacent sensitive receptors, implementing appropriate
signage and traffic patterns, incorporating alternative energy, and other operation and construction
measures such as the use of super-compliant VOC architectural coatings and highest rated CARB Tier
technology for construction equipment. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable
standards of the Ordinance and final documentation of compliance woul d be subject to review and
approval prior to issuance of applicable permits. See Appendix G of this Draft EIR for a preliminary
consistency analysis of Project with the Ordinance.
The California Department of Justice published recommended best practices and mitigation measures to
comply with CEQA, updated in September 2022. Best practices and measures are generally consistent
with the requirements of the Ordinance. Therefore, implementation of applicable standards of the
Ordinance would include applicable best practices and mitigation measures recommended by the
Department of Justice. Conservatively, this analysis does not take credit for these potential reductions.
Compliance with the Ordinance may reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed.
In addition, Rule 2305 requires the Project operator to directly reduce NO X and PM emissions or to
otherwise facilitate emission and exposure reductions of these pollutants in nearby communities.
Alternatively, warehouse operators can choose to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will
be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities
nearby. Warehouse owners and operators are required to earn Warehouse Actions and Investments to
Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Points each year. WAIRE points are a menu-based system earned by emission
reduction measures. Warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes
truck trip data and emission reduction measures. WAIRE points can be earned by completing actions from
a menu that can include acquiring and using natural gas, NZE and/or ZE on-road trucks, zero-emission
cargo handling equipment, solar panels or zero-emission charging and fueling infrastructure, or other
options. Therefore, the Project operator would be required to implement additional emission redu ction
strategies. Conservatively, this analysis does not take credit for these potential reductions. Compliance
with Rule 2305 would reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-23 4.3 | Air Quality
Table 4.3-9: Operational Emissions
Source
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Area Source Emissions 9.07 <0.01 0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy Emissions 0.02 0.22 0.18 <0.01 0.02 0.02
Mobile Emissions 0.75 13.77 13.27 0.10 6.85 1.93
Total Project Emissions 9.85 13.99 13.53 0.10 6.87 1.95
Existing Emissions 2.00 23.36 9.59 0.10 4.50 1.40
Total Net New Emissions 7.85 -9.381 3.94 -0.01 2.37 0.55
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
1. Although the Project would result in an increase of trips, the Project would result in a net decrease in truck trips.
2. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Air Quality Assessment, Table 9.
Standard Conditions and Requirements:
Standard Conditions are existing requirements and standard conditions that are based on local, state, or
federal regulations or laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review. Typical standard
conditions and requirements include compliance with the provisions of the Building Code, SCAQMD Rules,
etc. The City may impose additional conditions during the approval process, as appropr iate. Because
Standard Conditions are neither Project specific nor a result of development of the Project, they are not
considered to be either Project Design Features or Mitigation Measures.
SC AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the
Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to
comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rules 402
and 403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. The measures
include, but are not limited to, the following:
▪ Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three
months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise
stabilized.
▪ All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or
chemically stabilized.
▪ All material transported off site will be either sufficiently watered or securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
▪ The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations
will be minimized at all times.
▪ Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the
streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove
soil tracked onto the paved surface.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-24 4.3 | Air Quality
SC AQ-2 Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113, the Project Applicant shall require by contract
specifications that the interior and exterior architectural coatings products used
would have a volatile organic compound rating of 50 grams per liter or less.
SC AQ-3 Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title
13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2449.
SC AQ-4 Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 445, the installation of any open or enclosed permanently
installed wood burning device is prohibited.
SC AQ-5 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of
Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every
three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods.
The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each
building permit. The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (Section 110.10) require
buildings to be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will
structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building
operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar
panels prior to occupancy.
SC AQ-6 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green
Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or
designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These
requirements include, but are not limited to:
▪ Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in
accordance with Section 4.303 (residential) and Section 5.303 (nonresidential) of
the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
▪ Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 4.408.1
(residential) and Section 5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11.
▪ Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling
containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with Section 4.410
(residential) and Section 5.410 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11.
▪ Provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel efficient
and carpool/van pool vehicles. At least eight percent of the total parking spaces
are required to be designated in accordance Section 5.106.5.2 (nonresidential),
Designated Parking for Clean Air Vehicles, of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11.
▪ To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE),
residential construction shall comply with Section 4.106.4 (residential electric
vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11 and
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-25 4.3 | Air Quality
nonresidential construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3 (nonresidential
electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
SC AQ-6 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the development standards of the
City of Fontana Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance. The
Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each
building permit. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
▪ Buffering and Screening / Adjacent uses (Sec. 9-71): include appropriate
landscaping buffer between warehouse building and adjacent sensitive
receptors; all landscaping shall be drought tolerant, loading docks and truck
entries shall be oriented away from abutting sensitive receptors.
▪ Signing and Traffic Patterns (Sec. 9-72): Post anti-idling signage indicating a 3-
minute diesel truck idling restriction, prepare and submit a Truck Route Map,
provide adequate stacking depth within property (minimum 140 feet).
▪ Alternative Energy (Sec. 9.73): On-site motorized operational equipment shall be
zero emission, all building roofs shall be solar ready, at least 10 percent of all
passenger vehicle parking spaces shall be electric vehicle (EV) ready, at least 5
percent of all passenger vehicle parking spaces shall be equipped with working
Level 2 Quick charge EV charging stations, electric plug-in units shall be installed
at every dock door servicing refrigerated space, provide bicycle parking.
▪ Operation and Construction (Sec. 9-74): Ensure that electrical rooms are sized to
accommodate potential need for additional electrical panels, use super -
compliance VOC coatings, use the highest rated CARB Tier technology for
construction equipment, use electric-powered hand tools and forklifts.
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 Low VOC Paint (Construction). During construction, the Project shall utilize “Super-
Compliant) low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory
VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by
SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings. Super-Compliant low VOC paints
shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of
Fontana Building and Safety Department shall confirm that plans include the
following specifications:
▪ All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.
▪ Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste
center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints.
▪ Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions
and excessive odors.
▪ For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not
rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the
storm drain. Set aside the can of cleanup water and take it to the hazardous waste
center (www.cleanup.org).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-26 4.3 | Air Quality
▪ Use compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment.
▪ Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC
emissions.
▪ Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and
use pre-painted construction materials to the extent practicable.
▪ Use high-pressure/low volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer
efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent
or higher transfer efficiency.
Impact 4.3-3 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Localized Construction Significance Analysis
The nearest sensitive receptor is the single-family residences located 130 feet (40 meters) to the west of
the Project site. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for
construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice
Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies
in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions.
Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the
maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 4.3-10: Equipment-
Specific Grading Rates, is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to
LSTs. The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Central San Bernardino Valley
(SRA 34) since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to CO, NO 2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD
produced look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to five acres in size. Project
construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of four acres in a single day. As the LST guidance provides
thresholds for projects disturbing 1-, 2-, and 5-acres in size and the thresholds increase with size of the
site, the LSTs for a four-acre threshold were interpolated and utilized for this analysis.
Table 4.3-10: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase
Equipment
Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating
Hours per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Site Preparation
Tractors 2 0.5 8 1
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 2 1 8 2
Total Acres Graded per Day 4
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Air Quality Assessment, Table 10. Refer to Appendix A of Draft EIR Appendix B1 for model
outputs.
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be
included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-
site” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-27 4.3 | Air Quality
located 130 feet (40 meters) west of the Project. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive
receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, LSTs for 25 meters were conservatively utilized
in this analysis. Table 4.3-11: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, shows the results of
localized emissions during construction. This table represents the worst-case scenario and are based on
peak earthwork volumes anticipated. As shown, localized Project construction emissions would n ot
exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Table 4.3-11: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Demolition (2024) 2.00 23.28 6.43 1.03
Site Preparation (2024) 2.02 20.87 7.35 3.81
Grading (2024) 3.30 33.00 3.51 1.46
Infrastructure (2024) 2.61 17.63 0.09 0.09
Building Construction (2025) 2.57 17.62 0.08 0.08
Paving (2025) 1.22 17.30 0.04 0.04
Architectural Coating (2025) 0.13 1.83 0.00 0.00
Building Construction + Paving +
Architectural Coating (2025)
3.92 36.74 0.12 0.12
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 4 acres at 25 meters)
237 1,488 12 7
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Air Quality Assessment, Table 11. Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data of Draft EIR
Appendix B1 for model outputs.
Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only
if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling
at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). Since the Project is a warehouse, the operational phase
LST protocol is conservatively applied to both the area source and all the mobile source emissions. As the
nearest receptor is located approximately 130 feet (40 meters) from the Project site, LSTs for 25 meters
for SRA 34 were used in this analysis. Although the Project site is 18.3 acres, the 5-acre LST threshold was
conservatively assumed for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the size of the site. Therefore, the 5 -acre
LSTs are conservative for evaluation of an 18.3-acre site.
The LST analysis only includes on-site sources. However, the CalEEMod model outputs do not separate
on- and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown
in Table 4.3-12: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, conservatively include all on-site Project-
related stationary sources and 10 percent of the Project-related new mobile sources, since a portion of
mobile sources could include trucks idling on-site. Table 4.3-12 shows that net new daily emissions of
these pollutants during operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby
sensitive receptors. Therefore, significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during operational
activities.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-28 4.3 | Air Quality
Table 4.3-12: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions
Activity
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
On-Site and Mobile Source Emissions1 1.60 1.59 0.70 0.21
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(5 acres at 25 meters)2 270 1,746 4 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
1. Conservatively assumes 10 percent of mobile emissions are on -site.
2. SRA Zone 34 – Central San Bernardino Valley; 5-acre area, 25 meters to receptor.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Air Quality Assessment, Table 12. Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data of Draft EIR
Appendix B1 for model outputs.
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to provide
sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or explain why such
information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno [Friant Ranch, L.P.] [2018] Cal.5th,
Case No. S219783). The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which
defines a major stationary source (in extreme O3 nonattainment areas such as the SCAB) as emitting 10
tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR)
Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or m odified sources. The NSR Program was created by the FCAA
to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent
with attainment of health-based federal ambient air quality standards. The federal ambient air quality
standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the
public health. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds
would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts.
NOX and ROG are precursor emissions that form O3 in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight where
the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the influence of meteorological
conditions for these reactions to occur, so O3 may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources.
Breathing ground-level O3 can result health effects that include reduced lung function, inflammation of
airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest
tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from observational
studies strongly indicates that higher daily O3 concentrations are associated with increased asthma
attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The
consistency and coherence of the evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that O3 can make asthma
symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers.
The SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP focuses on the 2015 8-hour ozone standard with achieving attainment in
2037. The largest source of NOX emissions (an O3 precursor) in 2018 were related to on-road sources. The
2022 AQMP also emphasizes a shift in focus beyond on-road emissions to off-road sources. The 2022
AQMP identifies a 67 percent NO X reduction beyond what we would achieve through current programs
by 2037 and about 83 percent below current levels. In order to achieve this, the SCAQMD identifies the
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-29 4.3 | Air Quality
need for widespread adoption of zero emissions (ZE) technologies across all mobile sectors and stationary
sources.
The control strategy for the 2022 AQMP includes aggressive new regulations and the development of
incentive programs to support early deployment of advanced technologies. The two key areas for
incentive programs are (1) promoting widespread deployment of available ZE and low NOX technologies
and (2) developing new ZE and ultra-low NOX technologies for use in cases where the technology is not
currently available. SCAQMD will prioritize distribution of incentive funding in environmental justice (EJ)
areas and seek opportunities to focus benefits on the most disadvantaged communities. The 2022 AQMP
includes a total of 49 control measures. In addition to the NO X measures, the 2022 AQMP relies on
co-benefits from climate and energy efficiency programs for further reductions, limited strategic
measures for VOC reductions, and other actions.
The SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NO X reductions prove to be much more effective
in reducing O3 levels and will also lead to significant improvement in PM 2.5 concentrations. NOX-emitting
stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM)
facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters,
engines, burners, flares) and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane.
There are significant challenges with correlating specific health effects that will occur as a result of a
project’s significant criteria air pollutant emissions. Generally, models that correlate criteria air pollutant
concentrations with specific health effects focus on regulatory decision-making that will apply throughout
an entire air basin or region. These models focus on the region-wide health effects of pollutants so that
regulators can assess the costs and benefits of adopting a proposed regulation t hat applies to an entire
category of air pollutant sources, rather than the health effects related to emissions from a specific
proposed project or source. Because of the scale of these analyses, any one project is likely to have only
very small incremental effects which may be difficult to differentiate from the effects of air pollutant
concentrations in an entire air basin. In addition, such modeling efforts are costly, and the value of a
project-specific analysis may be modest in relation to that cost. Furthermore, the results, while costly to
produce, may not be particularly useful. For regional pollutants, it is difficult to trace a particular project’s
criteria air pollutant emissions to a specific health effect. Moreover, the modeled results may be
misleading because the margin of error in such modeling is large enough that, even if the modeled results
report a given health effect, the model is sufficiently imprecise that the actual effect may differ from the
reported results; that is, the modeled results suggest precision, when in fact available models cannot be
that precise on a project level.
As discussed above, the mass emissions thresholds developed by SCAQMD and used by CEQA lead
agencies throughout southern California to determine potential significance of project-related regional
changes in the environment are not directly indicative of exceedances of applicable ambient air standards.
Meteorology, the presence of sunlight, and other complex chemical factors all combine to determine the
ultimate concentration and location of O 3 or PM. The effects on ground-level ambient concentrations of
pollutants that may be breathed by people are also influenced by the spatial and temporal patterns of the
emission sources. In other words, the effect on O3 and PM concentrations from a given mass of pollutants
emitted in one location may vary from the effect if that same mass of pollutants was emitted in an entirely
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-30 4.3 | Air Quality
different location in the SCAB. The same effect may be observed when the daily and seasonal variation of
emissions is taken into account. Regional-scale photochemical modeling, typically performed only for
NAAQS attainment demonstration and rule promulgation, account for these changes in the spatial,
temporal, and chemical nature of regional emissions.
Emissions from Project construction and operation would vary by time of day, month, and season, and
the majority of Project-related emissions, being generated by mobile sources driving to and from the site,
would be emitted throughout a wide area defined by the origins and destinations of people traveling to
and from the proposed Project. As SCAQMD has stated, “it takes a large amount of additional precursor
emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over an entire region.”2
Specifically, for extremely large regional projects, the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate
potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their rulemaking activity,
specifically 6,620 pounds per day of NO X and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in
approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to O 3. Based on its recent
experiences applying regional scale models to relatively small increase in emissions, SCAQMD stated in its
Amicus Brief in the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case: “[A] project emitting only 10 tons per year of NO X
or VOC is small enough that its regional impact on ambient ozone levels may not be detected in the
regional air quality models that are currently used to determine ozone levels.”3 The Brief makes it clear
that SCAQMD does not believe that there must be a quantification of a project's health risks in CEQA
documents prepared for individual projects. Any attempt to quantify the proposed Project's health risks
would be considered unreliable and misleading. Also, the Project does not generate anywhere near 6,620
pounds per day of NOX or 89,190 pounds per day of ROG (VOC) emissions, which SCAQMD stated was a
large enough emission to quantify O 3-related health impacts. Therefore, the Project’s emissions are not
sufficiently high enough to use regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin -wide
level.
As previously discussed, Project emissions would be less than significant and would not exceed SCAQMD
thresholds (refer to Table 4.3-8 and Table 4.3-9). Localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby
receptors were also found to be less than significant (refer to Table 4.3-11 and Table 4.3-12). The LSTs
represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an
exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were
developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and
distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air
quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protectin g the
health of sensitive populations.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an
intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or
NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, 2015.
3 Ibid.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-31 4.3 | Air Quality
when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent
in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for
passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles,
introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO
concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from
vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.
The SCAB was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP.
The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO
Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested
intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles
per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of
4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. The Project considered herein would not
produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot
Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection
even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not
be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 286 additional vehicle trips attributable to the
Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Carcinogenic Risk
Construction-related activities would result in Project-generated emissions of DPM from the exhaust of
off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); paving; application of
architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. For construction activity,
DPM is the primary TAC of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the
construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would n ot stay
on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a
health risk to nearby sensitive receptors.
Operational vehicle DPM emissions were estimated using emission factors for course particulate matter
less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10) generated with the EMFAC developed by CARB. EMFAC is a
mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates from motor vehicles that operate on
highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by CARB to project changes in
future emissions from on‐road mobile sources. EMFAC, incorporates regional motor vehicle data,
information and estimates regarding the distribution of vehicle miles traveled by speed, and number of
starts per day. The model includes the emissions benefits of the truck and bus rule and the previously
adopted rules for other on‐road diesel equipment. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are
residences approximately 130 feet west of the Project site.
Table 4.3-13: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment shows the unmitigated and mitigated health risk for the
combined construction and operation of the Project. Based on OEHHA Risk Assessment Guidelines, the
exposure duration for a resident is 30 years, beginning with the third trimester; the exposure duration for
workers is 25 years. Operations would commence following construction. As such, construction would not
overlap with operations. The analysis calculates risk based on exposure to construction concentrations
during the initial nine months of the exposure duration and operational concentrations for the remainder
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-32 4.3 | Air Quality
of the exposure duration. Combined construction and operations would result in a maximum cancer risk
of 1.20 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million; refer to
Table 4.3-13. Therefore, impacts associated with carcinogenic risk would be less than significant.
Table 4.3-13: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment
Exposure Scenario Cancer Risk
(Risk per Million)1, 2
Significance Threshold
(Risk per Million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold?
Residential Receptors along the
west of Sierra Avenue 1.20 10 No
1 Refer to Appendix A of HRA in Draft EIR Appendix B2.
2 The reported annual pollutant concentration is at the closest maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) to the Project sit e.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Health Risk Assessment, Table 3.
As described above, PM10 exhaust construction emissions over the entire construction period were used
in AERMOD to approximate construction DPM emissions. Risk levels were calculated based on the OEHHA
guidance document, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines.
Non‐Carcinogenic Hazard
The significance thresholds for TAC exposure also require an evaluation of non‐cancer risk stated in terms
of a hazard index. Non‐cancer chronic impacts are calculated by dividing the annual average concentration
by the REL for that substance. The REL is defined as the concentration at which no adverse non‐cancer
health effects are anticipated. RELs are designed to protect sensitive individuals within the population.
According to OEHHA, the REL for DPM is five and the target organ is the respiratory system.
Chronic non-carcinogenic impacts are shown in Table 4.3-14: Chronic Hazard Assessment. A chronic
hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. The hazard index is calculated by dividing the
chronic exposure by the reference exposure level. The chronic hazard was calculated based on the highest
annual average concentration at the maximally exposed individual receptor and the acute hazard is based
on the 1-hour concentration. The highest maximum chronic index associated with unmitigated DPM
emissions from the Project would be 0.0007. It should be noted that there is no acute REL for DPM and
acute health risk cannot be calculated. Therefore, non‐carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within
acceptable limits and a less than significant impact would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4.3-14: Chronic Hazard Assessment
Emissions Sources Annual Concentration
(μg/m3) 1, 2 Chronic Hazard 1 1-Hour Concentration
(μg/m3) 1, 2
Construction 0.0035 0.0007 0.11664
Operations 0.0006 0.0001 0.14579
SCAQMD Threshold N/A 1.0 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? N/A No N/A
1 Refer to Appendix A of Draft EIR Appendix B2. According to OEHHA, the REL for DPM is 5 and the target organ is the
respiratory system.
2 The reported pollutant concentration is at the closest receptor (maximally exposed individual receptor).
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Health Risk Assessment, Table 4.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-33 4.3 | Air Quality
Impact 4.3-4 Would the Project Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses
include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants,
chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass mold ing. The Project
would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.
During construction-related activities, some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) that may be
detected are those typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and construction
equipment). These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of construction projects and
would disperse rapidly. Furthermore, odors that could be generated by construction activities are
required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. The
Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.
Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Setting
The cumulative setting for air quality includes the City of Fontana and SCAB. SCAB is designated as a
nonattainment area for state standards of O3, PM10 , and PM2.5. The SCAB is designated as a nonattainment
area for federal standards of O3 and PM2.5, attainment, and serious maintenance for federal PM10
standards, and is designated as unclassified or attainment for all other pollutants. Cumulative growth in
population and vehicle use could inhibit efforts to improve regional air quality and attain the ambient air
quality standards.
Cumulative Short-Term Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O 3, PM10, and PM2.5 for state standards and nonattainment for
O3 and PM2.5 for Federal standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control
Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution notes that projects do not have cumulatively
considerable impacts if do not exceed the project-specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance,
unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. The mass-based regional significance
thresholds published by the SCAQMD are designed to ensure compliance with both NAAQS and CAAQS
and are based on an inventory of projected emissions in the SCAB. Therefore, if a project is estimated to
result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact
on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. As shown in Table 4.3-8 above, Project
construction-related emissions by themselves would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-34 4.3 | Air Quality
criteria pollutants. Therefore, the Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to
air pollutant emissions during construction.
The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP
pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be utilized during
construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with
adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout
the SCAB, which would include related projects. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would
further reduce the Project construction-related impacts. Therefore, Project-related construction
emissions, combined with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate local
air quality. Construction emissions associated with the Project would not r esult in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.
Cumulative Operational Impacts
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.
The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size
to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions
contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the
operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore,
a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
As shown in Table 4.3-9, the Project operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As a
result, operational emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and
regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project
basis. Project operations would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
nonattainment criteria pollutant.
Conclusion
The SCAQMD’s approach to assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment
of ambient air quality standards in accordance with requirements of the FCAA and CCAA. As discussed
above, the Project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring SCAB into attainment
for all criteria pollutants. Since the Project’s estimated construction and operational emissions would not
exceed the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds that are designed to assist the region in
attaining both NAAQS and CAAQS, cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-35 4.3 | Air Quality
References
City of Fontana. 2018. Chapter 6: Building a Healthier Fontana.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26745/Chapter-6---Building-a-Healthier-
Fontana.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Air Quality Assessment.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Health Risk Assessment.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.3-36 4.3 | Air Quality
This page intentionally left blank.
4.4
Biological Resources
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-1 4.4 | Biological Resources
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and evaluates potential impacts
related to biological resources with the development of the Sierra Distribution Facility Project (Project)
located within the City of Fontana (City). This analysis describes the of existing biological resources on the
Project site and identifies any potentially significant impacts that may occur to sensitive biological
resources through Project implementation. This analysis is based primarily on a biological resources study
conducted by ELMT Consulting, Inc (ELMT) and included as Appendix C of this document:
• ELMT Consulting, Inc. (ELMT). 2022. Sierra Distribution Facility Literature Review and Habitat
Assessment.
Additional sources used in this analysis include:
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental
Impact Report.
4.4.2 Environmental Setting
A Habitat Assessment (HA) was conducted by ELMT biologists on August 17, 2022, to document baseline
conditions and assess the potential for special-status plant and wildlife species to occur within the Project
site that could pose a constraint to Project. “Special-status” refers to plant and wildlife species that are
federally and State listed, proposed, or candidates. The data collected through the literature search,
review of existing data, and site surveys provided information on the baseline conditions in the Project
area. Note that a survey buffer was not surveyed since the Project site is almost entirely developed and is
surrounded by existing development.1
Existing Conditions
Site Conditions
The Project encompasses approximately 18.3 acres and is almost entirely developed. The Project site is
presently developed with four commercial/industrial buildings ranging from 5,000 to 25,000 square feet
in size. The northwestern quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a wooden pallet
facility. The northeastern quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a carnival attraction
repair facility with truck trailer parking. The southwestern quadrant is developed with one building and
open-graded gravel pavements and is utilized for truck trailer storage. The southeastern quadrant is
developed with one building and is utilized as a storage facility. Adjacent parcels to the north and south
are developed with warehouse/industrial buildings. Beyond Sierra Avenue to the west, lies residential
development, and beyond Mango Avenue to the east, lies a landfill.
1 ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2022. Sierra Distribution Facility Literature Review and Habitat Assessment.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-2 4.4 | Biological Resources
Topography and Soils
The Project site’s existing site topography generally slopes downward to the south at a gradient of three
percent. The elevation at the Project site ranges from 1,630 feet mean sea level (amsl) in the northern
region of the site to 1,612 feet amsl in the southern region. There are no areas of topographic relief. Soils
on-site have been mechanically disturbed and compacted from historic grading and stockpiling activities,
and on-site and surrounding development. Based on the Natural Resources Conservation Se rvice (NRCS)
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey, the Project site is historically underlain
by Soboba gravelly loamy sand (0 to 9 percent slopes).2
Vegetation and Land Cover
The majority of the Project site is developed or disturbed. Due to historic and existing land uses, no native
plant communities or natural communities of special concern were observed on or adjacent to the Project
site. The Project site consists almost entirely of developed land that is used for the previously described
uses. These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred on and
surrounding the Project site. Ground surface cover consists mainly of open graded gravel and exposed
soil, with Asphalt Concrete (AC) or Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavements surrounding the buildings.
Little to no vegetation exists on site. Few large trees are present between the northwest and northeast
quadrants. Two land cover types that would be classified as disturbed and developed, cover the majority
of the Project site. These areas are not plant community classifications, but rather land cover types. Refer
to Appendix C for more information regarding vegetation communities and land cover types.
Disturbed
Disturbed areas are generally areas that are unpaved, have been subject to a high level of human
disturbances from anthropogenic activities, support minimal vegetation, and no longer comprise a native
plant community. Disturbed land occurs in the northern western portion of the site. The Project site has
been subject to a routine grading activities and storage use, which continue to persist on-site. These areas
support minimal plant species. Plant species observed during the investigation include puncture vine
(Tribulus terrestris), shortpod mustard (Herschfeldia incana), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), oleander
(Nerium oleander) and tree tobacco (Nicotina glauca).3
Developed
Developed areas generally encompass all buildings/structures, parks, ornamental landscaping, and other
paved, impervious surfaces; and such areas are dominant throughout the site. The majority of the Project
site supports developed land associated with existing land uses. Windflower Avenue currently crosses the
Project site from the west but would be vacated as part of the Project.
2 Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Infiltration Report.
3 Ibid, Page 4.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-3 4.4 | Biological Resources
Wildlife
Fish
No fish or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide
suitable habitat for fish were observed on or within the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, no fish are
expected to occur and are presumed absent from the Project site.
Amphibians
No amphibians or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would
provide suitable habitat for amphibian species were observed on or within the vicinity of the Project site.
Therefore, no amphibians are expected to occur on the Project site and are presumed absent.
Reptiles
Common reptilian species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance that could potentially occur
on-site include the great basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes) and San Diego alligator lizard
(Elgaria multicarinata webbii). The Project site provides no foraging and cover habitat for reptile species
adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. No reptile species were observed during the field
investigation.
Birds
The Project site does not provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of bird species, except
those adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. Bird species detected during the field
investigation included mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos),
Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), and rock pigeon (Columba livia).
No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey, which was
conducted during breeding season. The vegetation found on-site has very little potential to provide
suitable nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents or migrating songbirds. No raptors
are expected to nest on-site due to lack of suitable nesting opportunities.
Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and
Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513) prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds,
their nests, or eggs). If construction occurs between February 1 st and August 31st, a pre-construction
clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three days of the start of any vegetation
removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds would be disturbed during
construction.
Mammals
The Project site provides no foraging and cover habitat for a mammalian species, except those adapted
to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. No mammalian species were detected during the field
investigation. Common mammalian species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance that could
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-4 4.4 | Biological Resources
potentially occur on-site include opossum California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi),
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).4
Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl is currently listed as a California Species of Special Concern. During the field
investigation, ELMT looked for recent signs (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) for the
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and no suitable habitat areas were identified within the Project site.
Further, no suitable burrows (>4 inches) were observed during the field investigation. In addition, tall
fences, powerlines, and ornamental trees surround the Project site which decrease the likelihood that
burrowing owls would occur on the Project site as these features provide perching opportunities for larger
raptor species (i.e., red-tailed hawk [Buteo jamaicensis]) that prey on burrowing owls.
Based on the results of the field investigation, it was determined that the Project site does not have the
potential to provide suitable habitat for burrowing owls and focused surveys are not recommended.5
Special-Status Biological Resources
Special-Status Plants
According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS),
20 special-status plant species have potential to occur within the Devore United States Geological Survey
(USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle, which encompass the Project site.6
No special-status plant species were observed on-site during the HA. All special-status plant species
included in the study were presumed absent due to no suitable habitat being present on -site.
Disturbances on-site have reduced, if not eliminated, the suitability of the habitat to support special-status
plant species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site. Based on habitat requirements for
specific special-status plant species and the availability and quality of habitats needed by each species, it
was determined that the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the special-status plant
species known to occur in the area and are presumed to be absent from the Project site. No focused
surveys are recommended.
Special-Status Wildlife
According to the CNDDB, 42 special-status wildlife species have been reported in the Devore quadrangle.
No special-status wildlife species were observed on-site during the HA.7 The Project site consists of
developed land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances and is surrounded by
existing development. These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once
occurred on-site which has reduced potential foraging and nesting/denning opportunities for wildlife
species. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on -site
habitats, it was determined that the Project site has a low potential to provide minimal foraging habitat
for Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia). It was
4 Ibid, Page 5.
5 Ibid, Page 8.
6 Ibid, Page 7.
7 Ibid, Page 7.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-5 4.4 | Biological Resources
further determined that the Project site does not have the potential to support any of the other special-
status wildlife species known to occur in the area since the site has been heavily impacted by on -site
disturbances/development and surrounding development. None of the aforementioned species are
federally or state listed as endangered or threatened. In order to ensure impacts to the aforementioned
species do not occur from implementation of the Project, a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey
shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. With implementation of the pre-construction nesting bird
clearance survey, impacts to the aforementioned species would be less than significant and no mitigation
will be required. Special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur on the Project site are
presented in Table 4.4-1 below. All special-status wildlife species not presented in the table were
presumed absent due to lack of suitable habitat and can be found in Attachment D of Appendix C of this
Draft EIR.8
Table 4.4-1: Special-Status Wildlife
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Observed
On-site Potential to Occur
Accipiter
cooperii
Cooper’s hawk
Fed:
None
CA: WL
Generally found in forested areas up to 3,000 feet in
elevation, especially near edges and rivers. Prefers
hardwood stands and mature forests, but can be
found in urban and suburban areas where there are
tall trees for nesting. Common in open areas during
nesting season.
No
Low
There is minimal
foraging habitat on-site,
but no suitable nesting
opportunities are
present.
Eremophila
alpestris actia
California
horned lark
Fed:
None
CA: WL
Generally found in shortgrass prairies, grasslands,
disturbed fields, or similar habitat types along the
coast or in deserts. Trees and shrubs are usually scarce
or absent. Generally rare in montane, coniferous, or
chaparral habitats. Forms large flocks outside of the
breeding season.
No
Low
There is minimal
foraging habitat on-site,
but no suitable nesting
opportunities are
present.
Source: ELMT. 2022. Sierra and Windflower Habitat Assessment. Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources.
Special-Status Plant Communities
According to the CNDDB, three special-status plant communities have been reported in the Devore USGS
7.5-minute quadrangle: Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, southern riparian forest, and Southern
Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland. Based on the results of the field investigation, no special-status plant
communities were observed on-site. The Project site does not include suitable habitat for these
communities to occur. Therefore, no special-status plant communities would be impacted by Project
implementation.
State and Federal Jurisdictional Areas
There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas
in California: one federal agency and two State agencies. The United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Regulatory Branch is the federal agency that regulates discharge of dredge or fill materials into
“waters of the United States” pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a State agency which
regulates alterations to streambed and bank under Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 1600 et seq., and the
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) is a State agency which regulates
8 ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2022. Sierra Distribution Facility Literature Review and Habitat Assessment. Attachment D – Potentially Occurring
Special-Status Biological Resources.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-6 4.4 | Biological Resources
discharges into surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter -Cologne
Water Quality Control Act. No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the
Project site during the HA that would be considered jurisdictional by USACE, Regional Board, or CDFW. A
query of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database found no potential blueline streams, riverine,
or other aquatic resources within or adjacent to the Project site.
4.4.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973
Federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are protected under provisions of
the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of threatened or
endangered species. “Take” under the ESA is defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of the specifically enumerated conduct.” The
presence of any federally threatened or endangered species that are in a project area generally impos es
severe constraints on development, particularly if development would result in “take” of the species or
its habitat. Under the regulations of the ESA, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may
authorize “take” when it is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful act.
Critical Habitat is designated for the survival and recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered
under the ESA. Critical Habitat includes those areas occupied by the species, in which are found physical
and biological features that are essential to the conservation of an ESA listed species and which may
require special management considerations or protection. Critical Habitat may also include unoccupied
habitat if it is determined that the unoccupied habitat is essential for the conservation of the species.
Whenever federal agencies authorize, fund, or carry out actions that may adversely modify or destroy
Critical Habitat, they must consult with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA. The designation of Critical
Habitat does not affect private landowners, unless a project they are proposing uses federal funds, or
requires federal authorization or permits (e.g., funding from the Federal Highway Administration or a
permit from the USACE).
If USFWS determines that Critical Habitat will be adversely modified or destroyed from a proposed action,
the USFWS will develop reasonable and prudent alternatives in cooperation with the federal institution
to ensure the purpose of the proposed action can be achieved without loss of Critical Habitat. If the action
is not likely to adversely modify or destroy Critical Habitat, USFWS will include a statement in its biological
opinion concerning any incidental take that may be authorized and specify terms and conditions to ensure
the agency is in compliance with the opinion.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA (16 U.S. Government Code [U SC] 703) makes it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, possess, or
attempt to do the same to any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg of any such bird listed in wildlife
protection treaties between the U.S., Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the countries of the former Soviet
Union, and authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to protect and regulate the taking of migratory
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-7 4.4 | Biological Resources
birds. It establishes seasons and bag limits for hunted species and protects migratory birds, their occupied
nests, and their eggs (16 USC 703; 50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 10, 21).
The MBTA covers the taking of any nests or eggs of migratory birds, except as allowed by permit pursuant
to 50 CFR, Part 21. Disturbances causing nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (i.e., killing
or abandonment of eggs or young) may also be considered “take.” This regulation seeks to protect
migratory birds and active nests.
In 1972, the MBTA was amended to include protection for migratory birds of prey (e.g., raptors). Six
families of raptors occurring in North America were included in the amendment: Accipitridae
(kites, hawks, and eagles); Cathartidae (New World vultures); Falconidae (falcons and caracaras);
Pandionidae (ospreys); Strigidae (typical owls); and Tytonidae (barn owls). The provisions of the 1972
amendment to the MBTA protects all species and subspecies of the families listed above. The MBTA
protects over 800 species including geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, and many relatively
common species.
State
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides for the protection of the environment within
the State of California by establishing State policy to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the
environment through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures for projects. It applies to actions
directly undertaken, financed, or permitted by State lead agencies. If a project is determined to be subject
to CEQA, the lead agency will be required to conduct an Initial Study (IS); if the IS determines that the
project may have significant impacts on the environment, the lead agency will subsequently be required
to write an EIR. A finding of non-significant effects will require either a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated
Negative Declaration instead of an EIR. Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines independently defines
“endangered” and “rare” species separately from the definitions of the California Endangered Species Act
(CESA). Under CEQA, “endangered” species of plants or animals are defined as those w hose survival and
reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy, while “rare” species are defined as those who are in
such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens.
California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
In addition to federal laws, the State of California implements the CESA which is enforced by CDFW. The
CESA program maintains a separate listing of species beyond the Federal ESA, although the provisions of
each act are similar.
State-listed threatened and endangered species are protected under provisions of the CESA. Activities
that may result in “take” of individuals (defined in CESA as; “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or
attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”) are regulated by CDFW. Habitat degradation or
modification is not included in the definition of “take” under CESA. Nonetheless, CDFW has interpreted
“take” to include the destruction of nesting, denning, or foraging habitat necessary to maintain a viable
breeding population of protected species.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-8 4.4 | Biological Resources
The State of California considers an endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and
reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. A threatened species is considered as one present in such small
numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the
absence of special protection or management. A rare species is one that is considered present in such
small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens.
State threatened and endangered species are fully protected against take, as defined above.
The CDFW has also produced a species of special concern list to serve as a species watch list. Species on
this list are either of limited distribution or their habitats have been reduced substantially, such that a
threat to their populations may be imminent. Species of special concern may receive special attention
during environmental review, but they do not have formal statutory protection. At the federal level,
USFWS also uses the label Species of Concern, as an informal term that refers to species which might be
in need of concentrated conservation actions. As the Species of Concern designated by USFWS do not
receive formal legal protection, the use of the term does not necessarily ensure that the species will be
proposed for listing as a threatened or endangered species.
Fish and Game Code
Fish and Game Code (FGC) Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 are applicable to natural resource
management. For example, Section 3503 of the FGC makes it unlawful to destroy any birds’ nest or any
birds’ eggs that are protected under the MBTA. Further, any birds in the orders Falconiformes or
Strigiformes (Birds of Prey, such as hawks, eagles, and owls) are protected under Section 3503.5 of the
FGC which makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy their nest or eggs. A consultation with CDFW
may be required prior to the removal of any bird of prey nest that may occur on a project site. Section
3511 of the FGC lists fully protected bird species, where the CDFW is unable to authorize the issuance of
permits or licenses to take these species. Pertinent species that are fully protected by the state include
golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Section 3513 of the FGC makes it
unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of su ch
migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the
Interior under provisions of the MBTA.
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
The Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program of the CDFW takes a broad -based
ecosystem approach to planning for the protection and perpetuation of biological diversity. The NCCP
program, established pursuant to the 1991 NCCP Act (FGC, 2003) is broader in its orientation and
objectives than the CESA or FESA. While the CESA and FESA are designed to identify and protect species
that have already declined significantly in numbers, the NCCP program seeks to prevent species listing by
focusing on the long-term stability of wildlife and plant communities.
Native Plant Protection Act
Sections 1900–1913 of the FGC were developed to preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered
plants in the State of California. The act requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry out
programs to conserve endangered and rare native plants. Provisions of the Native Plant Protection Act
prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of the CDFW at least ten days in
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-9 4.4 | Biological Resources
advance of any change in land use which would adversely impact listed plants. This allows the CDFW to
salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed.
California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Species
Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS, but which have no designated status under
Federal ESA or CESA are defined as follows:
California Rare Plant Rank
1A- Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere
1B- Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere
2A- Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But More Common Elsewhere
2B- Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere
3- Plants about Which More Information is Needed - A Review List
4- Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List
Threat Ranks
.1 - Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and
immediacy of threat)
.2 - Moderately threatened in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and
immediacy of threat)
.3 - Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of
threat or no current threats known).
Local
City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015 – 2035
The General Plan is the guiding document that provides residents, elected officials, business owners, and
other stakeholders with direction on how to meet the needs of a growing city and provides a greater
quality of life for its current and future residents. All of this can be accomplished by carrying out the
policies within the plan.
On November 13, 2018, the City adopted its most recent General Plan, which can be thought of as the
City’s constitution or long-range blueprint for its physical development. The State of California mandates
that every city and county adopt a general plan. The General Plan details the c ommunity’s vision by
identifying goals and objectives over the next 20 years. The below goal and policy can be found in the
Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails element, located in chapter seven of the GP.
Goal 3: Fontana has a healthy, drought-resistant urban forest.
Policy: Support tree conservation and planting that enhances shade and drought resistance.
Expand Fontana’s tree canopy.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-10 4.4 | Biological Resources
North Fontana Conservation Program
The North Fontana Conservation Program (previously referred to as the North Fontana Interim Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan) was prepared to address lands in north Fontana and the listed and
special-status species that have the potential to occur on these lands.
City of Fontana Tree Ordinance
Chapter 28.61-.75 of the Fontana Municipal Code (Fontana MC) addresses tree protection, maintenance,
and replacement policies. It outlines the definition of a “heritage tree,” “significant tree,” and “specimen
tree” and the procedures necessary to replacing them within a property. As stated in the City’s Code,
“Except as provided in Section 28-65, no person shall remove or cause the removal of any heritage,
significant or specimen tree unless a tree removal permit is first obtained.”
Heritage tree means any tree which:
1. Is of historical value because of its association with a place, building, natural feature, or event of
local, regional, or national historical significance as identified by city council resolution; or
2. Is representative of a significant period of the city's growth or development (windrow tree,
European Olive tree); or
3. Is a protected or endangered species as specified by federal or state statute; or
4. Is deemed historically or culturally significant by the city manager or his or her designee because
of size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities.
Windrow means a series of trees (minimum of four), usually a variety of eucalyptus, planted in a closely
spaced line no more than ten feet apart to provide a windbreak for the protection of property and/or
agricultural crops.
Significant tree means any tree that is one of the following species (Genus/species Common name):
• Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica)
• Coast live oak (Quercus agrifollia)
• Deodora cedar (Cedrus deodora)
• California (western) sycamore (Platanus racemose)
• London plane (Platanus acerifolia)
Specimen tree is defined as a mature tree (which is not a heritage or significant tree) which is an excellent
example of its species in structure and aesthetics and warrants preservation, relocation, or replacement
as provided in sections 28.66, 28.67 and 28.68. Specimen trees shall not include any tree located on a
private parcel of property of less than one acre zoned for residential use.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-11 4.4 | Biological Resources
4.4.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for biological resources were derived from the Environmental Checklist
in CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. An impact of the Project would be considered significant and would
require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means;
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance; or
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project site and its associated design are evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria
as the basis for determining the level of impacts related to biological resources. This analysis considers
existing regulations, laws, and standards that serve to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts.
Feasible mitigation measures are recommended, when warranted, to avoid or lessen the Project’s
significant adverse impacts.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on biological resources examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction as it
is limited in duration) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance
criteria/thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site, and the
surrounding characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in
environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the
environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on the aforementioned biological resources study;
review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of
various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination that a
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-12 4.4 | Biological Resources
project would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on biological resources considers how
the potential for development and operation of the site would affect the resources.
4.4.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.4-1 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by t he California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction and Operations
Special Status Plant Species
No special-status plant species were observed during the HA. Based on habitat requirements for the
identified special-status species, known species distributions, and the quality and availability of habitats
present, it was determined that the Project site does not have the potential to support any of the special-
status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the site. The Project would be confined to existing
developed areas, and areas that primarily support landscaped areas. As a result, no impact s to special-
status plant species are expected to occur, and no additional surveys are recommended.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
The Project site is almost entirely composed of and surrounded by developed land, sufficiently isolating
potential on-site habitat from natural areas through which most special-status wildlife species might gain
access to the site.
No special-status wildlife species were observed during the HA. It was further determined that the Project
site does not have the potential to support any of the other special-status wildlife species known to occur
in the vicinity of the Project site. Based on habitat requirements for special-status species and the
availability and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined that the Project site has a low potential to
provide minimal foraging habitat for Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and California horned lark
(Eremophila alpestris actia).9 Neither of the aforementioned species are federally- or state-listed as
endangered or threatened.
Based on the results of the field investigation, it was determined that the project site does not have the
potential to provide suitable habitat for burrowing owls. Field visit observations identified no signs of San
Bernardino kangaroo rats (kangaroo rats) on the Project site. Additionally, no sign of kangaroo rat activity
was found within the Project site or neighboring areas. Burrowing owls and kangaroo rats were therefore
presumed absent according to the HA, and no further studies are recommended.10
In order to minimize potential impacts to bird nesting sites Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 would require
the completion of a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey. Therefore, impacts to the
9 Ibid, Page 7.
10 Ibid, Page 8-9.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-13 4.4 | Biological Resources
aforementioned common and special-status wildlife or plant species would be less than significant with
mitigation measures applied.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 Bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through August 31 in southern
California. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special -status) during the
nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre‐construction Nesting Bird
Surveys (NBS) three days prior to project‐related disturbance to identify an y active
nests. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If an active nest
is found, the biologist will set appropriate no‐work buffers around the nest which will
be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage and
expected types, intensity, and duration of disturbance. The nests and buffer zones
shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no‐work
buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity
shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have
successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.
Impact 4.4-2 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project would be confined to areas that have been heavily disturbed previously. No sensitive habitats
were identified within the Project site during field visit conducted on August 17, 2022. Southern Riparian
Forest communities are found along streams and rivers and consists of western sycamores, cottonwoods,
and many other wetland plants. This plant community was not observed on-site (refer to Attachment D
of Appendix C of this Draft EIR). No Riparian habitat is present on the Project site, and no members of the
Riparian Forest plant community were observed on-site. Therefore, the presence of riparian habitat is
deemed absent, and no sensitive natural communities would be impacted from Project implementation
and a less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.4-3 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Level of Significance: No Impact
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-14 4.4 | Biological Resources
Construction and Operations
Aerial photography was reviewed in conjunction with a field investigation in order to locate and inspect
any potential natural drainage features, ponded areas, or water bodies that may fall under the jurisdiction
of the USACE, Regional Board, or CDFW. No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were
observed on the Project side during the HA that would be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, Regional
Board, or CDFW. As a result, implementation of the Project would not result in any impacts or have a
substantial adverse effect on protected wetlands.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.4-4 Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
According to the San Bernardino County General Plan, the Project site has not been identified as occurring
within a Wildlife Corridor or Linkage. The Project would be confined to existing areas that have been
heavily disturbed and are isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages. In addition, there are no
riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within the Project
site or connecting the site to a recognized wildlife corridor or linkage. As such, implementation of the
Project would not prevent local wildlife movement through the Project area. Therefore, impacts to wildlife
corridors or linkages would not occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.4-5 Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
The Fontana MC Chapter 28.61 addresses how to preserve and protect heritage, significant, and specimen
trees and procedures to replace them within the City. Section 28-65 prevents removal of these trees
without first obtaining a tree removal permit.11 No heritage, significant, or specimen trees are located on
the Project site and therefore, impacts to local policies or ordinances are not expected to occur from
development of the Project, and mitigation is not required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
11 City of Fontana. 2022. Municipal Code. https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances (accessed October 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-15 4.4 | Biological Resources
Impact 4.4-6 Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
State habitat conservation plan?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The literature search identified 20 special-status plant species, 42 special-status wildlife species, and three
special-status plant communities as having potential to occur within the Devore USGS 7.5-minute
quadrangle. However, no special-status plant species, wildlife species, or plant communities were
observed on-site during the HA due to the disturbed nature of the site and lack of suitable habitat. No
special-status species will be impacted by Project implementation and no mitigation is required.
Therefore, impacts to any local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans are not expected to occur
from development of the Project, and mitigation is not required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.4.6 Cumulative Impacts
Future development in accordance with the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the
City, would increase development in a developed area and could result in impacts to biological resources.
The Project site provides limited value as a wildlife corridor due to its proximity to previous developments
and transportation corridors; however, cumulative Project sites adjacent to the Jurupa Hills and San
Gabriel Mountains foothills, which functions as wildlife corridors/habitat could be impacted by future
development. Therefore, potential biological impacts would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at
the project level when future development is proposed. Each cumulative project would require separate
discretionary permit approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential biological
resource impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate.
Consequently, the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts from the violation of
biological resource requirements, the taking of special-status plants or wildlife, or degradation of wildlife
corridors. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation and compliance with regulatory
requirements, the Project’s contribution to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources
would be less than significant.
4.4.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified.
4.4.8 References
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015 -2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report (SCH 2016021099). https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-
Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update)
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.4-16 4.4 | Biological Resources
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015 - 2035.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete-Document---Approved-
General-Plan-Documents-11 -13-2018.
City of Fontana. 2022. Municipal Code.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances.
City of Fontana. Resolution NO. 2018-096. 2018. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Fontana,
Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2016021099) for the Fontana General Plan
Update 2015 – 2035; Adopting Environmental Findings Under the California Environmental
Quality Act; and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28273/CC-Resolution-2018-096.
ELMT Consulting, Inc. (ELMT). 2022. Sierra Distribution Facility Literature Review and Habitat
Assessment. Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Infiltration Report.
4.5
Cultural Resources
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-1 4.5 | Cultural Resources
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR identifies and analyzes the environmental and regulatory settings for cultural
resources, as they relate to archaeological remains, historic buildings, traditional customs, tangible
artifacts, historical documents, and public records, and assesses whether the Sierra Distribution Facility
Project (Project) would cause any potentially significant impacts to cultural resources. Cultural resources
can also include traditional cultural properties and places, including ceremonial and gathe ring areas,
landmarks, and ethnographic locations. Cultural resources also relate to archaeological remains, historic
buildings, traditional customs, tangible artifacts, historical documents, and public records, which make a
particular site or property unique or significant.
Historically, the term “cultural resources” encompassed archaeological, historical, paleontological, and
tribal cultural resources, including both physical and intangible remains, or traces left by historic or
prehistoric peoples. However, with the recent changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Appendix G, paleontological resources are now included in the Geology and Soils analysis
(see Section 4.7). Cultural resources are also discussed in Section 4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources.
This analysis is based primarily on the following cultural resources study:
• PaleoWest LLC. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment (CRA) for the Sierra Distribution Facility
Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Appendix D).
The cultural evaluations were conducted in compliance with California Public Resources Code (PRC)
Section 5024.1 to identify prehistoric archaeological and historical resources in the Project site and
evaluate potential impacts that could result from implementation of the Project. In accordance with PRC
Section 21082.3 and California Government Code (CGC) Section 6254(r), due to the confidential nature of
the location of cultural resources, this section does not include maps or location data.
4.5.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The Project lies at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive, in the
City of Fontana, approximately 0.6 mile north of State Route 210 and 2.8 miles east of Interstate 15. The
Project site encompasses approximately 18 acres of land on six contiguous parcels (Assessor Parcel
Numbers 1119-241-10, -13, -18, -25, -26, and -27). The Project site is in Section 29, Township 1 North,
Range 5 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted on the Devore, CA 7.5 -foot
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle. The elevation of the Project area is approximately
1,625 feet above mean sea level.1
1 PaleoWest. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California .
Page 4.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-2 4.5 | Cultural Resources
Ethnographic Setting
Please refer to Section 4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources, regarding the ethnography of Native American
tribes within the Project site.
Prehistoric Setting2
Prehistoric occupation of the inland valleys of southern California can be divided into seven
cultural periods: Paleoindian (circa [ca.] 12,000 –9,500 years before present [B.P.]); Early Archaic
(ca. 9,500–7,000 B.P.); Middle Archaic (ca. 7,000–4,000 B.P.); Late Archaic (ca. 4,000 –1,500 B.P.); Saratoga
Springs (ca. 1,500–750 B.P.); Late Prehistoric (ca. 750 –410 B.P.); and Protohistoric (ca. 410 –180 B.P.),
which ended in the ethnographic period. Due to the nature of prehistoric archaeological sites identified
within 0.5 mile of the Project area, the prehistoric cultural setting discussed below begins at the Late
Archaic period.
These periods are structured based on the archaeological research conducted at Diamond Valley Lake as
part of the Eastside Reservoir Project (ESRP), located approximately 40 miles southeast of the Project
area. For the most part, the prehistory of the inland valleys of southern California that characterizes the
Project area has been less thoroughly understood than that of the nearby desert and coastal regions. Prior
to the ESRP cultural resources studies, no comprehensive synthesis had been developed specif ically for
the interior valley and mountain localities of cismontane southern California that characterize the region.
Late Archaic Period (ca. 4000 to 1500 B.P.)
The Late Archaic period was a time of cultural intensification in southern California. The beginning of the
Late Archaic coincides with the Little Pluvial, a period of increased moisture in the region. Effective
moisture continued to increase in the desert interior by approximately 3600 B.P. and lasted throughout
most of the Late Archaic. This ameliorated climate allowed for more extensive occupation of the region.
By approximately 2100 B.P., however, drying and warming increased, perhaps providing motivation for
resource intensification. Archaeological site types that typify this time period include residential bases
with large, diverse artifact assemblages, abundant faunal remains, and cultural features as well a s
temporary bases, temporary camps, and task-specific activity areas. In general, sites showing evidence of
the most intensive use tend to be on range-front benches adjacent to permanent water sources, such as
perennial springs or larger streams, while less intensively used locales occur either on upland benches or
on the margins of active alluvial fans.
Data from Late Archaic component archaeological sites also suggest increased sedentism during this
period, with a change to a semi-sedentary land-use and collection strategy. The profusion of features, and
especially refuse deposits in Late Archaic components, suggests that seasonal encampments saw longer
use and more frequent reuse than during the latter part of the preceding Middle Archaic period, with
increasing moisture improving the conditions of Southern California after ca. 3100 B.P. Drying and
warming after ca. 2100 B.P. likely extracted a toll on expanding populations, influencing changes in
2 PaleoWest. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California .
Pages 11 - 13.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-3 4.5 | Cultural Resources
resource procurement strategies, promoting economic diversification and resource intensification, and
perhaps resulting in a permanent shift towards greater sedentism.
A technological innovation introduced during this period was the mortar and pestle, used for processing
acorns and hard seeds, such as those derived from the mesquite pod. This correlates with a warming and
drying trend that began around 2100 B.P., which a ppears to have resulted in resource intensification.
The subsistence base broadened during the Late Archaic period. The technological advancement of the
mortar and pestle may indicate the use of acorns, an important storable subsistence resource. Hunting
also presumably gained in importance. An abundance of broad, leaf-shaped blades and heavy, often
stemmed or notched projectile points have been found in association with large numbers of terrestrial
and aquatic mammal bones. Other characteristic features of this period include the appearance of bone
and antler implements and the occasional use of asphaltum and steatite. Most chronological sequences
for southern California recognize the introduction of the bow and arrow by 1500 B.P., marked by the
appearance of small arrow points and arrow shaft straighteners.
Technologically, the artifact assemblage of this period was similar to that of the preceding Middle Archaic;
new tools were added either as innovations or as “borrowed” cultural items. Diagnostic projectile points
of this period are still fairly large (dar t point size), but also include more refined notched (Elko), concave
base (Humboldt), and small stemmed (Gypsum) forms. Late in the period, Rose Spring arrow points
appeared in the archaeological record in the deserts, reflecting the spread of the bow and arrow
technology from the Great Basin and the Colorado River region. This projectile point type was not found
at the ESRP study area, and there is no evidence suggesting that the bow and arrow had come into use at
this time in the inland regions of southern California.
Saratoga Springs Period (ca. 1500 to 750 B.P.)
In the early years of this period, cultural trends were, in large part, a continuation of the developments
begun during the end of the Late Archaic Period. These include an increasing adaptation to the arid
environment in the deserts and an increase in trade relations.
It was indicated that there were four cultural spheres within the Mojave and Colorado deserts during the
early part of this period, including a southern desert sphere influenced by Patayan (Hakatayan) cultures
adjacent to the Colorado River. This southern cultural sphere includes the Colorado Desert and San Jacinto
Mountains, but it is unclear whether this influence extended as far west as the Project site.
Lake Cahuilla is believed to have refilled the Coachella Valley around 1450 B.P. and was the focus of
cultural activities such as exploitation of fish, waterfowl, and wetland resources during this period. Desert
people, speaking Shoshonean languages, may have moved into southern California at this time, the so-
called “Shoshonean Intrusion.” Brown and Buff Ware pottery first appeared on the lower Colorado River
at about 1200 B.P. and started to diffuse across the California deserts by about 1100 B.P.
However, by about 1060 B.P., environmental conditions became notably warmer and drier. This period of
intense drought, the Medieval Warm, extended throughout the southwest, and led to the withdrawal of
Native American populations from marginal desert areas. Human occupation of the Lake Perris and the
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-4 4.5 | Cultural Resources
ESRP area declined during this time period, and what occupations were present seemed to have been
tethered to springs and other sources of water. In inland San Diego County, a similar period of reduced
activity or abandonment during this time has been noted. Saratoga Springs-style projectile points, a large
triangular form associated with use of the bow and arrow, began to appear in the ESRP area at this time.
However, the sparse assemblages found from this period obscure the exact timing of the transformation
from dart and atlatl to bow and arrow.
Late Prehistoric Period (c.a. 750 to 400 B.P.)
The Medieval Warm extended into the Late Prehistoric Period, ending about 575 B.P. A period of lower
temperatures and increased precipitation, known as the Little Ice Age, resulted in increased resource
productivity in the inland region. Population increased in the region of the Project site during this wet
interval. In the ESRP area, several small, but apparently semisedentary occupations, date to this time
period. Cottonwood Triangular points began to appear in inland assemblages at this time, and Obsidia n
Butte obsidian became much more common.
By about 500 B.P., strong ethnic patterns developed among native populations in southern California. This
may reflect accelerated cultural change brought about by increased efficiency in cultural adaptation and
diffusion of technology from the central coastal region of California and the southern Great Basin.
During this period, Lake Cahuilla began to recede and the large Patayan populations occupying its shores
began moving westward into areas such as Anza Borrego, Coyote Canyon, the Upper Coachella Valley, the
Little San Bernardino Mountains, and the San Jacinto Plain. The final desiccation of Lake Cahuilla, which
had occurred by approximately 400 B.P. (A.D. 1640), resulted in a population shift away from the lakebed
into the Peninsular Ranges to the west, and the Colorado River regions to the east.
Protohistoric Period
The improved, dynamic conditions of the Little Ice Age continued throughout the Protohistoric period.
Utilization of the bow and arrow promoted an increase in hunting efficiency while a renewed abundance
of mortars and pestles indicates extensive exploitation of various hard nuts and berries. As a result of the
increased resource utilization of the area, sedentism intensified with small, fully sedentary villages
forming during the Protohistoric period. This is evidenced by sites containing deeper middens suggesting
more permanent habitation. These would have been the villages, or rancherias, noted by the early
non-native explorers.
The cultural assemblage associated with the Protohistoric period included the introduction of locally
manufactured ceramic vessels and ceramic smoking pipes, an abundance of imported Obsidian Butte
obsidian, Cottonwood Triangular points, and Desert Side-notched points as well as the addition of
European trade goods, such as glass trade beads, late in the period.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-5 4.5 | Cultural Resources
Historical Setting3
San Bernardino County
The earliest recorded historic-period use of the lands within the San Bernardino Valley began in the 1770s,
following establishment of the Mission San Gabriel approximately 50 miles west of the Project site. Euro
American settlement in San Bernardino began in the early 1800s through the establishment of Politana
and the Asistencia but was largely fostered by the establishment of a Mormon colony under the leadership
of Amasa Lyman and Charles Rich. Brothers Lyman and Rich bought the San Bernardino Rancho from Jose
and Maria Armenta Lugo in 1851. San Bernardino County was established on April 26, 1853, and ceded a
portion of its territory to the formation of Riverside County in 1893. Two Mormon colonies were
established on either side of the Santa Ana River. The Mormons who settled in the San Bernardino area
raised livestock, planted crops, and established civic services such as a school and a post office. The
majority of the Mormon settlers in San Bernardino returned to Salt Lake City; however, some remained.
Agriculture and livestock continued to be the chief industries in San Bernardino County.
General agriculture and livestock raising pursuits were quickly overshadowed by the citrus industry in
southern California beginning in the 1870s. The first orange trees in San Bernardino were planted by
Anson Van Leuven in 1857. Citrus quickly became the largest industry in southern California, including
growing, packing, and shipping. Other industries included cattle ranching, growing sugar beets, and
viticulture and enology. The burgeoning citrus industry led to a population boom and spurred the
development of transcontinental railroads.
City of Fontana
Starting in the 1860s and 1870s, companies began to form across California with the intent of purchasing
readily available land (much of it owned by railroad companies) to redevelop into land colonies. These
land colonies were pivotal in the rapid development of regions across the West and specifically in San
Bernardino County. The companies purchased the land, acquired water rights, established lots, and built
infrastructure such as roads and water irrigation lines. These land colonies were key to agricultural growth
in the region.
In 1881, George and William Chaffey purchased 6,200 acres of land in what is today considered Upland
(west of the Project area) for the formation of the Ontario Colony. The land provided was ideal for the
growing of oranges. Happening concurrently, the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company formed. The
company purchased 28,000 acres and the water rights to Lytle Creek. The company laid out the townsites
of Rosena (now known as Fontana), Rialto, Bloomington, and San Sevaine. The Semi -Tropic Land and
Water Company, though ultimately unsuccessful in its attempts, initiated early residential and commercial
development in San Bernardino County.
The Chaffey brothers’ success in Ontario Colony was first realized east in Etiwanda. They purchased
approximately 2,500 acres of land and water rights at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains in the vicinity
of Day, Etiwanda, Deer, and San Sevaine creeks in 1882 and formed the Etiwanda Water Company and a
3 PaleoWest. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
Pages 14 - 16.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-6 4.5 | Cultural Resources
land colony. The 2,500 acres were divided into 10-acre plots that were guaranteed water delivery once a
month, and one share of stock in the water company per acre purchased. The water was diverted from
the Day and Etiwanda creeks through a wooden flume to a reservoir on the north end of the colony. From
here seven parallel lines of 7- to 10-inch pipe were laid to deliver water to small reservoirs constructed by
the landowners. This system of flumes and distribution pipes improved upon irrigation ditches that were
already in the area, but much of the water in this arid region was lost through evaporation and seepage
into the area’s sandy soil. At this time, noted California historian Kevin Starr stated that the Chaffey’s land,
water, and electrical development in Etiwanda “was the most innovative agricultural colony in the Far
West.” Just the pipeline system alone set a standard for future irrigation development the Cucamonga
Valley.
The success of the Chaffey brothers propelled the growth of the region, and their irrigation system was
lauded across the state. With the establishment of the Etiwanda system, the Ontario Colony became an
example of the new standard for land development across the arid west. Other nearby farming
settlements, including the community of Grapeland, sought to follow its success by establishing their own
irrigation systems. The Grapeland Irrigation District (District) was established in 1891 and encompassed
10,600 acres of land, including the current Project area. Soon after its establishment, the District began
issuing bonds and levying taxes to finance the construction of the proposed water system which was
envisioned as a grid of open water ditches and canals that crisscrossed Grapeland fed by a tunnel from
Lytle Creek. Due to financial difficulties, the irrigation system was never completed. The District was
dissolved in 1910 and the title of the property was transferred to the Fontana Development Company.
In 1913, the Fontana Development Company, which had been renamed the Fontana Union Water
Company, moved to Rosena and renamed the town Fontana. The first three buildings in the City were
completed in 1914 and included a school, a citrus packing house, and a Pacific Electric depot. A post office
was constructed soon thereafter. During the early decades of the twentieth century, Fontana’s economy
focused on agriculture, particularly poultry and hog raising. Fontana’s real growth came in 1942 with
construction of the Henry J. Kaiser Steel Mill which quickly transformed the small agricultural hamlet to
an industrial town. The steel mill and surrounding support business remained the top employer in the city
from 1942 until it ceased operation in 1984.
Methodology
Records Search
At the time of this study, multiple sources, including a records search at the SCCIC at California State
University, Fullerton, were consulted to identify prior studies and previously recorded cultural resources
within 0.5 mile of the Project site. Staff also examined historical maps and aerial images to characterize
the developmental history of the Project site and surrounding area.
The records search results indicate that since 1978, no fewer than 17 previous cultural resource
investigations have been conducted within 0.5 -mile of the Project site (see Table 4-1 of the CRA,
Appendix D). Three of these previous studies included a portion or entirety of the current Project site.
None of these previous studies identified any cultural resources within the current Project site.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-7 4.5 | Cultural Resources
The review of the record search data indicates that seven cultural resources, all of which date to the
historic period, have been previously documented within 0.5-mile of the Project site: historic remains of
a single-family residence; historic Adams Residential Complex; historic remains of a cabin and corral;
historic refuse scatter; historic Juniper Avenue North; historic Sierra Cutoff; and historic Summit Avenue
(see Table 4-2 of the CRA, Appendix D). No prehistoric archaeological resources were identified within the
record search area. None of the previously documented resources are located within the Project site.
Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search
Please refer to Section 4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources, for information regarding the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) results.
Field Investigation
A cultural resources survey of the Project site was conducted on August 17, 2022. During the survey, the
archaeologist carefully inspected any exposed areas of ground surface to identify areas likely to contain
or exhibit sensitive cultural resources. Results of the survey indicate that the Project site is fully developed.
No cultural resources were identified as a result of the fieldwork effort. Surficial sediments across the
Project site have been disturbed by the development of four industrial buildings in the 1980s. As these
buildings are less than 45 years old, they do not require management consideration as potential historical
resources under CEQA. Further, the data indicates that there is a low potential for encountering intact
buried prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits in the Project site. As such, there is a low potential
for encountering intact buried archaeological deposits in the Project site.
4.5.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Enacted in 1966 and amended in 2000, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) declared a national
policy of historic preservation and instituted a multifaceted program, administered by the Secretary of
the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at the federal, state, and local levels.
The NHPA authorized the expansion and maintenance of the Natural Register of Historic Places (NRHP),
established the position of State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), provided for the designati on of
State Review Boards, set up a mechanism to certify local governments to carry out the purposes of the
NHPA, assisted Native American tribes to preserve their cultural heritage, and created the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).
Natural Register of Historic Places
The NRHP was established by the NHPA of 1966, as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state,
and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s historic resources and to
indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (Code of
Federal Regulations 36 Section 60.2). The NRHP recognizes both historical-period and prehistoric
archaeological properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-8 4.5 | Cultural Resources
To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture,
archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential
significance must meet one or more of the following four established criteria:
1. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history;
2. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
3. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
4. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be eligible for
listing in the NRHP. In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity.
Integrity is defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance. The NRHP recognizes seven
qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity a property must possess several, and usually most, of
these seven aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to
convey its significance.
Section 106 of the National Historic Protection Act
It is unlikely that the Project would be subject to the federal permitting processes under “Section 106
review,” as no federal action or approval is anticipated. Under Section 106 of the NHPA, federal agencies
are required to consider the effects of their actions on places that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the
NRHP.
National Register Bulletin 38
The National Park Service (NPS) has prepared guidelines to assist in the documentation of Traditional
Cultural Properties (TCPs) by public entities. While it is federal guidance, it serves as the best and most
recognized guidance for identifying TCPs. National Register Bulletin (NRB) 38 is intended to aid in
determining whether properties have traditional cultural significance and if they are eligible for inclusion
in the NRHP. It is also intended to assist federal agencies, SHPO, Certified Local Governments, tribes, and
other historic preservation practitioners who need to evaluate such properties when considering their
eligibility for the NRHP as part of the review process prescribed by the ACHP.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The purpose of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (16 U.S. Code [USC]
Section 470aa et. seq.) is to ensure preservation and protection of archaeological resources on public and
Native American lands. ARPA places primary emphasis on a Federal permitting process in order to control
the disturbance and investigation of archaeological sites on these lands. In addition, ARPA's protective
provisions are enforced by civil penalties for violation of the Act.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-9 4.5 | Cultural Resources
Under this regulation, the term “archaeological resources” includes but is not limited to pottery, basketry,
bottles, weapons, weapon projectiles, tools, structures or portions of structures, pit houses, rock
paintings, rock carvings, intaglios, graves, human skeletal materials, or any portion or piece of any of the
foregoing items. Non-fossilized and fossilized paleontological specimens, or any portion or piece thereof,
shall not be considered archaeological resources, under the regulations under this paragraph, unless
found in an archaeological context. No item shall be treated as an archaeological resource under
regulations under this paragraph unless such item is at least 100 years of age.
ARPA mandates consultation procedures before initiation of archaeological research on Native American
lands or involving Native American archaeological resources. 16 USC Section 470cc(c) requires Native
American tribes be notified of possible harm to, or destruction of, sites having religious or cultural
significance to that group. The federal land manager must notify affected tribes before issuing the permit
for archaeological work. 16 USC Section 470cc(g)(2) specifies that permits to excavate or remove
archaeological resources from Indian lands require consent of the Native American or Native American
tribe owning or having jurisdiction over such lands. The permit, it is also stipulated, must include such
terms and conditions as may be requested by the affected Native Americans.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a federal law passed in 1990 that mandates
museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items—such as human remains,
funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony—to lineal descendants or culturally
affiliated Indian tribes.
State
California Public Resources Code
Archaeological and historical sites are protected under a wide variety of state policies and regulations in
the California PRC. In addition, cultural resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive
protection under the PRC and CEQA.
PRC Sections 5020 to 5029.5 continued the former Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee as the State
Historical Resources Commission (SHRC). The commission oversees the administration of the California
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and is responsible for designating State Historical Landmarks and
Historical Points of Interest.
PRC Sections 5079 to 5079.65 define the functions and duties of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP),
which administers federal- and state-mandated historic preservation programs in California as well as the
California Heritage Fund.
PRC Sections 5097.9 to 5097.991 provide protection to Native American historical and cultural resources
and sacred sites; identify the powers and duties of the NAHC; require that descendants be notified when
Native American human remains are discovered; and provide for treatment and disposition of human
remains and associated grave goods.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-10 4.5 | Cultural Resources
One additional state law pertaining to tribal cultural resources and the Project—Assembly Bill 52—is
described in Section 4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR.
California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by
state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to
indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse
change.” (PRC Section 5024.1). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible
for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher, are automatically
included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest (PHI)
program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks
programs, may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR. A resource, either an individual property or a
contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the SHRC determines that it meets any of the
following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria:
• Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
• Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
• Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic
values.
• Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Under PRC Section 5024.1 and 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 4852(c), a cultural resource
must retain integrity to be considered eligible for the CRHR. Specifically, it must retain sufficient character
or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and convey reasons of significance. Integrity is
evaluated with regard to retention of such factors as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association.
Typically, a prehistoric archaeological site in California is eligible for listing in the CRHR based on its
potential to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion 4). Important information
includes chronological markers such as projectile point styles or obsidian artifacts that can be subjected
to dating methods or undisturbed deposits that retain their stratigraphic integrity. Sites such as these
have the ability to address research questions.
California Points of Historical Interest
California PHI are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have
anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious,
experimental, or other value. PHI designated after December 1997 and recommended by the SHRC are
also listed in the CRHR. No historic resource may be designated as both a landmark and a point. If a point
is later granted status as a landmark, the point designation is retired. In practice, the point designation
program is most often used in localities that do not have a locally enacted cultural heritage or preservation
ordinance.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-11 4.5 | Cultural Resources
To be eligible for designation as a PHI, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria: (1) it is
the first, last, only, or most significant of its type within the local geographic region (city or county); (2) it
is associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local area; or
(3) it is a prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement, or
construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in the local region of a pioneer
architect, designer, or master builder.
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires public agencies to assess a project’s impact on cultural resources. The first step in the
process is to identify cultural resources that may be impacted by the project and then determine whether
the resources are “historically significant” resources.
CEQA defines historically significant resources as “resources listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources” (PRC Section 5024.1). A cultural resource may be considered historically
significant if the resource is 45 year s old or older and possesses integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
In addition, it must meet any of the following criteria for listing on the CRHR:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage;
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or,
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC Section
5024.1).
Cultural resources are buildings, sites, humanly modified landscapes, traditional cultural properties,
structures, or objects that may have historical, architectural, cultural, or scientific importance. A resource
can also be determined historically significant under CEQA by virtue of being included in a local re gister
of historical resources regardless of CRHR eligibility (see Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a)(2)). CEQA states
that if a project will have a significant impact on important cultural resources, deemed “historically
significant,” then project alternatives and mitigation measures must be considered. Additionally, the OHP
may choose to comment on the CEQA compliance process for specific local government projects in an
informal capacity but does not seek to review all projects that may affect historically s ignificant cultural
resources under CEQA provisions.
Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050.5 and 7052
State Health and Safety Code (HSC), Section 7050.5, declares that, in the event of the discovery of human
remains outside of a dedicated cemetery, all ground disturbance must cease, and the county coroner must
be notified. HSC Section 7052 establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise
disturbing human remains, except by relatives.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-12 4.5 | Cultural Resources
More precisely, if human remains are encountered, HSC Section 7050.5 states that:
a. “Every person who knowingly mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes any
human remains in or from any location other than a dedicated cemetery without authority of law
is guilty of a misdemeanor, except as provided in Section 5097.99 of the [PRC]. The provisions of
this subdivision shall not apply to any person carrying out an agreement developed pursuant to
subdivision (l) of Section 5097.94 of the [PRC] or to any person authorized to implement
Section 5097.98 of the [PRC].
b. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a
dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the cor oner of the county in which
the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing
with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the [CGC], that the remains are not subject
to the provisions of Section 27491 of the [CGC] or any other related provisions of law concerning
investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations
concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person
responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided
in Section 5097.98 of the [PRC]. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two
working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized
representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains.
c. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority 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, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours,
the Native American Heritage Commission.”
California Public Records Act
Sections 6254(r) and 6254.10 of the California Public Records Act (CGC Section 6250 et seq.) were enacted
to protect archaeological sites from unauthorized excavation, looting, or vandalism. Section 6254(r)
explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to “Native American
graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places, features, and
objects…maintained by, …, the Native American Heritage Commission….” Section 6254.10 specifically
exempts from disclosure requests for “records that relate to archaeological site information and reports
maintained by, or in the possession of, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the SHRC, the State Lands
Commission, the NAHC, another state agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency
obtains through a consultation process between a California Native American tribe and a state or local
agency.”
California Penal Code, Section 622.5
California Penal Code Section 622.5 provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of
historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands but specifically excludes the
landowner.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-13 4.5 | Cultural Resources
California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Health and Safety Code,
Sections 8010 et seq.
Enacted in 2001, the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (California
Repatriation Act), requires all state agencies and museums that receive state funding and that have
possession or control over collections of human remains or cultural items, as defined, to complete an
inventory and summary of these remains and items on or before January 1, 2003, with certain exceptions.
The California Repatriation Act also provides a process for the identification and repatriation of these
items to the appropriate Native American tribe(s).
Local
Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035
There are no goals or policies from the City’s General Plan Update that are pertinent to the Project and
cultural resources.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Fontana Municipal Code (MC) Article XIII, Preservation of Historic Resources4 establishes a mechanism by
which the City can implement the goals and policies of the general plan, which recognize the presence of
archeological sites and buildings that have historic importance for the City. This portion of the code
recognizes that the City Council finds and declares that historic, archeological, and cultural resources
symbolize the City and its people, reveal how the City's character was shaped, and instill pride in the
community. The creation and functions of the planning commission and the identification, preservation,
and protection of historic, archeological, and cultural resources within the City and that the use of these
resources shall be governed by the provisions of the article. The subsections of this article related to the
naming, protection, and preservation of resources include the following: Section 5-354 Violations;
penalties; Section 5-355 Historical Resources designation criteria; Section 5-356 Historical Resources
designation procedures; and Section 5-357 Certificate of appropriateness. The article also includes
Section 5-360 Design criteria and development standards pertaining to historical resources; Section 5-361
standards for work, Section 5-362 maintenance; as well as Section 5-363 Preservation easements.
Of note is Section 5-365 Designated Local historic resources which names 22 local historic resources. None
of these sites are within the Project site.
4.5.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning cultural resources. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been
utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on
the environment if it would:
4 City of Fontana. 2022. Fontana, California – Code of Ordinances, Article XIII. Preservation of Historic Resources.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH5BUBURE_ARTXIIIPRHIRE (accessed September 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-14 4.5 | Cultural Resources
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5; or
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning cultural resources. This analysis considers the
existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the
potentially significant environmental impacts. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with
the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce t he
potentially significant environmental impacts.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on cultural resources examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and
permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/thresholds outlined
above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the surrounding characteristics/
geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as
well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on field observations made by PaleoWest
personnel on August 17, 2022; review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level
photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents.
A determination that any components of the Project may result in “substantia l” adverse effects on
historical and archaeological resources and human remains considers the existing site’s historical resource
value and the severity of the Project implementation on resources that may be considered historical.
4.5.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.5-1 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction
Construction of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. As discussed under Methodology above, multiple
sources, including a records search at the SCCIC at California State University, Fullerton, were consulted
to identify prior studies and previously recorded cultural resources within 0.5-mile of the Project site. Staff
also examined historical maps and aerial images to characterize the developmental history of the Project
site and surrounding area. The records search conducted indicated that since 19 78 , no fewer than 17
previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted within 0.5-mile of the Project site. Three
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-15 4.5 | Cultural Resources
of these studies encompassed a portion or entirety of the Project area . None of these previous studies
identified any cultural resources within the current Project area.
The review of the record search data indicate that seven cultural resources have been previously
documented within 0.5-mile of the Project site. All of these resources date to the historic period and
include three road segments, the archaeological remains of single-family residence and a cabin with
corral, a homestead complex, and a refuse scatter. None of the previously documented resources are
located within the Project site.
Results of the field survey confirmed that the Project area is fully developed. The Alumna Systems
property (17051 Windflower Avenue) that covers the southeast corner of the Project area contains
an industrial, metal building with a paved and graveled area that is currently used for staging and
material storage. The Anderson Trucking Company (5975 North Sierra Avenue) in the southwest corner
of the Project area contains an industrial metal building with a paved and graveled parking lot
that currently houses container trailers. The Land Star Pallets property in the northwest corner
(6075 North Sierra Avenue) of the Project area contains a single building with a gravel and asphalt parking
area that is also currently being used to store container trailers. Finally, the northeast corner of the Project
area (17017 Windflower Avenue) is vacant and contains a single building with a parking area covered with
gravel and asphalt. The entirety of the Project area is highly disturbed with no native intact sediments
observed. The four standing buildings appear to have been constructed within the last 45 years, which is
generally utilized as the age threshold for identifying whether or not built properties are considered
historic in age and, therefore, subject to consideration as a cultural resource. While lead agencies are
afforded flexibility to consider younger properties as cultural resources, the four standing buildings are
not qualified for special consideration as cultural resources.
Operations
Following completion of construction of the Project and disturbances of the site, the Project would include
use for a distribution facility. This land use operation would not impact any known or unknown historical
resources. Therefore, operation of the Project would have no impact on historical cultural resources.
Because no historical resources were identified within the Project site, implementation of the Project
would not cause a substantial adverse change to an historic resource. Therefore, impacts on historical
resources would not occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.5-2 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-16 4.5 | Cultural Resources
Construction
A significant impact would occur if grading and construction activities result in a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource as defined in PRC Section 21083.2 or State
CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5, if (1) a resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the SHRC, for
listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1 and Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.) is adversely affected; and
(2) if grading and construction activities would result in a substantial adverse change i n the significance of
an archaeological resource determined to be “historic” or “unique.” As defined in PRC Section 21083.2, a
“unique” archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly
demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability
that it meets any of the following criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a
demonstrable public interest in that information.
• Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available
example of its type.
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person.
According to CEQA, if a resource is neither unique nor historic, the effects of a project on that resource
will not be considered significant effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(C)(4)).
The cultural resources assessment completed for the Project identified no archaeological resources in the
Project area. Results of the site visit revealed surficial sediments have been disturbed across the Project
property by the development four industrial buildings in the 1980s. The extant data indicate that there is
a low potential for encountering intact buried prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits in the Project
site. No prehistoric archaeological resources have been identified within 0.5-mile of the Project site.
Furthermore, the absence of any major water source in the vicinity of the Project suggests the area would
not have been attractive to prehistoric groups as either a habitation locale or for resource procurement.
Review of historical topographic maps and aerial photographs indicates that the Project site remained
undeveloped until the mid-twentieth century. As such, it is unlikely that significant historic period
archaeological remains would be present within the Project area. However, in the event that a potentially
significant archaeological resource is encountered during Project-related ground-disturbing activities,
SC-CUL-1 and MMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 would apply to further minimize potential impacts to archaeological
resources. While the City of Fontana maintains standard conditions of approval regarding cultural
resources for Projects within their jurisdiction, MM CUL-1 is specific to the Project area and was drafted
in consultation with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN). When there are conflicts between
the City’s standard condition and Project specific mitigation, the MM’s shall take precedence. With
implementation of SC CUL-1 and MMs CUL-1 and CUL-2, impacts regarding a substantial adverse change
of an archaeological resource would be less than significant.
Operations
Following completion of construction of the Project and disturbances of the site, the Project would include
use for a distribution facility. This land use operation would not impact any known or unknown
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-17 4.5 | Cultural Resources
archaeological resources. Therefore, operation of the Project would have no impact on archaeological
cultural resources.
Based on these findings, no further cultural resources management is recommended for construction and
operation of the Project.
Standard Condition
SC CUL-1 Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction
activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal
cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall
be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the
resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of
correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding
treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request
preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on
other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.
Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in
place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data
recovery excavation to remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory
processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural Resources shall be returned to the Tribe.
Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be
curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if
such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical
society in the area for educational purposes.
Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction
projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to
avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human
remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet
the Secretary of the Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10
years’ experience as a principal investigator working with Native American
archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure
that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in
the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified
archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find.
Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue
during this assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within
MM TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-18 4.5 | Cultural Resources
information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of
the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.
MM CUL-2 If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA
(as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the
archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall
be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within MM TCR-1. The
archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan
accordingly.
Impact 4.5-3 Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
The Project site is located in an area mainly developed with industrial and residential uses and is not
located near a formal cemetery. The Project site was previously and is actively used for industrial uses by
Alumna Systems, Anderson Trucking Company, and Land Star Pallets . If human remains are discovered,
however, those remains would require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws, including
HSC Sections 7050.5-7055 and PRC Section 5097.98 and 5097.99. HSC Sections 7050.5-7055 describe the
general provisions for treatment of human remains. Specifically, HSC Section 7050.5 prescribes the
requirements for the treatment of any human remains that are accidentally discovered during excavation
of a site. HSC Section 7050.5 also requires that all activities cease immediately, and a qualified
archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately. As required by state law, the
procedures set forth in PRC Section 5087.98 would be implemented, including evaluation by the County
Coroner and notification of the NAHC. The NAHC would then designate the Most Likely Descendant of the
unearthed human remains.
It is unlikely that any human remains would be encountered given that the Project site is already
disturbed. However, previously undiscovered human remains could be encountered during construction
activities. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation would be halted in the vicinity of the
find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains shall remain undisturbed until
the County Coroner has investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for the
treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with the established regulatory
framework (i.e., HSC Sections 7050.5-7055 and PRC Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99) and the application of
SC CUL-2 and MM CUL-3, the Project’s impacts concerning potential to disturb human remains, would be
reduced to a less than significant.
Operations
Operation of the Project would not impact human remains or cause a substantial adverse effect to
undiscovered human remains. No impacts would occur.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-19 4.5 | Cultural Resources
Standard Condition
SC CUL-2 If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find
immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify
the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, which will
determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the
landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the
discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by
the NAHC.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-3 If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated
with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find)
shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the Project.
4.5.6 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of cumulative cultural impacts analysis, cumulative impacts are considered in connection
with the anticipated future development projects in the City. Future cumulative development projects
could encounter or impact cultural resources. The analysis is focused on the Project’s potential for
resulting in site-specific impacts that could contribute to a cumulative loss. Impacts are site-specific and
not generally subject to cumulative impacts unless multiple projects impact a common resource, or an
affected resource extends off-site across the locations of multiple projects, such as a historic townsite or
district. With this in consideration, the cumulative analyses for cultural resources consider whether the
Project, in combination with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could cumulatively
affect any common cultural resources. Projects located in an archaeologically sensitive area are required
to conduct archaeological monitoring during construction, which would reduce cumulative impact s to a
less-than-significant level. In addition, SC CUL-1 and MM CUL-1 would apply to the Project, ensuring that
its contribution to cumulative impacts would not be considerable.
As discussed above, while no archaeological resources are expected on the Project site, the potential
exists for undiscovered archaeological resources to be adversely impacted during Project construction.
With implementation of SC CUL-1 and MM CUL-1, Project construction would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources; a less than significant impact would occur.
Implementation of future projects in the Project vicinity could involve actions that could damage historical
and archaeological resources specific to those Project sites. However, all projects would be subject to
CEQA review, including studies of historical and archaeological resources that are present or could be
present on-site. Where significant or potentially significant impacts are identified, implementation of all
feasible mitigation would be required to reduce potentially significant impacts. As with the Project, all
cumulative development in the area would undergo environmental and design review on a project -by-
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.5-20 4.5 | Cultural Resources
project basis pursuant to CEQA, in order to evaluate potential impacts to cultural resources and avoid or
reduce any impacts.
As discussed previously, results of the records search, assessment of historical imagery, and the
pedestrian survey indicated the Project site and area have a low archaeological sensitivity. No historic-era
resources were identified on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not considerably contribute to
cumulative impacts to historical resources.
As discussed above, Project-level impacts to human remains would be less than significant. Standard
regulatory requirements and procedures will also apply to other present and reasonably foreseeable
future projects, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
4.5.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified.
4.5.8 References
City of Fontana. 2022. Fontana, California – Code of Ordinances, Article XIII. Preservation of Historic
Resources.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH5BUBURE
_ARTXIIIPRHIRE
PaleoWest LLC. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment (CRA) for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City
of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Appendix D).
4.6
Energy
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.6-1 4.6 | Energy
4.6 ENERGY
4.6.1 Introduction
According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b), Section 15126.4 (a)(1)(C), and Appendix F, the
goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy including decreasing reliance on
natural gas and oil and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources (renewable energy is generally
defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale
such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat). The Project would be constructed to Title 24
standards, which are designed to reduce energy demand in all new construction.
This section describes the existing setting of the proposed as they relate to the Project as it relates to
energy conservation, identifies associated regulatory conditions and requirements, presents the criteria
used to evaluate potential impacts related to use of fuel and energy upon implementation of the Project,
and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potential significant impacts. The significance of
each impact is included at the end of this section.
Information and analyses presented in this section are derived from the following found in Draft EIR
Appendix E:
• Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Sierra Distribution Facility – Energy Assessment.
See Appendix A of Appendix E for energy data.
4.6.2 Environmental Setting
Energy consumption is analyzed in this section due to the potential direct and indirect environmental
impacts associated with the Project. Such impacts include the depletion of nonrenewable resources and
emissions of pollutants during both construction and long-term operational phases.
Electricity Service
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical services to the City of Fontana (City) through State -
regulated public utility contracts. Over the past 15 years, electricity generation in California has undergone
a transition. Historically, California has relied heavily on oil- and gas-fired plants to generate electricity.
Spurred by regulatory measures and tax incentives, California’s electrical system has become more reliant
on renewable energy sources, including cogeneration, wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy,
biomass conversion, transformation plants, and small hydroelectric plants. Unlike petroleum production,
electricity generation is not usually tied to the location of the fuel source and can be delivered great
distances via the electrical grid. The generating capacity of a unit of electricity is expressed in megawatts
(MW). Net generation refers to the gross amount of energy produced by a unit; minus the amount of
energy the unit consumes. Generation is typically measured in megawatt-hours (MWh), kilowatt-hours
(kWh), or gigawatt-hours (GWh).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.6-2 4.6 | Energy
Natural Gas Services
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas services to the City and San Bernardino
County (County). Natural gas is a hydrocarbon fuel found in reservoirs beneath the Earth’s surface and is
composed primarily of methane (CH4). It is used for space and water heating, process heating and
electricity generation, and as transportation fuel. Use of natural gas to generate electricity is expected to
increase in coming years because it is a relatively clean alternative to other fossil fuels (e.g., oil and coal).
In California and throughout the western United States, many new electrical generation plants fired by
natural gas are being brought online. Thus, there is great interest in importing liquefied natural gas from
other parts of the world. California’s natural gas-fired electric generation increased by 5.5 percent in 2021,
accounting for 50.2 percent of in-state generation.
The City’s ongoing development review process includes a review and comment opportunity for privately
owned utility companies and to provide input on all development proposals. The input facilitates a
detailed review of projects by service purveyors to assess the potential demands for utility services on a
project-by-project basis. The ability of utility providers to provide services concurrently with each project
is evaluated during the development review process. Utility companies are bound by contract to update
energy systems to meet any additional demand.
Energy Usage
Energy usage is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy usage in California
was 6,922.8 trillion BTUs in 2020 (the most recent year for which this specific data is available). Of
California’s total energy usage, the breakdown by sector is 34.0 percent transportation, 24.6 percent
industrial, 19.6 percent commercial, and 21.8 percent residential. Electricity and natural gas in California
are generally consumed by stationary users such as residences, commercial, and industrial facilities,
whereas petroleum consumption is generally accounted for by transportation-related energy use. In 2021,
taxable gasoline sales (including aviation gasoline) in California accounted for 13,060,407,775 gallons of
gasoline.
The electricity consumption attributable to the County from 2010 to 2020 is shown in Table 4.6-1:
Electricity Consumption in San Bernardino County 2010-2020. As indicated in Table 4.6-1, energy
consumption in the County increased steadily between 2010 and 2020 with a slight decrease in 2019.
Table 4.6-1: Electricity Consumption in San Bernardino County 2010 -2020
Year Electricity Consumption (in millions of kilowatt hours)
2010 13,481
2011 13,730
2012 14,348
2013 14,374
2014 14,731
2015 14,731
2016 14,946
2017 15,282
2018 15,376
2019 15,316
2020 15,969
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Sierra Distribution Facility – Energy Assessment, Table 1.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.6-3 4.6 | Energy
The natural gas consumption attributable to the County from 2010 to 2020 is shown in Table 4.6-2:
Natural Gas Consumption in San Bernardino County 2010-2020. Natural gas consumption in the County
fluctuated with increases and decreases occurring annually.
Table 4.6-2: Natural Gas Consumption in San Bernardino County 2010-2020
Year Natural Gas Consumption (in millions of therms)
2010 492
2011 504
2012 486
2013 503
2014 453
2015 470
2016 494
2017 493
2018 500
2019 547
2020 527
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Sierra Distribution Facility – Energy Assessment, Table 2.
Automotive fuel consumption in the County from 2011 to 2021 is shown in Table 4.6-3: Automotive Fuel
Consumption in San Bernardino County 2011-2021. As shown in Table 4.6-3, on-road automotive fuel
consumption in the County relatively decreased from 2011 to 2013 and increased from 2013 to 2019.
Gasoline fuel consumption decreased in 2020 and increased in 2021. Heavy-duty vehicle fuel consumption
decreased from 2011 to 2012 and increased from 2013 to 2021 with a slight decrease in 2018.
Table 4.6-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in San Bernardino County 2011-2021
Year On-Road Automotive Fuel
Consumption (gallons)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle/Diesel Fuel Consumption
(Construction Equipment) (gallons)
2011 829,043,622 223,450,227
2012 823,824,155 221,468,396
2013 823,575,913 231,100,540
2014 833,908,390 233,757,358
2015 862,282,542 236,687,334
2016 886,951,688 251,535,041
2017 894,270,493 263,723,118
2018 894,127,745 259,783,109
2019 894,821,914 261,139,639
2020 763,765,305 265,477,739
2021 869,262,611 272,787,528
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Sierra Distribution Facility – Energy Assessment, Table 3.
4.6.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA; Public Law 110 -140) was signed into law by President
George W. Bush on December 19, 2007. The Act’s goal is to achieve energy security in the United States
by increasing renewable fuel production, improving energy efficiency and performance, protecting
consumers, improving vehicle fuel economy, and promoting research on greenhouse gas (GHG) capture
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.6-4 4.6 | Energy
and storage. Under the EISA, the Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS2) was expanded in several key
ways:
• Expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline;
• Increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from
9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022;
• Established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each;
and
• Required U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to apply lifecycle GHG performance
threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the
petroleum fuel it replaces.
RFS2 lays the foundation for achieving significant reductions of GHG emissions from the use of renewable
fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of our nation's
renewable fuels sector.
The EISA also includes a variety of new standards for lighting and for residential and commercial appliance
equipment. The equipment includes residential refrigerators, freezers, refrigerator-freezers, metal halide
lamps, and commercial walk-in coolers and freezers.
State
California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings (Title 24)
Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the
California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy
Commission [CEC]) in June 1977 and are updated every three years (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code
of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve
energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of
new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On June 10, 2015, the CEC adopted the 2016 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2017. On May 9, 2018, the CEC adopted
the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2020.
The 2016 Standards improved upon the previous 2013 Standards for new construction of and additions
and alterations to residential and nonresidential buildings. Under the 2016 Standards, residential
buildings are 28 percent more energy efficient and nonresi dential buildings are 5 percent more energy
efficient than under the 2013 Standards. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013
Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more
energy efficient than the prior 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting,
ventilation systems, and other features.
The 2019 Standards improve upon the 2016 Standards. Under the 2019 Title 24 standards, residential
buildings are about seven percent more energy efficient, and when the required rooftop solar is factored
in for low-rise residential construction, residential buildings that meet 2019 Title 24 standards use about
53 percent less energy than those built to meet the 2016 standards.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.6-5 4.6 | Energy
On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code. In December, it was approved by the
California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. Among
other updates like strengthened ventilation standards for gas cooking appliances, the 2022 Energy Code
includes updated standards in three major areas:
• New electric heat pump requirements for residential uses, schools, offices, banks, libraries, retail,
and grocery stores.
• The promotion of electric-ready requirements for new homes including the addition of circuitry
for electric appliances, battery storage panels, and dedicated infrastructure to allow for the
conversion from natural gas to electricity.
• The expansion of solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards to additional land uses
including high-rise multifamily residences, hotels and motels, tenant spaces, offices, (including
medical offices and clinics), retail and grocery stores, restaurants, schools, and civic uses
(including theaters auditoriums, and convention centers).
The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as the
CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code that was developed and adopted by the
California Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community
Development. CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with
mandatory measures under five topical areas: planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and
conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; and environmental quality. CALGreen also
provides voluntary measures (CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2) that local governments may adopt which
encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The most recent update to the
CALGreen Code was adopted in 2019 and went into effect January 1, 2020. The CEC has approved the
2022 California Green Building Standards Code and it will take effect January 1, 2023. Projects whose
permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.
California Public Utilities Commission Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) prepared an Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan in 2011 with
the goal of promoting energy efficiency and a reduction in greenhouse gases. Assembly Bill (AB) 1109,
adopted in 2007, also serves as a framework for lighting efficiency. This bill requires the State Energy
Resources Conservation and Development Commission to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards as
a means to reduce average Statewide electrical energy consumption by not less than 50 percent from the
2007 levels for indoor residential lighting and not less than 25 percent from the 2007 levels for indoor
commercial and outdoor lighting by 2018. According to the Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, lighting
comprises approximately one-fourth of California’s electricity use while non-residential sector exterior
lighting (parking lot, area, walkway, and security lighting) usage comprises 1.4 percent of California’s total
electricity use, much of which occurs during limited occupancy periods.
Renewable Portfolio Standard
In 2002, California established its Renewable Portfolio Standard program with the goal of increasing the
annual percentage of renewable energy in the state’s electricity mix by the equivalent of at least one
percent of sales, with an aggregate total of 20 percent by 2017. The California Public Utilities Commission
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.6-6 4.6 | Energy
subsequently accelerated that goal to 2010 for retail sellers of electricity (Public Utilities Code
Section 399.15(b)(1)). Then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08 in 2008, increasing
the target to 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. In September 2009, then‐Governor Schwarzenegger
continued California’s commitment to the Renewable Portfolio Standard by signing Executive Order
S-21-09, which directs the California Air Resources Board under its AB 32 authority to enact regulations to
help the state meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. In
September 2010, the California Air Resources Board adopted its Renewable Electricity Standard
regulations, which require all of the state’s load-serving entities to meet this target. In October 2015,
then-Governor Brown signed into legislation Senate Bill 350, which requires retail sellers and publicly
owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from eligible renewable en ergy resources by 2030.
Signed in 2018, SB 100 revised the goal of the program to achieve the 50 percent renewable resources
target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. S enate Bill 100
also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045.
Under the bill, the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource
shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.
Regional
San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
In response to statewide GHG reduction initiatives, the San Bernardino Associated Governments (formerly
SANBAG, now known as SBCOG), cooperated to compile an inventory of GHG emissions and an evaluation
of reduction measures to be adopted by the cities partnering within SBCOG. Reduction measures in the
GHG Reduction Plan (GHGRP) are targeting GHG goals for the year 2030. Several of the measures and
policies mentioned in the GHGRP for the City of Fontana are from the General Plan. The policies listed in
the GHGRP range from broadly supporting energy efficiency and sustainability to policies closely tied to
specific GHG reduction measures.
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
The City of Fontana’s 2018 General Plan Sustainability and Resilience Element1 (Sustainability and
Resilience Element) contains goals and policies that are designed to help the City improve its resource
efficiency and planning for climate change. These goals and policies help the City pursue sustainability and
resilience by making resource-efficient choices to conserve water, energy, materials, improve air quality,
and adaptability to changing conditions. The following goals and policies would be applicable to the
Project:
Sustainability and Resilience Element
Goal 5: Green building techniques are used in new development and retrofits.
Policy 5.1 Promote green building through guidelines, awards, and nonfinancial incentives.
1 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Sustainability and Resilience Element.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26751/Chapter -12---Sustainability-and-Resilience (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.6-7 4.6 | Energy
Goal 6: Fontana is a leader in energy-efficient development and retrofits.
Policy 6.1 Promote energy-efficient development in Fontana.
Policy 6.2 Meet or exceed state goals for energy-efficient for new construction.
Infrastructure and Green Systems Element
Goal 7: Fontana is an energy-efficient community.2
Policy 7.1 Promote renewable energy and distributed energy systems in new development and
retrofits of existing development to work towards the highest levels of low-carbon energy-
efficiency.
City of Fontana Zoning and Development Code
Fontana Municipal Code (MC) Section 30-528, Resource Conservation establishes a guideline by which the
City can implement the goals and policies of the general plan, which recognize the presence of
sustainability and resilience in new development. This portion of the code recognizes energy resources to
be encouraged to incorporate passive and active solar systems into site and building design and as
required by the latest California Building Code.3
City of Fontana Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance
The City approved and adopted the Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 1891) on April 12, 2022. It is applicable to all warehouse uses throughout the City,
including the Project. The Ordinance will meet and exceed all state and federal environmental standards
and would foster the balancing of public health and quality of life issues with the economic and
employment opportunities that the goods movement provides the City and its residents.
4.6.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning energy. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as
significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the
environment if it would:
• Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation; and/or
• Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Methodology
The impact analysis focuses on the three sources of energy that are relevant to the Project: electricity,
natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with the Project as well as the fuel
2 City of Fontana. 2018. Chapter 10: Infrastructure and Green Systems . https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26749/Chapter -10---
Infrastructure-and-Green-Systems (accessed October 2022).
3 City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 30-528.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30ZODECO_ARTVIIINZODI_DIV2DEST_S30 -
528RECO (accessed September 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.6-8 4.6 | Energy
necessary for Project construction. The analysis of the Project’s electricity and natural gas use is based on
the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which quantifies energy use for occupancy. The
results of CalEEMod are included in the Project’s Air Quality Assessment (Draft EIR Appendix B). Modeling
related to Project energy use was based primarily on the default settings in CalEEMod. The amount of
operational fuel use was estimated using CalEEMod outputs for the Project and CARB Emissions Fa ctor
(EMFAC) 2021 computer program for typical daily fuel use in San Bernardino County. Construction fuel
was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry.
4.6.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.6-1 Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during
Project construction or operation?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Energy consumption associated with the Project is summarized in Table 4.6-4: Project and Countywide
Energy Consumption. Table 4.6-4 demonstrates that the Project’s net increase in electricity usage
(subtracting estimated energy use from existing uses) would constitute approximately 0.0113 percent of
typical annual electricity usage, and approximately 0.0014 percent of typical annual natural gas
consumption for the County. Construction-related on- and off-road automotive fuel consumption
(i.e., fuel consumed during construction) would constitute 0.0303 percent of diesel and 0.0047 percent of
gasoline consumption. During operations, the net increase in on-road automotive fuel consumption
(i.e., fuel consumed from operational vehicle trips to and from the Project site) would constitute 0.0388
percent of diesel and 0.0086 percent of gasoline of Countywide automotive fuel consumption.
Construction-Related Energy
During construction, the Project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy
consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such
as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or pr ocessed materials such as lumber and glass.
Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during
grading, paving, and building construction. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be
temporary in nature and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. Some incidental
energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with state requirements that
equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Pursuant to the Fontana Industrial
Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance, Project construction equipment would also be
required to comply with the latest Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board
(CARB) engine emissions standards and use reasonable best efforts to deploy the highest rated CARB Tier
technology that is available at the time of construction (Sec. 9-74). These emissions standards require
highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel
consumption. In addition, the Fontana Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance
requires the use of electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers and prohibits the use of
diesel-powered generators except in the case of emergency or to establish temporary power during
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.6-9 4.6 | Energy
construction. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners also have a
strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during
construction.
Table 4.6-4: Project and Countywide Energy Consumption
Energy Type Project Annual
Energy Consumption
San Bernardino County
Annual Energy Consumption1,2
Percentage Increase
Countywide
Operational Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity
Project Consumption 2,065,903 kWh
Existing Consumption 255,893 kWh
Net Consumption 1,810,010 15,968,515,536 kWh 0.0113%
Natural Gas
Project Consumption 8,142 therms
Existing Consumption 965 therms
Net Consumption 7,177 therms 527,236,428 therms 0.0014%
Automotive Fuel Consumption3
Project Construction4,5
Diesel 83,747 gallons 276,240,500 gallons 0.0303%
Gasoline 40,578 gallons 867,249,800 gallons 0.0047%
Operations
Diesel
Project 268,681 gallons
Existing 161,399 gallons
Net Diesel 107,282 gallons 276,240,500 gallons 0.0388%
Gasoline
Project 93,973 gallons
Existing 19,781 gallons
Net Gasoline 74,192 gallons 867,249,800 gallons 0.0086%
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Sierra Distribution Facility – Energy Assessment, Table 4.
Notes:
1. The Project increases in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared with the total consumption in San Bernardino Co unty in
2020.
2. The Project increases in automotive fuel consumption are compared with the countywide fuel consumption (projected) in 2022.
3. Countywide fuel consumption is from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC2021 model.
4. Construction fuel consumption is based equipment and load factors from California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version
2020.4.0).
5. The estimated construction fuel consumption is based on the Project’s construction equipment list timing/phasing, and hours o f
duration for construction equipment, as well as vendor, hauling, and construction worker trips.
The incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel,
concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially
increase demand for energy compared to overall loca l and regional demand for construction materials. It
is reasonable to assume that production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ
all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest in minimizing the cost of doing business.
As indicated in Table 4.6-4, the overall diesel fuel consumption during construction of the Project would
be 83,747 gallons and gasoline consumption would be 40,578 gallons, which would constitute a nominal
percentage (0.0303 percent and 0.0047 percent, respectively) of fuel use in the County. As such, Project
construction would have a minimal effect on the local and regional energy supplies. It is noted that
construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.6-10 4.6 | Energy
no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would
be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or state. Therefore,
construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other
similar development projects of this nature. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Operational Energy
Energy Demand
Transportation Energy Demand. Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the
National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NTSA) is responsible for establishing additional
vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Compliance with Federal fu el economy standards is
not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each
manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United
States. Table 4.6-4 provides an estimate of the daily fuel consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the
Project site. As indicated in Table 4.6-4, Project operations are estimated to consume approximately
107,282 additional gallons of diesel fuel and 74,192 additional gallons of gasoline fuel per year in
comparison to existing uses, which would constitute approximately 0.0388 percent and 0.0086 percent,
respectively, of Countywide automotive fuel consumption. The Project would not result in any unusual
characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption. On-site motorized
operational equipment would be zero emissions and not require the use of fossil fuel), pursuant to the
Fontana Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance. Supporting the State’s goal of
zero emissions on-road vehicles, and pursuant to the Fontana Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability
Standards Ordinance, the Project would install a total of 23 EV parking spaces. Fuel consumption
associated with vehicle trips generated by the Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.
Building Energy Demand. Operations of the Project would result in a net increase of approximately
1,810,010 kWh of electricity per year and approximately 7,177 therms of natural gas per year. The Project
would be required to comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum
efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances ; water, space heating, and
cooling equipment; building insulation and roofing; and lighting. In addition, the Fontana Industrial
Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance requires that all buildings are solar-ready, the use
of light-colored roofing material over office spaces, and cool surface treatments in all drive aisles and
parking areas. Implementation of the Title 24 standards and compliance with the Fontana Industrial
Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance significantly reduces energy usage. Furthermore,
the electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The R PS
requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to
increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by
2020 and to 50 percent of total procurement by 2030. R enewable energy is generally defined as energy
that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight,
wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures
projects will not result in the waste of the finite energy resources.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.6-11 4.6 | Energy
As indicated in Table 4.6-4, operational energy consumption would represent approximately 0.0113
percent of electricity consumption over the current Countywide usage. The Project would adhere to all
federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards. As such, the
Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy.
Conclusion. As shown in Table 4.6-4, the increase in electricity and automotive fuel consumption
constitutes a minimal percentage (less than one percent) of existing consumption. For the reasons
described above, the Project would not place a substantial demand on regional energy supply or require
significant additional capacity, or significantly increase peak and base period electricity demand. Thus, the
Project would not cause a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during Project
construction, operation, and/or maintenance, or preempt future energy development or future energy
conservation. A less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.6-2 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or Local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
Title 24 of the CCR contains energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings based
on a state mandate to reduce California’s energy demand. Specifically, Title 24 addresses a number of
energy efficiency measures that impact energy used for lighting, water heating, heating, and air
conditioning, including the energy impact of the building envelope such as windows, doors, skylights,
wall/floor/ceiling assemblies, attics, and roofs.
Part 6 of Title 24 specifically establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential
buildings constructed in the State of California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. The
Project would comply with Title 24, Part 6 per state regulations. In accordance with Title 24 Part 6, the
Project would have: (a) sensor-based lighting controls— for fixtures located near windows, the lighting
would be adjusted by taking advantage of available natural light; and (b) efficient process equipment—
improved technology offers significant savings through more efficient processing equipment.
Title 24, Part 11, contains voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the Project
under the California Green Building Standards Code. As discussed above, the Project would result in an
increased demand for electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. In accordance with Title 24 Part 11
mandatory compliance, the Applicant would have (a) 50 percent of its construction and demolition waste
diverted from landfills; (b) mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency ;
(c) low pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials, such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring and
particle boards; and (d) a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use. Compliance with all of these
mandatory measures would decrease the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.6-12 4.6 | Energy
The San Bernardino County GHGRP establishes a series of energy efficiency related goals intended to
reduce GHG emissions based on the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Those applicable to the Project are Renewables
Portfolio Standard for Building Energy Use, AB 1109 Energy Efficiency Standards for Lighting, Electricity
Energy Efficiency, and Commercial Energy Efficiency Requirements.
In addition, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable standards of the Fontana Industrial
Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance and final documentation of compliance would be
subject to review and approval prior to issuance of applicable permits. Standards include alternative
energy measures that require all building rooftops to be solar -ready, zero emission on-site motorized
operational equipment, a minimum of 10 percent of all passenger vehicles to be electric vehicle ready ,
and at least five percent of all passenger vehicle parking spaces to be equipped with working electric
vehicle charging stations. The Project would not conflict with any of the federal, state, or local plans for
renewable energy and energy efficiency. Because the Project would comply with Parts 6 and 11 of Title 24
and with RGHGRP measures, no conflict with existing energy standards and regulations would occur.
Therefore, impacts associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans would be considered less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.6.6 Cumulative Impacts
Construction and operations associated with implementation of the Project would result in the use of
energy, but not in a wasteful manner. The Project would not cause or result in the need for additional
energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses
of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. Additionally, the
Project would be subject to compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements for ener gy
efficiency.
The Project and new development projects located within the cumulative study area would also be
required to comply with all the same applicable federal, state, and local measures aimed at reducing fossil
fuel consumption and the conservation of energy. The anticipated Project impacts, in conjunction with
cumulative development in the vicinity, would increase urbanization and result in increased energy use.
Potential land use impacts are site-specific and require evaluation on a case-by -case basis. As noted
above, the Project would not result in significant impacts to state or local plans for renewable energy or
energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project and identified cumulative projects are not anticipated to result
in a significant cumulative impact. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant.
4.6.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.6-13 4.6 | Energy
4.6.8 References
City of Fontana. 2018. Chapter 10: Infrastructure and Green Systems.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26749/Chapter-10---Infrastructure-and-
Green-Systems
City of Fontana. 2018. Chapter 12: Sustainability and Resilience Element.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26751/Chapter-12---Sustainability-and-
Resilience
City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 30-528.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30
ZODECO_ARTVIIINZODI_DIV2DEST_S30-528RECO.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Sierra Distribution Facility – Energy Assessment.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.6-14 4.6 | Energy
This page intentionally left blank.
4.7
Geology and Soils
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-1 4.7 | Geology and Soils
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and analyzes the potential
environmental impacts of the Sierra Distribution Facility Project (Project) as they relate to geological and
soil resources, paleontological resources, or unique geologic features in the City of Fontana (City) within
San Bernardino County (County). The environmental setting will be discussed for the Project, along with
any applicable federal, state, regional, and local policies and regulations. Additionally, this section will
describe the specific mitigation measures that would be used to minimize any significant environmental
impact, if any are identified. The data collected provides information on existing conditions in the Project
region from literature search, review of existing data, and site surveys.
This evaluation of the Project site and the potential impacts to geology and soils is largely based on the
following sources:
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
• Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Warehouse, NEC
Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive, Fontana, California (Appendix F).
• PaleoWest. 2022. Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project,
City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Appendix F).
4.7.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The following provides a basic description of the overall environmental setting of the Project site.
Additional details related to site geology is provided in the local geologic setting further below. T he Project
site is comprised of six total parcels and consists of a total 18.3 acres. The Project involves the
development of a 398,514-square foot warehouse building with associated facilities and improvements
including 10,000 square feet of office space, vehicle parking, loading dock doors, trailer parking, on-site
landscaping, and other on-site and off-site improvements. The Project site is located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive within the City and is bounded to the
north and south by existing warehouse/industrial buildings, to the west by Sierra Avenue and residential
development, and to the east by Mango Avenue and a landfill.
The Project site’s existing site topography generally slopes downward to the south at a gradient of three
percent. The elevation at the Project site ranges from 1,630 feet mean sea level (amsl ) in the northern
region of the site to 1,612 feet amsl in the southern region.1
1 Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Warehouse, NEC Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive, Fontana,
California.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-2 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Near- and Sub-surface Conditions
As a part the geotechnical investigation, six borings (identified as Boring Nos. B-1 through B-6) were
advanced to depths of 2.5 to 15.5 feet below existing site grades and four exploratory trenches (identified
as Trench Nos. T-1 through T-4) were excavated using a rubber-tire backhoe to depths of 8.5 to 10 feet.2
Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface at Boring Nos. B-3, B-5, and B-6, and at all of
the trench locations, extending to depths of 1 to 3 feet. The fill soils consist of loose to dense silty fine to
coarse sands, fine to coarse sands, and silty fine sands. Occasional cobbles and variable gravel content
were encountered throughout the artificial fill. Boring No. B-6 was terminated within the artificial fill at a
depth of 2.5 feet due to very dense materials and extensive cobble content. Native alluvium was
encountered at the ground surface or below the fill soils at all of the boring and trench locations, extending
to at least the maximum depth explored of 15.5 feet. The alluvium generally consists of medium dense to
very dense fine to coarse sands and gravelly fine to coarse sands. Extensive cobble content and variable
silt content were encountered throughout the alluvial strata. In addition, occasional boulder content was
encountered as shallow as 2.5 feet from the ground surface.3 According to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) web soil survey, the Project site soils
consist of Soboba gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes.4 The Soboba series consists of deep,
excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium from predominantly granitic rock sources. Soboba soils
are on alluvial fans and flood plains and have slopes of 0 to 30 percent.5
Artificial Fill
Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface of B-3 and B-5 infiltration boring locations,
extending to depths of three feet below existing site grades. The fill soils consist of medium dense silty
fine sands with some fine to coarse gravel content and extensive cobbles. The fill soils contained a
disturbed appearance, resulting in the classification of artificial fill.
Alluvium
Native alluvial soils were encountered beneath the fill soils surface at all of the infiltration boring and
trench locations, extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 15.5 feet below existing site
grades, with the exception of No. B-6. The alluvium generally consists of medium dense to very dense fine
to coarse sands and gravelly fine to coarse sands. Extensive cobble content and variable silt content were
encountered throughout the alluvial strata. In addition, occasional boulder conten t was encountered in
Trench Nos. T-3 and T-4 as shallow as 2.5 feet from the ground surface.
Groundwater
Free water was not encountered during drilling or trenching at any location. Based on the moisture
contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a
depth in excess of 15.5 feet below existing site grades, at the time of the geotechnical investigation.
2 Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Warehouse, NEC Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive, Fontana, California, prepared by South ern
California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCG) for Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., SCG Project No. 20G250-1, dated February 5, 2021.
3 Ibid.
4 USDA NRCS. 2022. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed June 2022).
5 USDA. 1971. Soboba Series. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/S/SOBOBA.html (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-3 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Available groundwater data was reviewed in order to determine groundwater levels for the Project site.
Recent water level data was obtained from the California Department of Water Resources Water Data
Library website, https://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. The nearest monitoring well on record is
located 3,180 feet southeast of the Project site. Water level readings within this monitoring well indicate
a groundwater level of 320± feet below the ground surface in March 1994.
As part of SCG’s research, available groundwater data was reviewed in order to determine the historic
high groundwater level for the site. The primary reference used to determine the historic groundwater
depths in area of the Project site is Watermaster Support Services, Western Municipal Water District, and
the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District Cooperative Well Measuring Program, dated
Fall 2015. A well titled Mid-Valley (Fontana) F-07 exists 1,500 feet southeast of the site and indicates a
high groundwater level of 330± feet below the ground surface in April 2000.
Geologic Conditions
Regional Geological Setting6
The City generally lies within the northern and northwestern portion of the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province of southern California. This range is characterized by northwest-southeast trending
faults, folds, and mountain ranges. During the time from the Pliocene period to the Pleistocene period
(the past two to three million years), activities on the Newport-Inglewood Fault, combined with regional
tectonic effects (such as uplift), climatic forces, and changes in sea level. This has resulted in the formation
of the underlying basement materials and structures that underlay and support the Fontana General Plan
DEIR Project area (including the Project site). It should be noted, the tectonic forces that helped create
the geomorphology of the Project area and vicinity are still active today.
Majority of the region is underlain by terrace deposits, which are unconsolidated sediments (i.e., loose
soil materials, such as sand, silt, etc.) left by streams and onshore benches cut by the prehistoric ocean.
These deposits were laid in a shallow marine to near-shore terrestrial environment in the Pleistocene
timeframe (about two million to about ten thousand years ago). The source of these sediments was
erosion of the rocky highlands of the San Bernardino, Santa Ana, and other mountain belts from higher
elevations. Tectonic forces associated with regional faulting from the Newport-Inglewood, Cucamonga,
Chino, San Andreas, San Joaquin, and additional off-shore zones uplifted these deposits, exposing the
terrace materials to erosion. Erosion removed much of the softer and finer-grained cover materials
carrying it downstream and depositing in the valleys. In late Pleistocene time, the action of coastal plain
rivers and streams dissected the terrace materials and subsequently formed “gaps.” As sea levels
subsequently rose with the melting of continental ice sheets, sediments filled these gaps.
Local Geologic Setting
The Project area is south of the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, which are part of the Transverse
Ranges geomorphic province of Southern California. The San Gabriel Mountains extend approximately 60
miles west to the Verdugo Hills, San Fernando Valley, and Soledad Basin. Active uplift and erosion in the
6 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 5.5-1.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (a ccessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-4 4.7 | Geology and Soils
San Gabriel Mountains have produced steep canyons, rugged topography, numerous landslides, and
extensive alluvial sedimentation. Late Cenozoic uplift of the San Gabriel Mountains is largely due to
vertical slip along several influential faults, including the Sierra Madre Fault Zone just south of the Project
area. The highest peak in the San Gabriel Mountains is Mount San Antonio (Old Baldy) at 10,080 feet, and
much of the range displays large relief with deep narrow canyons and peaks above 7 ,000 feet. The
San Gabriel Mountains are predominantly crystalline and consist of Proterozoic to Mesozoic intrusive
igneous (plutonic) and metamorphic rocks as well as Cenozoic volcanic, marine, and terrestrial
sedimentary deposits, including extensive alluvial fan and terra ce deposits. The Project area is underlain
by Quaternary alluvial fan deposits eroded from the San Gabriel Mountains to the north.7
Faulting and Seismicity 8
The faulting and seismicity of southern California is dominated by the San Andreas Fault zone. The zone
separates two of the major tectonic plates that comprise the earth’s crust. The Pacific Plate lies west of
the fault zone. This plate is moving in a northwesterly direction relative to the North American Plate,
which lies east of the fault zone. This relative movement between the two plates is the driving force of
fault ruptures in western California.
There are numerous faults in southern California that are categorized as active, potentially active, and
inactive. A fault is classified as active by the state if it has either moved during the Holocene epoch (during
the last 11,000 years) or is included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (as established by the
California Geological Survey). A fault is classified as potentially active if it has experienced movement
within the Quaternary period (during the last 1.6 million years). Faults that have no t moved in the last
1.6 million years generally are considered inactive.
The severity of an earthquake generally is expressed in two ways: magnitude and intensity. The energy
released, as measured on the Moment Magnitude (MW) scale, represents the magnitude of an
earthquake. The intensity of an earthquake is measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale,
which emphasizes the seismic response at a subject site and measures ground shaking severity according
to damage done to structures, changes in the earth surface, and personal accounts; refer to Table 4.7-1:
Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale.
Table 4.7-1: Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale
MMI Description
I Detected by only sensitive instruments
II Felt by a few people at rest
III Felt noticeably indoors, but not always recognized as a quake; vibration like a passing truck
IV Felt indoors by many and outdoors by few
V Felt by most people. Some breakage of windows, dishes, and plaster
VI Felt by all; falling plaster and chimneys; damage small
VII Damage to buildings varies; depends on quality of construction
7 Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, Cal ifornia,
PaeloWest, September 15, 2022. Page 7.
8 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 5.5-2.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed
June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-5 4.7 | Geology and Soils
MMI Description
VIII Walls, monuments, chimneys fall; panel walls thrown out of frames
IX Buildings shift off foundations; foundations crack; ground cracks; underground pipes break
X Most masonry and frame structures destroyed; ground cracks; landslides
XI Ground fissures; pipes break; landslides; rails bent; new structures remain standing
XII Damage total; waves seen on ground surface; objects thrown into the air
Source: United States Atomic Energy Commission 1963, as cited in City of Fontana, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015 -2035 – Draft
Environmental Impact Report, 2018.
As discussed above, the faulting and seismicity of southern California including the Project area is
dominated by the San Andreas Fault zone. The Project site lies within the Chino Subbasin and is bound on
the east by the Rialto-Colton fault; on the southeast by the contact with impermeable rocks forming the
Jurupa Mountains and low divides connecting the exposures. On the south the subbasin is bound by
contact with impermeable rocks of the Puente Hills and by the Chino fault; on the northwest by the San
Jose fault; and on the north by impermeable rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains and by the Cucamonga
fault.9
Major active faults in the City and its vicinity are listed in Table 4.7-2: Major Fault Zones Near Fontana.
Although there are no major active faults within the City boundaries, there are a number of faults that
border the Lytle Creek alluvial basin, including the Chino, Cucamonga, San Andreas, and San Jacinto faults,
as described below. 10
Table 4.7-2: Major Fault Zones Near Fontana
Fault Zone Mw Magnitude
San Jacinto 7.2
Chino --
Whittier-Elsinore 6.8-7.1
San Andreas (southern) 7.8
Cucamonga --
Source: United States Atomic Energy Commission 1963, as cited in City of Fontana, Fontana
Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 5.5-3.
The San Jacinto Fault Zone. The San Jacinto Fault is a young, right lateral zone of seismic strain that has
dominated fault movement in southern California for a least a century. The closest portion of the fault
zone is located approximately 3.6 miles east of the Project Site. Notwithstanding the notoriety of the San
Andreas Fault, since 1857 there have been thirty-six major earthquakes identified to faults in the San
Jacinto system.
Chino Fault. The Chino-Central Avenue Fault branches away from the Elsinore (Glen Ivy) Fault and extends
northwest for approximately 13 miles through the Prado Basin and into the Puente Hills. Dominant
movement along the fault is right-reverse oblique slip.
Whittier-Elsinore Fault System. The Whittier-Elsinore Fault system consists of several steep to near-
vertical faults along a zone as much as one-half-mile wide. The closest portion of the fault is located
9 Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Warehouse, NEC Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive, Fontana, California, prepared by South ern
California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCG) for Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., SCG Project No. 20G250-1, dated February 5, 2021.
10 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 5.5-3.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed
June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-6 4.7 | Geology and Soils
approximately 22 miles southwest of the Project site. The inferred sense of movement along these faults
is predominately reverse slip west of the Chino area, and right lateral strike-slip to the east. Historic
seismicity indicates that the fault system is active.
San Andreas Fault. Extending more than 700 miles, the San Andreas Fault is the longest and most
significant system in California. The closest portion of the fault zone is located approximately 7.5 miles
north of the Project site. Within and south of the Transverse Ranges, the strike of the fault trends west -
northwest within a nearly vertical dip. Motion along the fault is right lateral with post-Oligocene (i.e., less
than 22 million years) offset of more than 150 miles. Historic seismicity, sag ponds, offset channels, and
linear geomorphic features indicate that this fault system is active.11
The most common method for measuring earthquakes is magnitude. The majority of scientists currently
use either the Mw Scale or Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale. The effects of an earthquake in a
particular location are measured by intensity. Earthquake intensity decreases with increasing distance
from the epicenter of the earthquake.
The magnitude of an earthquake is related to the total area of the fault that ruptured, as well as the
amount of offset (displacement) across the fault. As shown in Table 4.7-3: Earthquake Magnitude Classes,
there are seven earthquake magnitude classes, ranging from great to micro. A magnitude class of great
can cause tremendous damage to infrastructure in the City compared to a micro class, which results in
minor damage to infrastructure.12
Cucamonga Fault/Sierra Madre Fault Zone . This fault system is northwest-trending and generally right
lateral and is located approximately three miles northwest of the Project site. The fault consists of several
near-vertical breaks marking the southern boundary of the San Gabriel Mountains. The Cucamonga Fault
is part of the Sierra Madre Fault Zone. Based on historic earthquakes and evidence of Holocene activity,
the fault zone is considered active.
Table 4.7-3: Earthquake Magnitude Classes
Magnitude Class Magnitude Range
(M = Magnitude) Description
Great M > 8 Tremendous damage
Major 7 <= M < 7.9 Widespread heavy damage
Strong 6 <= M < 6.9 Severe damage
Moderate 5 <= M < 5.9 Considerable damage
Light 4 <= M < 4.9 Moderate damage
Minor 3 <= M < 3.9 Rarely causes damage
Micro M < 3 Minor damage
Source: City of Fontana. 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Table 4-5.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017 -Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan (accessed
June 2022).
The MMI Scale measures earthquake intensity as shown in Table 4.7-4: Earthquake Magnitude and
Intensity, describes how various magnitudes of earthquakes may be felt. The MMI Scale has 12 intensity
11 Ibid.
12 City of Fontana. 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Page 71. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-
Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-7 4.7 | Geology and Soils
levels. Each level is defined by a group of observable earthquake effects, such as ground shaking and/or
damage to infrastructure. Levels I through VI describe what people see and feel during a small to moderate
earthquake. Levels VII through XII describe damage to infrastructure during a moderate to catastrophic
earthquake. 13
Table 4.7-4: Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity
Magnitude
(Mw)
Intensity (Modified
Mercalli Scale) Description
1.0 – 3.0 I I. Not felt except by very few people under especially favorable conditions.
3.0 – 3.9 II – III
II. Felt by a few people, especially those on upper floors of buildings. Suspended
objects may swing.
III. Felt quite noticeably indoors. Many do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing
motorcars may rock slightly.
4.0 – 4.9 IV – V
IV. Felt by many who are indoors; felt by a few outdoors. At night, some awakened.
Dishes, windows, and doors rattle.
V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes and windows broken; some
cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned
5.0 – 5.9 VI – VII
VI. Felt by everyone; many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved;
some fallen plaster or damaged chimneys.
VII. Most people alarmed and run outside. Damage negligible in well-constructed
buildings; considerable damage in poorly constructed buildings.
6.0 – 6.9 VIII – IX
VIII. Damage slight in special designed structures; considerable in ordinary buildings;
great in poorly built structures. Heavy furniture overturned. Chimneys, monuments,
etc. may topple.
IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures. Buildings shift from
foundations and collapse. Ground cracked. Underground pipes broken.
7.0 and
Higher VIII and Higher
X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed. Most masonry structures destroyed.
Ground badly cracked. Landslides on steep slopes.
XI. Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Railroad rails bent; bridges
destroyed. Broad fissure in ground.
XII. Virtually total destruction. Waves seen on ground. Objects thrown into the air.
Source: City of Fontana. 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Table 4-6.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan (accessed June 2022).
Ground Shaking
Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth’s surface resulting from
an earthquake and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. The extent of ground shaking
is controlled by the magnitude and intensity o f the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local
geologic conditions. Magnitude is a measure of the energy released by an earthquake; it is assessed by
seismographs. Intensity is a subjective measure of the perceptible effects of seismic energy at a given
point and varies with distance from the epicenter and local geologic conditions.
Ground shaking is the primary cause of damage and injury during earthquakes and can result in surface
rupture, liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, differential settlement, tsunamis, building failure, and
broken gas and other utility lines, leading to fire and other collateral damage. The intensity and severity
of ground motion is dependent on the earthquake’s magnitude, distance from the epicenter and
13 Ibid.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-8 4.7 | Geology and Soils
underlying soil and rock properties. Areas underlain by thick, saturated, unconsolidated soils will
experience greater shaking motion than areas underlain by firm bedrock.14
Secondary Seismic Hazards
Secondary seismic hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking during an earthquake include
ground rupture, lurching, ridgetop shatter, landslides and rockfall, and liquefaction and dynamic
settlement.
Surface Fault Rupture
Rupture of the ground surface during an earthquake generally is limited to the narrow strip of land
immediately adjacent to/above the fault on which the earthquake is occurring. Surface fault rupture may
occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep and almost always follows pre-
existing faults. The faults are zones of weakness that cause the separation. Secondary surface faulting can
be triggered by aquifer compaction and subsidence or by the effects of strong ground shaking triggering
a slip on neighboring faults. Not all earthquakes will result in surface rupture.15 The Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone Act, which is discussed in additional detail below and requires specific evaluation
per the requirements of CEQA, initiated a statewide program to identify and disclose in environmental
documents fault zones that are susceptible to surface rupture. The Project site is not located in close
proximity to a Alquist-Priolo Fault zone or zone of required investigation.16
Lurching
Lurching is a phenomenon in which loose to poorly consolidated deposits move laterally as a response to
strong ground shaking during an earthquake. Lurching is typically associated with soil deposits on or
adjacent to steep slopes.
Ridgetop Shatter
Ridgetop fissuring and shattering is thought to be the result of intense amplification or focusing of seismic
energy due to local topographic features. Linear fault-like fissures and shattering of surface soils on the
crests of steep, narrow ridgelines occurred during the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge
earthquakes. This phenomenon can result in severe structural damage, particularly if it occurs on
relatively high (greater than 100 feet), narrow (typically less than 300 feet wide) ridges flanked by sl opes
steeper than about 2.5:1 (horizontal: vertical). The Project site is flat and is not located on or near a ridge.
Landslides and Rockfall 17
Landslides, rock falls, and debris flows are all forms of mass wasting, the movement of soils and rock under
the influence of gravity. A landslide may occur if source material on a slope is triggered by some
mechanism. Source materials include fractured and weathered bedrock and loose soils. Triggering
14 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 61.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed June 2022).
15 Ibid, Page 5.5-4.
16 California Department of Conservation. 2016. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/.
(accessed June 2022).
17 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 5.5-6.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-9 4.7 | Geology and Soils
mechanisms include earthquakes, saturation from rainfall, and erosion. Post-fire erosion rates may be
more than 50 to 100 times greater than on a well-vegetated watershed. The Project site is flat and is not
located on or near a ridge.
Shaking during an earthquake can lead to seismically induced landslides, especially in areas that have
previously experienced landslides or slumps, in areas of steep slopes, or in saturated hillsides. The City of
Fontana is generally flat and not at risk from the threat of landslides. Potential areas where seismically-
induced landslides could occur are in the foothill portions of the basin. The nearest moderate to high
landslide susceptibility zone near the Project site is the Jurupa Mountains located approximately 1.5 miles
to the south.18
Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction of free-running type soils, such as sand and gravel, can be caused by strong ground shaking
motion due to earthquakes. Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil
layers, causing the soil to behave like a syrupy liquid. When insufficient confining pressure is present,
liquefaction may be manifested at the ground surface by settlement or sand volcanoes. For the potential
effects of liquefaction to be demonstrated at the ground surface, the soils generally have to be granular,
loose to medium dense, saturated relatively near the ground surface and must be subjected to a sufficient
magnitude and duration of ground shaking. Ground accelerations generated from a seismic event can
produce settlements in sands or granular earth materials both above and below the water table, posing a
potential hazard to land uses on the surface. The Project site is not located in a low, medium, or high
generalized liquefaction susceptibility area.19
Soil Erosion
Erosion refers to the removal of soil from exposed bedrock surfaces by water or wind. The effects of
erosion are intensified with an increase in slope (as water moves faster, it gains momentum to carry more
debris), the narrowing of runoff channels (which increases the velocity of water), and by the removal of
groundcover (which leaves the soil exposed to erosive forces). Surface improvements, such as paved roads
and buildings, decrease the potential for erosion on-site, but can increase the rate and volume of runoff,
potentially causing off-site erosion.
Shrinkage/Subsidence
Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. Removal and
recompacting of the near-surface native fill soils is estimated to result in an average shrinkage of 7 to
17 percent. Additional exploration during the design level investigation would help to refine the potential
shrinkage estimate. It should be noted that the potential shrinkage estimates are based on dry density
testing performed on small-diameter samples taken at the boring locations.
Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal, due to settlement
and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be 0.10 feet. These estimates are based on
18 San Bernardino County. 1994. Geologic Hazard Overlays – FH29 C Fontana Map.
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH29C.pdf (accessed June 2022).
19 Ibid.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-10 4.7 | Geology and Soils
previous experience and the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations. The actual
amount of subsidence is expected to be variable and would be dependent on the type of machinery used,
repetitions of use, and dynamic effects, all of which are difficult to assess precisely.
Settlement
The remedial grading will be performed to remove the existing undocumented fill soils as well as a portion
of the near-surface native alluvium and replace these materials as compacted structural fill. The over
excavation should extend to a sufficient depth so that the native soils that will remain in place below the
recommended depth of over excavation will not be subject to significant load increases from the
foundations of the new structures. Provided that the remedial grading is completed, the post-construction
static settlements can be limited within tolerable limits.
Soluble Sulfates
The results of the soluble sulfate testing, as discussed in the geotechnical investigation report, indicate
soluble sulfate concentrations between 0.002 and 0.032 percent. These concentrations are considered to
be negligible with respect to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Publication 318-05 Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, Section 4.3. Therefore, specialized concrete mix
designs are not considered to be necessary, with regard to sulfate protection purposes. Additional soluble
sulfate testing will be conducted during the design-level geotechnical investigation and at the completion
of rough grading to verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils which are present at the proposed
building pad grades.
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are common throughout California and can cause damage to foundations and slabs,
separation of masonry, or failure of paved surfaces unless properly treated during construction. Expansive
soil conditions could cause damage to facility components if they are not designed with proper
engineering and grading practices. The hazard for expansive behavior is considered a low risk for alluvial
fan locations because soils in these areas are frequently saturated and generally do not contain clay -sized
particles.
Paleontological Setting
Although younger fan deposits do not have the potential to contain significant paleontological resources
the City also contains areas of Pleistocene older fan deposits exposed at surface levels that have been
mapped along the western area of the City near the intersection of I-15 and SR -210 and also in the
southwestern areas of the City. The Pleistocene Epoch is considered to include the time between
2.6 million years ago until approximately 11,700 years ago. The Holocene Epoch began about 11,700 years
ago and consists of younger sedimentary deposits. Accordingly, subsurface Pleistocene deposits overlain
with more recent alluvial deposits are present within the City. Due to their age, within the older
Pleistocene deposits, the potential for paleontological resources is considered to be high.20 However, the
Project site does not contain Pleistocene older deposit. Almost the entire City is classified as having late
20 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 5.4-8.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-11 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Holocene surficial deposits by the California Department of Conservation.21 The entire Project site is
composed of Soboba loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes.22
Paleontological Resources Potential
PaleoWest utilized guidelines set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) to determine the
potential for paleontological resources at the Project site. These guidelines establish protocols for the
assessment of the paleontological resource potential of underlying geologic units and outline measures
to mitigate adverse impacts that could result from project development. Using baseline information
gathered during a paleontological resource assessment, the paleontological resource potential of th e
geologic unit(s) (or members thereof) underlying a project area can be assigned to one of four categories
defined by SVP. These categories include high, undetermined, low and no paleontological resource
potential.
• High Sensitivity: Rock units from which significant vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils or
significant suites of plant fossils have been recovered have a high potential for containing
significant non-renewable fossiliferous resources. These units include but are not limited to,
sedimentary formations and some volcanic formations which contain significant nonrenewable.
• Low Sensitivity: Sedimentary rock units that are potentially fossiliferous but have not yielded
fossils in the past or contain common and/or widespread invertebrate fossils of well documented
and understood taphonomic, phylogenetic species and habitat ecology. Reports in t he
paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist may allow
determination that some areas or units have low potentials for yielding significant fossils prior to
the start of construction. Generally, these units will be poorly represented by specimens in
institutional collections and will not require protection or salvage operations. However, as
excavation for construction gets underway it is possible that significant and unanticipated
paleontological resources might be encountered and require a change of classification from Low
to High Potential and, thus, require monitoring and mitigation if the resources are found to be
significant.
• Undetermined Sensitivity: Specific areas underlain by sedimentary rock units for which little
information is available have undetermined fossiliferous potentials. Field surveys by a qualified
vertebrate paleontologist to specifically determine the potentials of the rock units are r equired
before programs of impact mitigation for such areas may be developed.
• No Sensitivity: Rock units of metamorphic or igneous origin are commonly classified as having no
potential for containing significant paleontological resources.
Methodology
In order to assess whether or not a particular area has the potential to contain significant fossil resources
at the subsurface, it is necessary to review published geologic mapping to determine the geology and
stratigraphy of the area. Geologic units are considered to be “sensitive” for paleontological resources if
they are known to contain significant fossils anywhere in their extent. Therefore, a search of pertinent
21 California Department of Conservation. 2016. Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/QSD/
(accessed June 2022).
22 USDA NRCS. 2020. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-12 4.7 | Geology and Soils
local and regional museum repositories for paleontological localities within and nearby the Project site
area is necessary to determine whether fossil localities have been previously discovered within a
particular rock unit. For this Project, a formal museum records search was conducted at the San
Bernardino County Museum (SBCM), and informal records searches were conducted of the online
University of California Museum of Paleontology Collections (UCMP) and other published and unpublished
geological and paleontological literature of the area.
Site-Specific Geology and Paleontology
According to the Paleontological Resource Assessment, the Project area is underlain by alluvial fan
deposits from the Holocene Epoch. The source material for these alluvial fan deposits originates from the
eastern San Gabriel Mountains, north of the Project area. The young alluvial fan deposits consist of
unconsolidated to moderately consolidated, boulder to coarse-grained sand, with slightly dissected
surfaces. The Holocene alluvium likely grades into older high sensitivity Pleistocene deposits at depth.
Pleistocene deposits in San Bernardino County are highly fossiliferous and have yielded preserved remains
of deer, mammoth, camel, horse, bison, badger, mole, rabbit, gray fox, and coyote. However, fossil
localities have not been identified in the immediate vicinity of the Project area.23
Records Search Results
The SBCM records search did not produce any fossil localities from within the Project area or from the
same geologic unit within five miles. Searches of online databases and other literature did not produce
any additional fossil localities within one mile.
4.7.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulations
Excavation and trenching are among the most hazardous construction activities. The Occupational Safety
and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Excavation and Trenching standard, Title 29 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 1926.650, covers requirements for excavation and trenching operations. OSHA
requires that all employers must ensure that workers enter trenches only after adequate protections are
in place to address cave-in hazards to prevent or greatly reduce the risk of cave-ins and other excavation-
related incidents. Other potential hazards associated with trenching work include falling loads, hazardous
atmospheres, and hazards from mobile equipment.24
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act
The purpose of the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 is to protect or restore soil
functions on a permanent sustainable basis. Protection and restoration activities include prevention of
23 Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, Cal ifornia,
PaeloWest, September 15, 2022. Page 7.
24 Occupational Health and Safety Administration. 2015. Trenching and Excavation Safety.
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/osha2226.pdf#:~:text=Trenching%20and%20Excavation%20Safety%201%20Introd ucti
on%20Excavation%20and,contain%20requirements%20for%20excavation%20and%20trenching%20operations.%20This (accessed
September 2021).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-13 4.7 | Geology and Soils
harmful soil changes, rehabilitation of the soil of contaminated sites and of water contaminated by such
sites, and precautions against negative soil impacts. Disruptions of soils natural functions and its function
as an archive of natural and cultural history should be avoided, as far as practicable. In addition, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also referred to as the Clean Water Act) requirements, through the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process, provide guid ance for
protection of geologic and soil resources.
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-124) established the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (Program) which is coordinated through the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), the USGS, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. The purpose of the Congress in this Act is to reduce the risks of life and property from future
earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake
hazards reduction program.
The objectives of the program involve (1) the education of the public, including state and local officials, as
to earthquake phenomena, the identification of locations and structures which are especially susceptible
to earthquake damage, ways to reduce the adverse consequences of an earthquake, and related matters;
(2) the development of technologically and economically feasible design and construction methods and
procedures to make new and existing structures in areas of seismic risk earthquake resistant, giving
priority to the development of such methods and procedures for power generating plants, dams,
hospitals, schools, public utilities and other lifelines, public safety structures, high occupancy buildings,
and other structures which are especially needed in time of disaster; (3) the implementation, to the
greatest extent practicable, in all areas of high or moderate seismic risk, of a system (including personnel,
technology, and procedures) for predicting damaging earthquakes and for identifying, evalu ating, and
accurately characterizing seismic hazards; (4) the development, publication, and promotion, in
conjunction with state and local officials and professional organizations, of model building codes and
other means to encourage consideration of information about seismic risk in making decisions about land-
use policy and construction activity; (5) development, in areas of seismic risk, of improved understanding
of, and capability with respect to, earthquake-related issues, including methods of mitigating the risks
from earthquakes, planning to prevent such risks, disseminating warnings of earthquakes, organizing
emergency services, and planning for reconstruction and redevelopment after an earthquake; (6) the
development of ways to increase the use of existing scientific and engineering knowledge to mitigate
earthquake hazards; and (7) the development of ways to assure the availability of affordable earthquake
insurance.25
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) is part of the Omnibus Public Land Management
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-011 Subtitle D). The PRPA directs the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
of Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land, and develop plans for
inventorying, monitoring, and deriving the scientific and educational use of such resources. It prohibits
25 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. 2008. Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977. https://www.nehrp.gov/about/PL108-
360.htm (accessed September 2021).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-14 4.7 | Geology and Soils
the removal of paleontological resources from federal land without a permit issued under the PRPA,
establishes penalties for violation of the PRPA, and establishes a program to increase public awareness
about such resources. As of May 18, 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has implemented a new
rule that “provides for the preservation, management, and protection of paleontological resources on
National Forest System (NFS) lands and ensures that these resources are available for current and future
generations to enjoy as part of America’s national heritage. The rule addresses the management,
collection, and curation of paleontological resources from NFS lands including management using
scientific principles and expertise, collecting of resources with and without a permit, curation in an
approved repository, maintaining confidentiality of specific locality data, and authorizing penalties for
illegal collecting, sale, damaging, or otherwise altering or defacing paleontological resources.”
State
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that public agencies and private interests
identify the potential environmental consequences of their Projects on any object or site of significance
to the scientific annals of California (Division I, California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5020.1 [b]).
Appendix G in Section 15023 provides an Environmental Checklist of questions (PRC Section 15023,
Appendix G, Section VII, Part f) that includes the following: “Would the project directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?”
CEQA does not define “a unique paleontological resource or site.” However, the SVP has provided
guidance specifically designed to support state and Federal environmental review. The SVP broadly
defines significant paleontological resources as follows:
“Fossils and fossiliferous deposits consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or
small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide
taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or
biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are considered to be older than
recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000
radiocarbon years).”
Significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that are
unique, unusual, rare, diagnostically important, or are common but have the potential to provide valuable
scientific information for evaluating evolutionary patterns and processes, or which could improve our
understanding of paleo chronology, paleoecology, paleophylogeography, or depositional histories. New
or unique specimens can provide new insights into evolutionary history; however, additional specimens
of even well-represented lineages can be equally important for studying evolutionary pattern and process,
evolutionary rates, and paleophylogeography. Even unidentifiable material can provide useful data for
dating geologic units if radiometric dating is possible. As such, common fossils (especially vertebrates)
may be scientifically important, and therefore considered significant.26
26 PaleoWest. 2022. Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-15 4.7 | Geology and Soils
California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.5 of the PRC states:
“No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or
deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate
paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency,
or any other archaeological, paleontological, or historical feature, situated on public
lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over
such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.”
As used in this PRC section, “public lands” means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state
or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Consequently, public
agencies are required to comply with PRC Section 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction
and maintenance, as well as for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others.
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (PRC Sections 2621-2624, Division 2 Chapter 7.5) was
passed in 1972 following the destructive 1971 San Fernando earthquake (magnitude 6.6), which damaged
numerous structures due to extensive surface fault ruptures. The purpose of the act is to provide policies
and criteria to assist cities, counties, and state agencies in the exercise of their responsibility to prohibit
the location of developments and structures for human occupancy across the trace of active f aults.
Further, it is the intent of this chapter to provide the citizens of the state with increased safety and to
minimize the loss of life during and immediately following earthquakes by facilitating seismic retrofitting
to strengthen buildings, including historical buildings, against ground shaking.27
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) of 1990 (PRC, Section 2690 et seq.) directs the Department of
Conservation’s California Geological Survey, to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake-
induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. The purpose of the SHMA is to minimize loss of life and
property through the identification, evaluation, and mitigation of seismic hazards.
The SHMA provides a statewide seismic hazard mapping and technical advisory program to assist cities
and counties in fulfilling their responsibilities for protecting the public health and safety from the effects
of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and other seismic hazards
caused by earthquakes. Mapping and other information generated pursuant to the SHMA is to be made
available to local governments for planning and development purposes. The state requires (1) local
governments to incorporate site-specific geotechnical hazard investigations and associated hazard
mitigation as part of the local construction permit approval process, and (2) the agent for a property seller,
or the seller if acting without an agent, to disclose to any prospective buyer if the property is located
within a seismic hazard zone. The State Geologist is responsible for compiling seismic hazard zone maps.
The SHMA specifies that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until geologic
27 California Legislative Information. 1994. Chapter 7.5. Earthquake Fault Zoning [2621 - 2630].
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=2.&chapter=7.5.&lawCode=PRC (accessed September 2021).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-16 4.7 | Geology and Soils
or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans
to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils.
California Building Standards Code
The California Building Standards Code (CBSC) is part of the official compilation and publication of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24. The California Building Code (CBC) is part two of thirteen
parts and applies to all applications for building permits. The purpose of the CBSC is to establish the
minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare through structural
strength, means of egress facilities, stability, access to persons with disabilities, sanitation, adequate
lighting and ventilation and energy conservation; safety to life and property from fire and other hazards
attributed to the built environment; and to provide safety to firefighters and emergency responders
during emergency operations.28
Given the regional susceptibility to seismic events, CBC’s seismic standards are heavily regarded by local
agencies. CBC Chapter 16 addresses structural design requirements governing seismically resistant
construction (CBC Section 1604), including (but not limited to) factors and coefficients used to establish
seismic site class and seismic occupancy category for the soil/rock at the building location and the
proposed building design (CBC Sections 1613.5 through 1613.7). CBC Chapter 18 includes (but is not
limited to) the requirements for foundation and soil investigations (CBC Section 1803); excavation,
grading, and fill (CBC Section 1804); allowable load-bearing values of soils (CBC Section 1806); and the
design of footings, foundations, and slope clearances (CBC Sections 1808 and 1809), retaining walls
(CBC Section 1807), and pier, pile, driven, and cast-in-place foundation support systems
(CBC Section 1810). CBC Chapter 33 includes, but is not limited to, requirements for safeguards at
worksites to ensure stable excavations and cut or fill slopes (CBC Section 3304). Project construction and
operations are subject to occupational safety standards as specified in California OSHA regulations (Title 8
of CCR) and Chapter 33 of the CBC.
State Earthquake Protection Law
The State Earthquake Protection Law (California HSC Sections 19100 et seq.) requires that structures be
designed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by wind and earthquakes. Specific minimum
seismic safety and structural design requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the CBC. The CBC requires
a site-specific geotechnical study to address seismic issues and identifies seismic factors that must be
considered in structural design. Because the Project area is not located within an Alquist –Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone, no special provisions would be required for project development related to fault
rupture.
Requirements for Geotechnical Investigations
Requirements for geotechnical investigations are included in CBC Appendix J, Grading, Section J104 ;
additional requirements for subdivisions requiring tentative and final maps and for other specified types
of structures are in the California HSC Sections 17953 to 17955 and in CBC Section 1803. Testing of samples
28 ICC Digital Codes. 2021. 2019 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 (Vol 1 & 2) with July 2021 Supplement.
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CBC2019P4 (accessed September 2021).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-17 4.7 | Geology and Soils
from subsurface investigations is required, such as from borings or test pits. Studies must be done as
needed to evaluate site geology, slope stability, soil strength, position and adequacy of load-bearing soils,
the effect of moisture variation on load-bearing capacity, compressibility, liquefaction, differential
settlement, and expansiveness. CBC Section J105 sets forth requirements for inspection and observation
during and after grading.
Natural Hazards Disclosure Act
The Natural Hazards Disclosure Act (California Civil Code Section 1103 et seq.), which became effective
June 1, 1998, requires sellers (and their real estate agents) to disclose to prospective buyers when real
estate property being sold is in an earthquake fault zone, seismic hazard zone, flood hazard zone, dam
inundation area, or special fire hazard area. Disclosure can be achieved in one of two ways: 1) the Natural
Hazards Disclosure Statement; or 2) the Local Option Real Estate Disclosure Statement as pr ovided in
Section 1102.6 of the California Civil Code. When houses built before 1960 are sold, the seller must also
give the buyer an earthquake hazards disclosure report and a copy of “The Homeowner’s Guide to
Earthquake Safety” to inform the buyer of potential hazards and ways to address them. However, it is
important to note that the Natural Hazards Disclosure Act does not invalidate a property sale based on a
failure to comply with the above requirements. Therefore, prospective homebuyers should ensure that
real estate disclosure requirements are adhered to during the purchase process.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
Pursuant to the CWA, in 2012, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued a Statewide
general NPDES Permit for stormwater discharges from construction sites (NPDES No. CAS000002). Under
this Statewide General Construction Activity permit, discharges of stormwater from construction sites
with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for
stormwater discharges or be covered by the General Permit. Coverage by the General Permit is
accomplished by completing and filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and developing and
implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Each Project Applicant (Master
Developer and/or Site Developer, as applicable) under the General Construction Activity Permit must
ensure that a SWPPP is prepared prior to grading and is implemented during constru ction. The SWPPP
must list best management practices (BMPs) implemented on the construction site to protect stormwater
runoff and must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible”
pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a monitoring plan if the site discharges
directly to a water body listed on the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters.
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance
Activities
A SWPPP prepared in compliance with a NPDES permit under the authority of the local Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) describes the Project
area, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal,
implementation of approved local plans, control of post construction sediment and erosion control
measures and maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. Dischargers are
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-18 4.7 | Geology and Soils
also required to inspect construction sites before and after storms to identify stormwater discharge from
construction activity, and to identify and implement controls where necessary.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit
In 2010, the Santa Ana RWQCB issued a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit and waste
discharge requirements (R8-2010-0033 and NPDES No. CAS 618033) to the San Bernardino County
Permittees. Under this Permit, the County is required to enforce and comply with stormwater discharge
requirements pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, applicable
state, and federal regulations (including policies of the SWRCB), the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality
Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the California Toxics Rule Implementation Plan.
The MS4 Permittees and Principal Permittee (San Bernardino County Flood Control District) are required
to develop several items that generally reduce pollutants in urban runoff to the maximum extent
practicable (MEP). This includes “Local Implementation Plans” describing the enforceable elements of an
agency’s urban runoff compliance program, as well as a “Watershed Action Plan” and “Hydromodification
Management Plan” to address impacts from urbanization. Likewise, a “Drainage Area Management Plan”
is periodically updated by the principal permittee to document MS4 permit compliance programs and to
provide guidance to co-permittees for Local Implementation Plans. In addition, the “Consolidated
Monitoring Program” defines the monitoring locations and methods to evaluate best management
practices (BMP) effectiveness. Lastly, the MS4 permit requires a “Water Quality Management Plan”
(WQMP) for most new development and certain redevelopment projects. Like the construction SWPPP,
the WQMP identifies how site design elements, source control methods and treatment control BMPs in
the post-construction phase would minimize pollutant loads to the municipal storm drain in the long -term.
Eligible projects submitted to the County are required to provide a project-specific WQMP prior to the
first discretionary project approval or permit. Project Applicants (Master Developer and/or Site
Developer, as applicable) may submit a preliminary project-specific WQMP for discretionary project
approval (land use permit); however, a final version would be submitted for review and approval prior to
the issuance of any grading or building permits.
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
Noise and Safety Element 29
The area around City is seismically active since it is situated on the boundary between two tectonic plates.
Earthquakes can cause serious structural damage to buildings, overlying aqueducts, transportation
facilities, utilities, and can lead to loss of life. In addition, earthquakes can cause collateral emergencies
including dam and levee failures, fires, and landslides. Seismic shaking is by far the single greatest cause
of damage from an earthquake in the City followed by liquefaction.
29 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035, Chapter 11 Noise and Safety Element. Pg. 222-236.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete -Document---Approved-General-Plan-Documents-11-13-2018. (accessed
June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-19 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Protecting Fontana from the threat of geological hazards is achieved through the identification of hazards,
mitigation of structures at risk, enforcement of building codes and development standards, and public
education and emergency preparedness.
Goal 4: Seismic injury and loss of life, property damage, and other impacts caused by seismic
shaking, fault rupture, ground failure, earthquake-induced landslides, and other
earthquake-induced ground deformation are minimized in Fontana.
Policy 4.2: The City shall continue to ensure that current geologic knowledge and peer
(third party) review are incorporated into the design, planning, and construction
stages of a project and that site-specific data are applied to each project.
City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The purpose of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is to demonstrate the plan for reducing and/or
eliminating risk in City. The LHMP process encourages communities to develop goals and projects that will
reduce risk and build a more disaster resilient community by analyzing potential hazards. The LHMP notes
that earthquakes are a significant concern to the City. Within the LHMP, there is the intent to provide the
City with a Guidebook to mitigate potential hazards and the strategy is intended to reduce associated
vulnerabilities. Related to the mitigation planning for seismic events the efforts are ongoing. The plan
does include mitigation actions related to reducing potential effects from earthquakes. These measures
include evaluation and seismic review of projects and performance of structural reviews, reinforcement
of existing buildings, providing automatic shutoffs, reducing development in landslide-prone areas, and
increasing public awareness of vegetation management, erosion control, and preventing slope failure.30
4.7.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning geology and soils. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been
utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on
the environment if it would:
• 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;
• Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil;
30 City of Fontana. 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-
Hazard-Mitigation-Plan. (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-20 4.7 | Geology and Soils
• 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;
• 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;
• Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater; or
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the Project’s level of significance concerning impacts to geological and soil resources. This
analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards)
that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact. Where potentially significant
impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures ar e
recommended to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on geology and soils examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and
permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/thresholds outlined
above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the surrounding
characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental
conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on review of available documentation related to
geologic conditions; review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level
photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents.
The determination that a Project component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects
on geology and soils considers the available policies and regulations established by local and regional
agencies and the amount of deviation from these policies in the Project’s components.
4.7.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.7-1 Would the Project 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.
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-21 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Construction and Operations
There are no known active faults crossing or projecting through the Project site. The Project site is not
located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Furthermore, the geotechnical investigation did not
identify any evidence of faulting. Therefore, the possibility of ground rupture at th e site is considered to
be low. Impacts for the Project site would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.7-2 Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no evidence of faulting was
identified during the geotechnical investigation. The Project site is not subject to surface rupture of a
known active fault, as the nearest fault is approximately three miles northwest of the Project site. The
possibility of significant ground shaking on the site is considered to be low. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.7-3 Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
Ground Shaking
Southern California is considered a seismically active region and the regional vicinity of the Project site
contains a number of known earthquake faults. The Project site is located in the southern California
region, which is prone to seismically induced ground shaking. The Project site would be developed with a
398,514-square foot facility. All Project site components would be constructed to the then current CBC
and International Building Code standards. All structures would be designed in conformance with all
applicable standards to resist the effects of seismic ground shaking. As part of the Geotechnical Feasibility
Study, 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters were generated for future structural improvements within
the Project area. Structures for human occupancy must be designed to meet or exceed 2022 CBC
standards for earthquake resistance. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-22 4.7 | Geology and Soils
including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock on-site, and the strength of ground motion with a
specified probability at the Project site. Therefore, future development of habitable structures within the
Project site would be conducted in accordance with the 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters generated
as part of the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, which would reduce impacts from seismic ground shaking to
a less than significant level.
Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils undergo a temporary loss of
strength during severe ground shaking and acquire a degree of mobility sufficient to permit ground
deformation. In extreme cases, the soil particles can become suspended in groundwater, resulting in the
soil deposit becoming mobile and fluid-like. Liquefaction is generally considered to occur primarily in loose
to medium dense deposits of saturated soils. Thus, three conditions are required for liquefaction to occur:
(1) a cohesionless soil of loose to medium density; (2) a saturated condition; and (3) rapid large strain,
cyclic loading, normally provided by earthquake motions.
The Project site is not located within a zone identified as having a potential for liquefaction by the
County.31 According to the geotechnical investigation, groundwater was not encountered during Project
explorations. Impacts in relation to these hazards for the Project site would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.7-4 Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
iv) Landslides?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mudflows, debris flows, soil slips, and rock falls
occur as soil or rock moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Seismically induced landslides and
other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after earthquakes. The susceptibility of a
geologic unit to landslides is dependent upon various factors, primarily: 1) the presence and orientation
of weak structures, such as fractures, faults, and joints; 2) the height and steepness of the pertinent
natural or cut slope; 3) the presence and quantity of groundwater; and 4) the occurrence of strong seismic
shaking. The Project site is not located in an area subject to landslides.32 The Project site is located on
relatively flat ground and is not adjacent to any areas with steep slopes such that if ground shaking
occurred the site would experience damage from a landslide. Therefore, impacts related to landslides for
the Project site would be less than significant.
31 San Bernardino County. 2021. Geologic Hazard Maps, FH29C.
http://cms.sbcounty.gov/lus/planning/zoningoverlaymaps/geologichazardmaps.aspx#Valley . (accessed June 2022).
32 Ibid.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-23 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.7-5 Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction
Construction activities such as excavation and grading would be minimal given that the Project site is
relatively flat. No major grading or excavation would be needed to substantially alter the slope of the site,
create or remove steep slopes, create retaining walls, or make other landform modifications.
Nevertheless, grading and earthwork activities during construction would expose soils to potential short-
term erosion by wind and water. During construction, the Project site would be required to comply wit h
erosion and siltation control measures. This would include measures such as sandbagging, placement of
silt fencing, erosion control blankets, straw wattles, mulching, etc., to reduce runoff from the site and to
hold topsoil in place during all grading activities. As mass grading proceeds, finish grading commence, and
construction begins, the erosion measures would be removed or relocated as necessary. Additionally, the
construction on the Project site would be required to comply with the NPDES; refer to Section 4.10:
Hydrology and Water Quality for discussion of the anticipated NPDES permitting process. Construction
impacts on the Project site would be minimized through compliance with the Construction General Permit
(CGP). The NPDES permit requires development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control
Best Management Practices (BMPs). The BMPs would be required to meet or exceed measures required
by the CGP to control potential construction-related pollutants and would comply with the Fontana
Municipal Code Section 28.111 – Stormwater Management and Rainwater Retention. Erosion-control
BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it
has been mobilized. All required permits and the erosion control plan would be verified by the City prior
to initiation of any construction and prior to the issuance of any grading permit. Conformance to these
requirements and verification by the City as part of the development approval process would ensure that
potential impacts from construction of the Project are less than significant.
Operations
Operation of the Project site would not involve procedures which would result in substantial soil erosion.
Following construction of the Project site, the site would be covered with hardscape which would not
contribute to erosion. The Project site also would contain some landscaping, and these areas would
include ground covers to reduce erosion or loss of on-site soils post-construction. This would ensure that
operation of the Project site would not result in the loss of topsoil or sedimentation into local drainage
facilities and water bodies; refer to Section 4.10. In addition, a network of storm drains and gutters would
be installed, improved as needed, and maintained as necessary throughout the site. Therefore, the
potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-24 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Impact 4.7-6 Would the Project 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?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project site is not included within an Earthquake Fault Zone as identified by the Alquist -Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. As discussed for Impact 4.7-1 through 4.7-4, the Project site and the
surrounding area is relatively flat and/or developed which indicates that the Project would not be
susceptible to landslides nor cause significant erosion that would result in a landslide. Additionally, the
City’s LHMP lists the types of geologic hazards known to occur in the City regarding slope instability,
leading to possible mudflow, liquefaction, and collapsible or expansive soils. The Project site is not located
in an area identified as susceptible to slope instability or landslides.33
As discussed under Impact 4.7-3, above, the primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction
include shallow groundwater table elevation, soil type and plasticity characteristics, relative density of the
soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. Although the Project site is
located in a seismically active region, the Project site is not located within a zone identified as having a
potential for liquefaction by the County. Furthermore, groundwater was not encountered during Project
explorations. Therefore, liquefaction and landslides are not considered to be a design concern for the
Project, and potential for lateral spreading would be low to negligible since the Project’s topography does
not contain steep slopes and the Project site and the immediate area are not within a zone of generalized
landslide susceptibility.
The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. Based on the
conditions encountered in the borings and trenches conducted for the geotechnical investigation,
groundwater was not encountered and is estimated to be at a depth greater than 320 feet below ground
surface. The Project does not propose or require additional groundwater wells within the area and
therefore the risk of ground subsidence as result of excessive groundwater withdrawal is low. Additionally,
based on anticipated groundwater depths, it is not expected that groundwater would affect excavations
for the foundations and utilities and subsidence is unlikely due to the distance to groundwater.
Furthermore, all structures would comply with CBC requirements to mitigate the possibility of subsidence.
Lastly, soil liquefaction is not likely to occur at this site primarily because the groundwater level is deep.
The Project site is relatively flat and is not located adjacent to any potentially unstable topographical
feature, such as a hillside or riverbank. Therefore, impacts associated with these hazards would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
33 Ibid.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-25 4.7 | Geology and Soils
Impact 4.7-7 Would the Project 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?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
Expansive soils are soils that expand and contract depending on their moisture level. This change can
occur seasonally as water levels and precipitation changes throughout the year. These soils normally occur
within the first five feet below the surface. Expansive soils can lead to structural damage as their
compositions and volume changes dramatically. According to the geotechnical investigation, the near-
surface soils consist of sands, silty sands, and gravelly sands with no appreciable clay content. Thes e
materials have been visually classified as non-expansive. As such, the geotechnical investigation does not
anticipate expansive soils to adversely impact the design, construction, or operation of the Project.
Therefore, the Project site would not be impacted by significant soil expansion and a less than significant
impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.7-8 Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. The Project site would
not use an alternative wastewater disposal system and is proposed to tie into the existing sewer line.
Impacts in this regard for the Project site would not occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.7-9 Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project site occurs on alluvial soils deposited during the Holocene Epoch (within the last 11,700 years).
This reduces the potential for the disturbance of any unknown buried paleontological resources and
makes the likelihood of damage or destruction to such resources remote. Additionally, the Paleontological
Assessment concluded that the records search did not produce any fossil localities from within the Project
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-26 4.7 | Geology and Soils
area or from the same geologic unit within five miles. Searches of online databases and other literature
did not produce any additional fossil localities within one mile.
Excavation for construction could result in significant paleontological resources being encountered;
however, the underlying sediment is likely to be from the Holocene Epoch and located at a significant
depth. Therefore, and ground disturbing activities are not anticipated to impact paleontological resources.
The Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique
geologic feature and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.7.6 Cumulative Impacts
Geology and soil-related impacts are generally site-specific and are determined by a particular site’s soil
characteristics, topography, and proposed land uses. Development projects are analyzed on an individual
basis and must comply with established requirements of the applicable jurisdiction’s development
requirements and the CBC as they pertain to protection against known geologic hazards and potential
geologic and soil-related impacts.
Cumulative effects related to geology resulting from the implementation of future development of the
warehouse site, as well as surrounding areas, could expose more persons and property to potential
impacts due to seismic activity. Long-term impacts related to geology include the exposure of people to
the potential for seismically induced ground shaking. Implementation of other cumulative projects would
incrementally increase the number of people and structures subject to a seismic event. Seismic and
geologic significance is considered on a project-by-project basis through the preparation of design-level
geotechnical studies. The potential for any project to be affected by or any project to exacerbate an
existing geotechnical hazard would be minimized or not occur through strict engineering guidelines as
they pertain to protection against known geologic hazards and potential geologic and soil-related impacts.
Development of the Project, as well as all past, present, and future projects would be required to be
constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the CBC and to adhere to all current earthquake
construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, no elements of this
Project would contribute to any cumulatively considerable geologic and/or soils impacts. Therefore,
cumulative effects of increased seismic risk would be less than significant.
4.7.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-27 4.7 | Geology and Soils
4.7.8 References
California Department of Conservation. 2016. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/.
California Legislative Information. 1994. Chapter 7.5. Earthquake Fault Zoning (2621 – 2630).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=2.&chapter=7.5.&law
Code=PRC.
City of Fontana. 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Page 71.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact
Report. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update.
Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Warehouse, NEC Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive, Fontana,
California, Prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SGC) for Seefried Industrial
Properties, Inc., SCG project No. 20G250-1, dated February 5, 2021.
ICC Digital codes. 2021. 2019 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 (Vol 1 & 2) with July 2021
Supplement. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CBC2019P4.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. 2008. Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977.
https://www.nehrp.gov/about/PL108-360.htm.
PaleoWest. 2022. Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Warehouse, NEC Sierra
Avenue and Clubhouse Drive, Fontana, California.
San Bernardino County. 1994. Geologic Hazard Overlays – FH29 C Fontana Map.
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH29C.pdf.
Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). 2015. Trenching and Excavation Safety.
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/osha2226.pdf#:~:text=Trenching%20and
%20Excavation%20Safety%201%20Introduction%20Excavation%20and,contain%20requirement
s%20for%20excavation%20and%20trenching%20operations.%20This.
USDA. 1971. Soboba Series. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/S/SOBOBA.html.
USDA NRCS. 2022. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.7-28 4.7 | Geology and Soils
This page intentionally left blank.
4.8
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-1 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR discusses potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts associated with the development
of the Sierra Distribution Facility Project (Project). Consideration of the Project’s consistency with
applicable plans, policies, and regulations, as well as the introduction of new sources of GHGs, is included
in this section. In the case where impacts are found to be potentially significant, mitigation will be
proposed to reduce their significance. Information and analysis presented in this section are derived from
the following found in Draft EIR Appendix G:
• Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment.
See Appendix A of Appendix G for greenhouse gas emissions data.
4.8.2 Environmental Setting
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Certain gases in the Earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the Earth’s
surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the Earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation
is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space.
This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the Earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The
frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the Earth has a
much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower -frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes
through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that
otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the
atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is respon sible for maintaining a
habitable climate on Earth.
The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), and
nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate
change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that
these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs
exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse
effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change
or global warming.
GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are
pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have
relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to
several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed
around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and
cannot be pinpointed, more CO 2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake,
vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions,
approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-2 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the
atmosphere. Table 4.8-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases describes the primary GHGs attributed to
global climate change, including their physical properties.
Table 4.8-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human activities. Natural sources
include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus;
evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil,
natural gas, and wood. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such
as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2
is variable because it is readily exchanged in the atmosphere. CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is
the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for other
GHGs.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Primary human-related sources
of N2O include agricultural soil management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and adipic and
nitric acid production. N2O is produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial
action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years. The Global
Warming Potential of N2O is 298.
Methane (CH4) CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off -gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic
substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural
practices and landfills. Methane is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume.
Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass burning,
and waste management. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, termites, oceans,
freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH 4 is about 12 years and
the Global Warming Potential is 25.
Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The
use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the continued phase out of CFCs and HCFCs gains
momentum. The 100-year Global Warming Potential of HFCs range from 124 for HFC-152 to 14,800 for
HFC-23.
Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs)
PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above
Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two main
sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Global Warm ing
Potentials range from 6,500 to 9,200.
Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine
and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the
troposphere (the level of air at the Earth’s surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants,
aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer prohibited their production in 1987. Global Warming Potentials for CFCs range from 3,800 to 14,400.
Sulfur Hexafluoride
(SF6)
SF 6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200 years.
This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the magnesium
industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. The Global Warming Potential of SF6 is
23,900.
Hydrochlorofluoroc
arbons (HCFCs)
HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for
refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, HCFCs are subject to
a consumption cap and gradual phase out. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent
reduction to the cap by 2030. The 100-year Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 90 for HCFC-
123 to 1,800 for HCFC-142b.
Nitrogen Trifluoride
(NF3)
NF3 was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. This gas is used in
electronics manufacture for semiconductors and liquid crystal displays. It has a high global warming
potential of 17,200.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, Table 1.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-3 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.8.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
To date, national standards have not been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have
any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions
reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel
economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures,
requires the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
• Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard
requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022.
• Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year
2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel
economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy
standard for work trucks.
• Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and
procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for
consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home
appliances.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet
the definition of air pollutants under the existing Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and must be regulated if
these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the
Court’s ruling, the EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence
it found that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare.
Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing FCAA and the EPA’s assessment of the
scientific evidence that form the basis for the EPA’s regulatory actions.
Federal Vehicle Standards
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling discussed above, Executive Order 13432 was issued in 2007
directing the EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish
regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by
2008. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and
light-duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars
and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.
In 2010, an Executive Memorandum was issued directing the Department of Transportation, Department
of Energy, EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction,
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-4 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the EPA and NHTSA
proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017 –2025
light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO 2 in model year
2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if this level were
achieved solely through fuel efficiency.
On April 2, 2018, the Administrator signed the Mid-term Evaluation Final Determination which finds that
the model year 2022-2025 GHG standards are not appropriate in light of the record before EPA and,
therefore, should be revised.
On September 19, 2019, under the Safer, Affordable, Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule, the
U.S. Department of Transportation’s NHSTA and the EPA issued the final “One National Program Rule.”
The rule states that federal law preempts state and local laws regarding tailpipe GHG emissions standards,
zero emissions vehicle mandates, and fuel economy for automobiles and light duty trucks. The rule
revokes California’s Clean Air Act waiver and preempts California’s Advanced Clean Car Regulations.
On September 20, 2019, a lawsuit was filed by California and a coalition of 22 other states, and the cities
of Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C., in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia (Case 1:19-cv-02826) challenging the SAFE Rule and arguing that EPA lacks the legal authority
to withdraw the California waiver. In April 2021, the EPA announced it would reconsider its previous
withdrawal and grant California permission to set more stringent climate requirements for cars and SUVs.
On March 9, 2022, the EPA restored California’s 2013 waiver to full force, including both its GHG standards
and zero-emissions vehicles sales requirements.
Presidential Executive Orders 13990 and 14008
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, "Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis." Executive Order 13990 directs Federal
agencies to immediately review and take action to address the promulgation of Federal regulations and
other actions that conflict with these important national objectives and to immediately commence work
to confront the climate crisis. Executive Order 13990 directs the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
to review CEQ’s 2020 regulations implementing the procedural requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and identify necessary changes or actions to meet the objectives of
Executive Order 13990.
Executive Order 13390 also directs the EPA to consider whether to propose suspending, revising, or
rescinding the standards previously revised under the “The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles
Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,” promulgated in April 2020.
On January 27, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14008, "Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home
and Abroad," to declare the Administration’s policy to move quickly to build resilience, both at home and
abroad, against the impacts of climate change that are already manifest and will continue to intensify
according to current trajectories. In line with these Executive Order directives, CEQ is reviewing the 2020
NEPA regulations and plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to identify ne cessary
revisions in order to comply with the law; meet the environmental, climate change, and environmental
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-5 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
justice objectives of Executive Orders 13990 and 14008; ensure full and fair public involvement in the
NEPA process; provide regulatory certainty to stakeholders; and promote better decision making
consistent with NEPA’s statutory requirements. This phase 1 rulemaking will propose a narrow set of
changes to the 2020 NEPA regulations to address these goals.
State
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of state and
local air pollution control programs in California. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce
California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential
for severe long-term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects. California is a significant
emitter of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in the world and produced 459 million gross metric tons of CO 2e in 2013.
In the state, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by industrial operations
such as manufacturing and oil and gas extraction.
The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program
to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation, such as the landmark Assembly Bill (AB) 32,
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 , was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions.
Other legislation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards and Title 20 appliance energy standards,
were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG
reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006)
AB 32 instructs the CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of
Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 also directed CARB to set a GHG emissions limit based on 1990 levels, to
be achieved by 2020. It set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a
technologically and economically feasible manner.
2017 CARB Scoping Plan
CARB adopted the Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall
framework for the measures that would be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. CARB
determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level would require a reduction of GHG emissions of
approximately 29 percent below what would otherwise occur in 2020 in the absence of new laws and
regulations (referred to as “business-as-usual”).1 The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector -
specific reductions, integrates early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both CARB and
the State’s Climate Action Team, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines
the adopted role of a cap-and-trade program.2 Additional development of these measures and adoption
1 CARB defines business-as-usual (BAU) in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG
emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission -generating sector were compiled and used to
estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002–2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the
same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004.
2 The Climate Action Team, led by the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is a group of State agency s ecretaries and
heads of agencies, boards, and departments. Team members work to coordinate Statewide efforts to implement global warming emissions
reduction programs and the State’s Climate Adaptation Strategy.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-6 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
of the appropriate regulations occurred through the end of 2013. Key elements of the Scoping Plan
include:
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building and
appliance standards.
• Achieving a Statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent by 2020.
• Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other programs to create a regional
market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions (adopted
in 2011).
• Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California
and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several sustainable community
strategies have been adopted).
• Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including
California’s clean car standards, heavy-duty truck measures, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard
(amendments to the Pavley Standard adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2012),
goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (adopted 2009).
• Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on gasses with high
global warming potential, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s
long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
• The California Sustainable Freight Action Plan was developed in 2016 and provides a vision for
California’s transition to a more efficient, more economically competitive, and less polluting
freight transport system. This transition of California’s freight transport system is essential to
supporting the state’s economic development in coming decades while reducing pollution.
• CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy demonstrates how the state can simultaneously meet air quality
standards, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk from transportation
emissions, and reduce petroleum consumption over the next fifteen years. The mobile Source
Strategy includes increasing new zero emission vehicles (ZEV) buses and trucks.
In 2012, CARB released revised estimates of the expected 2020 emissions reductions. The revised analysis
relied on emissions projections updated in light of current economic forecasts that accounted for the
economic downturn since 2008, reduction measures already approved and put in place relating to future
fuel and energy demand, and other factors. This update reduced the projected 2020 emissions from 596
million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e) to 545 MMTCO2e. The reduction in forecasted 2020 emissions
means that the revised business-as-usual reduction necessary to achieve AB 32’s goal of reaching 1990
levels by 2020 is now 21.7 percent, down from 29 percent. CARB also provided a lower 2020 inventory
forecast that incorporated state-led GHG emissions reduction measures already in place. When this lower
forecast is considered, the necessary reduction from business-as-usual needed to achieve the goals of
AB 32 is approximately 16 percent.
CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan
summarizes the most recent science related to climate change, including anticipated impacts to California
and the levels of GHG emissions reductions necessary to likely avoid risking irreparable damage. It
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-7 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where
further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32.
In 2016, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which codifies a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target
of 40 percent below 1990 levels. With SB 32, the Legislature passed companion legislation, AB 197, which
provides additional direction for developing the Scoping Plan. On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted a
second update to the Scoping Plan. The 2017 Scoping Plan details how the state will reduce GHG emissions
to meet the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Other objectives listed in
the 2017 Scoping Plan are to provide direct GHG emissions reductions; support climate investment in
disadvantaged communities; and support the Clean Power Plan and other Federal actions.
2022 Carb Scoping Plan
Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping
Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by
85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the
2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well
as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero-emission
transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and
refrigerants with high Global Warming Potential; providing communities with sustainable options for
walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of
renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new option s such as
green hydrogen. The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon
neutrality in the world. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita
threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action
Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.
The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping
Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and
trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the
transportation sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the
jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of new
regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place.
Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at
providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting the ambitious
targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on
evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In
this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new
development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is
focused on Residential and Mixed-Use Projects. CARB specifically states that Appendix D does not address
other land uses (e.g., industrial). However, CARB plans to explore new approaches for other land use types
in the future.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-8 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As such, it would be inappropriate to apply the requirements contained in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping
Plan to any land use types other than residential or mixed-use residential development.
Senate Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit)
Signed into law in September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order
B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG
emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open
public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.
Senate Bill 375 (The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008)
Signed into law on September 30, 2008, SB 375 provides a process to coordinate land use planning,
regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction goals
established by AB 32. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable
community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, aligns planning
for transportation and housing, and creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.
Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards)
AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs
emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by
lawsuits filed by automakers and by the EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The EPA subsequently
granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia in 2011. The regulations establish one set of emission standards for model years 2009 –2016 and
a second set of emissions standards for model years 2017 to 2025. By 2025, when all rules will be fully
implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer CO 2e emissions and 75 percent fewer smog-
forming emissions. In 2019 the EPA published the SAFE Rule that revoked California’s waiver. However,
the EPA is currently reconsidering the SAFE rule pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 13390.
Senate Bill 1368 (Emission Performance Standards)
SB 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32, which directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to
adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities.
SB 1368 limits carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding
procurement arrangements for energy longer than five years from resources that exceed the emissions
of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. The new law effectively prevents California’s
utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants
located in or out of the state. The CPUC adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007.
The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under
long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, for 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.
Senate Bill 1078 and S enate Bill X1-2 (Renewable Electricity Standards)
SB 1078 requires California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017.
SB 1078 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-9 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable
energy by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 also directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010,
requiring the state’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB
approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, by Resolution 10 -23. SBX1-2, which
codified the 33 percent by 2020 goal.
Senate Bill 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015)
Signed into law on October 7, 2015, SB 350 implements the goals of Executive Order B-30-15. The
objectives of SB 350 are to increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from
33 percent to 50 percent (with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027) and to
double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses of retail customers through
energy efficiency and conservation. SB 350 also reorganizes the Independent System Operator to develop
more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these markets, which will
facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.
Assembly Bill 398 (Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms)
Signed on July 25, 2017, AB 398 extended the duration of the Cap-and-Trade program from 2020 to 2030.
AB 398 required CARB to update the Scoping Plan and for all GHG rules and regulations adopted by the
state. It also designated CARB as the statewide regulatory body responsible for ensuring that California
meets its statewide carbon pollution reduction targets, while retaining local air districts’ responsibility and
authority to curb toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants from local sources that severely impact
public health. AB 398 also decreased free carbon allowances over 40 percent by 2030 and prioritized Cap-
and-Trade spending to various programs including reducing diesel emissions in impacted communities.
Senate Bill 150 (Regional Transportation Plans)
Signed on October 10, 2017, SB 150 aligns local and regional GHG reduction targets with state targets
(i.e., 40 percent below their 1990 levels by 2030). SB 150 creates a process to include communities in
discussions on how to monitor their regions’ progress on meeting these goals. The bill also requires the
CARB to regularly report on that progress, as well as on the successes and the challenges regions
experience associated with achieving their targets. SB 150 provides for accounting of climate change
efforts and GHG reductions and identify effective reduction strategies.
Senate Bill 100 (California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: Emissions of Greenhouse
Gases)
Signed into Law in September 2018, SB 100 increased California’s renewable electricity portfolio from
50 to 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely
powered by clean energy by 2045.
Assembly Bill 1279 (California Climate Crisis Act)
Signed on September 16, 2022, AB 1279 established the goal to achieve net-zero GHG emissions no later
than 2045 and net negative thereafter. The bill establishes a goal toward at least an 85 percent reduction
target for anthropogenic GHG emissions below statewide emissions limit from Section 36550 of the
California Health and Safety Code.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-10 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assembly Bill 1384 (Resiliency Through Adaptation, Economic Vitality, and Equity Act)
Signed on September 16, 2022, AB 1384 requires the release of a draft Safeguarding California Plan by
January 1, 2024, and every three years thereafter. The intent of AB 1384 is to prioritize the most
vulnerable communities, ecosystems, and economic sectors in the State’s climate adaptation and
resilience strategy set forth in the Safeguarding California Plan by ensuring that all State departments and
agencies accurately identify, collaboratively prepare for, and are sufficiently resourced to adequately
respond to the impacts of climate change, such as extreme weather events, the urban heat island effect,
habitat loss, wildfire, sea level rise, and drought.
CARB Advanced Clean Truck Regulation
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020 requiring truck manufacturers to
transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every
new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. This rule directly addresses disproportionate
risks and health and pollution burdens and puts California on the path for an all zero-emission short-haul
drayage fleet in ports and railyards by 2035, and zero-emission “last-mile” delivery trucks and vans by
2040. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero -emission medium-and
heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. The regulation has two components including a manufacturer
sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
• Zero-Emission Truck Sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete
vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing
percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero -emission truck/
chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 – 8 straight
truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales.
• Company and Fleet Reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers, and
others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet
owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations.
This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available
zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.
Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs using executive orders. Although
not regulatory, they set the tone for the state and guide the actions of state agencies.
Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order S-3-05 was issued on June 1, 2005, which established the following GHG emissions
reduction targets:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-11 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will
stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive
order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.
Executive Order S-01-07
Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S 01-07 mandates that a statewide goal shall be established
to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. The
executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the Secretary for
Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the
University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle
carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.
Executive Order S-13-08
Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order S-13-08 facilitated the California Natural Resources Agency
development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Objectives include analyzing risks of
climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and
specifying a direction for future research.
Executive Order S-14-08
Issued on November 17, 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 expands the State’s Renewable Energy Standard
to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S -21-09 (signed on
September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the state
come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the Renewable Electricity Standard on
September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly owned
electricity retailers.
Executive Order S-21-09
Issued on July 17, 2009, Executive Order S-21-09 directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's
RPS to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program,
requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006), which advanced the 20 percent
deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II.
Executive Order B-30-15
Issued on April 29, 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of
40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to
express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of CO 2e (MMTCO2e). The 2030 target acts as an
interim goal on the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by
Executive Order S-3-05. The executive order also requires the state’s climate adaptation plan to be
updated every three years and for the state to continue its climate change research program, among other
provisions. With the enactment of SB 32 in 2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG
emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-12 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Executive Order B-55-18
Issued on September 10, 2018, Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a goal to achieve carbon neutrality as
soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.
This goal is in addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing GHG emissions. The executive order
requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementing this goal. It
also requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan to identify and recommend measures to achieve ca rbon
neutrality. The executive order also requires state agencies to develop sequestration targets in the Natural
and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan.
Executive Order N-79-20
Signed in September 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 establishes as a goal that where feasible, all new
passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold
in California, will be zero-emission by 2035. The executive order sets a similar goal requiring that all
medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045 where feasible. It also directs CARB to
develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where
feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new ZEVs
“towards the target of 100 percent.” The executive order directs the California Environmental Protection
Agency, the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), and the California Natural
Resources Agency to transition and repurpose oil production facilities with a goal toward meeting carbon
neutrality by 2045. Executive Order N-79-20 builds upon the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks regulation,
which was adopted by CARB in July 2020.
California Regulations and Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled
buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid
population growth.
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The appliance efficiency regulations (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 20, Sections 1601 -1608)
include standards for new appliances. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of
these regulations. These standards include minimum levels of operating efficiency, and other cost-
effective measures, to promote the use of energy- and water-efficient appliances.
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR Title 24, Part 6)
was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.
The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy
efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased
energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The 2 016 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards approved on January 19, 2016, went into effect on January 1, 2017. The 2019 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted on May 9, 2018, and went into effect on January 1, 2020. Under
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-13 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
the 2019 standards, homes will use about 53 percent less energy and nonresidential buildings will use
about 30 percent less energy than buildings under the 2016 standards.
On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2022 Energy Code).
In December, it was approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the
California Building Standards Code. The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps,
establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage
standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied
for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.
Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11 code) commonly referred to as the
CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California
Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The
CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory
measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation,
material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. CALGreen also provides
voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional
measures in the five green building topics. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code went into effect
January 1, 2023 (2022 CALGreen). The 2022 CALGreen standards continue to improve upon the existing
standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and non -residential
buildings.
Warehouse Best Practices and Mitigation
The California Department of Justice published recommended best practices and mitigation measures to
comply with CEQA, updated in September 2022. The purpose of this document is to provide information
on feasible best practices and mitigation measures that have been adapted from warehouse projects in
California. Project-specific best practices and measures include warehouse sitting and design
considerations such as distance to sensitive receptors, setback requirements, perimeter screening,
parking considerations, limitations on idling time, use of zero-emissions operational equipment
(e.g., forklifts and yard trucks), and constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging
stations, among others.
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) formed a GHG California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Significance Threshold Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on
determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. As of the last Working Group
meeting (Meeting 15) held in September 2010, the SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for
evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-14 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
With the tiered approach, the Project is compared with the requirements of each tier sequentially and
would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are
specifically exempt from SB 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes projects that are
consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and complies with AB 32
GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening thresho ld.
The SCAQMD has adopted a threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) per year for industrial
projects and a 3,000 MTCO2e threshold was proposed for non-industrial projects but has not been
adopted. During Working Group Meeting #7 it was explained that this threshold was derived using a
90 percent capture rate of a large sampling of industrial facilities. During Meeting #8, the Working Group
defined industrial uses as production, manufacturing, and fabrication activities or storage and distribution
(e.g., warehouse, transfer facility, etc.). The Working Group indicated that the 10,000 MTCO 2e per year
threshold applies to both emissions from construction and operational phases plus indirect emissions
(electricity, water use, etc.). The SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening
threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact.
Southern California Association of Governments
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS]). The RTP/SCS charts a course for
closely integrating land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. The
strategy was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from
local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non -profit organizations,
businesses, and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Ventura. The RTP/SCS is a long -range vision plan that balances future mobility and
housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The SCAG region strives toward
sustainability through integrated land use and transportation planning. The SCAG region must achieve
specific federal air quality standards and is required by state law to lower regional GHG emissions.
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
Chapter 103 and Chapter 124 of the General Plan Update outline the goals and policies for resource
efficiency and planning for climate change within the City. General Plan policies that relate to climate
change include the following:
Chapter 10, Infrastructure and Green Systems
Goal 7: Fontana is an energy-efficient community.
Policy 7.1: Promote renewable energy and distributed energy systems in new development and
retrofits of existing development to work towards the highest levels of low-carbon
energy-efficiency.
3 City of Fontana. 2018. Chapter 10: Infrastructure and Green Systems. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26749/Chapter -10---
Infrastructure-and-Green-Systems (accessed September 2022).
4 City of Fontana. 2018. Chapter 12: Sustainability and Resilience . https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26751/Chapter -12---
Sustainability-and-Resilience (accessed September 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-15 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience
Goal 3: Renewable sources of energy, including solar and wind, and other energy-conservation
strategies are available to city households and businesses.
Policy 3.1: Promote renewable energy programs for government, Fontana businesses, and Fontana
residences.
Goal 5: Green building techniques are used in new development and retrofits.
Policy 5.1: Promote green building through guidelines, awards and nonfinancial incentives.
Goal 6: Fontana is a leader in energy-efficient development and retrofits.
Policy 6.1: Promote incentives for energy-efficient residential and non-residential construction.
City of Fontana Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance
The City approved and adopted the Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 1891) on April 12, 2022. It is applicable to all warehouse uses throughout the City,
including the Project. The Ordinance will meet and exceed all state and federal environmental standards
and would foster the balancing of public health and quality of life issues with the economic and
employment opportunities that the goods movement provides the City and its residents.
4.8.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning greenhouse gas emissions. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have
been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect
on the environment if it would:
• Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance; or
• Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of GHGs.
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a 10,000 MTCO 2e industrial threshold for
projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. The SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working
Group defined industrial uses as production, manufacturing, and fabrication activities or storage and
distribution (e.g., warehouse, transfer facility, etc.) during Meeting #8. Additionally, the SCAQMD GHG
Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group has specified that a warehouse is considered to be an
industrial project.5 During the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group Meeting #15, the
SCAQMD noted that it was considering extending the industrial GHG significance threshold for use by all
lead agencies. Furthermore, the Working Group indicated that the 10,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold
applies to both emissions from construction and operational phases plus indirect emissions (electricity,
5 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #8 , 2009.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-16 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
water use, etc.). The SCAQMD has not announced when staff is expecting to present GHG thresholds for
land use projects where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency to the governing board.
The City of Fontana has not adopted project-specific significance thresholds. The City has opted to use a
non-zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook,
which is the Tier 3 screening value of 3,000 MTCO 2e per year that is recommended by SCAQMD staff for
residential and commercial projects. Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) of
the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook establishes a numerical threshold based on capture of
approximately 90 percent of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by
SCAQMD using this method is the 3,000 MTCO 2e/yr screening threshold.
In setting the threshold at 3,000 MTCO 2e per year, SCAQMD researched a database of projects kept by
the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That database contained 798 projects, 87 of which
were removed because they were very large projects and/or outliers that would skew emission s values
too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90 th percentile capture rate. The
SCAQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined commercial, residential,
and mixed-use projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects included warehouses and other
light industrial land uses but did not include industrial processes (i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing,
electric generating stations, mining operations, etc.). Emissions from each of these projects were
calculated by SCAQMD to provide a consistent method of emissions calculations across the sample
population and from projects within the sample population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD
analysis determined that the 90th percentile ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e per year. The
SCAQMD set their significance threshold at the low-end value of the range when rounded to the nearest
hundred tons of emissions (i.e., 3,000 MTCO 2e per year) to define small projects that are considered less
than significant and do not need to provide further analysis.
The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold for residential/commercial uses was
proposed by SCAQMD over a decade ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent,
superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold was
developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided
in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (2008) document
and subsequent Working Group meetings (latest of which occurred in 2010). SCAQMD has not withdrawn
its support of the interim threshold and all documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on
the SCAQMD website on a page that provides guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis
(and where all SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic
air contaminants also are listed). Further, as stated by SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order
S-3-05 goal [80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050] as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus,
remains valid for use in 2023 (SCAQMD, 2008, pp. 3-4). Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds,
if not thousands of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction. Thus, if
Project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold, then Project-related
GHG emissions would have a less-than-significant impact.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-17 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Methodology
The Project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions
Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod). For construction, CalEEMod calculates emissions from off -
road equipment usage and on-road vehicle travel associated with haul, delivery, and construction worker
trips. GHG emissions during construction were forecasted based on the proposed construction schedule
and applying the mobile-source and fugitive dust emissions factors derived from CalEEMod. The Project’s
construction-related GHG emissions would be generated from off-road construction equipment, on-road
hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. The Project’s operational -related
GHG emissions would be generated by vehicular traffic, area sources (e.g., landscaping maintenance,
consumer products), electrical generation, natural gas consumption, water supply and wastewater
treatment, and solid waste.
4.8.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.8-1 Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could
have a significant impact on the environment?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction. The approximate quantity of daily
GHG emissions generated by construction equipment utilized to build the Project is depicted in
Table 4.8-2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Table 4.8-2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category MTCO2e
2024 Construction 496
2025 Construction 711
Total Construction Emissions 1,207
30-Year Amortized Construction 40
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, Table 2.
As shown, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 1,207 MTCO2e over the course of
construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the
Project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions. The amortized Project
construction emissions would be 40 MTCO 2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of
these GHG emissions would cease.
Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from
direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and
operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect
sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-18 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and
any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.
Total GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 4.8-3: Project Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. As shown in Table 4.8-3, the Project would generate approximately 2,528 MTCO2e annually
from both construction and operations and the Project. The existing approximately 48,000 square feet of
warehouse use located on the Project site generates approximately 1,985 MTCO 2e annually and will be
removed and replaced by the Project. Existing emissions have been estimated based on CalEEMod default
emissions factors for building operations and estimated trip generation. Therefore, the development of
the Project would generate approximately 543 MTCO2e net new emissions annually. The net Project-
related GHG emissions would not exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold. Therefore, the
Project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Table 4.8-3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source MTCO2e per Year
Proposed Emissions
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years 40
Area Source <1
Energy 240
Mobile 1,729
Waste 94
Water and Wastewater 272
Off-road Equipment (Electric Equipment) 153
Proposed Total 2,528
Existing Emissions 1,985
Net New Emissions 543
City of Fontana Project Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, Table 3.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.8-2 Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS]). The RTP/SCS is a long-range
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-19 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public
health goals. The RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input
from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations,
businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-
duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both
the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5 -03-05 and B-30-15.
The RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, ranging from highway improvements, railroad
grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. These future investments
were included in county plans developed by the six county transportation commissions and seek to reduce
traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s network, and expand mobility choices for
everyone. The RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to
qualify for federal funding.
The plan accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost
effectiveness. The RTP/SCS is also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies
that help the region achieve state GHG emissions reduction goals and FCAA requirements, preserve open
space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry, and
utilize resources more efficiently. GHG emissions resulting from development-related mobile sources are
the most potent source of emissions, and therefore Project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate
indicator of whether the Project would inhibit the post-2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the
state. The Project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 4.8-4: Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency.
Table 4.8-4: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency
SCAG Goals Compliance
Goal 1: Encourage regional economic prosperity and
global competitiveness.
N/A: This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore not
applicable. However, the Project is located on an
occupied site that is surrounded by development.
Redevelopment of the site would contribute to
regional economic prosperity.
Goal 2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability,
and travel safety for people and goods.
N/A: This is not a transportation improvement project and
is therefore not applicable.
Goal 3: Enhance the preservation, security, and
resilience of the regional transportation
system.
N/A: This is not a transportation improvement project and
is therefore not applicable.
Goal 4: Increase person and goods movement and
travel choices within the transportation
system.
N/A: This is not a transportation improvement project and
is therefore not applicable. However, the Project
includes a warehouse use that would support goods
movement.
Goal 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve air quality.
N/A: The Project is located within a developed area in
proximity to existing truck routes and freeways, which
would reduce trip lengths and reduce GHG and air
quality emissions.
Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable communities N/A: As discussed in the Air Quality Assessment
(Appendix B) and the Health Risk Assessment
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-20 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
SCAG Goals Compliance
(Appendix B), the Project would not exceed
thresholds or result in health impacts. The Project
would not conflict with the surrounding community’s
ability to access healthy food or parks. In addition, the
Project would be required to comply with the City’s
Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards
Ordinance, ensuring that impacts to sensitive
receptors would be minimized to the extent feasible.
Goal 7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an
integrated regional development pattern
and transportation network.
N/A: This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore not
applicable.
Goal 8: Leverage new transportation technologies
and data-driven solutions that result in more
efficient travel. N/A:
This is not a transportation improvement project and
is therefore not applicable. However, the Project is
located in a developed area in proximity to existing
truck routes and freeways. The location of the Project
within a developed area would reduce trip lengths,
which would result in more efficient travel.
Goal 9: Encourage development of diverse housing
types in areas that are supported by multiple
transportation options.
N/A: The Project involves development of a warehouse and
does not include housing.
Goal 10: Promote conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and restoration of habitats. N/A This the Project is not located on agricultural or
habitat lands.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, Table 4.
The goals stated in the RTP/SCS were used to determine consistency with the planning efforts previously
stated. As shown in Table 4.8-4, the Project would be consistent with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS.
Therefore, the Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to
achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets.
California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan Consistency
As previously noted, the 2022 Scoping Plan sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce
anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. The
transportation, electricity, and industrial sectors are the largest GHG contributors in the State. The 2022
Scoping Plan plans to achieve the AB 1279 targets primarily through zero-emission transportation
(e.g., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks). Additional GHG reductions are achieved through
decarbonizing the electricity and industrial sectors.
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2022 Scoping Plan include implementing
SB 100, which would achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045; achieving 100 percent zero emission
vehicle sales in 2035 through Advanced Clean Cars II; and implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets
regulation to deploy zero-electric vehicle buses and trucks. Additional transportation policies include the
Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use
Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-
Road Fleet Recognition Program, and Amendments to the In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets
Regulation. The 2022 Scoping Plan would continue to implement SB 375. GHGs would be further reduced
through the Cap-and-Trade Program carbon pricing and SB 905. SB 905 requires CARB to create the
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-21 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate, demonstrate, and regulate
carbon dioxide removal projects and technology.
As shown in Table 4.8-3, approximately 83 percent of the Project’s GHG emissions are from energy and
mobile sources which would be further reduced by the 2022 Scoping Plan measures described above. It
should be noted that the City has no control over vehicle emissions. However, these emissions would
decline in the future due to Statewide measures discussed above, as well as cleaner technology and fleet
turnover.
The Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022
Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory
requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan.
Consistency with the City of Fontana General Plan Update
As previously discussed, Chapter 10 and Chapter 12 of the General Plan Update outline the goals and
policies for resource efficiency and planning for climate change within the City. The Project’s consistency
with these goals and policies is discussed in Table 4.8-5: Consistency with the City of Fontana General
Plan Update. As shown in Table 4.8-5, the Project would be consistent with the General Plan Update.
Table 4.8-5: Consistency with the City of Fontana General Plan Update
Goals Project Consistency
Chapter 10, Infrastructure and Green Systems
Goal 7: Fontana is an energy-efficient
community.
Consistent. The Project would implement required green building strategies
through existing regulation that requires the Project to comply with various
CALGreen and the Fontana Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability
Standards Ordinance requirements. The Project includes sustainability design
features that support such measures. As such, the Project would be consistent
with this goal.
Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience
Goal 3: Renewable sources of energy,
including solar and wind, and other energy-
conservation strategies are available to city
households and businesses.
Consistent. The electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California’s Renewables
Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric
service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement
from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement
by 2020 and to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. As such, the Project
would be consistent with this goal.
Goal 5: Green building techniques are used in
new development and retrofits.
Consistent. The Project would comply with the latest Title 24 standards. The
Project would implement required green building strategies through existing
regulation that requires the Project to comply with various CALGreen
requirements. The Project includes sustainability design features that support
the Green Building Strategy. As such, the Project would be consistent with this
goal.
Goal 6: Fontana is a leader in energy-efficient
development and retrofits.
Consistent. The Project would comply with the latest Title 24 standards. The
Project would implement required green building strategies through existing
regulation that requires the Project to comply with various CALGreen
requirements. The Project includes sustainability design features that support
the Green Building Strategy. As such, the Project would be consistent with this
goal.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, Table 5.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-22 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project is estimated to emit an additional approximately 390 MTCO 2e per year directly from on‐site
activities and indirectly from off‐site motor vehicles, see Table 4.8-3. As discussed above, the net new
GHG emissions caused by long-term operation of the Project would not exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO 2e
per year screening threshold, and impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed above, the Project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s post-2020
mobile source GHG reduction targets. Additionally, Project emissions would be indirectly reduced through
the implementation of various Scoping Plan measures, such as the low carbon fuel standard, vehicle
emissions standards, building energy efficiency standards, market-based mechanisms (such as the cap-
and-trade program), and the Renewable Portfolio Standard. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with
the Scoping Plan’s recommended measures and, as such, would not impede implementation of the
Scoping Plan. As such, impacts related to consistency with the Scoping Plan would be less than significant.
Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the
emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless,
it can be anticipated that operation of the Project would benefit from implementation of current and
potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle emissions, SB 100/renewable electricity
portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.
In addition, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable standards of the Fontana Industrial
Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance and final documentation of compliance would be
subject to review and approval prior to issuance of applicable permits. Requirements include, but are not
limited to, the following:
• Buffering and Screening/Adjacent uses (Sec. 9 -71): include appropriate landscaping buffer
between warehouse building and adjacent sensitive receptors; all landscaping shall be drought
tolerant, loading docks and truck entries shall be oriented away from abutting sensitive receptors.
• Signing and Traffic Patterns (Sec. 9-72): Post anti-idling signage indicating a 3-minute diesel truck
idling restriction, prepare and submit a Truck Route Map, provide adequate stacking depth within
property (minimum 140 feet).
• Alternative Energy (Sec. 9.73): On-site motorized operational equipment shall be zero emission,
all building roofs shall be solar ready, at least 10 percent of all passenger vehicle parking spaces
shall be electric vehicle (EV) ready, at least five percent of all passenger vehicle parking spaces
shall be equipped with working Level 2 Quick charge EV charging stations, electric plug -in units
shall be installed at every dock door servicing refrigerated space, provide bicycle parking.
• Operation and Construction (Sec. 9-74): Ensure that electrical rooms are sized to accommodate
potential need for additional electrical panels, use super-compliance VOC coatings, use the
highest rated CARB Tier technology for construction equipment, use electric-powered hand tools
and forklifts.
See Appendix G of this Draft EIR for a preliminary consistency analysis of Project with the Ordinance. The
California Department of Justice published recommended best practices and mitigation measures to
comply with CEQA, updated in September 2022. Best practices and measures are generally consistent
with the requirements of the Ordinance. Therefore, implementation of applicable standards of the
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-23 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Ordinance would include applicable best practices and mitigation measures recommended by the
Department of Justice. The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs because the Project would generate low levels of
GHGs, and would not impede implementation of the Scoping Plan, or confli ct with the policies of the
Scoping Plan or any other GHG reduction plan. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Setting
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs,
which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects
have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have much longer atmospheric
lifetimes of one year to several thousand years that allow them to be dispersed around the globe.
Cumulative Impacts
It is generally the case that an individual project of this size and nature is of insufficient magnitude by itself
to influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG inventory. GHG
impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission
impacts from a climate change perspective. The additive effect of Project-related GHG emissions would
not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. In
addition, the Project, as well as other cumulative related projects, would also be subject to all applicable
regulatory requirements, which would further reduce GHG emissions. As shown in Table 4.8-4 through
Table 4.8-5, the Project would not conflict with the Fontana General Plan Update, the RTP/SCS, or the
CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be less than
significant and the Project’s cumulative GHG impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable.
4.8.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
4.8.8 References
California Air Resources Board. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-
plan-documents.
City of Fontana. 2018. Chapter 10: Infrastructure and Green Systems.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26749/Chapter-10---Infrastructure-and-
Green-Systems.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.8-24 4.8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fontana. 2018. Chapter 12: Sustainability and Resilience.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26751/Chapter-12---Sustainability-and-
Resilience.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment.
4.9
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-1 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9.1 Introduction
This section evaluates the potential impacts of the Sierra Distribution Facility Project (Project) on human
health and the environment due to exposure to hazardous materials or conditions associated with the
Project site, Project construction, and Project operations. Potential Project impacts and appropriate
mitigation measures are included as necessary. The analysis in this section is based, in part, upon the
following sources, which are contained in Appendix H of this Draft EIR:
• Hazard Management Consulting. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 5975 and 6075
Sierra Avenue, 16899, 17010 and 17051 Windflower Avenue, Fontana, California 92336 .
• Hazard Management Consulting . 2020. Results of a Soil and Soil Gas Investigation, 17010 and
17051 Windflower Avenue, Fontana, California.
Analysis of area cumulative impacts and identification of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures
are also included in the discussion portions of this section.
4.9.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
Current Uses of Property
The Project site is presently developed with four commercial/industrial buildings ranging from 5,000 to
25,000 square feet in size. The northwestern quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a
wooden pallet facility. The northeastern quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a
carnival attraction repair facility with truck trailer parking. The southwestern quadrant is developed with
one building and open-graded gravel pavements and is utilized for truck trailer storage. The southeastern
quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a storage facility. The existing buildings are
single-story, metal-framed structures and are assumed to be supported on conventional shallow
foundations with concrete slab-on-grade floors. Ground surface cover consists mainly of open graded
gravel and exposed soil, with asphaltic concrete (AC) or Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements
surrounding the buildings. Little to no vegetation exists on site. Few large trees are present between the
northwest and northeast quadrants.
The Project site is currently occupied by the following businesses:
1.) San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling, 6075 Sierra Avenue. This portion of the Project site is located
on the northwest and is used for manufacturing of wood molding and repair/sale of wooden
pallets. This property was developed in late 1980s and houses a metal structure and a mobile
office. Limited volume of potentially hazardous substances is used/stored at this facility. Stringent
housekeeping practices appeared to be implemented at this property.
2.) 5975 Sierra Avenue/16899 Windflower Avenue. This parcel is located on the southwest portion
and is currently unoccupied. This property was last occupied by Anderson Trucking Services for
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-2 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
storage and distribution of furniture and was developed in early 1980s and houses a metal
structure. No visual evidence of subsurface features and/or significant staining was identified.
3.) Davis Partners, 17010 Windflower Avenue. This parcel is located on the northeast portion and is
currently used for repair of carnival rides. This property was developed in the late 1980s and
houses two attached metal structures. Potentially hazardous substances are used/generated at
this facility. Poor housekeeping practices were observed at this facility. There are no designated
areas of hazardous substances storage at this Project site, and no secondary containments were
utilized.
4.) Aluma Systems, 17051 Windflower Avenue. This parcel is located on the southeast portion and is
currently used for repair and rent of steel and aluminum scaffolding. This property was developed
in 1990 and houses a large metal structure. Two stormwater catch basins are present at this
property. Stringent housekeeping practices are implemented at this facility.
Surrounding Uses
The Project site is in an area currently zoned for Light Industrial (M-1) and is bound:
• on the north by Federal Express Supply facility (5885 Sierra Avenue);
• on the east by Mango Avenue beyond which is the boundary of Mid-Valley (Burrtec Services)
Municipal Landfill;
• on the south by Williams-Sonoma Warehouse (6101 Sierra Avenue); and,
• on the west by Sierra Avenue beyond which is residential development.
Historical Uses of Property
According to available historical sources, the Project site was historically undeveloped vacant land as early
as 1896 and was developed in phases from 1982 to 1990. The Project site was historically occupied
by light industrial businesses including: All American Pipe & Steel Distribution; Days Express Inc.;
Anderson Trucking Services; Apollo Amusement; San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling; S.J. Steel Inc.;
Active Steel, Inc.; and National Pallets (1987-Present). The Project site is located in an area that has had
been historically undeveloped vacant land.
Environmental Conditions
In accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard of Practice E1527 -13,
the objective of the Phase I ESA is to assess, to the extent feasible under the standard, the likelihood that
a Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), as defined by ASTM, are present at the Project site. An
REC means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or
at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to
the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the
environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.
A controlled REC (CREC) is a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum
products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example,
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-3 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria
established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain
in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions,
activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).
A historical REC (HREC) is a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has
occurred in connection with the Project site and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable
regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without
subjecting the Project site to any required controls (e.g., use restrictions, activity and use limitations,
institutional controls, or engineering controls).
There was no evidence of CREC or HRECs in connection with the Project site. However, poor housekeeping
practices were noted to be implemented at the Davis Partners facility and constitutes as a REC. There are
no designated areas of hazardous substances storage at this Project site, no secondary containments were
utilized, and unlabeled 55-gallon drums were identified on the western building. Additionally, due to the
potential for landfill gas to migrate towards the Project site, the Mid Valley Landfill is considered an REC
to the Project site.
A Phase II ESA was conducted for the Project. The objective of the Phase II ESA was to assess whether
elevated concentrations of selected chemicals were present in soil in the vicinity of the chemical uses, and
to assess whether elevated concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and methane gas were
present in soil vapor due to the off-site landfill. Laboratory results indicated no detectable concentrations
of petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, and hexavalent chromium, and no detectable to low concentrations of
Title 22 metals, well below the state and/or federal screening levels for human health, and background
concentrations of arsenic. Based on these results, there is a low likelihood that elevated concentrations
of selected chemicals are present in soil in the vicinity of the chemical uses.
Regulatory Agency Database Research
A Phase I ESA (see Appendix H) was completed in January 2021. The Project site was identified on the
databases listed below. Regulatory agency database information was obtained from a standard radius Site
Assessment report by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. The center of the search was in the approximate
center of the Project site. Search distances for specific databases were one-quarter to one mile as
specified in the ASTM 1527-13 standard. The database search includes over 70 federal, State, local, and
proprietary records.
Database Records Concerning the Project Site
Davis Enterprises, 17010 Windflower Avenue
This Project site occupant is listed in HAZNET, Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO),
Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-Non-Generators (NonGen) databases. According to the
records, state-regulated wastes including other organic solids were generated in 2011 and disposed off -
site of the Project site. No violations or releases were reported for that time period.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-4 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
S.J. Steel Inc., 17010 Windflower Avenue
This former occupant is listed in Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST), California Environmental Reporting
System (CERS) Haz Waste, Emergency Management Institute (EMI), and San Bernardino County Permit
databases. According to the records, this former occupant was permitted by San Bernardino County Fire
Department (SBCFD) to handle hazardous substances. It appears that they have utilized ASTs for storage
of chemicals. They also have had a permit from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
in 1987. No violations or releases were reported.
Active Steel Inc., 17010 Windflower Avenue
This former occupant is listed in Haznet and HWTS databases. According to the records, state-regulated
wastes including an unspecified solvent mixture were generated and disposed off-site for the Project site
in 1992. No violations or releases were reported.
All American Pipe & Steel, 17051 Windflower Avenue
This former occupant is listed in San Bernardino County Permit database. According to the records, this
facility had a permit from SBCFD to handle hazardous substances. The permit expired in 2012.
National Pallets/San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling, 6075 Sierra Avenue
This Project site occupant is listed in San Bernardino County Permit, Haznet, CERS Haz Waste, and CERS
databases. According to the records, state-regulated wastes including waste oil/mixed oil and unspecified
oil containing wastes were generated from 2013 to 2019 that were disposed of off-site of the Project site.
This facility has a permit from SBCFD to handle hazardous substances. According to the records, SBCFD
has conducted compliance evaluation inspections of this facility, administrative violations were identified
that were subsequently corrected and the facility had returned to compliance. No unresolved violations
and/or releases were reported.
Database Records Concerning Surrounding Uses
A review of the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Radius Map database search was conducted to
assess potential off-site facilities that could be contributing hazardous substances to the Project site and
represent an REC. In review of the many entries on the database, HMC reviewed the following factors that
affect the ability of a facility to affect the Project site:
• Distance from the Site,
• Location from the Site with regard to the direction of groundwater flow,
• Nature of the release and whether the release has affected soil, groundwater, or both, and
• Status of the investigation (e.g., open or closed)
Based on these factors, two facilities were found to have the ability to affect the Project site. Both facilities
are discussed below.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-5 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Federal Express Supply, 5885 Sierra Avenue
This facility is located immediately north of the Project site and is listed in ECHO, Haznet, RCRA-Small
Quality Generators (SQGs), CERS and NPDES databases. According to the records, state and federal-
regulated wastes were generated and disposed off-site in 2018 and 2019. No violations or releases were
reported. Based on regulatory status, depth to groundwater and absence of a relea se, these listings do
not constitute RECs for the Project site.
Mid Valley Landfill
The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill is located to the east of the Project site (less than 1000 feet from an active
solid waste facility) and is an existing Class III sanitary landfill and accepts residential, commercial,
demolition, and agricultural wastes. The landfill is approximately 147 acres in size and includes four
separate “cells.” The initial landfill activity began in 1958 in Cell 1 which is located southeast of the Project
site and expanded over time to include the four cells. Cell 1 is now closed but Cell 3 which is located
directly east of the Project site is open. The Project site is located upgradient of the landfill closest to
Cell 3. Monitoring results for the landfill have documented a release of VOCs and Perchlorates to
groundwater which have migrated off of the landfill boundary to the southeast away from the Project
site. Groundwater mitigation efforts are underway to address this release which includes both
groundwater pump and treat as well as soil vapor extraction. Based on the Project site being upgradient
to the landfill and monitoring data not suggesting any groundwater impacts in the direction of the Project
site, the landfill is not considered as a source of groundwater impact to the Project site. However, due to
the potential for landfill gas to migrate towards the Project site, Mid Valley Landfill is considered a REC to
the Project site.
Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Wastes or Petroleum Products
The following presents potentially hazardous substances at the Project site:
San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling, 6075 Sierra Ave.
Thirty-four, ten-gallon propane cylinders; and one 55-gallon barrel of used oil (the hazardous wastes are
transported off-site by Environmental Logistics).
Davis Partners, 17010 Windflower Ave.
• Five, 55-gallon drums, and three 5-gallon containers of engine oil
• Ten five-gallon containers of acetone
• Fifteen five-gallon containers of oil-based paints
• Two, 55-gallon drums of unknown liquid, smelled like petroleum hydrocarbons
• Several one- and five-gallon containers of unknown substances
• Part washer
A paint spray booth was present inside the open metal building that had a permit from AQMD that expired
on August 18, 2020.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-6 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
It was reported that hazardous wastes are disposed off-site by Clean Tech. HMC did not see any hazardous
waste containers during the Project site reconnaissance.
Drains, Drain Lines, and Sumps
The Project site primarily drains via sheet flow.
Pits, Ponds, Lagoons
No ponds, pits, or lagoons were observed at the Project site.
Industrial Wastewater
Industrial wastewater is not presently generated at the Project site.
Stains
No significant stains were observed at the Project site.
Wells
There are currently no groundwater wells, monitoring wells or oil/gas wells identified at the Project site.
Transformers
Pole-mounted transformers were observed at 5975 Sierra Avenue property.
Underground and Above-ground Storage Tanks
There are currently no Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) or ASTs on-site.
Vapor Intrusion
Based on the findings within the Phase I ESA, it is believed that given the presence of a Class III landfill
east of the Project site, there is a moderate risk of a vapor intrusion condition at the Project site.
Asbestos
Based on the construction dates, there is a moderate likelihood that asbestos -containing materials are
present at the Project site.
Radon
The Project site is listed as being located in Zone 2 with regards to radon indicating that radon may be
present at concentrations less than 4 pico curies/liter.
Mold
Mold was not identified on the Project site.
Other Features
Two stormwater catch basins were identified at 17051 Windflower Avenue property.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-7 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Nearby Airports or Airstrips
The nearest airstrips are the Ontario International Airport (located roughly 11 miles to the southwest) and
the San Bernardino International Airport (located roughly 11 miles to the southeast).
Wildland Fire Hazards
According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan1, the Project site is identified within a High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). According to California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the Project site is not designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Safety Zone
(VHFHSZ) or a State Responsibility Area.2 See Section 4.20: Wildfire for more detail.
Evacuation Routes
According to the Fontana GP Noise and Safety Element, the City has no defined emergency routes.
Schools
The nearest schools to the Project site are Sierra Lakes Elementary School, located approximately one
mile west of the Project site; Wayne Ruble Middle School, located approximately 1.1 miles south of the
Project site; and AB Miller High School, located approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the Project site.
Other nearby schools are Summit High School and Falcon Ridge Elementary School. None of these schools
are located along the officially designated local truck route, Sierra Avenue, which is located adjacent to
the Project site. Note, however, that Project-related truck traffic would be prohibited from using Sierra
Avenue.
Soil and Gas Investigation Results
Laboratory results indicated no detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, and
hexavalent chromium, and no detectable to low concentrations of Title 22 metals, well below the state
and/or federal screening levels for human health, and background concentrations of arsenic. Based on
these results, there is a low likelihood that elevated concentrations of selected chemicals are present in
soil in the vicinity of the chemical uses.
Eight soil borings were advanced along the eastern portion of the Project site to further asses possible
VOCs and methane gas concentrations emanating from off-gassing contaminated groundwater and from
decomposition of materials in the landfill. Laboratory results of VOCs in soil gas indicated low
concentrations, well below the state and federal modified screening levels using the very conservative
attenuation factor of 0.03. Methane was detected below the lower explosive limit (LEL) and conservative
risk factor of 10 percent of the LEL, indicating a low likelihood of an explosive condition.
1 City of Fontana. 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Figure 4-6: Wildfire Hazard Severity Zones. https://www.fontanaca.gov/3196/Local-
Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-LHMP. (accessed June 2023).
2 CAL FIRE. 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CAL FIRE – Fontana.
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf (a ccessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-8 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill requires that all developments within 1,000 feet of its perimeter be
designed and constructed in accordance with an equivalent design which will prevent gas migration into
the building as per 27 CCR Section 21190(g).
4.9.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid
Waste Act
The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and RCRA established a program administered by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for the regulation of the generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating
hazardous wastes.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), was enacted by
Congress on December 11, 1980. This law (U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 103) provides broad Federal
authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and
abandoned hazardous waste sites; provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous
waste at these sites; and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be
identified. CERCLA also enables the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP (Title 40,
Code of Federal Regulation [CFR], Part 300) provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to
releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The NCP also
established the National Priorities List (NPL). CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) and the National Priorities List
The U.S. EPA also maintains the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation (CERCLIS) and
Liability Information System list. This list contains sites that are either proposed to be or on the NPL, as
well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The NPL is
a list of the worst hazardous waste sites that have been identified by Superfund. There are no NPL sites
on the Project site.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
The Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted to inform
communities and residents of chemical hazards in their area. Businesses are required to report the
locations and quantities of chemicals stored on-site to both state and local agencies. EPCRA requires the
U.S. EPA to maintain and publish a digital database list of toxic chemical releases and other waste
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-9 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
management activities reported by certain industry groups and Federal facilities. This database, known as
the Toxic Release Inventory, gives the community more power to hold companies accountable for their
chemical management.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) receives authority to regulate the transportation of
hazardous materials from the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended and codified
(49 U.S. Code 5101 et seq.). The U.S. DOT is the primary regulatory authority for the interstate transport
of hazardous materials and establishes regulations for safe handling procedures (i.e., packaging, marking,
labeling, and routing).
In California, Section 31303 of the California Vehicle Code states that any hazardous material being moved
from one location to another must use the route with the least travel time. This, in practice, means major
roads and highways, although secondary roads are permitted to be used for local delivery. These policies
are enforced by both the California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation.
Clean Water Act/Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Rule
The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S. Code Section 1251 et seq., formerly the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972), was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters of the U.S. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain,
and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and certain non‐point source discharges
to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the NPDES permit process (CWA Section 402). In
California, NPDES permitting authority is delegated to, and administered by, the nine Regional Water
Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The Project is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.
Section 402 of the CWA authorizes the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to issue
NPDES General Construction Storm Water Permit (Water Quality Order 99‐08‐DWQ), referred to as the
“General Construction Permit.” Construction activities can comply with and be covered under the General
Construction Permit provided that they:
• Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction pollutants from contacting
stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off‐site into
receiving waters;
• Eliminate or reduce non‐stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the
U.S.; and
• Perform inspections of all BMPs.
NPDES regulations are administered by the RWQCB. Projects that disturb one or more acres are required
to obtain NPDES coverage under the Construction General Permit.
As part of the CWA, the U.S. EPA oversees and enforces the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation contained
in Title 40 of the CFR, Part 112 (Title 40 CFR, Part 112), which is often referred to as the “SPCC rule”
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-10 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
because the regulations describe the requirements for facilities to prepare, amend, and implement Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plans. A facility is subject to SPCC regulations if a single
oil (or gasoline, or diesel fuel) storage tank has a capacity greater than 660 gallons, the total above ground
oil storage capacity exceeds 1,320 gallons, or the underground oil storage capacity exceeds 42,000 gallons,
and if, due to its location, the facility could reasonably be expected to discha rge oil into or upon the
“Navigable Waters” of the United States.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Congress passed the Occupational and Safety Health Act (OSHA) to ensure worker and workplace safety.
Their goal was to make sure employers provide their workers a place of employment free from recognized
hazards to safety and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical
dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions. To establish standards for workplace health and
safety, OSHA also created the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as the research
institution for OSHA. The Administration is a division of the U.S. Department of Labor that oversees the
administration of OSHA and enforces standards in all states. OSHA standards are listed in Title 29 CFR
Part 1910.
OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard apply to five groups of
employers and their employees. This includes any employees who are exposed or potentially exposed to
hazardous substances (including hazardous waste) and who are engaged in clean-up operations;
corrective actions; voluntary clean-up operations; operations involving hazardous wastes at treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities; and emergency response operations.
State
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
CalEPA has jurisdiction over hazardous materials and wastes at the state level. The Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC) is the department of CalEPA responsible for implementing and enforcing
California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are known collectively as the Hazardous Waste Control Law.
DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the Federal RCRA and the
California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22,
Division 4.5). Although similar to RCRA, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law and its associated
regulations define hazardous waste more broadly and regulate a larger number of chemicals. Hazardous
wastes regulated by California but not by the U.S. EPA are called “non-RCRA hazardous wastes.” Other
laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment,
reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. Government Code Section 65962.5 (commonly referred to
as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, Department of Health
Services lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the SWRCB as having UST leaks and have
had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater, and lists from local
regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of hazardous waste/material.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-11 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Enforcement of directives from DTSC is handled at the local level, in this case the San Bernardino County
Department of Public Health (DPH) Environmental Health Services (EHS) division. The RWQCB also has the
authority to implement regulations regarding the management of soil and groundwater investigation.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
The RWQCB is a department of CalEPA that oversees investigation and cleanup of sites including USTs
where wastes have been discharged in order to protect the state water quality. The RWQCB regulates
wastewater discharges to surface waters and to groundwater. They also regulate stormwater discharges
from construction, industrial, and municipal activities. The RWQCB is the lead regulatory agency for the
Project site.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CAL FIRE has mapped fire threat potential throughout California. CAL FIRE ranks fire threats based on the
availability of fuel and the likelihood of an area burning (based on topography, fire history, and climate).
The rankings include no fire threat, moderate, high, and very high fire threat.
California Fire Code
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code,
contains the California Fire Code (CFC), included as Title 24, Part 9. The CFC includes provisions and
standards for emergency planning and preparedness, fire service features, fire protecti on systems,
hazardous materials, fire flow requirements, and fire hydrant locations and distribution.
Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act of 1985
The California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, known as the Hazardous Materials
Release Response Plans and Inventory Act or the Business Plan Act, requires businesses using hazardous
materials to prepare a plan that describes their facilities, inventories, emergency response plans, and
training programs. Businesses must submit this information to the County DPH. The Environmental Health
Division verifies the information and provides it to agencies responsible for protection of public heal th
and safety and the environment. Business Plans are required to include emergency response plans and
procedures in the event of a reportable release or threatened release of hazardous materials, including,
but not limited to, all of the following:
• Immediate notification to the administering agency and to the appropriate local emergency
rescue personnel.
• Procedures for the mitigation of a release or threatened release to minimize any potential harm
or damage to persons, property, or the environment.
• Evacuation plans and procedures, including immediate notice, for the business site.
Business Plans are also required to include training for all new employees, and annual training, including
refresher courses, for all employees in safety procedures in the event of a release or threatened release
of hazardous material.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-12 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazardous Waste Control Act
The Hazardous Waste Control Act created the state hazardous waste management program, which is
similar to but more stringent than the Federal RCRA program. The act is implemented by regulations
contained in Title 26 of the CCR, which describes the following required aspects for the proper
management of hazardous waste: identification and classification; generation and transportation; design
and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; treatment standards; operation of
facilities and staff training; and closure of facilities and liability requirements. These regulations list more
than 800 materials that may be hazardous and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and disposing
of such waste. Under the Hazardous Waste Control Act and Title 26, the generator of hazardous waste
must complete a manifest that accompanies the waste from generator to transporter to the ultimate
disposal location. Copies of the manifest must be filed with the DTSC.
Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program
The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified
Program) required the administrative consolidation of six hazardous materials and waste programs
(Program Elements) under one agency, a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The Program Elements
consolidated under the Unified Program are Hazardous Waste Generator and On‐site Hazardous Waste
Treatment Programs (a.k.a. Tiered Permitting); Above-ground Petroleum Storage Tank SPCC; Hazardous
Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program (a.k.a. Hazardous Materials Disclosure or
“Community‐Right‐To‐Know”); California Accidental Release Prevention Program (Cal ARP); UST Program;
and Uniform Fire Code Plans and Inventory Requirements.
The Unified Program is intended to provide relief to businesses complying with the overlapping and
sometimes conflicting requirements of formerly independently managed programs. The Unified Program
is implemented at the local government level by CUPAs. Most CUPAs have been established as a function
of a local environmental health or fire department. Some CUPAs have contractual agreements with
another local agency, a participating agency, which implements one or more Program Elements in
coordination with the CUPA. The Project site is located within San Bernardino County. The CUPA
designated for San Bernardino County is the Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino County
Fire Department.
Department of Toxic Substance Control
As previously described in this section, DTSC is a department of CalEPA and is the primary agency in
California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce
the hazardous waste produced in California. Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to
handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. CGC
Section 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste facilities
and sites, Department of Health Services lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the
SWRCB as having UST leaks and have had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or
groundwater and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a known migration of
hazardous waste/material.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-13 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The DTSC publishes guidelines which are intended to regulate the presence of toxic materials while
minimizing risks to sensitive human receptors. These publications and policies include the Toxicity Criteria
Selection for Risk Assessments, Screening Levels, and Remediation Goals; Preliminary Endangerment
Assessment Guidance Manual (PEA Guidance Manual); and Human Health Risk Assessment Note 3 – DTSC-
Modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs). Adherence to the regulations within these guidelines ensures the
continued protection of human receptors from potential hazards and risks.
California Office of Emergency Services
To protect the public health and safety and the environment, the California Office of Emergency Services
(OES) is responsible for establishing and managing statewide standards for business and area plans
relating to the handling and release or threatened release of hazardous materials. Basic information on
hazardous materials handled, used, stored, or disposed of (including location, type, quantity, and the
health risks) needs to be available to firefighters, public safety officers, and regulatory agencies. The
information must be included in these institutions’ business plans to prevent or mitigate the damage to
the health and safety of persons and the environment from the release or threatened release of these
materials into the workplace and environment.
These regulations are covered under Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code Article 1 –
Hazardous Materials Release Response and Inventory Program (Sections 25500 to 25520) and Article 2 –
Hazardous Materials Management (Sections 25531 to 255 43.3). CCR Title 19, Public Safety, Division 2,
OES, Chapter 4 – Hazardous Material Release Reporting, Inventory, and Response Plans, Article 4
(Minimum Standards for Business Plans) establishes minimum statewide standards for Hazardous
Materials Business Plans (HMBP). These plans shall include the following: (1) a hazardous material
inventory in accordance with Sections 2652 to 2655; (2) emergency response plans and procedures in
accordance with Section 2658; and (3) training program information in accordance with Section 2659.
Business plans contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous
materials stored, used, or disposed of in the state. Each business shall prepare a HMBP if that business
uses, handles, or stores a hazardous material or an extremely hazardous material in quantities greater
than or equal to the following: 500 pounds of a solid substance, 55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of
compressed gas, a hazardous compressed gas in any amount, or hazardous waste in any quantity.
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) is the primary agency
responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. Cal/OSHA standards
are generally more stringent than Federal regulations. The employer is required to monitor worker
exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure (8 CCR Sections 337‐340). The
regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident‐
prevention programs, and hazardous substance exposure warnings.
In addition, Cal/OSHA regulates medical/infectious waste, including management of sharps, requirements
for containers that hold or store medical/infectious waste, labeling of medical/infectious waste
bags/containers, and employee training.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-14 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
California Health and Safety Code
CalEPA has established rules governing the use of hazardous materials and the management of hazardous
wastes. California HSC Section 25531, et seq. incorporate the requirement of Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act and the Clean Air Act as they pertain to hazardous materials. HSC Section 25534
directs owners or operators storing, handling, or using regulated substances exceeding threshold planning
quantities to develop and implement a Risk Management Plan. The Risk Management Plans are submitted
to the administering agency and possibly U.S. EPA, depending upon the chemical and the amount, for
review.
Hazardous Materials Transportation
Section 31303 of the California Vehicle Code and U.S. Department of Transportation regulate hazardous
materials transport. The California Highway Patrol and Caltrans are the enforcement agencies. Cal OES
provides emergency response services involving hazardous materials incidents.
Hazardous Materials in Structures: Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint
Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to asbestos -
containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP), including Construction Safety Orders Section 1529
(pertaining to ACM) and Section 1532.1 (pertaining to LBP) from Title 8 of the CCR, and Part 61, Subpart M,
of the CFR (pertaining to ACM). In California, ACM and LBP abatement must be performed and monitored
by contractors with appropriate certification from the California DHS. Asbestos is also regulated as a
hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and a potential worker safety hazard under the authority
of Cal/OSHA.
Requirements for limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation are specified in
SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities). CGC Sections 1529 and
1532.1 provide for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection and good working
practice by workers exposed to lead and ACMs.
Certified Unified Program Agency
A CUPA is an agency of a county or city that administers several state programs regulating hazardous
materials and hazardous wastes. SBCFD is the CUPA for all unincorporated areas and incorporated cities
and towns. SBCFD administers the following programs:
• Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program
• California Accidental Release Prevention Program, a combination of federal and state programs
for the prevention of accidental release of regulated toxic and flammable substances
• Underground Storage Tanks Program
• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program
• Hazardous Waste Generator and On-site Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs Program
Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) and Hazardous Material Inventory Statement (HMIS) in
California Fire Code Program.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-15 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Regional
San Bernardino County Public Health Agencies
The County of San Bernardino DHS EHS Division has regulatory control over hazardous and solid waste,
land use, wastewater.
Additionally, the Department of Public Works manages solid waste, transportation, and stormwater. This
department also manages all construction and demolition activities.
The Hazardous Materials Division of the SBCFD is designated by the State Secretary for Environmental
Protection as the Certified Unified Program Agency or "CUPA" for the County of San Bernardino in order
to focus the management of specific environmental programs at the local government level. The CUPA is
charged with the responsibility of conducting compliance inspections for over 7,000 regulated facilities in
San Bernardino County. The SBCFD manages six hazardous material and hazardous waste programs. This
includes hazardous waste management and above/underground storage tanks. The CUPA program is
designed to consolidate, coordinate, and uniformly and consistently administer permits, inspection
activities, and enforcement activities throughout San Bernardino County.3
San Bernardino County Emergency Operations Plan
The City of Fontana adheres to the County-wide San Bernardino Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which
provides a comprehensive, single source of guidance and procedures for the County to prepare for and
respond to significant or catastrophic natural, environmental, or conflict-related risks that produce
situations requiring coordinated response. The EOP describes the operations of the County’s Emergency
Operations Center, which is the central management entity responsible for directing and coordinating the
various City departments and other agencies in their emergency response activities. The County’s
Emergency Operations Center centralizes the collection and dissemination of information about the
emergency and makes policy-level decision about response priorities and the allocation of resources. As
part of the City’s Emergency Management Program, the County’s Emergency Services Manager is
responsible for ensuring the readiness of the EOP.4
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the air pollution control agency for Orange
County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The agency’s
primary responsibility is ensuring that state and federal ambient air quality standards are attained and
maintained in the SCAB. The SCAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations
concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutan ts, inspecting
stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and
meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public
3 San Bernardino County Fire Department. 2020. About CUPA (Certified Unified Program Agency). https://sbcfire.org/hazmatcupa/ (accessed
June 2022).
4 County of San Bernardino. 2018. Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) Part I - Basic Plan.
https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/SBCFire/documents/OES/2018_EOP_Update.pdf (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-16 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
education campaigns, and many other activities. All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations
in effect at the time of construction.
The following is a list of applicable SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated
with the Project:
• Rule 1166 (Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil) – This rule
requires that any person conducting excavation for underground storage tanks or transferring
piping which currently stores, or previously stored VOCs shall operate under an approved
mitigation plan, conduct consistent VOC monitoring, and provide notice to an Executive officer at
least 24 hours prior to excavation activities. If VOC-contaminated soil is encountered, remediation
tasks outlined in this rule are to be implemented by the person handling the VOC -encountered
soil. This includes the segregation of contaminated soils, the use of vapor suppressants, consistent
visual inspections, and proper storage and handling methods.
• Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities) – This rule provides
guidelines intended to limit and prevent the exposure asbestos to the outside air. Requirements
within this rule include the completion of facility surveys, proper notification of SCAQMD, an
established schedule of removal, accepted removal actions, storage and handling procedures,
climate considerations, and additional regulations based on disposal facility and site
characteristics. This rule also includes requirements for material handling training for those that
would be in contact with contaminated soils and proper testing protocols.
• Rule 1466 (Control of Particulate Emissions from Soils with Toxic Air Contaminants) – This rule
requires that any person performing earth-moving activities conduct consistent monitoring of
PM10 particles, or particles which are generally 10 micrometers or smaller. This rule includes the
installation of PM10 monitors, the use of a data acquisition system (DAS), and coordination with
an Executive Officer. This rule has been expanded in January 2022 to include additional measures
for the reduction of fugitive dust.
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
Noise and Safety Element
This Element5 describes hazards that exist in Fontana and the measures that the City is taking to address
them. Some naturally occurring hazards may be unavoidable, but their impacts on communities can be
reduced through planning and preparation. Thus, the Noise and Safety Element addresses natural hazards
and human activities that may pose a threat to public safety within the following topic areas: wildfires,
geological and seismic hazards, flooding, hazardous materials, and noise, which are discussed in their
respective chapters of this EIR. Specifically related to this chapter, the Noise and Safety Element discusses
hazards and hazardous materials and the LHMP, discussed above. The General Plan expects that
emergencies will occur even when precautions are taken against hazards, the Noise and Safety Element
describes the City’s goals and policies to prepare and respond to emergencies.
5 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035. Chapter 11 – Noise and Safety.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26750/Chapter -11---Noise-and-Safety (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-17 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Goal 4: Seismic injury and loss of life, property damage, and other impacts caused by seismic
shaking, fault rupture, ground failure, earthquake-induced landslides, and other
earthquake-induced ground deformation are minimized in Fontana
Policy 4.2: The City shall continue to ensure that current geologic knowledge and peer (third
party) review are incorporated into the design, planning, and construction stages of a
project and that site-specific data are applied to each project.
Goal 7: Threats to public and private property from urban and wildland fire hazards are
reduced in Fontana.
Policy 7.1: The City shall continue to require residential, commercial, and industrial structures to
implement fire hazard-reducing designs and features.
City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-approved Local Hazard Mitigation Plan6
(LHMP) provides natural hazard profiles which describe each hazard that is considered to pose a risk to
the City; a risk assessment which measures the potential impact to life, property and economic impacts
resulting from the identified hazards; a vulnerability assessment which includes an inventory of the
numbers and types of buildings and their tabulated values that are subject to the identified hazards; and
mitigation goals, objectives and actions relative to each hazard.
The City developed the LHMP in coordination with an internal/external planning team including
representatives from City departments, external stakeholders/agencies, and the general public. As
required by the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency, all LHMPs
must be updated, adopted, and approved every five years in order to validate and in corporate new
information into the plan and identify progress that has been made since the last approval of the plan.
The City’s current 2017 LHMP is an update to its previously adopted 2012 LHMP.
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 11, Section 11.2
Any new development or improvement of real property within the limits of the City shall be subject to the
imposition of fees for capital improvements necessary to provide fire protection services. Pursuant to
Article VI of Chapter 21 of the Fontana Municipal Code (Fontana MC), the City may allow partial or
complete satisfaction of the fee required by this section through execution of an agreement requiring
construction of public improvements and/or dedication of property. The fee required under this section
shall be due as provided for in Article V of Chapter 21 of the Fontana MC.
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 30, Article IX – Overlay Districts, Division 8 – Fire Hazard
Overlay District
The fire hazard overlay provisions apply to areas designated on the Fontana GP land use map. The fire
hazard overlay district is created to provide greater public safety to City residents and structures in areas
prone to wildfires, by establishing development standards for these areas. Projects within the overlay
6 City of Fontana. 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017 -Local-
Hazard-Mitigation-Plan. (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-18 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
district, required a fuel modification zone plan to be prepared for each new tentative tract map, parcel
map or design review application. The Project is located within the overlay.
4.9.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning hazards and hazardous materials. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist
Form have been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a
significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmental through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials;
• 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;
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
• 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;
• 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;
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere within an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan; or
• Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria in order to determine the level
of impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. This analysis also considers existing regulations,
laws and standards that serve to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts., as well as
recommendations from existing site evaluations. Where significant impacts may remain, feasible
mitigation measures are recommended, where warranted, to avoid or lessen the potential for significant
adverse impacts to occur.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on hazards and hazardous materials examines the Project’s temporary (i.e.,
construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/
thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the
surrounding characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in
environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the r egulatory framework enacted to protect the
environment.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-19 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on, available information in public databases
including local planning documents, a site evaluation of the Project site; review of Project maps and
drawings; and analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs. The determination that a Project
component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on standards related to hazards
and hazardous materials considers the available policies and regulations established by federal, state,
regional, and local agencies, and the amount of deviation from these policies in the Project’s components.
4.9.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.9-1 Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction and Operation
The Project propose the construction of a warehouse building on a site currently occupied with a series
of industrial buildings, respectively, and associated infrastructure improvements. Construction activities
would include demolition, grading, building, paving, architectural coating, landscaping, and any of the
applicable off-site improvements conditioned by the City. During construction of the Project site, the
transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials on-site and off-site during would occur, which include
fuels, paints, mechanical fluids, and solvents, but would not be present in such a quantity or used in such
a manner that would pose a significant hazard to the public. In addition, should a spill or other hazardous
materials incident occur, construction staff are well versed in how to handle such a situation, including
containment and who to contact if such a situation occurs. Additionally, debris found during demolition
would include commonly found structural components as well as potentially contaminated soils as well
as other potentially hazardous material products and byproducts due to the Project site’s history of
industrial use. Although no export of soil is anticipated from the Project site, any disposal or transport of
demolition materials and any graded soils from the Project site may increase the potential for the
exposure of hazardous materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measures (MMs) HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would
ensure proper handling of contaminated soils and substances which may be encountered and implement
assistance in the management of soil during planned future development due to the Project site ’s
historical industrial use.
The operations of the proposed facility would be expected to use limited hazardous materials and
substances which would be limited to cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for site
landscaping. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be governed by
existing regulations of several agencies, including the U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of Transportation, and
the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations
governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all
potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the
potential for safety impacts. These regulations ensure that hazardous materials/waste users, generators,
and transporters provide operational safety and measures to reduce threats to public health and safety.
For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be
immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-20 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
with applicable state and local regulations for the cleanup and disposal of that contaminant. All
contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed
disposal or treatment facility. The Project would also be operated with strict adherence to all emergency
response plan requirements set forth by the City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP).7
Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by SBCFD would be
required through the duration of the Project construction phase. Therefore, hazards to the public or the
environment arising from the routine use of hazardous materials during Project construction and
operations would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 If potentially contaminated soil is identified during site disturbance activities for the
Project, as evidenced by discoloration, odor, detection by instruments, or other signs,
a qualified environmental professional shall inspect the site, determine the need for
sampling to confirm the nature and extent of contamination, and provide a written
report to the Site Developer or Lead Agency, as applicable, stating the recommended
course of action. Depending on the nature and extent of contamination, the qualified
environmental professional shall have the authority to temporarily suspend
construction activity at that location for the protection of workers or the public. If, in
the opinion of the qualified environmental professional, substantial remediation may
be required, Site Developer or Lead Agency, as applicable, shall contact
representatives of the San Bernardino County Fire Department and/or DTSC for
guidance and oversight and shall comply with all performance standards and
requirements of the respective agency for proper removal and disposal of
contaminated materials.
MM HAZ-2 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any buildings or structures on-site, if
hazardous substances are used and/or stored greater than as specified by the
applicable health and safety code, the Project applicant shall prepare and implement
a Hazardous Materials Management Plan in accordance with all applicable standards
set forth by the Hazardous Material Division of the San Bernardino County Fire
Department, for facilities that store, handle, or use regulated substances as defined
in the California Health and Safety Code Section 25532 in excess of threshold
quantities, identifying and developing methods of protection from the hazards
presented by the hazardous materials. This report shall also explain the proposed
facility's intended methods of operation and list all of the proposed materials, their
quantities, classifications, and the effects of any chemical (material) inter -mixing in
the event of an accident or spill. This plan shall be prepared by a qualified person,
firm, or corporation and submitted to Fontana Building & Safety and reviewed and
approved by the San Bernardino County Fire Department through the Certified
Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) process prior to implementation as required by the
California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program.
7 City of Fontana. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-
Hazard-Mitigation-Plan. (accessed August 2023).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-21 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.9-2 Would the Project 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?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
The construction of the Project could result in hazards to the public or the environment through the
accidental upset or release of hazardous materials caused by accidental spillage of hazardous materials
used during construction phases, or as a result of the exposure of contaminated soil during grading
activities. The Project site is not listed on an NPL or Superfund site, and there are no oil wells within 1,000
feet. No significant environmental concerns were noted on the historical aerial photographs. Da tabase
searches did not reveal any USTs.
The demolition of existing structures and removal of graded soil throughout the site could potentially
release some of the hazardous materials historically found on the site. Although no current violations
were noted, given the age of the on-site structures, there is a moderate likelihood that asbestos
containing materials (ACM) are present in the building materials on the Project site. Therefore, in
accordance with MM HAZ-2, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any buildings or structures
on-site, a comprehensive ACM survey shall be conducted, reducing impacts to less than significant.
Likewise, no evidence of CREC or HRECs in connection with the Project site were found, however, poor
housekeeping practices were noted to be implemented at the Davis Partners facility which constitutes it
as an REC. There are no designated areas of hazardous substances storage at this Project site, no
secondary containments were utilized, and unlabeled 55-gallon drums were identified on the western
building. Additionally, due to the distance of the Mid-Valley Landfill to the Project site, there is potential
for landfill gas to migrate towards the site, which could make the Mid-Valley Landfill an REC. Therefore, a
Phase II Soil and Gas investigation was conducted to assess whether elevated concentrations of selected
chemicals were present in soil in the vicinity of the chemical uses, and to assess whether elevated
concentrations of VOCs and methane gas were present in soil vapor due to the off-site Mid-Valley landfill.
The Phase II investigation (Appendix H) included the collection of soil samples in the vicinity of chemical
uses at the Davis Partners property. Laboratory results indicated no detectable concentrations of
petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, and hexavalent chromium, and no detectable to low concentra tions of
Title 22 metals, well below the state and/or federal screening levels for human health, and background
concentrations of arsenic. Moreover, laboratory results of VOCs in soil gas indicated low concentrations,
well below the state and federal modified screening levels. Methane was detected below the lower
explosive limit, indicating a low likelihood of an explosive condition.
Based on these results, there is a low likelihood that elevated concentrations of selected chemicals are
present in soil in the vicinity of the chemical uses. However, due to proximity of the Mid-Valley Sanitary
Landfill, there is still potential for methane gas exposure, therefore, MM HAZ-3 would be implemented,
which would require the Project to be designed and constructed in accordance with 27 CCR Section
21190(g), which will prevent gas migration into the building.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-22 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Despite the limited potential for the exposure of the public and environment to hazardous materials, with
implementation of MM HAZ-2 and MM HAZ-3, and compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local
regulations, the impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation incorporated.
Operations
Project operations would not involve the routine transport, use, and storage of materials/chemicals
typical of industrial facilities. Use of these materials could 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. However, as discussed in Impact 4.9-1 above, the routine
transport, use, and disposal of these materials during Project operations must adhere to federal, state,
and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. The Project
would also be subject to compliance with the regulatory framework which would ensure that Project
operations would not 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. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-3 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any buildings or structures on -site,
the Master Developer or Site Developer, as applicable, shall conduct a comprehensive
asbestos containing materials (ACM) survey to identify the locations and quantities
of ACM in above-ground structures. The Master Developer or Site Developer, as
applicable, shall retain a licensed or certified asbestos consultant to inspect buildings
and structures on-site. The consultant’s report shall include requirements for
abatement, containment, and disposal of ACM, if encountered, in accordance with
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD’s) Rule 1403.
MM HAZ-4 All developments within 1,000 feet of the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with the following, or in accordance with an
equivalent design which will prevent gas migration into the building as per 27 CCR
Section 21190(g):
1. a geomembrane or equivalent system with low permeability to landfill gas shall
be installed between the concrete floor slab of the building and subgrade;
2. a permeable layer of open graded material of clean aggregate with a minimum
thickness of 12 inches shall be installed between the geomembrane and the
subgrade or slab;
3. a geotextile filter shall be utilized to prevent the introduction of fines into the
permeable layer;
4. perforated venting pipes shall be installed within the permeable layer, and shall
be designed to operate without clogging;
5. the venting pipe shall be constructed with the ability to be connected to an
induced draft exhaust system;
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-23 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
6. automatic methane gas sensors shall be installed within the permeable gas layer,
and inside the building to trigger an audible alarm when methane gas
concentrations are detected; and
7. periodic methane gas monitoring shall be conducted inside all buildings and
underground utilities in accordance with Article 6, of Subchapter 4 of this chapter
(Section 20920 et seq.).
Impact 4.9-3 Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
Construction of the Project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials on-site
and off-site, which include fuels, paints, mechanical fluids, and solvents, but would not be present in such
a quantity or used in such a manner that would pose a significant hazard to nearby schools. As stated
previously, the nearest schools to the Project site are Sierra Lakes Elementary School, located
approximately one mile west of the Project site; Wayne Ruble Middle School, located approximately 1 .1
miles south of the Project site; and AB Miller High School, located approximately 1.2 miles southwest of
the Project site. None of these schools are located along the officially designated local truck route, Sierra
Avenue, located adjacent to the Project site. Note, however, that Project-related truck traffic would be
prohibited from using Sierra Avenue. This would fall outside of the 0.25-mile requirement of this
threshold. Notwithstanding, the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials must adhere
to federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous
substances. Compliance with the regulatory framework would ensure Project construction would not
create a significant hazard to nearby schools due to the transport of any hazardous materials on local
roadways. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.9-4 Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project site is not included on the hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to California Government
Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List).8 The Project site is not included on the hazardous sites list compiled
8 California, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List).
https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/. (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-24 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. The Phase I ESA indicated that there were no
RECs identified in association with the Project site. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.9-5 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?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
The Project site is not within proximity to, or within two miles of a public or private use airport. The nearest
airstrips are the Ontario International Airport (located roughly 11 miles to the southwest) and the San
Bernardino International Airport (located roughly 1 1 miles to the southeast). There are no associated
safety hazards or noise issues. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.9-6 Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
When construction occurs on the Project site, with the exception of worker vehicle trips and
transportation of construction materials, the majority of the proposed work would occur within the
boundaries of the site and would not impede access to nearby roa dways. There would be required off-
site improvements as part of the Project. However, all off-site improvements to be constructed will
require a Traffic Control Plan be processed for approval by the City to ensure adequate roadway
circulation can be maintained during off-site construction. The City does not designate any roads as
emergency evacuation routes and any future construction activities on the site would not affect any
evacuation route and would not interfere with the City’s emergency management pr ogram. As discussed,
construction activities may require the transport of heavy equipment and materials to and from the site.
These activities may temporarily impede traffic flows; however, these impediments would be localized
and short-term in nature. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
The County has adopted an EOP to identify evacuation routes, emergency facilities, and City personnel
and equipment available to effectively deal with emergency situations. No revisions to the adopted EOP
would be required as a result of construction on the Project site. The nearest fire station is the
San Bernardino County Fire Station 78 (located at 7110 Citrus Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336), located
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-25 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
approximately 1.8 miles south of the Project site. Should a response from the station or other fire station
to the site or other nearby uses be required, response times would not be impacted because primary
access to all major roads would be maintained during demolition and constructi on.
Furthermore, design of any needed roadway improvements and subsequent construction would comply
with the applicable federal, state, and local requirements related to emergency access and evacuation
plans. The proposed design and construction plans for any future construction and roadway
improvements would be reviewed and approved by the City engineering department and fire marsha l (if
needed) during the plan review and prior to project approval.
Neither construction or operations of the Project site would disrupt or interfere with emergency access
or impede access to nearby roadways or would interfere with the City’s emergency management program.
The Project would comply with design standards for emergency services and would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard and mitigation is not required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.9-7 Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The City is categorized as an LRA by CAL FIRE. Also, according to CAL FIRE, the Project site is designated as
a Non-VHFHSZ.9 However, according to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Project site is within a
High FHSZ within the City. The Project site is located within the City limits and is surrounded by developed
land. Although the Project site is not located in a VHFHSZ, the City, in conjunction with the SBCFD reviews
all building plans for compliance with the California Building Code, state and local statutes, ordinances,
and regulations relating to the prevention of fire, the storage of hazardous materials, and the protection
of life and property against fire, explosion, and exposure to hazardous materials. Adherence to regulations
already in place through the development application and review process at the City would reduce the
potential impacts associated with fire hazards as a result of wildland fires to less than significant.
In addition, as noted above, the Fontana MC has a fire hazard overlay district provision for areas
designated on the Fontana GP land use map. Projects within the overlay district must prepare a fuel
modification zone plan for each new tentative tract map, parcel map, or design review application.
Therefore, in conformance with the Fontana MC, a fuel modification zone plan has been prepared for the
Project. The fuel modification zone plan for the Project establishes fuel zones in conformance with Section
30-658 of the Fontana MC that includes permanent fuel modification zones, access requirements and
9 CAL FIRE. 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CAL FIRE – Fontana.
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf (a ccessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-26 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
protection measures. The Project’s fuel modification zone plan protects the site from wildfire exposure
and reduces exposure to the City of Fontana residents, people, and structures from wildfires.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.9.6 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of hazardous materials impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative
development in the vicinity of the Project site.
Impacts associated with hazardous materials are often site-specific and localized. This EIR evaluates
environmental hazards in connection with the Project site and surrounding areas. Regarding the off-site
environmental hazards, the database search documents the findings of various governmental database
searches regarding properties with known or suspected releases of hazardous materials within a search
radius of up to one mile from the site and serves as the basis for defining the cumulative impacts study
area.
Cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would result from projects that combine
to increase exposure to hazards and hazardous materials. The potential for cumulative impacts to occur
is limited since the impacts from hazardous materials use on-site are site-specific. Although some of the
cumulative projects and other future projects associated with buildout of the surrounding communities
also have potential impacts associated with hazardous materials, the environmental concerns associa ted
with hazardous materials are typically site-specific. It is expected that future development within the area
must comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations applicable to hazardous materials.
Each project is required to address any issues related to hazardous materials or wastes on a project -
specific basis. With adherence to applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing hazardous
materials, the potential risks associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant. The
incremental effects of the Project in relation to hazards and hazardous materials, if any, are anticipated
to be minimal, and any effects would be site-specific.
Therefore, considering the above, Project impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels, and
the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts is not otherwise considered to be “cumulatively
considerable.”
4.9.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-27 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.9.8 References
CAL FIRE. 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CAL FIRE – Fontana.
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf.
California, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2022. DTSC's Hazardous Waste and
Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List). https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/.
City of Fontana. 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035. Chapter 11 – Noise and Safety.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26750/Chapter-11---Noise-and-Safety.
County of San Bernardino. 2018. Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) Part I - Basic Plan.
https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/SBCFire/documents/OES/2018_EOP_Update.pdf.
San Bernardino County Fire Department. 2020. About CUPA (Certified Unified Program Agency
https://sbcfire.org/hazmatcupa/.
Hazard Management Consulting. 2020. Results of a Soil and Soil Gas Investigation, 17010 and 17051
Windflower Avenue, Fontana, California.
Hazard Management Consulting. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.9-28 4.9 | Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This page intentionally left blank.
4.10
Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-1 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10.1 Introduction
This section describes the hydrologic and water quality conditions on and around the Sierra Distribution
Facility Project (Project) site and evaluates whether implementation of the Project would result in adverse
effects to such resources. The setting, context, and impact analysis in this section is based on the
following:
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental
Impact Report.
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Final Environmental
Impact Report.
• City of Fontana. 2021. Water Quality Management Plan Handbook.
• Huitt-Zollars, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Hydrology Calculations (attached as Appendix I to this
Draft EIR).
• Huitt-Zollars, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (attached as Appendix I to
this Draft EIR).
The analysis includes a description of the current hydrological conditions of the Project site and any
pertinent federal, state, or local regulations and policies intended for the management of hydrological
resources. If the Project is determined to pose a potentially significant impact to the environment,
appropriate mitigation measures would be included to reduce the significance of each impact.
4.10.2 Environmental Setting
Regional Hydrology and Drainage
The Project is located within San Bernardino County in the City of Fontana. The Project site is located at
the northeast corner of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive. The Project site is located
in the Upper Santa Ana River watershed. The Santa Ana Region is the smallest of the nine Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regions in the State of California, covering approximately 2,800 square
miles of land roughly between Los Angeles and San Diego. Regional boundaries for each RWQC B are based
on watersheds and water quality requirements are based on the unique differences in climate,
topography, geology, and hydrology for each watershed.1 The region covers portions of Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties.2 Surface waters start in the upper erosion zone of the Santa
Ana River watershed, primarily in the San Bernardino and San Gabriel mountains. This upper zone has the
highest gradient and soils and geology that do not allow large quantities of percolation of surface water
into the ground. In sum, the Santa Ana River watershed drains an approximately 2,650 square mile area
1 California Water Boards. 2019. About the California Water Boards.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/publications_forms/publications/factsheets/docs/boardoverview.pdf (accessed August 2022).
2 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1995. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana River Basin.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.html (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-2 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
and is bound on the south by the Santa Margarita watershed, on the east by the Salton Sea and Southern
Mojave watersheds, and on the north and west by the Mojave and San Gabriel watersheds. It is the
principal surface flow water body within the region and runs southwesterly across San Bernardino,
Riverside, and Orange counties, where it discharges into the Pacific Ocean at the City of Huntington Beach.
The total length of the Santa Ana River and its major tributaries is approximately 700 miles.
The Santa Ana River watershed is divided into smaller specific watersheds through the region which is
generally arid and therefore has little natural perennial surface water. Because of the aridity, water is
stored in a variety of downstream water storage reservoirs including Lake Perris, Lake Mathews, and
Big Bear Lake as well as in some flood control areas including the Prado Dam area and Seven Oaks Dam
area. The watershed is regulated by the Santa Ana RWQCB.
The Santa Ana Watershed is managed in part by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA). The
SAWPA consists of five member agencies including Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Inland
Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), Orange County Water District (OCWD), San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District (SBMWD), and Western Municipal Water District (WMWD). Due to the scale of the
watershed, the Project site is denoted by a single star on the map.
Surface Water Hydrology
The Fontana Water Company (FWC) provides imported surface water to the Project site.3 FWC purchases
untreated imported State Water Project water from the IEUA and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District (SBVMWD).4 The imported water is treated at FWC’s Summit Plant.5
The Project site is located within the East Etiwanda Creek-Santa Ana River Watershed
(HUC12 180702031001). This is a smaller drainage basin that covers approximately 138,519 acres
(approximately 216.4 square miles)6. All inputs into this basin are directed toward the Santa Ana River and
flow towards the southwest to the Aliso Creek-Santa Ana River Watershed, ultimately discharging into the
Pacific Ocean.7
Groundwater Hydrology
The FWC receives groundwater from three adjudicated basins: the Chino Basin, Rialto-Colton Basin, and
the Lytle Basin.8 The Rialto-Colton Basin is an adjudicated basin, according to the Department of Water
Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118, DWR has not identified the Rialto-Colton Basin as a basin in critical
condition of overdraft.9 While the Chino Basin is the main source of water for FWC , the Rialto-Colton Basin
3 Fontana Water Company. (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. pg. 6-4. https://www.fontanawater.com/wp -
content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf (accessed August 2022).
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 California Waterboards. 2022. HUC Watersheds.
https://gispublic.waterboards.ca.gov/portal/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=b6c1bab9acc148e7ac726e33c43402ee
(accessed August 2022).
7 Ibid.
8 Fontana Water Company. (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. pg. 6-5. https://www.fontanawater.com/wp -
content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf (accessed August 2022).
9 Ibid.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-3 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
provides up to 5,865 acre fee (AF) of water to FWC .10 The Rialto-Colton Basin is bounded by the San Gabriel
Mountains on the northwest, the San Jacinto fault on the northeast, the Badlands on the southeast, and
the Rialto-Colton fault on the southwest.11 The Rialto-Colton Basin generally drains to the southeast,
toward the Santa Ana River.
Groundwater is recharged through direct infiltration or precipitation on the subbasin floor, by infiltration
of surface flow, and by underflow of groundwater from adjacent basins. The three principal recharge
facilities in the subbasin are Lytle Creek in the northwestern part of the subbasin, Reche Canyon in the
southeastern part, and the Santa Ana River in the south-central part. Total groundwater storage within
the subbasin is approximately 2,517,000 AF. In 1984, an estimated 1,512,000 AF of water was stored
within the subbasin.12
Existing Site Drainage
The Project site occupies approximately 18.3 net acres of land in the northern portion of the City. The site
is comprised of six parcels that have been developed with light industrial use buildings.
As stated in the PWQMP the proposed drainage at the Project site would be categorized into one drainage
management area (DMA). The DMA was designed to accommodate the anticipated run-off from rain
events and provide an efficient flow pattern for the site. The DMA would be approximately 18.3 acres in
size and include two drainage areas totaling 795,236 square feet (sf). Drainage Area 1 (DA1) occupies the
majority of the eastern portion site (590,312 sf). Drainage Area 2 (DA2) occupies 209,924 sf of the western
portion of the Project site. The existing Project site was calculated as having 90,250 sf of pervious area
with the remaining drainage area considered impervious. Previously developed industrial land cover types
have resulted in the majority of the Project area being largely made up of impervious surfaces.
The PWQMP also notes that soil composition of the Project site belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group A
(HSG A). These soils typically have less than 10 percent clay and more than 90 percent sand or gravel and
have gravel or sand textures. This allows for low run-off potential by allowing water to percolate freely
through the soil.
The nearest major watercourse to the Project site is the Santa Ana River and it is the nearest unlined water
body downstream of the Project site. The Santa Ana River is approximately five miles southeast of the
Project site. The Santa Ana River flows for over 100 miles north to south from the San Bernardino
Mountains to the southwest coast near Huntington Beach. The Santa Ana River is also the largest
watershed in southern California.
10 Ibid.
11 California Waterboards. 2022. HUC Watersheds.
https://gispublic.waterboards.ca.gov/portal/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=b6c1bab9acc148e7ac726e33c43402ee
(accessed August 2022).
12 California Department of Water Resources. 2006. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 January 20, 2006, Update: Hydrologic Region South
Coast – Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-
Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/8_002_04_Rialto-ColtonSubbasin.pdf (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-4 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
The Project site is relatively flat. In general, the site slopes gently downward from north to the south at a
an approximately two percent gradient. The Project site elevation ranges from approximately 1,631 feet
mean sea level (msl) in the northern region of the site to 1,614 feet msl in the southern region.13
Flood Hazard, Ts unami, or Seiche Zone
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rated Map (FIRM) shows the Project
site being covered by one main indication panel, which is 06071C 7920H, effective August 28, 2008. Based
on a review of this panel, this is an area of minimal flood hazard. More specifically, the Project site is
located within “Zone X,” which corresponds to areas with minimal flood hazard outside of the 500 -year
floodplain (also referred to as the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain).14 Therefore, no portions of the
Project site are located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Additionally, the site is not listed by the
County of San Bernardino as being in any mapped dam inundation hazard zone. A seiche is a wave or
sloshing of a body of water that is at least partially impounded caused by strong wind or seismic shaking.
The site is not downstream of large bodies of water or tanks which potentially could cause flooding and
inundate the Project site. The risk of seiche damage following a seismic event at the site is considered low.
Water Quality
Groundwater Quality
The Project site is within the Rialto-Colton Basin (RCB). The RCB is about 10 miles long and varies in width
from about 3.5 miles in the northwestern boundary to about 1.5 miles in the southeastern boundary.
Chino-Groundwater Basin
The Project site lies within the boundary of the IEUA. The Project site is underlain by groundwater
resources associated with the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin. The FWC relies on groundwater resources
from this groundwater basin for a portion of its total water supply and would supply water to the Project
site. Tetrachloroethylene was detected within the groundwater basin at levels above five microgram s per
liter (ug/L) in wells F10C and F49A.15
According to the infiltration report prepared for the Project, groundwater was not encountered in any of
the infiltration test borings.16
Surface Water Quality
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify the waters of the state
that do not meet the designated beneficial uses and to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for
such waters, with oversight by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These waterbodies are
commonly referred to as impaired. A TMDL is a quantifiable assessment of potential water quality issues,
contributing sources, and load reductions or control actions needed to restore or protect bodies of water.
13 Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Infiltration Report.
14 FEMA, 2008. FEMA Flood Map Service Center . Available at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Fontana (accessed
August 2022).
15 Fontana Water Company. (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. pg. 6-7. https://www.fontanawater.com/wp -
content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf Accessed October 10, 2022.
16 Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Infiltration Report.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-5 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Parts of the Santa Ana River are included on the 303(d) list. The nearest segment to the Project site is Lytle
Creek and it is 303(d)-listed for pathogens.17
The PWQMP prepared for the Project identified potential categories of stormwater pollutants of concern
that could be generated by use of the Project site for the proposed uses. While some level of pollutant
loads is anticipated, the RWQCB places thresholds on the volumes of pollutants at which an impact would
occur. Numerous materials and chemicals are considered potential pollutants. These include the
following: 1) phosphorous, 2) nitrogen, 3) sediment, 4) metals, 5 ) oil and grease, 6) trash and debris,
7) pesticides and herbicides, 8) organic compounds, 9) other nutrients and 10) and bacterial or virus
pathogens.
To measure the levels of impairment to water quality, the measurement of certain chemicals and chemical
processes are performed. This is done to determine the number of pollutants in run-off, and which can
reach off-site and downstream surface water. The physical properties and chemical constituents of water
typically serve as the primary means for monitoring and evaluating water quality. These types of
pollutants can occur from uses in both r ural and urbanized areas. In more urbanized areas, such as the
Project site, the quantity of certain pollutants in the environment is typically a function of the intensity of
the land use. For instance, a high density of automobile traffic increases the av ailability of a variety of
potential pollutants (e.g., lead and hydrocarbons). In addition, other pollutants may come from the
overapplication of fertilizers and pesticides resulting in these materials being washed downstream and
affecting receiving waters. Some of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics and processes used
to evaluate the quality of surface run-off are as follows: 1) Dissolved Oxygen, 2) Chemical Oxygen Demand,
3) Total Dissolved Solids, 4) Specific Conductance, 5) Turbidity, and 6) Nitrogen (N).
The Project site does not have existing water bodies within its boundaries. This includes lakes, ponds,
rivers, streams, or intermittent waters. As discussed above, water would flow off the Project site to
downstream areas, but there are no existing water resources within the Project site. To manage pollutants
that may flow from such site, the County of San Bernardino has adopted the EPA National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations in an effort to reduce pollutants in urban run -off and
stormwater flows. The Santa Ana RWQCB issued the County a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0036), which establishes pollution prevention requirements for planned
developments. The County participates in an area-wide Urban Stormwater Runoff Management Program
to comply with the MS4 Permit requirements.
4.10.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
The Project site is subject to federal permit requirements under the federal CWA. The primary goals of
the CWA are to maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters and to make
all surface waters fishable and swimmable. The CWA forms the basic national framework for the
17 California Water Boards. ND. Final California 2010 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report).
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2010state_ir_reports/01560.shtml#7260 . (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-6 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
management of water quality and the control of pollution discharges; it provides the legal framework for
several water quality regulations, including the NPDES, effluent limitations, water quality standards,
pretreatment standards, antidegradation policy, nonpoint-source discharge programs, and wetlands
protection. The EPA has delegated the administrative responsibility for portions of the CWA to state and
regional agencies. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDE S
permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The SWRCB works
in coordination with the RWQCBs to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality.
Under the NPDES permit program, the EPA establishes regulations for discharging stormwater by
municipal and industrial facilities and construction activities. Section 402 of the CWA prohibits the
discharge of pollutants into “Waters of the United States” from any point source unless the discharge is
in compliance with an NPDES Permit.
The Anti-degradation Policy under EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulations (48 Federal Register 51400,
40 Code of Federal Regulations 131.12, November 8, 1983), requires states and tribes to establish a three-
tiered anti-degradation program to prevent a decrease in water quality standards.
• Tier 1—Maintains and protects existing uses and water quality conditions that support such uses.
Tier 1 is applicable to all surface waters.
• Tier 2—Maintains and protects “high quality” waters where existing conditions are better than
necessary to support “fishable/swimmable” waters. Water quality can be lowered in such waters
but not to the point at which it would interfere with existing or designed uses.
• Tier 3—Maintains and protects water quality in outstanding national resource waters. Water
quality cannot be lowered in such waters except for certain temporary changes.
Anti-degradation was explicitly incorporated into the federal CWA through 1987 amendments, codified in
Section 303(d)(4)(B), requiring satisfaction of anti-degradation requirements before making certain
changes in NPDES permits.
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires the SWRCB to list impaired water bodies that are too polluted or
otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes.
The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop
TMDLs for these waters.
Section 404 of the CWA is administered and enforced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Section 404 establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the
United States, including wetlands and coastal areas below the mean high tide. USACE administers the day-
to-day program, and reviews and considers individual permit decisions and jurisdictional determinations.
USACE also develops policy and guidance and enforces Section 404 provisions.
Federal Emergency Management Agency – National Flood Insurance Program
FEMA is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from, and mitigating against disasters. Among
other things, FEMA is responsible for coordinating the federal response to floods. The Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration within FEMA is responsible for administering the National Flood Insurance
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-7 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Program (NFIP) and other programs that provide assistance for mitigating damage from natural hazards.
Established in 1968, with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act, the NFIP is a federal program
enabling property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against
flood losses in exchange for state and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future
flood damages. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between communities and the federal
government. This insurance is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to
reduce the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Under the NPDES program (under Section 402 of the CWA), all facilities that discharge pollutants from any
point source into waters of the United States must have a NPDES permit. The term “pollutant” broadly
applies to any type of industrial, commercial, residential, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged
into water. Point sources can be publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), industrial facilities, and urban
run-off. The NPDES program addresses certain agricultural activities, but the majority are con sidered
nonpoint sources and are exempt from NPDES regulation. Direct sources discharge directly to receiving
waters, and indirect sources discharge to POTWs, which in turn discharge to receiving waters. Under the
national program, NPDES permits are issued only for direct point-source discharges. NPDES issues two
basic permit types: individual and general.
All construction sites one acre or more in size, must file for and obtain an NPDES permit. Another measure,
the Phase I Final Rule, requires an operator (such as a city) of a regulated MS4 to develop, implement, and
enforce a program to reduce pollutants in post-construction run-off. The San Bernardino County Public
Works Department enforces conditions of the MS4 NPDES permit on development and redevelopment
projects in the County’s jurisdiction.
State
California Toxics Rule
The California Toxics Rule is a federal regulation issued by the EPA with water quality criteria for
potentially toxic constituents in receiving waters with human health or aquatic life designated uses in
California. Criteria are applicable to the receiving water body and therefore must be calculated based on
the receiving waters’ probable hardness values for evaluation of acute (and chronic) toxicity criteria. At
higher hardness values for the receiving water, copper, lead, and zinc are more likely to be c omplexed
(bound with) components in the water column. This, in turn, reduces these metals’ bioavailability and
resulting potential toxicity.
Because of the intermittent nature of stormwater run-off, especially in southern California, the acute
criteria are more applicable to stormwater conditions than the chronic criteria and therefore are used in
assessing impacts. The acute criteria represent the highest concentration of a pollutant to which aquatic
life can be exposed for a short period of time without deleterious effects; the chronic criteria equal the
highest concentration to which aquatic life can be exposed for an extended period of time (four days)
without deleterious effects.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-8 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne Act)
The Porter-Cologne Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq) is the principal law governing water
quality regulation in California. It established a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the
beneficial uses of water. The Porter -Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and groundwater
and to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act the policy of the
state is as follows:
• That the quality of all the waters of the state shall be protected;
• That all activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest
water quality within reason; and
• That the state must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality
of water in the state from degradation.
The Porter-Cologne Act established nine RWQCB’s (based on hydrogeologic barriers which prevent the
movement of viable pathogens from a contaminant source to a public supply well) and the SWR CB, which
are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for protecting water
quality in California. The SWRCB provides program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews
RWQCB decisions. In addition, the SWRCB allocates rights to the use of surface water. The RWQCBs have
primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions with in each of nine
hydrology regions. The SWRCB and RWQCBs have numerous nonpoint source pollution (NPS) (broad and
disconnected sources of pollution) related responsibilities, including monitoring and assessment,
planning, financial assistance, and management.
The RWQCBs regulate discharges under the Porter-Cologne Act primarily through issuance of NPDES
permits for point source discharges and waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for NPS discharges. Anyone
discharging or proposing to discharge materials that could affect water quality (other than to a community
sanitary sewer system regulated by an NPDES permit) must file a report of waste discharge. The SWRCB
and the RWQCBs can make their own investigations or may require dischargers to carry out water quality
investigations and report on water quality issues. The Porter-Cologne Act provides several options for
enforcing WDRs and other orders, including cease and desist orders, cleanup and abatement orders,
administrative civil liability orders, civil court actions, and criminal prosecutions.
The Porter-Cologne Act also implements many provisions of the CWA, such as the NPDES permitting
program. Section 401 of the CWA gives the SWRCB the authority to review any proposed federally
permitted or federally licensed activity that may impact water quality and to certify, condition, or deny
the activity if it does not comply with state water quality standards. If the SWRCB imposes a condition on
its certification, those conditions must be included in the federal permit or license. Except for dredge and
fill activities, injection wells, and solid waste disposal sites, waste discharge requirements may not “specify
the design, location, type of construction, or particular manner in which compliance may be had….”
(Porter-Cologne Act Section13360). Thus, waste discharge requirements ordinarily specify the allowable
discharge concentration or load or the resulting condition of the receiving water, rather than the manner
by which those results are to be achieved. However, the RWQCBs may impose discharge prohibitions and
other limitations on the volume, characteristics, area, or timing of discharges and can set discharge limits
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-9 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
such that the only practical way to comply is to use management practices. RWQCBs can also waive waste
discharge requirements for a specific discharge or category of discharges on the condition that
management measures identified in a water quality management plan approved by the SWCRB or
RWQCBs are followed.
The Porter-Cologne Act also requires adoption of water quality control plans that contain the guiding
policies of water pollution management in California. A number of statewide water quality control
plans have been adopted by the SWRCB. In addition, regional water quality control plans (basin plans)
have been adopted by each of the RWQCBs and are updated as necessary and practical. These plans
identify the existing and potential beneficial uses of waters of the state and establish water quality
objectives to protect these uses. The basin plans also contain implementation, surveillance, and
monitoring plans. Statewide and regional water quality control plans include enforceable prohibitions
against certain types of discharges, including those that may pertain to nonpoint sources. Portions of
water quality control plans, the water quality objectives and beneficial use designations, are subject to
review by the EPA. When approved, they become water quality standards under the CWA. On a statewide
basis, according to the SWRCB, the water basin for the area is under jurisdiction of the Santa Ana
watershed.
The Porter-Cologne Act establishes a comprehensive program for the protection of beneficial uses of the
waters of the state. California Water Code Section 13050(f) describes the beneficial uses of surface and
ground waters that may be designated by the state or regional board for protection as follows: “Beneficial
uses of the waters of the state that may be protected against quality degradation include, but are not
necessarily limited to, domestic, municipal, agricultural and industrial supply; power genera tion;
recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and
other aquatic resources or preserves.” Water bodies with substantial evidence which indicates that the
waterbody supports rare, threatened, or endang ered species are identified as RARE. Twenty-three
beneficial uses are now defined statewide; of these 23, 19 beneficial uses are recognized in the Santa Ana
Basin.18 Section 303(d) specifically requires the state to develop a list of impaired water bodies and
subsequent numeric TMDLs for whichever constituents impair a particular water body. These constituents
include inorganic and organic chemical compounds, metals, sediment, and biological agents. The EPA
approved a revised list of impaired waters pursuant to Section 303(d) in June 2021.19
Construction General Permit
Pursuant to the CWA, in 2009, the SWRCB issued a statewide general NPDES Permit for stormwater
discharges from construction sites (NPDES No. CAS000002). Under this permit, discharges of stormwater
from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres must obtain individual NPDES permits
or be covered by the General Permit—i.e., by filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and developing and
implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must list best management
practices (BMPs) implemented on the construction site to protect/retain stormwater run -off, and must
18 California Water Boards Santa Ana River Basin Plan, Chapter Three.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ (accessed August 2022).
19 California Water Boards. 2018. California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) List and 305(b) Report).
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2018_integrated_report.html (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-10 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
contain a visual monitoring program, a sampling, analysis, and monitoring requirement for "non -visible"
pollutants, and a monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the state’s 303(d)
list of impaired waters.
Industrial General Permit
Pursuant to the CWA, in 2020, the Statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with
Industrial Activities, Order 2014-0057-DWQ (Industrial General Permit) implements the federally required
stormwater regulations in California for stormwater associated with industrial activities discharging to
waters of the United States. The Industrial General Permit regulates discharges associated with nine
federally defined categories of industrial activities. The Industrial General Permit is called a general permit
because many industrial facilities are covered by the same permit but comply with its requirements at
their individual industrial facilities. The SWRCB and RWQCB implement and enforce the Industrial General
Permit.
MS4 Permit
The Santa Ana RWQCB issued a MS4 Permit for part of the Santa Ana Basin in San Bernardino County in
2010 (Order No. R8-2010-0036). The principal permittee of the MS4 Permit is the San Bernardino County
Flood Control District. Priority projects—generally, redevelopment projects that add or replace 5,000 or
more square feet of impervious surfaces, and new development projects that create 10,000 or more
square feet of impervious surfaces—must implement low impact development (LID) BMPs to the
maximum extent practicable.
The MS4 Permit requires individual priority projects to prepare and implement a WQMP that may include
source control BMPs, mitigation measures, and treatment control BMPs.
State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB administers water rights, water pollution control, and water quality functions throughout the
state, while the RWQCBs conduct planning, permitting, and enforcement activities. The City of Fontana
lies within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.
The NPDES permit is broken up into two Phases: I and II. Phase I requires medium and large cities, or
certain counties with populations of 100,000 or more to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their
stormwater discharges. Phase II requires regulated small MS4s in urbanized areas, as well as small MS4s
outside the urbanized areas that are designated by the permitting authority, to obtain NPDES permit
coverage for their stormwater discharges. Concerning the Project, the NPDES permit is divided into two
parts: construction and post-construction. The construction permitting is administered by the SWRCB,
while the post-construction permitting is administered by the RWQCB. Development projects
typically result in the disturbance of soil that requires compliance with the NPDES General Permit, Waste
Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activities
(Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES Number CAS000002) (General Construction Permit). This Statewide
General Construction Permit regulates discharges from construction sites that disturb one or more acres
of soil.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-11 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
The SWRCB has issued and periodically renews a Statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (GCASP) and a Statewide General Industrial
Activities Stormwater Permit (GIASP) for projects that do not require an individual permit for these
activities. The GCASP was adopted in 2009 and further revised in 2012 (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ). The
most recent GIASP (Order No. 201 5-0122-DWQ) was amended and adopted in November 2018 and
requires dischargers to develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to
reduce or prevent industrial pollutants in stormwater discharges, eliminate unauthorized non -storm
discharges, and conduct visual and analytical stormwater discharge monitoring to verify the effectiveness
of the SWPPP and submit an annual report.
By law, all stormwater discharges associated with construction activity where clearing, grading, and
excavation results in soil disturbance of at least one acre of total land area must comply with the
provisions of this NPDES Permit and develop and implement an effective SWPPP. The SWPPP is required
to contain a site map, which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots,
roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after
construction, and drainage patterns across the Project site. The SWPPP is required to list BMPs the
discharger would use to protect stormwater run-off (such as stormwater treatment systems) and the
placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain the following elements: a visual
monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if
there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body
listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Construction General Permit Section A describes the elements that
must be contained in an SWPPP. A project applicant must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the SWRCB
to be covered by the NPDES General Permit and prepare the SWPPP before beginning construction.
SWPPP implementation starts with the commencement of construction and continues through project
completion. Upon project completion, the applicant must submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the
SWRCB to indicate that construction is completed.
The Municipal Stormwater Permitting Program regulates stormwater discharges from MS4s. Most of
these permits are issued to a group of co-permittees encompassing an entire metropolitan area. The MS4
permits require the discharger to develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan/Program with
the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MEP is the
performance standard specified in CWA Section 402(p). The management programs specify what BMPs
will be used to address certain program areas. The program areas include public education and outreach;
illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction and post-construction; and good housekeeping
for municipal operations.
For construction activities that would result in the disturbance of one acre or more, permittees must
develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutant run-off in stormwater. This includes:
(1) a program to prevent illicit stormwater discharges; (2) structural and non-structural BMPs to reduce
pollutants in run-off from construction sites; and (3) preventing discharges from causing or contributing
to violations of water quality standards. Permittees are required to review construction site plans to
determine potential water quality impacts and ensure proposed controls are adequate. These include
preparation and submission of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) with elements of an SWPPP,
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-12 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
prior to issuance of building or grading permits. The 2010 MS4 permit requires that the ESCP be developed
by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. Permittees are required to develop a list of BMPs for a range of
construction activities.
Watershed Management Initiative (WMI)
The SWRCB and RWQCBs are currently focused on looking at entire watersheds when addressing water
pollution. The Water Boards adopted the Watershed Management Initiative (WMI) to further their goals.
The WMI establishes a broad framework overlying the numerous federal and state mandated priorities.
As such, the WMI helps the Water Boards achieve water resource protection, enhancement and
restoration while balancing economic and environmental impacts (SWRCB, 2017). The integrated
approach of the WMI involves three main ideas:
• Use water quality to identify and prioritize water resource problems within individual watersheds.
Involve stakeholders to develop solutions.
• Better coordinate point source and nonpoint source regulatory efforts. Establish working
relationships between staff from different programs.
• Better coordinate local, state, and federal activities and programs, especially those relating to
regulations and funding, to assist local watershed groups.20
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The California DWR’s 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires local public
agencies and Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in “high”- and “medium”-priority basins to
develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) or Alternatives to GSPs.21 The DWR
categorizes the priority of groundwater basins.22 GSPs are detailed road maps for how groundwater basins
will reach long term sustainability. Section 10720.8(a) of the SGMA exempts adjudicated basins from the
SGMA’s requirement to prepare a GSP.23
Regional
San Bernardino County Municipal Stormwater Management Plan (MSMP)
San Bernardino County Municipal Stormwater Management Plan (MSMP) was designed to satisfy NPDES
permit conditions for creating and implementing an Urban Runoff Management Program (URMP) to
reduce pollutant discharges to the MEP for protection of receiving waterbody water quality and support
of designated beneficial uses. The MSMP contains guidance on both structural and nonstructural BMPs
for meeting these goals.
20 California Water Boards, Watershed Management Initiative (WMI). https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/watershed/.
(accessed August 2022).
21 California Department of Water Resources, Groundwater Sustainability Plans. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater -
Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management/Groundwater-Sustainability-Plans. (accessed August 2022).
22 California Department of Water Resources, Groundwater Sustainability Plans. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater -
Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management/Groundwater-Sustainability-Plans. (accessed August 2022).
23 United States Geologic Survey, 2014. Sustainable Groundwater Management. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/sustainable-groundwater-
management/. (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-13 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
The MSMP identifies activities required to implement the following six minimum control measures
required under the Municipal Permit: public outreach; public involvement; illicit discharge detection and
elimination; construction site run-off; new development and redevelopment; and municipal operations.
Some typical types of outreach may include a stormwater hotline, website, storm drain stenciling, and
other programs. Public meetings and presentations, volunteer water quality monitoring gr oups, and
community cleanup days are some of the elements of the public involvement component.
One Water One Watershed
The One Water One Watershed (OWOW) program is the result of an integrated planning process
convened for the management of the Santa Ana River Watershed. The OWOW program integrates water
resources management with various disciplines such as land use planning, flood control, and natural
resource management.24 The OWOW plan is now in its third iteration, which was adopted in 2018.
The OWOW plan process complies with the standards of the State of California’s Integrated Regional
Water Management Program while supporting synergies in planning how to address water challenges
across the Santa Ana River Watershed. The OWOW Plan Update 2018 describes the next generation of
integrated regional watershed planning, solving problems on a regional scale, and giving all water
interests a voice in the planning process. The plan provides a blueprint for management of the watershed,
which includes the following goals:
• Is sustainable, droughtproof, and salt balanced by 2040
• Avoids and removes interruptions to natural hydrology, protecting water resources for all
• Uses water efficiently, supporting economic and environmental vitality
• Is adapted to acute and chronic climate risk and reduces carbon emissions
• Works to diminish environmental injustices
• Encourages a watershed ethic at the institutional and personal level
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
Infrastructure and Green Systems Element
The Infrastructure and Green Systems Element25 of the Fontana General Plan includes the goals and
policies that would be applied to the Project related to hydrology and water quality. This element
represents the City’s plan to effectively and safely use and conserve water.
Goal 3: The City continues to have an effective water conservation program.
Policy 3.1: Support landscaping in public and private spaces with drought-resistant plants.
24 Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, One Water One Watershed Plan Updated 2018. https://www.sawpa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/OWOW-Plan-Update-2018-PRD.pdf. (accessed August 2022).
25 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana General Forward Plan – Infrastructure and Green Systems.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26749/Chapter -10---Infrastructure-and-Green-Systems. (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-14 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Goal 6: Fontana has a stormwater drainage system that is environmentally and
economically sustainable and compatible with regional One Water One Watershed
standards.
Policy 6.1: Continue to implement the Water Quality Management Plan for stormwater
management that incorporates low-impact and green infrastructure standards.
City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City’s FEMA-approved Local Hazard Mitigation Plan26 (LHMP) provides natural hazard profiles which
describe each hazard that is considered to pose a risk to the City; a risk assessment which measures the
potential impact to life, property and economic impacts resulting from the identified hazards; a
vulnerability assessment which includes an inventory of the numbers and types of buildings and their
tabulated values that are subject to the identified hazards; and mitigation goals, objectives and actions
relative to each hazard.
The City developed the LHMP in coordination with an internal/external planning team including
representatives from City departments, external stakeholders/agencies, and the general public. As
required by the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (DHS-
FEMA), all LHMPs must be updated, adopted, and approved every five years in order to validate and
incorporate new information into the plan and identify progress that has been made since the last
approval of the plan. The City’s current 2017 LHMP is an update to its previously adopted 2012 LHMP.
City of Fontana Water Quality Management Plan
The City of Fontana WQMP was written in response to requirements set forth in the 1972 CWA which
established requirements for MS4 permitting under the NPDES. The MS4 Permit regulates discharges from
all MS4 facilities within the Santa Ana River watershed in San Bernardino County, which includes the
Project area. The area-wide MS4 program requires the completion of a WQMP to minimize the potential
adverse effects that development projects can have on receiving waters. To simplify the process the City
prepared a WQMP handbook to streamline the process. The Handbook notes that all significant
development projects such as redevelopment projects that would add or replace 5,000 or more square
feet of impervious surfaces and new developments that include more than 10,000 square feet or more of
new impervious surfaces would require a WQMP. The WQMP is similar to other permitting vehicles and
includes, identification of drainage areas, impervious surfaces, anticipated flows, existing impaired
waters, BMPs to reduce run-off and polluted run-off, LID strategies to retain water on-site before being
discharged, etc.27
26 City of Fontana. 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017 -Local-
Hazard-Mitigation-Plan. (accessed August 2022).
27 City of Fontana 2021. Water Quality Management Plan Handbook. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/37482/WQMP-
Handbook. (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-15 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Fontana Municipal Code
Section 9-16 – 9-25, Control of Blowing Sand and Soil Erosion
The City’s Municipal Code Section 9-16 – 9-25 states that for the purposes of controlling blowing sands
and preventing soil erosion by wind that affects health, safety, welfare, and property the City has adopted
the issuance of permits, fee collection, and providing penalties for violations.28
Section 12.1-12-25, Flood Damage Prevention
The City’s Municipal Code Section 12 regarding flood control states the City’s focus on minimizing public
and private losses due to flood condition in specific areas by provisions outlined throughout the section.
The City has several flood hazard areas which are subject to periodic inundation which can adversely affect
public health and safety. The City outlines several provisions that are outlined in the entirety of Section 12:
1) Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or
erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities;
2) Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected
against flood damage at the time of initial construction;
3) Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers,
which help accommodate or channel floodwaters;
4) Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and
5) Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert floodwaters,
or which may increase flood hazards in other areas.
Section 23-511, Prohibited Discharges
Section 23-511 of the City’s Municipal Code states that no person shall:
• Cause, allow, contribute to or facilitate an illegal discharge.
• Establish, use or maintain any illicit connection.
• Cause, permit or authorize any agent, employee, or independent contractor to cause, allow,
contribute to or facilitate an illegal discharge or establish, use or maintain any illicit connection.
• Discharge or cause to be discharged into any fountain, lake, stream, or any other body of water
in the city any refuse, rubbish, garbage, or other pollutant.
• Cause, allow, contribute to or facilitate a violation of the city’s NPDES permit, including, but not
limited to, causing or contributing to a condition of nuisance as that term is defined in Section
13050 of the California Water Code.
• Fail or refuse to implement any BMPs when directed to do so by the environmental manager.
28 City of Fontana, Section 9-16 – 9-25. Control of Blowing Sand and Soil Erosion.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH9ENPRREEX . (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-16 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
This includes depositing any pollutant or trash in the streets or sidewalk as it has the potential to enter
the storm drain, along with failure to implement BMP’s when directed so by the environmental manager.29
Section 23-513, Illicit Connections to the Storm Drain System
Section 23-513 of the City’s Municipal Code states that no person shall use or maintain any illicit
connection to the storm drain system. This prohibition applies retroactively regardless of whether the
connection to the storm drain system was permissible under the law or practices applicable at the time
of the connection.30
Section 28-111, Stormwater Management, and rainwater retention
Section 28-111 of the City’s Municipal Code implements practices to minimize run-off and increase
infiltration which recharges groundwater and improves water quality. The implementation of stormwater
best management practices into the landscape and grading design plans to minimize run -off and to
increase on-site rainwater retention and infiltration is encouraged.31
4.10.4 Impact Thresholds and Significant Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning hydrology and water quality. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form
have been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant
effect on the environment if it would:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality;
• Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impeded sustainable groundwater management of the basin;
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
▪ Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site;
▪ Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
▪ Create or contribute run-off water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
run-off;
29 City of Fontana, Section 23-511. Prohibited discharges.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH23SESEDI_ARTIXPRDIPOINSTDR_S23 -511PRDI.
(accessed August 2022).
30 City of Fontana, Section 23-513. Illicit connections to the storm drain system.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH23SESEDI_ARTIXPRDIPOINSTDR_S23 -513ILCOSTDRSY
(accessed August 2022).
31 City of Fontana, Section 28-5111. Stormwater management and rainwater retention.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH28VE_ARTIVLAWACO_S28 -111STMARARE (accessed
August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-17 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
▪ Impede or redirect flood flows;
• In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release or pollutants due to project inundation; or
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable ground
water management plan.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for determining the
impact’s level of significance concerning hydrology and wa ter quality. This analysis also considers the
existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the
potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with
the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended to avoid or reduce the
Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on hydrology and water quality materials examines the Project’s temporary
(i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance
criteria/ thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the
surrounding characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in
environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the
environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on available information in public databases
including local planning documents; a site evaluation of the Project site; review of Project maps and
drawings; and analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs. The determination that a Project
component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on standards related to hydrology
and water quality materials considers the available policies and regulations established by federal, state,
regional, and local agencies, and the amount of deviation from these policies in the Project’s components.
4.10.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.10-1 Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction
Once the Project is approved grading activities would occur during construction of the Project site.
Construction at the Project site would result in the baring and exposure of soils. During construction, fuels,
lubricants, and solid and liquid wastes would be stored within active construction areas. Temporary water
quality impacts could occur due to run-off from the active construction site, if the construction areas are
not properly managed to contain loose soils, and liquid and solid contaminants.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-18 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB and Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX,
the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm
Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit) associated with the Project site. 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 applicant
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 would specify the BMPs that all construction contractors would be required to implement during
construction activities to ensure that potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or
otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject pr operty.
BMPs are designed to control and prevent discharges of pollutants that can adversely impact the
downstream surface water quality. Construction activities are also required to comply with the City’s
Municipal Code Section 28-111, Stormwater management and rainwater retention, Section 9-16 – 9-25,
Control of Blowing Sand and Soil Erosion, and other required regulations. 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 hydroseeding. Pursuant to the City’s Municipal
Code Chapter 9, Article III, all project applicants also would be required to implement an erosion control
plan to minimize water and windborne erosion. Mandatory compliance with the SWP PP and the erosion
control plan would ensure that the construction of the Project site does not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with
construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.
Operations
Stormwater pollutants that could be produced during operation of the Project site include pathogens
(bacterial/virus), phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment, metals, oil/grease, trash/debris, pesticides/herbicides,
and organic compounds. The expected pollutants of concern for the Project site would be pathogens,
nitrogen, copper, and lead.
To meet the requirements of the City’s Municipal Storm Water Permit – and in accordance with the City’s
Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX – the Project applicant for the Project site would be required to
prepare and implement a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP). A SWQMP is a site -specific
post-construction WQMP designed to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including
pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters, under long -term conditions via BMPs.
Implementation of the SWQMP ensures ongoing, long-term protection of the watershed basin. It is
anticipated that the structural source control BMPs would be sufficient to reduce impacts. Structural
source controls would consist of measures such as LID strategies including underground infiltration
chambers, bioretention areas, and hydrodynamic separators as well as operational source control BMPs
(including but not limited to the installation of water -efficient landscape irrigation systems, storm drain
system stenciling and signage, and implementation of a trash and waste storage areas) to minimize,
prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat stormwater run-off flows before they are discharged into
the City’s storm drain system.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-19 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Specifically related to industrial uses, the NPDES program requires certain industrial land uses to prepare
a SWPPP for operational activities and to implement a long -term water quality sampling and monitoring
program, unless an exemption has been granted. On April 1, 2014, the SWRCB adopted an updated new
NPDES permit for stormwater discharge associated with industrial activities (referred to as the “Industrial
General Permit”).32 On November 6, 2018, the SWRCB amended the Industrial General Permit, which is
more stringent than the former Industrial General Permit and became effective on July 1, 2020.33 Under
this currently effective NPDES Industrial General Permit, the industrial uses such as but not limited to
manufacturing, facilities subject to stormwater effluent limitations, transportation facilities, and other
uses with typically heavy industrial uses would require permitting. Warehousing uses are not specifically
included. Based on the future uses, if a covered use is implemented, the Project could require NPDES
coverage under this order (2014-0057-DWQ). This would require preparation of a SWPPP for operational
activities and implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program or receive an
exemption. This permit is dependent upon a detailed accounting of all operational activities and
procedures. Prior to final Project approval a detailed account of the proposed uses within the proposed
facility would be provided to the City to determine if permitting would be required. If such permitting is
required, the mandatory compliance with all applicable water quality regulations would reduce potential
water quality impacts during long-term operation. This impact would, therefore, be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.10-2 Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project site lies within the Chino Basin. The Chino Basin is the subbasin of the Upper Santa Ana River
contained within the California DWR South Coast Hydrologic Region. The Project site would be within the
service area of FWC, which derives some of its water from the Chino Basin. Accordingly, the Project site
would connect to the municipal water system and would not use on-site wells, nor would any other
groundwater extractive activities occur. Therefore, the Project would not directly draw water from the
groundwater basin. Accordingly, implementation of the Project in this regard would not substantially
deplete or decrease groundwater supplies and direct impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than
significant.
Additionally, as discussed in additional detail in Section 4.19: Utilities and Service Systems, considering
the above and considering current as well as Project water demand through the year 2040 in both normal,
32 California State Water Resources Control Board Industrial General Permit Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/industrial.html (accessed July 2022).
33 California State Water Resources Control Board Industrial General Permit
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/industrial.html . (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-20 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
and single, two year, and multiple dry year scenarios, FWC has an adequate supply of water to serve the
Project. This would be done without jeopardizing groundwater supplies in any of the underlying basins.
While construction of the Project would introduce new impermeable surfaces to the site, a WQMP would
be required. As part of the WQMP, the Project would include elements to reduce the effects of the new
impervious areas. The WQMP would include design measures such as LID and other stormwater drainage
controls. The LIDs would be engineered to capture and control run-off prior to being released
downstream. This would increase the duration that water is held on-site prior to being released to
downstream receiving waters, and would facilitate recharge. In addition, LIDs that include permeable
materials, enable run-off to immediately infiltrate and begin the recharge process. Lastly, the Project site
also includes areas that would be landscaped with permeable surfaces, which also would facilitate
groundwater recharge. Therefore, the Project would not change recharge characteristics, with the
required measures in place, the loss of the permeable area would not be substantial, and impacts would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.10-3 Would the Project 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?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
Construction of the Project would alter the subject’s property’s interior drainage patterns, but the
changes would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The Project would be required
to follow the SWRCBs erosion control standards and would be required to obtain coverage under the
State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES
permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such a s clearing,
grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. Because the Project site is
greater than one acre, this requirement would apply.
In addition, because the Project area is located within the Sana Ana RWQCB’s jurisdiction, it would be
required to conform with the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance involves
the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related activities. More specifically,
BMPs would be required to be implemented in accordance with the SWPPP that would be required prior
to initiation of any construction activities. These measures would help ensure that during construction ,
waterborne pollution from erosion and siltation is reduced, prevented, or minimized. Other measures
may include ways to treat run-off prior to discharge. BMPs may include but not be limited to, sandbag
barriers, silt fences, soil stabilizers, reseeding, straw mats, and other ground covers. Lastly, the Project
would be required to implement an erosion and dust control plan pursuant to City’s Municipal Code
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-21 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Chapter 9, Article III and to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize water - and windborne
erosion. Conformance with these requirements and measures would ensure that erosion during
construction is reduced to less than significant.
Erosion control measures would also be in place upon completion of construction on the Project site, and
these measures would take effect immediately. The Project would be required to prepare and implement
a SWQMP as well. The SWQMP would be site-specific and would include post-construction water quality
management measures that would be implemented and designed to minimize erosion and siltation. The
SWQMP would include engineered erosion control and sediment control measures used to reduce or
eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. Each set
of erosion control measures would be site-specific and respond to anticipated flows, run-off constituents,
and unique demands of the site. This would ensure an ongoing and long -term erosion control plan is in
place to account for operational impacts from the Project site. Compliance would be ensured because the
SWQMP is required pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX. Because the Project
would be required to prepare and implement such a plan as a condition of Project approval, impacts would
be less than significant. Mitigation is not required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.10-4 Would the Project 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:
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
Implementation of the Project would alter the existing ground contours of the Project site. The Project
site is currently developed with light industrial use buildings, but the construction of the warehouse would
result in the installation of more impervious surfaces. Although the same southerly drainage patterns,
flows would be maintained, the Project would result in changes to the site’s existing, internal drainage
patterns.
The rate and amount of surface run-off versus infiltration on a given site is determined by multiple factors,
including the amount and intensity of precipitation; amount of other imported water that enters a
watershed; surface and subsurface soil layers vegetative cover, existing soils moisture content, slope, and
others. In addition, the rate of surface run-off is largely determined by topography and the intensity of
rainfall over a given period of time.
None of the Project elements would alter precipitation amounts or intensities, nor would they require any
additional water to be imported into the Project site. However, construction of the Project would require
earth-disturbing activities which may temporarily affect site specific infiltration and permeability during
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-22 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
construction and permanently, from operation. This would result in a substantially greater volume of
water flowing off-site from the Project site.
The Project would have a new stormwater system designated and installed to be site-specific and that
would contain and collect stormwater flows in the Project site. Run-off within the Project site would be
directed to one of two on-site underground infiltration systems located on the southeast and southwest
corners of the Project property. Water would be captured and stored and treated if needed before run-off
can drain off-site. New stormwater facilities would be planned and designated to satisfy the SWQMP
requirements as discussed above. In cases where excess run-off would generate overflow conditions, the
southeast underground infiltration system would discharge through a proposed storm drain line B to an
existing 54-inch storm drain in Mango Avenue and the southwest underground infiltration system would
discharge through a proposed storm drain line E to an existing 36-inch storm drain in Sierra Avenue.
All designs and conformance with the SWQMP would be verified by the City and incorporated as
conditions of approval to the Project site prior to the issuance of any construction permit. In addition, this
would include plans that ensure the post-development flows do not exceed pre-development flows.
Compliance with these requirements would ensure impacts are less than significant and mitigation would
not be required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.10-5 Would the Project 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:
iii) Create or contribute run-off water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted run-off?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
As discussed above, the Project site must comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Permit,
which helps control water pollution by regulating point and non-point sources that discharge pollutants
into receiving waters.
The Project would be required to obtain a General Construction Permit. The General Construction Permit
requires implementation of a SWPPP, which would include BMPs designated to protect the quality of
stormwater run-off. Preparation, implementation, and participation with both the NPDES General Permit
and the General Construction Permit, including the SWPPP and BMPs, would reduce the potential for
stormwater flows, and any potential contaminants contained within those flows, to be conveyed off-site
during construction of the Project. As a result, short-term construction-related impacts associated with
creating or contributing to run-off and additional sources of polluted run-off would be less than significant.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-23 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Conformance with these requirements would be verified prior to any Project approval and included as
conditions of approval to any future project. Impacts would therefore be less than significant.
As mandated by the RWQCB and through implementation of the SWQMP, the Project would include new
stormwater drainage system facilities that would be engineered, designed, and installed to satisfy all the
water quality requirements. These measures would include maximizing natural infiltration practices and
preserving existing drainage patterns by draining the entire site underground; re-vegetating disturbed
areas with landscaping; and minimizing unnecessary compaction of stormwater infiltration areas.
To ensure that the new stormwater drainage improvements are planned and designed to satisfy these
requirements as well as all other applicable standards and requirements, plans would be verified by the
City and incorporated as conditions of approval to the Project prior to the issuance of any construction
permit. Compliance with these requirements would ensure impacts are less than significant and
mitigation would not be required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.10-6 Would the Project 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?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The FEMA FIRM shows that the Project site being covered by one main indication panel, which is
06071C7920H, effective August 28, 2008. Based on a review of this panel, this is an area of minimal flood
hazard. More specifically, the Project site is located within “Zone X,” which corresponds to areas with
minimal flood hazard outside of the 500-year floodplain (also referred to as the 0.2 percent annual chance
floodplain).34 Therefore, no portions of the Project site are located within a 100-year flood hazard area
and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.10-7 Would the Project i n flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
34 FEMA, 2008. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Fontana . (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-24 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction and Operations
The Pacific Ocean is located approximately 60 miles from the Project. Considering this distance, there is
no potential for the Project site to be impacted by a tsunami. The Project site also is not subject to flooding
hazards associated with a seiche because the nearest large body of surface water likely to be affected by
a seiche is Lake Matthews approximately 36 miles to the south. At this distance, the Project would be
unaffected. Furthermore, as noted in the City’s General Plan EIR, the City is not mapp ed in a dam
inundation area.35 Accordingly, the impacts to the Project site associated with release of pollutants due
to inundation would not occur. No mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.10-8: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
As discussed in the Impact 4.10-2 discussion above, the Project site is located within the Upper Santa Ana
River Basin. The site’s related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with
the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan which requires the preparation
of and adherence to a SWPPP and SWQMP. The Project would be required to show conformance prior to
any approval. 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. The Project site is located within
the Rialto-Colton Basin, which is an adjudicated groundwater basin. Adjudicated basins, like the Rialto-
Colton Basin, are exempt from the 2014 SGMA because such basins already operate under a court-
ordered management plan to ensure the long-term sustainability of the basin. Therefore, the Project
components would not obstruct or prevent implementation of the management plan for the Rialto-Colton
Basin. As such, construction and operation of the Project would not conflict with any sustainable
groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.10.6 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality could occur as new development, redevelopment, and
existing uses are ongoing within the watershed. This includes the Project site, and other past, present,
and future projects. Because of the urbanized nature of the watershed, growth is anticipated to consist
of a mix of redevelopment as well as new urban development. Development is anticipated to consist of a
mix of uses (residential, commercials, industrial, etc.) consistently with past and present growth trends.
New development, including the Project, would result in some increases in impervious surfaces, and thus
could generate increased run-off from the affected Project site. SWPPPs with BMPs to control erosions
35 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report. 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous
Materials. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report for-the-General-Plan-Update.
(accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-25 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
and stormwater run-off in accordance with all required water quality permits and the Water Quality
Control Plan are dependent on the location of a project. The location of the Project requires the creation
of specific BMPs to minimize impact to stormwater systems and conveyance. This would include
conformance with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Wastewater Management Plan. As
needed, projects would implement BMPs, including LID BMPs to minimize run-off, erosion, and
stormwater pollution. As part of these requirements, projects would be required to implement and
maintain source controls, and treatment measures to minimize polluted discharge and prevent increases
in run-off flows that could substantially decrease water quality. Conformance to these measures would
minimize run-off from those sites and reduce contamination of run-off with pollutants. Therefore, related
projects are not expected to cause substantial increases in stormwater pollution. With compliance with
state and local mandates, cumulative impacts would be less than significa nt, and Project impacts would
not be cumulatively considerable.
4.10.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
4.10.8 References
Association of Environmental Professionals. (2022). CEQA Guidelines – Appendix G.
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/ab52/final-approved-appendix-G.pdf.
California Department of Water Resources. Groundwater Sustainability Plans.
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-
Management/Groundwater-Sustainability-Plans.
California Department of Water Resources. 2006. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 January 20,
2006 Update: Hydrologic Region South Coast – Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin.
https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-
Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/8_002_04_Rialto-ColtonSubbasin.pdf.
California Regional Water Board. 2010. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
and Waste Discharge Requirements for the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, the
County of San Bernardino, and the Incorporated Cities of San Bernardino County Within the
Santa Ana Region. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/
adopted_orders/orders/2010/10_036_SBC_MS4_Permit_01_29_10.pdf.
California State Water Resources Control Board. Industrial General Permit.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/industrial.html.
California Water Boards. ND. Final California 2010 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report).
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2010state_ir_reports/01560.sht
ml#7260.
California Water Boards. 2019. About the California Water Boards.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/publications_forms/publications/factsheets/docs/boardovervi
ew.pdf.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-26 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
California Waterboards. 2022. HUC Watersheds. https://gispublic.waterboards.ca.gov/portal/home/
webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=b6c1bab9acc148e7ac726e33c43402ee.
California Water Boards. Santa Ana River Basin Plan, Chapter Three. https://www.
waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/.
California Water Boards. Watershed Management Initiative (WMI). https://www.
waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/watershed/.
California Water Boards. 2018. California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) List and
305(b) Report). https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/
water_quality_assessment/2018_integrated_report.html.
Chino Basin Watermaster – Chino Basin Watermaster 2020 State of the Basin Report Exhibit 4-4.
http://www.cbwm.org/docs/engdocs/State_of_the_Basin_Reports/
SOB%202020/2020%20State%20of%20the%20Basin%20Report.pdf.
City of Fontana. 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.
fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.
City of Fontana. Code of Ordinances. Section 9-16 – 9-25. Control of Blowing Sand and Soil Erosion.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH9ENPRREEX.
City of Fontana. Code of Ordinances. Section 23-513. Illicit Connections to the Storm Drain System.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH23SESEDI_
ARTIXPRDIPOINSTDR_S23-513ILCOSTDRSY
City of Fontana. Code of Ordinances. Section 23-511. Prohibited discharges.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH23SESEDI_
ARTIXPRDIPOINSTDR_S23-511PRDI.
City of Fontana. Code of Ordinances. Section 28-5111. Stormwater Management and Rainwater
Retention.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH28VE_ART
IVLAWACO_S28-111STMARARE.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report. 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. https://www.fontana.org/
DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-
Update.
City of Fontana. (2018). Fontana General Forward Plan – Infrastructure and Green Systems.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26749/Chapter-10--Infrastructure-and-Green-
Systems.
City of Fontana 2021. Water Quality Management Plan Handbook. https://www.
fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/37482/WQMP-Handbook.
City of Fontana 2021. Water Quality Management Plan Handbook. https://
www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/37482/WQMP-Handbook.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-27 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
FEMA. 2008. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/
portal/search?AddressQuery=Fontana.
Fontana Water Company. (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.
fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1995. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for
the Santa Ana River Basin.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.html
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. 2018. One Water One Watershed Plan Updated 2018.
https://www.sawpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/OWOW-Plan-Update-2018-PRD.pdf.
Seefried Development Management, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Hydrology Report. Ontario, CA: Huitt-Zollars, Inc.
Seefried Development Management, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. Ontario,
CA: Huitt-Zollars, Inc
Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Infiltration Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 403 Dust Control Information.
https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/compliance/rule-403-dust-control-information.
United State Geologic Survey. 2014. Sustainable Groundwater Management.
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/sustainable-groundwater-management/.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.10-28 4.10 | Hydrology and Water Quality
This page intentionally left blank.
4.11
Land Use and Planning
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-1 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.11.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) discusses the potential land use impacts
associated with the implementation of the Sierra Distribution Facility Project (Project), within the City of
Fontana (City). The Project has been evaluated for its consistency with relevant goals and policies in the
City’s Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 (General Plan) and the Southern California
Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS).
Potential land use impacts of the Project analyzed in this section of the Draft EIR include those that could
result in land use incompatibilities, division of neighborhoods or communities, or interference with other
land use plans. Where applicable, mitigation measures are proposed to ensure the application of actions
which would minimize or remove land use impacts that are identified as significant.
4.11.2 Environmental Setting
Existing and Surrounding Land Uses
The Project is located within the northern the portion of the City, in San Bernardino County (County); refer
to Figure 3-1: Regional Vicinity. The Project site is comprised of six parcels; refer to Table 4.11-1: Assessor
Parcel Numbers. The Project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sierra Avenue
and Clubhouse Drive within the City and is bounded to the north and south by existing
warehouse/industrial buildings, to the west by Sierra Avenue and residential development, and to the
east by Mango Avenue and a landfill, see Figure 3-2: Local Vicinity.
Table 4.11-1: Assessor Parcel Numbers
Parcel APN Number
1 1119-241-10
2 1119-241-13
3 1119-241-18
4 1119-241-25
5 1119-241-26
6 1119-241-27
Source: Public San Bernardino County Parcel Viewer. 2022.
https://sbcounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=87e70bb9b6994559ba7512792588d57a&marker=-
116.34526321815805%2C34.11587161201653%2C%2C%2C%2C&markertemplate=%7B%22title%22%3A%22%22%2C%22longitude%22%3A -
116.34526321815805%2C%22latitude%22%3A34.11587161201653%2C%22isIncludeShareUrl%22%3Atrue%7D&level=19. (accessed June 2022).
The Project site is presently developed with four commercial/industrial buildings ranging from 5,000 to
25,000 square feet (SF) in size. The northwestern, northeastern, southwestern, and southeastern
quadrants are existing developments with single-story, metal framed structures and are assumed to be
supported on conventional shallow foundations with concrete slab-on-grade floors. The area surrounding
the Project contains residential uses and light-industrial uses. The Project is directly east of Sierra Avenue
and multiple residential properties. Mango Avenue and a landfill are directly east of the Project site. In
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-2 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
addition, Windflower Avenue runs perpendicular off of Sierra Avenue between the north and south
portions of the Project site.
According to available historical sources, the Project site was historically undeveloped vacant land as early
as 1896 and was developed in phases from 1982 to 1990. The Project site was historically occupied by
light industrial businesses including: All Am erican Pipe & Steel Distribution; Days Express Inc.; Anderson
Trucking Services; Apollo Amusement; San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling; S.J. Steel Inc.; Active Steel,
Inc.; and National Pallets (1987-Present). The Project site is currently occupied by the following
businesses: San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling, 6075 Sierra Avenue in the northwest portion; 5975 Sierra
Ave. 16899 Windflower Avenue on the southwest portion; Davis Partners, 17010 Windflower Avenue on
the northeast portion; and Aluma Systems, 17051 Windflower Avenue on the southeast portion.
General Plan and Zoning Designations
The City’s General Plan Land Use Map shows that the land west of Sierra Avenue has been designated as
Residential Planned Community land use designation. The east side of the Project site lies directly along
the borderline between the City of Fontana and the City of Rialto. Directly north and south of the Project
site the General Plan Land Use designation is Light Industrial.
Residential Planned Community land use designations allow various residential uses such as single-family
and multi-family use to create quality residential developments. Alternatively, Light Industrial land use
designations allow for the development of warehouse developments as long as they contain limited off-
site impacts. Light Industrial land use zones also allow for the development of business parks, research
and development, technology centers, corporate and support office uses, clean industry, supporting retail
uses, truck and equipment sales, and related services. Zoning created a more consistent area and led to
the current development of the Project site.
Surrounding land use designations include parcels with Light Industrial, Residential Planned Communities
and Public Facilities. Table 4.11-2: Surrounding Land Use, Designations and Zoning summarize
designations and their direction adjacent to the Project site.
Table 4.11-2: Surrounding Land Use Designations and Zoning
Location Land Use Designation Zoning Existing Land Uses
Project Site Light Industrial (I-L) Light Industrial (M-1) San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling
Davis Partners 4.) Aluma Systems
North Light Industrial (I-L) Light Industrial (M-1) Light Industrial (Sierra Pacific Center)
South Light Industrial (I-L) Light Industrial (M-1) Light Industrial
(Sierra Lakes Commerce Center)
East Public Facility with Specific
Plan Overlay (City of Rialto)
Rialto Airport Specific Plan
(City of Rialto)
Mango Avenue
Mid-Valley Landfill
West
Residential Planned
Community (R-PC) –
Sierra Lakes
Sierra Lakes Specific Plan Sierra Avenue
Sierra Lakes (Residential)
Source: Google Maps, 2022: City of Fontana. 2022. Zoning and General Land Use Designation Interactive Map.
https://fontanaca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ecc67f90c51440eca0d17fd5a6e59c92 (accessed June 2022).
City of Rialto. 2013. City of Rialto Official Zoning Map. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1513/Zoning -Map---July-2013
(accessed June 2022).
City of Rialto. 2010. Rialto General Plan. Exhibit 2.2 – Land Use Policy Plan. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1494/2010 -
General-Plan (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-3 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
4.11.3 Regulatory Setting
State
State Planning Law
State planning law (California Government Code [CGC] Section 65300) requires every county in California
to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for physical development of the county. A general plan
should consist of an integrated and internally consistent set of goals and policies that are grouped by topic
into a set of elements and are guided by a countywide vision. State law requires that a general plan
address nine elements or topics (land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, no ise, safety,
climate adaptation and resiliency, and environmental justice), but allows some discretion on the
arrangement and content. Additionally, each of the specific and applicable requirements in the state
planning law should be examined to determine if there are environmental issues within the county that a
general plan should address.
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Authority under California
state law, established as an association of local governments and agencies that voluntarily convene as a
forum to address regional issues. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning
Organization and under state law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of
Governments. Generally, SCAG develops long -range regional transportation plans including sustainable
communities’ strategy and growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs,
regional housing needs allocations, and a portion of the South Coast Air Quality management plans. SCAG
also developed the Regional Comprehensive Plan, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and
the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020 -2045 RTP/SCS).
2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies
The SCAG 2020 – 2045 RTP/SCS, is a long-term planning document intended to guide the growth of the
region that includes Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial counties. The
2020-2045 RTP/SCS allows public agencies who implement transportation projects to do so in a
coordinated manner and assists the region in achieving California’s greenhouse gas emission reduction
goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements. The plan also strives to achieve broader regional objectives,
such as the preservation of natural lands, improvement of public health, increased roadway safety,
support for the region’s vital goods movement industries and more efficient use of resources.
SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan
SCAG’s 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) is a major advisory plan prepared by SCAG that addresses
important regional issues such as land use and housing, open space and biological habitats, water, energy,
air quality, solid waste, transportation, security and emergency preparedness, economy, and education.
The RCP serves as an advisory document to local agencies in the southern California region for their
information and voluntary use for preparing local plans and handling local issues of regional sign ificance.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-4 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
The RCP presents a vision of how southern California can balance resource conservation, economic
vitality, and quality of life. The RCP identifies voluntary best practices to approach growth and
infrastructure challenges in an integrated and comprehensive way. It also includes goals and outcomes to
measure our progress toward a more sustainable region.
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
The Fontana General Plan (Fontana GP) contains includes goals and policies intended to provide benefits
to the City through long-range planning. The Fontana GP was recently updated in 2017 and adopted in
November 2018 to provide planning framework to guide the City’s growth and development from the
years 2015 through 2035. The General Plan update included revisions to the included General Plan
Elements, including their Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element1, to reflect the recent state of the
City more closely and for a more current baseline.
Land Use , Zoning, and Urban Design Element
Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic
prosperity.
Policy 2.3: Locate industrial uses where there is easy access to regional transportation routes.
Goal 5: High-quality job producing industrial uses are concentrated in a few locations where
there is easy access to regional transportation routes.
Policy 5.3: Avoid locating small areas of residential uses where they will be surrounded by
intensive commercial or industrial uses.
Goal 7: Public and private development meets high design standards.
Policy 7.1: Support high-quality development in design standards and in land use decisions.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
The City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 30 is the Fontana Zoning and Development Code.2 The
Fontana Development Code assists the Fontana GP by providing driving policies that reinforce the goals
set by the GP. By complying with the standards set in the development code, the City will more efficiently
achieve sustainable growth. This document outlines the City’s guidelines and requirements for
developments for each zoning type. Industrial projects within the City are required to adhere to standards
provided in Article VII of the development plan. These standards include allowed uses within industrial
zones as well as development standards such as maximum height, lot coverage, and provided parking
requirements. The Project will be required to comply with these Standards in order to be approved for
development.
1 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26754/Chapter -15---Land-Use-Zoning-and-Urban-Design (accessed June 2022).
2 City of Fontana. (2022). City of Fontana Municipal Code – Chapter 30. (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-5 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
Light Industrial (M-1) industrial zoning district3 that accommodates employee-intensive uses, such as
business parks, research, and technology centers, offices, and supporting retail uses, high cube/
warehousing which does not permit heavy traffic manufacturing, processing of raw materials, and permits
other types of industrial uses not suitable for location in the M-1 district.
The Development Standards division establishes general development standards for all industrial
development. These standards are derived from the general plan and serve three primary purposes: to
ensure industrial development is consistent with all elements of the general plan and other adopted plans;
to ensure development is adequately served by public services and facilities; and to ensure public, health,
and safety concerns are addressed in the development process.
4.11.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning land use and planning. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have
been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect
on the environment if it would:
• Physically divide an established community; or
• 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.
Methodology and Assumptions
This analysis analyzes the Project’s consistency with regional and local plans, policies, and regulations for
the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Specifically, the Project was analyzed with
respect to the applicable regional planning guidelines and strategies of SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and
the City’s General Plan. This analysis also analyzes whether the Project would physically divide an
established community.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on land use and planning components examines the Project’s consistency with
existing land use designations and developments, as well as the Project’s compliance with established
land use policies and plans. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the
surrounding characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in land
use conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on review of Project maps and drawings; analysis
of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including
local planning documents. The determination that the Project would or would not result in “substantial”
adverse effects on land use and planning standards considers the available policies and regulations
3 City of Fontana. (2022). City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 30-522 – 30.523. (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-6 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
established by regional and local agencies and evaluates the Project’s overall consistency with applicable
goals and policies.
4.11.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.11-1 Would the Project physically divide an established community?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project proposes one warehouse building totaling approximately 398,514 SF on an approximately
18.3-acre site. The building would include 10,000 SF of office space. The Project site would also include
125 automobile parking stalls and 118 trailer parking stalls, curb and gutter, security lighting, perimeter
wall and gated access (refer to Figure 3-5: Overall Site Plan). The Project would have a Floor Area Ratio
of 0.5. Future occupants of the building are not known at this time.
Projects that are typically considered to have the potential to divide an established community include
the construction of new freeways, highways, roads, or other uses that physically separate an existing or
established neighborhood. As summarized in Section 4.11.2: Environmental Setting, the Project site is
developed with the San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling, Davis Partners, and Aluma Systems. The Project
site is presently developed with four commercial/industrial buildings ranging from 5,000 to 25,000 SF in
size. The Project site is surrounded by light industrial uses to the north and south; Mango Avenue to the
east with a landfill beyond; and Sierra Avenue to the west with residential development beyond.
The Project site’s existing General Plan land use designation is Light Industrial (I-L), and the zoning is Light
Industrial (M-1); see Figure 3-3: General Plan Land Use Designations for General Plan land use
designations and Figure 3-4: Existing Zoning for Project and surrounding zoning.
The Project site does not include any existing residential structures or an established community and is
not currently zoned for residential use. Neighboring land uses to the west of the Project site include single
family residential units which are located among commercial and industrial uses to the east beyond Sierra
Avenue.
The redevelopment of the Project site would not include improvements which would substantially alter
existing roadways and transportation corridors in a manner that would cause the removal or separation
of existing adjacent communities from important resources and neighboring units. Therefore, the Project
would not physically divide an established community and there would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.10-2 Would the Project 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?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-7 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
Construction and Operations
CEQA requires that an EIR consider whether a Project may conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) that
was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This environmental
determination differs from the larger policy determination of whether a Project is consistent with a
jurisdiction’s general plan. The broader General Plan consistency determination takes into account a ll
evidence in the record concerning the Project characteristics, its desirability, as well as its economic,
social, and other non-environmental effects. Regarding plan or policy consistency, a project is evaluated
in terms of whether the proposed site plan, design features, and/or development at a particular location
would substantially impede implementation of an adopted plan or policy. The Project would be required
to comply with any applicable state, regional, and local land use plans, policies, and reg ulations. Projects
should be consistent with applicable policies in order to promote the efficient, sustainable growth
projected in the long-term planning documents. In addition, Specific Plans must be consistent with the
adopted General Plan (Gov. Code, Section 65454).
At a regional level, the Project would comply with the goals and policies presented in SCAG’s 2020-2045
RTP/SCS. Locally, the Project would comply with the C ity’s General Plan document. The mere fact that a
Project may be inconsistent in some manner with particular policies in a general plan or zoning ordinance
does not, per se, amount to a significant environmental effect. In the context of land use and planning,
significant impacts occur when a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regula tion of an
agency with jurisdiction over the Project results in an adverse physical environmental impact. This
consistency analysis provides a general overview of whether the Project is in harmony with the overall
intent of the City’s General Plan goals and policies as well as other planning documents applicable to the
Project. It is within the City’s purview to decide if the Project is consistent or inconsistent with applicable
City goals or policies. The Project’s consistency with these applicable goals and policies is described below
in Table 4.11-3: Consistency with the SCAG 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS and Table 4.11-4: Consistency with the
Fontana General Plan.
SCAG 2020 – 2045 RTP/SCS
The Project’s compliance with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS would promote the sustainable and beneficial
growth of the region. Table 4.11-3 summarizes the Project’s compliance with relevant goals and policies
of the RTP/SCS.
Table 4.11-3: Consistency with the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Goal Consistency
Goal 1: Encourage regional economic prosperity
and global competitiveness.
Not Applicable: This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore not
applicable. However, the Project is located on an occupied site that is
surrounded by development. Redevelopment of the site would
contribute to regional economic prosperity.
Goal 2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability,
and travel safety for people and goods.
Not Applicable: This is not a transportation improvement project and is
therefore not applicable.
Goal 3: Enhance the preservation, security, and
resilience of the regional transportation system .
Not Applicable: This is not a transportation improvement project and is
therefore not applicable.
Goal 4: Increase person and goods movement and
travel choices within the transportation system.
Not Applicable: This is not a transportation improvement project and is
therefore not applicable. However, the Project includes a warehouse
use that would support goods movement.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-8 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
Goal Consistency
Goal 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve air quality.
Not Applicable: The Project is located within a developed area in
proximity to existing truck routes and freeways. Location of the Project
would reduce trip lengths and reduce GHG and air quality emissions.
Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable
communities.
Not Applicable: As discussed in the Air Quality Assessment and the
Health Risk Assessment, the Project would not exceed thresholds or
result in health impacts. The Project would not conflict with the
surrounding community’s ability to access healthy food or parks. In
addition, the Project would be required to comply with the City’s
Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards Ordinance,
ensuring that impacts to sensitive receptors would be minimized to the
extent feasible.
Goal 7: Adapt to a changing climate and support
an integrated regional development pattern and
transportation network.
Not Applicable: This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore not
applicable.
Goal 8: Leverage new transportation technologies
and data-driven solutions that result in more
efficient travel.
Not Applicable: This is not a transportation improvement project and is
therefore not applicable. However, the Project is located in a developed
area in proximity to existing truck routes and freeways. Location of the
Project within a developed area would reduce trip leng ths, which would
result in more efficient travel.
Goal 9: Encourage development of diverse
housing types in areas that are supported by
multiple transportation options.
Not Applicable: The Project involves development of a warehouse and
does not include housing.
Goal 10: Promote conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and restoration of habitats.
Not Applicable: This the Project is not located on agricultural or habitat
lands.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments. 2020. Connect SoCal 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy. Page 9. Los Angeles, CA: Southern California Association of Governments . https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176. (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana General Plan
The City recently adopted an updated General Plan which contains goals and policies meant to guide
growth and development within the City. These include goals and policies which would specifically guide
land usage for future City development and growth. See Table 4.11-4.
Table 4.11-4: Consistency with the Fontana General Plan
Policy Consistency
Chapter 6, Building a Healthier Fontana
Goal 1: The average lifespan in Fontana is consistently within the top ten of all southern California cities.
Policy 1.3: Support local and regional initiatives
to improve air quality in order to reduce asthma
while actively discouraging development that
may exacerbate asthma
Consistent: Project emissions would be less than significant and would
not exceed SCAQMD thresholds (refer to Table 4.3-8 and Table 4.3-9 in
Section 4.3: Air Quality.). The ambient air quality standards establish the
levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to
protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive
populations.
Chapter 7, Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails Element
Goal 3: Fontana has a healthy, drought-resistant urban forest.
Policy 3.1: Support tree conservation and
planting that enhances shade and drought
resistance.
Consistent: Landscaping, including trees, would be installed in all areas
not devoted to buildings, parking, traffic, and specific user requirements,
in accordance with the City’s Zoning and Development Code Section
30-551 which specifies landscape design guidelines for industrial zoning
districts. Project landscaping would comprise 21.4 percent of the Project
site (or 85,181 SF), exceeding the 15 percent requirement.
See Figure 3-7: Conceptual Landscape Plan.
Policy 3.2: Expand Fontana’s tree canopy.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-9 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
Policy Consistency
Chapter 8, Public and Community Services
Goal 1: Fontana’s crime rate continues to be below state and county rates
Policy 1.4: Promote and enhance use of anti-
crime design strategies and programs.
Consistent: The City of Fontana Police Department (FPD) is approximately
three miles south of the Project site. The FPD would be provided the
opportunity to review the Project’s design to verify that all feasible Crime
Prevention measures through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies
are incorporated. CPTED is a way of designing the built environment to
create a safer built environment. CPTED elements include the strategic
use of nighttime security lighting, avoidance of landscaping and fencing
that limit sightlines, and use of a single, clearly identifiable point of entry.
Goal 2: Fontana’s Fire Department meets or exceeds state and national benchmarks for protection and
responsiveness.
Policy 2.1: Continue the City’s successful
partnership with the San Bernardino County Fire
Department.
Consistent: Fire protection services to the Project site would be provided
by the SBCFD. The Project site would be served by the County Fire Station
78, located approximately 1.8 miles southwest of the Project site, and Fire
Station 79, located approximately two miles northwest of the Project site.
The SBCFD strives to have a response time of less than five minutes once
a call for service is received. Prior to commencement of any construction
activities, the Project design plans would be reviewed by all applicable
local agencies, including the SBCFD, to ensure compliance with the City’s
General Plan, and all applicable emergency response and fire safety
requirements of the SBCFD and the California Fire Code.
Chapter 10, Infrastructure and Green Systems
Goal 3: The City continues to have an effective water conservation program.
Policy 3.1: Support landscaping in public and
private spaces with drought-resistant plants.
Consistent: Landscaping would be installed in all areas not devoted to
buildings, parking, traffic, and specific user requirements, in accordance
with the City’s Zoning and Development Code Article VII, Section 30-551
which specifies landscape design guidelines for industrial zoning districts.
Goal 6: Fontana has a stormwater drainage system that is environmentally and economically sustainable and compatible
with regional One Water One Watershed standards.
Policy 6.1: Continue to implement the Water
Quality Management Plan for stormwater
management that incorporates low-impact and
green infrastructure standards.
Consistent: The Project would implement a WQMP. The WQMP would
include design measures such as low impact development (LID) and other
stormwater drainage controls. The LIDs would be engineered to capture
and control run-off prior to being released downstream.
Policy 6.2: Promote natural drainage
approaches (green infrastructure) and other
alternative non-structural and structural best
practices to manage and treat stormwater.
Consistent: The Project would be required to implement a WQMP and
BMPs to minimize impacts to stormwater systems and conveyance.
Goal 7: Fontana is an energy-efficient community.
Policy 7.1: Promote renewable energy and
distributed energy systems in new development
and retrofits of existing development to work
towards the highest levels of low -carbon
energy-efficiency.
Consistent: The Project would implement required green building
strategies through existing regulation that requires the Project to comply
with various CALGreen and the Fontana Industrial Commerce Center
Sustainability Standards Ordinance requirements. The Project includes
sustainability design features that support such measures. As such, the
Project would be consistent with this policy.
Goal 8: All residences, businesses, and institutions have a dependable, environmentally safe means to dispose of solid
waste.
Policy 8.1: Continue to use best practices for
environmentally safe collection, transport, and
disposal of hazardous wastes.
Consistent: The Project would comply with the requirements of AB 341
and would implement the requirements of the City’s Integrated Waste
Department's Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual on refuse and
recycling storage and access for service, as well as addressing the City's
recycling goals. The requirements of the MC Chapter 24, Solid Waste and
Recycling, would also be implemented to ensure that the Project complies
with all applicable state and federal laws, including, but not limited to, the
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. A construction waste
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-10 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
Policy Consistency
management plan would be submitted and implemented in compliance
with Section 5.408 of the 2022 CALGreen Code.
Policy 8.2: Continue to maximize landfill
capacity by supporting recycling innovations,
such as organic waste recycling for compost.
Consistent: The Project would comply with the requirements of AB 341
and would implement the requirements of the City’s Integrated Waste
Department's Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual on refuse and
recycling storage and access for service, as well as addressing the C ity's
recycling goals. The requirements of the MC Chapter 24, Solid Waste and
Recycling, would also be implemented to ensure that the Project complies
with all applicable state and federal laws, including, but not limited to, the
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. A construction waste
management plan would be submitted and implemented in compliance
with Section 5.408 of the 2022 CALGreen Code.
The estimated 5,658 ppd or 2.83 tons per day generated by the Project
would be adequately served by the Mid-Valley Landfill. Overall, sufficient
landfill capacity is available in the region for the estimated solid waste
generated by the Project during operations, and Project development
would not require an expansion of landfill capacity.
Chapter 11, Noise and Safety
Goal 4: Seismic injury and loss of life, property damage, and other impacts caused by seismic shaking, fault rupture,
ground failure, earthquake-induced landslides, and other earthquake-induced ground deformation are minimized in
Fontana.
Policy 4.2: The City shall continue to ensure that
current geologic knowledge and peer (third
party) review are incorporated into the design,
planning, and construction stages of a project
and that site-specific data are applied to each
project.
Consistent: Development of the Project would be required to be
constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the California
Building Code and to adhere to all current earthquake construction
standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, no
elements of this Project would contribute to any cumulatively
considerable geologic and/or soils impacts.
Goal 7: Threats to public and private property from urban and wildland fire hazards are reduced in Fontana.
Policy 7.1: The City shall continue to require
residential, commercial, and industrial
structures to implement fire hazard-reducing
designs and features.
Consistent: The Project would comply with the requirements for
emergency lane width, vertical clearance, and distance would ensure that
adequate emergency access is available for all new development and
redevelopment projects. Additionally, the necessary development fees
will be paid prior to construction, as indicated in the Fontana MC Section
11.2. Due to quick response times, building designs compliance with
state, regional, and local codes, and designation of the Project site in a
Non-VHFHSZ zone, the Project will cause a less than significant impact to
the SBCFD’s emergency response plan and evacuation plan.
Also, according to the City’s General Plan Land Use Map (April 2022), the
Project site is located in a Fire Hazard Overlay. Therefore, the Project
would be subject to the provisions of Division 8 – Fire Hazard Overlay
District of Chapter 30 of the Zoning and Development Code.
Goal 8: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning through 2035.
Policy 8.2: Noise-tolerant land uses shall be
guided into areas irrevocably committed to land
uses that are noise-producing, such as
transportation corridors.
Consistent: The Project would be developed in an area that is designated
for light industrial land use designations. Further, the surrounding area
includes industrial, commercial, and residential uses.
Policy 8.4: Noise spillover or encroachment
from commercial, industrial, and educational
land uses shall be minimized into adjoining
residential neighborhoods or noise-sensitive
uses.
Consistent: Existing residential uses are located approximately 130 feet
from the Project construction area. However, it is acknowledged that
construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would
not be concentrated at a single point near sensitive receptors.
Construction noise levels would not exceed the applicable FTA
construction thresholds. The highest exterior noise level at the nearest
residential receptors would occur during the overlap of building
construction, paving, and architectural coating stages and would be 67.8
dBA which is below the FTA’s 80 dBA threshold. Further, the City’s
Municipal Code does not establish quantitative construction noise
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-11 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
Policy Consistency
standards. Instead, the Municipal Code establishes limited hours of
construction activities. Municipal Code Section 18 -63 states that
construction activities may only take place between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, except in the case of urgent necessity or
otherwise approved by the City of Fontana. Compliance with the
Municipal Code would minimize impacts from construction noise, as
construction would be limited to daytime ho urs on weekdays and
Saturdays. Noise levels from the Project would comply with the City
Municipal Code standards for reducing noise spillover.
Goal 10: Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover” noise.
Policy 10.1: Residential land uses, and areas
identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected
from excessive noise from non-transportation
sources including industrial, commercial, and
residential activities and equipment.
Consistent: At the closest sensitive receptors located approximately 130
feet away, mechanical equipment noise would attenuate to 43.7 dBA,
which is below the City’s 65 dBA standard. Operation of mechanical
equipment would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the
acceptable compatible land use noise levels. Therefore, the Project would
result in a less than significant impact related to stationary noise levels .
These closest residences would experience truck noise levels of
approximately 49.1 dBA, which is below the City’s acceptable limits of 65
dBA for residential noise. Additionally, these noise levels would also be
further attenuated by the intervening structures. Loading dock doors
would also be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar
improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise
barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading
area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and
as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible
during all hours of the day. Noise levels associated with trucks and loading
or unloading activities would not exceed the City’s standards and impacts
would be less than significant. Noise associated with parking lot activities
is not anticipated to exceed the City’s noise standards during operation.
the Project would generate 681 daily trips that would result in noise
increases on Project area roadways. In general, a traffic noise increase of
less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5-dBA increase is
readily noticeable. Generally, traffic volumes on Project area roadways
would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels
to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise
levels of less than 3 dBA are considered to be less than significant.
Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience
Goal 3: Renewable sources of energy, including solar and wind, and other energy-conservation strategies are available to
city households and businesses.
Policy 3.1: Promote renewable energy programs
for government, Fontana businesses, and
Fontana residences.
Consistent: The electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California’s
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor -owned
utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to
increase procurement from eligible renewable energy r esources to 33
percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 60 percent of total
procurement by 2030. Additionally, the Project shall be designed in
accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations
[CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every
three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and
methods. The Building Official, or designee shall ensure complianc e prior
to the issuance of each building permit. The Title 24 Energy Efficiency
Standards (Section 110.10) require buildings to be designed to have 15
percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate
later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators
pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar
panels prior to occupancy.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-12 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
Policy Consistency
Goal 5: Green building techniques are used in new development and retrofits.
Policy 5.1: Promote green building through
guidelines, awards, and nonfinancial incentives.
Consistent: The Project would comply with the latest Title 24 standards.
The Project would implement required green building strategies through
existing regulation that requires the Project to comply with various
CALGreen requirements. The Project includes sustainabi lity design
features that support the Green Building Strategy. As such, the Project
would be consistent with this goal.
Goal 6: Fontana is a leader in energy-efficient development and retrofits.
Policy 6.1: Promote energy-efficient
development in Fontana.
Consistent: The Project shall be designed in accordance with the
applicable CALGreen Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or
designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building
permit. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in
accordance with Section 4.303 (residential) and Section 5.303
(nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the
nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with
Section 4.408.1 (residential) and Section 5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate
recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with
Section 4.410 (residential) and Section 5.410 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Pa rt 11.
Provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel
efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles. At least eight percent of the total
parking spaces are required to be designated in accordance Section
5.106.5.2 (nonresidential), Designated Parking for Clean Air Vehicles, of
the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment
(EVSE), residential construction shall comply with Section 4.106.4
(residential electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11 and nonresidential construction shall comply with
Section 5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
Policy 6.2: Meet or exceed state goals for
energy-efficient for new construction.
Consistent: The Project shall be designed in accordance with the
applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24,
Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to
incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The
Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance
of each building permit. The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
(Section 110.10) require buildings to be designed to have 15 percent of
the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later
installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue
providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels
prior to occupancy.
Chapter 15, Land Use Zoning, and Urban Design Element
Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic prosperity.
Policy 2.3: Locate industrial uses where there is
easy access to regional transportation routes.
Consistent: The Project is located within an area of the City designated
for light industrial use, consistent with Project development. Regional
Project access would be from State Route 210 (SR-210) via the officially
designated local truck route, Sierra Avenue, approximately 0.5 miles
south of the Project site.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-13 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
Policy Consistency
Goal 5: High-quality job producing industrial uses are concentrated in a few locations where there is easy access to
regional transportation routes.
Policy 5.1: Promote the Southwest Industrial
Park and the I-10 corridor as preferred locations
for industrial uses.
Consistent: The Project would be developed on an area that is designated
for light industrial land use designations. Further, the surrounding area
includes industrial, commercial, and residential uses.
Policy 5.2: Maintain but do not expand existing
heavy industrial land use areas in proximity to
one another and to services for industrial uses.
Consistent: The Project would be developed on an area that is designated
for light industrial land use designations. Further, the surrounding area
includes industrial, commercial, and residential uses.
Policy 5.3: Avoid locating small areas of
residential uses where they will be surrounded
by intensive commercial or industrial uses.
Consistent: The Project does not propose residential developments.
Goal 7: Public and private development meets high design standards.
Policy 7.1: Support high-quality development in
design standards and in land use decisions.
Consistent: The Project will be consistent with all applicable building
codes and design standards.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete -Document---Approved-General-Plan-Documents-11-13-2018.
(accessed October 2022).
As shown in Table 4.11-4, the Project would be generally consistent with the City General Plan goals and
policies. It should be noted that a Project need not satisfy all guidance contained in the General Plan and
CEQA does not require a Project to be consistent with all guidance but instead requires a discussion of
inconsistencies. The Project is generally consistent and in harmony with the City General Plan, Land Use
Category and is located in a developed area of the City. Additionally, consistent with the City’s General
Plan, the Project’s EIR includes mitigation measures related to specific environmental resource areas to
reduce or eliminate potential effects of the Project. The City’s Development Code is not in and of itself
intended to reduce impacts to the environment. The intent of the Development Code is to prescribe zones
in which certain land uses are permitted, and to define allowable Project elements and designs within
those zones. Nonetheless, conformance with the Development Code typically signifies that a Project
would not result in environmental impacts beyond those which are already planned for or disclosed in an
environmental document.
The Project would not result in a change in, or conflict with a land use or zoning district that would result
in potentially significant impacts. Therefore, impacts associated with any existing plan, policy, or
regulation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.11.6 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of land use and planning impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative
development in the City of Fontana. Those projects represent past, present, and potential future projects
that could lead to cumulative impacts when combined with the Project. The geographic context for the
land use and planning cumulative impact analysis includes the jurisdiction of local and regional agencies
including the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County and SCAG.
Land use impacts would not be cumulatively considerable if the Project, in conjunction with other past,
present, reasonably foreseeable future projects, would be designed or otherwise conditioned to maintain
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-14 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
consistency with adopted land use plans and ordinances or be amended with the appropriate mitigation
and conditions of approval. Implementation of the Project would neither physically divide an established
community nor inhibit future development within the City in accordance with the City General Plan goals
and policies. Given the Project’s consistency, as well as the requirement for other future projects to be
generally consistent with the land use policy framework, overall cumulative land use consistency impacts
would be less than significant.
4.11.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
4.11.8 References
City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Chapter 30.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH30ZODECO .
City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 30-522 – 30.523.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30
ZODECO_ARTVIIINZODI.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26754/Chapter-15---Land-Use-Zoning-and-
Urban-Design.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Stewardship and Implementation.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26755/Chapter-16---Stewardship-and-
Implementation.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete-Document---Approved-
General-Plan-Documents-11 -13-2018.
City of Fontana. 2022. Zoning and General Land Use Designation Interactive Map.
https://fontanaca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ecc67f90c51440eca0d1
7fd5a6e59c92.
City of Rialto. 2013. City of Rialto Official Zoning Map.
https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1513/Zoning-Map---July-2013.
City of Rialto. 2010. Rialto General Plan. Exhibit 2.2 – Land Use Policy Plan.
https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1494/2010-General-Plan.
Southern California Association of Governments. 2020. Connect SoCal 2020–2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Page 9. Los Angeles, CA: Southern
California Association of Governments. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-15 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
San Bernardino County. 2022. Parcel Viewer.
https://sbcounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=87e70bb9b6994559ba75
12792588d57a&marker=-
116.34526321815805%2C34.11587161201653%2C%2C%2C%2C&markertemplate=%7B%22title
%22%3A%22%22%2C%22longitude%22%3A-
116.34526321815805%2C%22latitude%22%3A34.11587161201653%2C%22isIncludeShareUrl%2
2%3Atrue%7D&level=19.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.11-16 4.11 | Land Use and Planning
This page intentionally left blank.
4.12
Mineral Resources
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.12-1 4.12 | Mineral Resources
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCE S
4.12.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and analyzes the potential
environmental impacts of the Sierra Distribution Facility Project (Project) as they relate to mineral
resources. The Project’s environmental setting will be discussed along with any applicable federal, state,
regional, and local policies and regulations. This section also describes any mitigation measures that may
be used to minimize any significant environmental impacts, if any are identified. The baseline data
collection provides information on existing conditions within and surrounding the Project area, obtained
from literature search, review of existing data, and site surveys. Potential impacts are assessed regarding
their effects on valuable mineral resources and any mineral resource recovery sites. Information used to
prepare this section includes resources from:
• California Department of Conservation (DOC) California Geological Survey.
• County of San Bernardino. 2020. San Bernardino Countywide Plan.
• County of San Bernardino. 2019. San Bernardino Countywide Plan Draft Environmental Impact
Report.
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental
Impact Report.
• Other sources found in Section 4.12.8: References.
4.12.2 Environmental Setting
Mineral resources are naturally occurring substances that aid in urban construction. These substances
include sand, gravel, and crushed stone that can be used as Portland-cement-concrete (PCC) aggregate,
asphaltic-concrete-aggregate, road base, railroad ballast, riprap, fill, and the production of other
materials.
Existing Conditions
The Project site is located in northern Fontana. The Project site is comprised of six parcels (Assessor Parcel
Numbers 1119-241-10, -13, -18, -25, -26, and -27) bounded to the north and south by existing warehouse/
industrial buildings, to the west by Sierra Avenue and residential development, and to the east by
Mango Avenue and a landfill. The Project site was historically occupied by light industrial businesses
including: All American Pipe & Steel Distribution; Days Express Inc.; Anderson Trucking Services;
Apollo Amusement; San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling; S.J. Steel Inc.; Active Steel, Inc.; and National
Pallets (1987-Present). Additional details are described in Section 3.0: Project Description.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.12-2 4.12 | Mineral Resources
The Project site as a whole, generally slopes downward to the south at a gradient of three percent. The
elevation of the Project site ranges from 1,630 feet mean sea level (amsl) in the northern region of the
site to 1,612 feet amsl in the southern region.1
A geotechnical study and infiltration study was conducted for the Project in February 2021. Boring and
trenching techniques conducted during the concurrent studies identified artificial fill soils and alluvium at
the Project site. Artificial fill soils, often consist of loose to dense silty fine to coarse sands, fine to coarse
sands, and silty fine sands. Occasional cobbles and variable gravel content were encountered throughout
the artificial fill. In addition, occasional boulder content was encountered as shallow as 2.5 feet from the
ground surface.2 According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) web soil survey, the Project site soils consist of Soboba gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent
slopes.3 The Soboba series consists of deep, excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium from
predominantly granitic rock sources. Soboba soils are on alluvial fans and flood plains and have slopes of
0 to 30 percent.4
Native alluvial soils were found beneath the fill soils surface at both of the infiltration boring locations,
extending to at least the maximum depth explored of seven feet below existing site grades. The alluvial
soils consisted of medium dense to very dense gravelly fine to coarse sands to fine to coarse sandy gravels.
Extensive cobble content and variable silt content were encountered throughout the alluvial strata . See
Section 4.7: Geology and Soils for additional details on geologic and soil conditions.
Mineral Resource Zones
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 (California Public Resources Code [PRC]
Sections 2710-2796) required the California State Mining and Geology Board to classify California mineral
resources using the Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) system. These zones have been established based on
the presence or absence of significant sand and gravel deposits and crushed rock and stone sources
(e.g., products used in the production of cement). The MRZ categories are defined as follows:5
• MRZ-1: Areas where available geologic information indicates there is little likelihood for the
presence of significant mineral resources.
• MRZ-2a: Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate that significant
measured or indicated resources are present. As shown on the California Mineral Land
Classification Diagram, MRZ-2 is divided on the basis of both degree of knowledge and economic
factors. Areas classified as MRZ-2a contain discovered mineral deposits that are either measured
or indicated reserves as determined by such evidence as drilling records, sample analysis, surface
exposure, and mine information. Land included in the MRZ-2a category is of prime importance
because it contains known economic mineral deposits.
1 Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Infiltration Report.
2 Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Warehouse, NEC Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive, Fontana, California, prepared by Southern
California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCG) for Seefried Industrial Properties, Inc., SCG Project No. 20G250 -1, dated February 5, 2021.
3 USDA NRCS. 2022. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. (accessed July 2022).
4 USDA. 1971. Soboba Series. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/S/SOBOBA.html . (accessed July 2022).
5 California Department of Conservation. ND. Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands .
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Guidelines/Documents/ClassDesig.pdf (accessed July 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.12-3 4.12 | Mineral Resources
• MRZ-2b: Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic information indicates that significant
inferred resources are present. Areas classified as MRZ-2b contain discovered mineral deposits
that are either inferred reserves as determined by limited sample analysis, exposure, and past
mining history, or are deposits that presently are sub-economic. Further exploration work and/or
changes in technology or economics could result in upgrading areas classified MRZ-2b to MRZ-2a.
• MRZ-3a: Areas containing known mineral occurrences or undetermined mineral resource
significance. Further exploration work within these areas could result in the reclassification of
specific localities into MRZ -2a or MRZ-2b categories. As shown on the California Mineral Land
Classification Diagram, MRZ-3 is divided on the basis of knowledge of economic characteristics of
the resources.
• MRZ-3b: Areas containing inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource
significance. Land classified as MRZ-3b represents areas in geologic settings that appear to be
favorable environments for the occurrence of specific mineral deposits. Further exploration work
could result in the reclassification of all or part of these areas into the MRZ-3a category or specific
localities into MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b categories.
• MRZ-4: Areas of no known mineral occurrences where geologic information does not rule out
either the presence or absence of significant mineral resources.
According to the California Department of Conservation6 and the San Bernardino County Policy Plan7, the
Project is designated as MRZ-3, an area of general undetermined mineral resource significance. The
Department of Conservation and San Bernardino Countywide Plan make no distinction as to whether the
designation of the Project site is MRZ-3a or MRZ-3b.
4.12.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
U.S. Code Title 30: Mineral Lands and Mining
The U.S. Code Section 30.21a defines the national mining and minerals policy of the United States. This
policy dictates that the United States will encourage the development of rational domestic mining
reclamation practices, the sustainable development of domestic mineral resources, mining and mineral
research, and the advancement of mineral waste disposal and reclamation methods. Title 3 0 also
describes the federal regulations involving the sale of mineral lands.8
State
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act: California Public Resources Code Sections 2710 et seq.
SMARA is the primary regulatory framework for mining in the state. It delegates specific regulatory
authority to local jurisdictions. The act requires the state geologist to identify in the California Geological
6 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1995. Mineral Land Classification of a Part of Southwestern San
Bernardino County: The San Bernardino Valley Area, California (West) – Composite Map Showing MRZ’s, and Mines, Prospects, and Active
Aggregate Pits. https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=ofr_94-08_west.pdf (accessed August 2022).
7 San Bernardino County. 2021. NR-4 Mineral Resources Zones Policy Map.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9948b9bc78f147fd9ea193c2ce758081 (accessed August 2022).
8 United States of America. 1996. United States Code Title 30. https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title30&edition=prelim. (accessed July 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.12-4 4.12 | Mineral Resources
Survey (CGS) important mineral deposits in the state threatened by land uses that would be incompatible
with future extraction and classify them into MRZs. Local jurisdictions are required to enact specific
procedures to guide mineral conservation and extraction at identified sites and to incorporate minera l
resource management policies (MRMPs) into their general plans.
Under SMARA, aggregate materials are classified as reserves or resources. Reserves are defined as
aggregate materials believed to be acceptable for commercial use that exist within property boundaries
owned or leased by an aggregate-producing company, and for which permission allowing extraction and
processing has been granted by the proper authorities. Mineral lands are locally reviewed in an effort to
ensure that significant mineral deposits are identified and protected. The State Geologist produces an
annual report of the disturbed and reclaimed land totals and any amendments to the reclamation plan.
California Geological Survey
The CGS provides objective geological expertise and information about California’s diverse nonfuel
mineral resources, including their related hazards, through maps, reports, and other data products to
assist governmental agencies, mining companies, consultants, and the public in recognizing, developing,
and protecting important mineral resources.
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
The City’s General Plan (GP) Update states that the GP does not contain policies that conflict with the
recovery of future mineral resources.9 Any significant mineral resource deposits unearthed in the future,
would be protected over the long term.
4.12.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning mineral resources. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been
utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on
the environment if it would:
• Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state or
• 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.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the previously mentioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning mineral resources. In addition, this analysis
considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid
9 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 7-10.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update. (accessed
July 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.12-5 4.12 | Mineral Resources
or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite
compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or
reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts from mineral resources examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and
permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on significance criteria/threshold’s application outlined above.
For each criterion, the analyses are generally divided into two main categories: (1) construction impacts
and (2) operational impacts. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental
conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on review of Project maps and drawings, analysis
of aerial and ground-level photographs, and review of various data available in public records, including
review of relevant local planning documents. The determination that a project component would or would
not result in “substantial” adverse effects on mineral resources considers th e available policies and
regulations established by local and regional agencies and the amount of deviation from these policies in
the Project’s components.
4.12.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.12-1 Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
The Project site is located on lands designated as MRZ-3 by the County, which designates land that has
areas containing known or inferred mineral deposits that may qualify as mineral resources .10 The Project
site is not designated as land that contains known mineral resources of significance, and any mineral
resource extraction would require a Conditional Use Permit from the County. The Fontana Forward
General Plan (Fontana Forward GP) Update does not contain policies that conflict with the recovery of
future mineral resources.11 The City plans to instill long term protections over any significant mineral
resource deposits, should they be unearthed in the future. The City does not expect that their General
Plan Update would contribute to a loss of mineral resources. Further the Project site is already developed
for light industrial uses and the surrounding area is currently urbanized for industrial uses. Additionally,
the Project site has previously been developed and did not contain any known mineral resources or
require extraction of any mineral resources. No part of the Project site is within a boundary that is owned
or controlled by an aggregate producer or has previously been used for mineral extraction. As the Project
site does not currently contain mineral extraction facilities, consists of previously disturbed land, and has
10 San Bernardino County. 2019. Countywide Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.11, Mineral Resources – Figure 5.11-1 Mineral
Resource Zones 2&3 in the Southwest Quadrant of the County . https://countywideplan.com/wp -content/uploads/sites/68/2021/01/Ch_05-
11-MIN.pdf (accessed August 2022).
11 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 7-10.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update. (accessed
July 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.12-6 4.12 | Mineral Resources
not been designated as containing confirmed mineral resources of significance, the Project would not
result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources which are of value to the region and the
residents of the state. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the state. As such, there would be no impacts due to Project
implementation.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.12-2 Would the Project 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?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
There are many mineral resource recovery sites within the County, of which there is one within the general
vicinity of the Project Site. The City of Rialto is operating an Open Pit that is within 0.3 mile of the Project
area.12 The Fontana Forward GP does not mention any mineral resource recovery sites located within the
City or its sphere of influence.13 The Project is located in northern portion of the City at the northeast
corner of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive. The Project site is currently disturbed
with existing light industrial uses and the site is located within an urbanized industrial area. The Project
site is not delineated as a mineral resource recovery site on any general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of any locally important mineral
resource recovery site. As such, there would be no impacts due to Project implementation.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.12.6 Cumulative Impacts
As concluded above, Project implementation would have no impact on the availability of a local mineral
resource. Additionally, the Fontana GP does not contain policies that conflict with the recovery of future
mineral resources. Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the
Project’s incremental effects involving mineral resources are not cumulatively considerable.
4.12.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
12 California Department of Conservation. 2016. Mines Online. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html. (accessed August 2022).
13 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 5.5-1.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update. (accessed
July 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.12-7 4.12 | Mineral Resources
4.12.8 References
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1995. Mineral Land Classification
of a Part of Southwestern San Bernardino County: The San Bernardino Valley Area, California
(West) – Composite Map Showing MRZ’s, and Mines, Prospects, and Active Aggregate Pits.
https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=ofr_94-08_west.pdf.
California Department of Conservation. 2016. Mines Online.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html.
California Department of Conservation. ND. Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Guidelines/Documents/ClassDesig.pdf.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact
Report. Page 5.5-1. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-
Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact
Report. Page 7-10. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-
Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update.
San Bernardino County. 2019. Countywide Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.11,
Mineral Resources – Figure 5.11-1 Mineral Resource Zones 2&3 in the Southwest Quadrant of
the County. https://countywideplan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/68/2021/01/Ch_05-11-
MIN.pdf.
San Bernardino County. 2021. NR-4 Mineral Resources Zones Policy Map.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9948b9bc78f147fd9ea193c2ce758
081.
Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Infiltration Report. El Segundo, CA: Southern California
Geotechnical.
United States of America. 1996. United States Code Title 30.
https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title30&edition=prelim.
USDA. 1971. Soboba Series. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/S/SOBOBA.html.
United States of America. 1996. United States Code Title 30. https://uscode.house.
gov/browse/prelim@title30&edition=prelim.
USDA NRCS. 2022. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.12-8 4.12 | Mineral Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
4.13
Noise
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-1 4.13 | Noise
4.13 NOISE
4.13.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft EIR identifies and analyzes the Sierra Distribution Facility Project’s (Project)
potential construction and operational noise and vibration effects on the surrounding area. Specifically,
the analysis describes the existing noise environment near the Project site; the regulatory framework that
guided the analysis pursuant to federal, state, and local regulations; forecasts of future noise and vibration
levels at surrounding land uses; and the potential for significant noise impacts. Information for the analysis
was derived from the following found in Draft EIR Appendix J:
• Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Acoustical Assessment.
See Appendix A of Appendix J for noise data.
4.13.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Noise Sources
The City is impacted by various noise sources. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars, trucks, and trains
are the most common and significant sources of noise. Other noise sources are the various land uses
(i.e., residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational and parks activities) throughout the City that
generate stationary-source noise.
Mobile Sources
The predominant mobile noise source in the Project area is the traffic noise along Sierra Avenue which is
located directly west of the Project Site. Sierra Lakes Parkway and State Route 210 are approximately
0.36-mile and 0.58-mile to the south of the Project site, respectively.
Stationary Sources
The primary sources of stationary noise in the Project vicinity are those associated with the operations of
adjacent warehouse uses to the north and south of the Project, landfill operations located to the east of
the Project, and residential land uses to the west of the Project. The noise associated with these sources
may represent a single-event noise occurrence or short-term noise. Other noises include mechanical
equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment), dogs barking, idling vehicles,
and residents talking.
Noise Measurements
To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, Kimley-Horn conducted five short-term noise
measurements on August 24, 2022. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing
noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the Project site. The 10-minute measurements were
taken between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. near potential sensitive receptors. Short-term Leq measurements
are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The noise levels and sources of noise
measured at each location are listed in Table 4.13-1: Existing Noise Measurements.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-2 4.13 | Noise
Table 4.13-1: Existing Noise Measurements
Site Location Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA) Time
1 End of cul-de-sac on Camargo Place 65.3 50.1 81.3 9:10 a.m.
2 End of cul-de-sac on Olympic Court 50.5 45.1 58.5 9:30 a.m.
3 End of cul-de-sac on Mango Avenue 67.0 47.6 87.5 9:50 a.m.
4 Southeast corner of Project site along Mango Avenue 65.3 52.6 82.7 10:05 a.m.
5 Past the entrance on Windflower Avenue, within Project site 65.3 50.1 81.3 10:23 a.m.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Acoustical Assessment, Table 4.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of noise pollution than is the general population.
Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to stationary sources of noise and vibration are of particular
concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare
centers, long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement
homes. Sensitive land uses surrounding the Project consist mostly of single-family residential
communities, a middle school, and a high school. Sensitive land uses nearest to the Project are shown in
Table 4.13-2: Sensitive Receptors.
Table 4.13-2: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the Project
Single-Family Residences 130 feet to the west
Single-Family Residences 1,385 feet to the north
Single-Family Residences 3,440 feet to the south
Wayne Ruble Middle School 4,880 feet to the southwest
A.B. Miller High School 5,000 feet to the southwest
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Acoustical Assessment, Table 5.
4.13.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Transit Administration Noise and Vibration Guidance
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Manual (FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Manual) to provide guidance on procedures for assessing impacts
at different stages of transit project developm ent. The report covers both construction and operational
noise impacts and describes a range of measures for controlling excessive noise and vibration. The report
establishes a threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses and 90 dBA (8 -hour Leq) for non-
residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts.1
In general, the primary concern regarding vibration relates to potential damage from construction. The
guidance document establishes criteria for evaluating the potential for damage for various structural
categories from vibration.
1 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-2, Page 179, September 2018.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-3 4.13 | Noise
State
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city
adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize
the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services. The
guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,”
“normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. Single-family
homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally
acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and
“conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries, and churches are “normally acceptable” up
to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial, and professional uses.
Title 24 – Building Code
The state’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Part 1,
Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are
applied to new construction in California for interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The
regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as
residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and
where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that
accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise
in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new multi-family residential buildings, the acceptable
interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
Adopted on November 13, 2018, the Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 (Fontana General
Plan) identifies noise standards that are used as guidelines to evaluate transportation noise level impacts.
These standards are also used to assess the long‐term traffic noise impacts on specific land uses. According
to the Fontana General Plan, land uses such as residences have acceptable exterior noise levels of up to
65 dBA CNEL. Based on the guidelines in the Fontana General Plan, an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL
is generally considered the maximum exterior noise level for sensitive receptors.
Land uses near these significant noise‐producers can incorporate buffers and noise control techniques
including setbacks, landscaping, building transitions, site design, and building construction techniques to
reduce the impact of excessive noise. Selection of the appropriate noise control technique would vary
depending on the level of noise that needs to be reduced as well as the location and intended land use.
The City has adopted the Noise and Safety Element2 as a part of the updated Fontana General Plan. The
Noise and Safety Element specifies the maximum allowable unmitigated exterior noise levels for new
developments impacted by transportation noise sources. Additionally, the Noise and Safety Element
2 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Noise and Safety. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26750/Chapter -
11---Noise-and-Safety (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-4 4.13 | Noise
identifies transportation noise policies designed to protect, create, and maintain an environment free of
harmful noise that could impact the health and welfare of sensitive receptors. The following Fontana
General Plan goals, policies, and actions for addressing noise are applicable to the Project:
Noise and Safety Element
Goal 8: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent
planning through 2035.
Policy 8.2: Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into areas irrevocably committed to land uses
that are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors.
Policy 8.4: Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial and educational land
uses shall be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-sensitive
uses.
Goal 10: Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover” noise.
Policy 10.1: Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected from
excessive noise from non-transportation sources including industrial, commercial, and
residential activities and equipment.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Standards established under the City of Fontana Municipal Code (Municipal Code) are used to analyze
noise impacts originating from the Project. Operational noise impacts are typically governed by Fontana
Municipal Code Sections 18-61 through 18-67.3Guidelines for non-transportation and stationary noise
source impacts from operations at private properties are found in the Zoning and Development Code in
Chapter 30 of the Fontana Municipal Code. Applicable guidelines indicate that no person shall create or
cause any sound exceeding the City’s stated noise performance standards measured at the property line
of any residentially zoned property. Per Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-543(A), the performance
standards for exterior noise emanating from industrial uses are 65 dBA between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 10:00 p.m. and 70 dBA during the noise-sensitive hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. at residential uses.4
For this analysis, a 65-dBA nighttime noise level standard is conservatively used to analyze potential noise
impacts at off-site residential receptors within the City of Fontana.
The City has also set restrictions to control noise impacts from construction activities. Section 18 -63(b)(7)
states that the erection (including excavation), demolition, alteration, or repair of any structure shall only
occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, except in the case of urgent necessity or otherwise approved by the City of
Fontana. Although the Fontana Municipal Code limits the hours of construction, it does not provide
specific noise level performance standards for construction.
3 City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Sections 18-61 through 18-67.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH18NU_ARTIINO (accessed September 2022).
4 City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 30-543.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30ZODECO_ARTVIIINZODI_DIV6PEST_S30 -
543NOVI (accessed September 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-5 4.13 | Noise
4.13.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning noise. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as
significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the
environment if it would:
• Generate 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;
• Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels; or
• For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose
people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels.
Methodology
Construction
Construction noise levels were based on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment
published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and FHWA. Construction noise is assessed in dBA
Leq. This unit is appropriate because Leq can be used to describe noise level from operation of each piece
of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent the noise level from all equipment
operating during a given period.
Reference noise levels are used to estimate operational noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based
on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line-of-sight method of sound
attenuation for point sources of noise). Noise level estimates do not account for the presence of
intervening structures or topography, which may reduce noise levels at receptor locations. Therefore, the
noise levels presented herein represent a conservative, reasonable worst-case estimate of actual
temporary construction noise.
Operations
The analysis of the Opening Year and With Project noise environments is based on noise prediction
modeling and empirical observations. Reference noise level data are used to estimate the Project
operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Noise levels were collected from published sources
from similar types of activities and used to estimate noise levels expected with the Project’s stationary
sources. The reference noise levels are used to represent a worst-case noise environment as noise level
from stationary sources can vary throughout the day. Operational noise is evaluated based on the
standards within the City’s noise standards and General Plan.
Vibration
Ground-borne vibration levels associated with construction activities for the Project were evaluated
utilizing typical ground-borne vibration levels associated with construction equipment, obtained from FTA
published data for construction equipment. Potential ground-borne vibration impacts related to
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-6 4.13 | Noise
building/structure damage and interference with sensitive existing operations were evaluated,
considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses and typically applied criteria for
structural damage and human annoyance.
4.13.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.13-1 Would the Project result in 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?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of
construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction
equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and por table generators, can reach high levels.
During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods located to the west
of the construction site. Existing residential uses are located approximately 130 feet from the Project
construction area. However, construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would
not be concentrated at a single point near sensitive receptors.
Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving,
and architectural coating. Such activities could require concrete/industrial saws, excavators, and dozers
during demolition; dozers and tractors dur ing site preparation; excavators, graders, and dozers during
grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers,
mixers, and paving equipment during paving; and air compressors during architectural c oating. Typical
operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power
operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical
disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large
pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Noise generated by construction
equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high leve ls.
Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in Table 4.13-3: Typical
Construction Noise Levels.
Table 4.13-3: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 50 feet from Source
Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 130 feet from Source1
Air Compressor 80 74
Backhoe 80 74
Compactor 82 76
Concrete Mixer 85 79
Concrete Pump 82 76
Concrete Vibrator 76 70
Crane, Derrick 88 82
Crane, Mobile 83 77
Dozer 85 79
Generator 82 76
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-7 4.13 | Noise
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 50 feet from Source
Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 130 feet from Source1
Grader 85 79
Impact Wrench 85 79
Jack Hammer 88 82
Loader 80 74
Paver 85 79
Pile-driver (Impact) 101 95
Pile-driver (Sonic) 95 89
Pneumatic Tool 85 79
Pump 77 71
Roller 85 79
Saw 76 70
Scraper 85 79
Shovel 82 76
Truck 84 78
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Acoustical Assessment, Table 6.
1. Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA2 = dBA1+20Log(d1/d2)
Where: dBA2 = estimated noise level at receptor; dBA 1 = reference noise level; d1 = reference distance; d2 = receptor location distance
As shown in Table 4.13-3, exterior noise levels could affect the nearest existing sensitive receptors
(130 feet to the west) in the vicinity. Sensitive uses in the Project site vicinity include existing residential
uses to the west, north, and south, Wayne Ruble Middle School to the southwest, and A.B. Miller High
School to the southwest. These sensitive receptors may be exposed to elevated noise levels during Project
construction. Following FTA’s methodology for quantitative construction noise assessments, FHWA’s
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to predict construction noise. Per the FTA Transit
Noise and Vibration Manual which provides guidance for construction noise analyses , when calculating
construction noise, all construction equipment is assumed to operate simultaneously at the center of the
active construction zone. Under realistic circumstances, equipment would be operating throughout the
site during a workday. Multiple pieces of equipment could not realistically be operating at the same time
at the same point closest to a specific sensitive receptor. Additionally, there may be instances where
multiple types of equipment would not be operated simultaneously. Therefore, assuming the distance
between the center of the Project site and a sensitive receptor would account for average noise levels as
construction equipment move through the Project site and would be a reasonable assumption. Therefore,
the distance used in the RCNM model was approximately 730 from the center of the Project site to the
nearest sensitive receptor (residential uses to the west) where every piece of construction equipment
assumed for each individual phase is assumed to operate simultaneously.
The noise levels calculated in Table 4.13-4: Project Construction Noise Levels, show the exterior
construction noise at the nearest sensitive receptor without accounting for attenuation from existing
physical barriers. Noise generated during the construction, paving, and painting stages, which have the
potential to occur simultaneously, were added together to provide a composite construction noise level.
The City of Fontana does not establish quantitative construction noise standards; therefore, this analysis
conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses to evaluate construction
noise impacts.5 As shown in Table 4.13-4, construction noise levels would not exceed the applicable FTA
construction thresholds. The highest exterior noise level at the nearest residential receptors would occur
5 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-2, Page 179, September 2018.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-8 4.13 | Noise
during the overlap of building construction, paving, and architectural coating stages and would be 67.8
dBA which is below the FTA’s 80 dBA threshold.
It is noted that construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the Project site and not
concentrated in one area near surrounding sensitive uses. Further, the City’s Municipal Code does not
establish quantitative construction noise standards. Instead, the Municipal Code establishes limited hours
of construction activities. Municipal Code Section 18 -63 states that construction activities may only take
place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hour s of 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, except in the case of urgent necessity or otherwise approved by the City of
Fontana. All motorized equipment used in such activity shall be equipped with functioning mufflers as
mandated by the state.
Table 4.13-4: Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction Phase
Receptor Location Worst Case
Modeled
Exterior Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Noise
Threshold
(dBA Leq)
Exceeded?
Land Use Distance
(feet)1
Demolition Residential 730 63.2 80 No
Site Preparation Residential 730 64.3 80 No
Grading Residential 730 64.9 80 No
Infrastructure Residential 730 66.1 80 No
Building Construction Residential 730 66.1 80 No
Paving + Architectural Coating Residential 730 63.1 80 No
Building Construction + Paving +
Architectural Coating Residential 730 67.8 80 No
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Acoustical Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, Table 7.
Note:
1. Distance measured from the center of the project site to the receptor’s nearest property line.
Construction activities may also cause increased noise along site access routes due to movement of
equipment and workers. Compliance with the Municipal Code would minimize impacts from construction
noise, as construction would be limited to daytime hours on weekdays and Saturdays.
As discussed above, construction noise levels from the Project would not exceed the FTA’s construction
noise thresholds and would be required to comply with the Municipal Code standards . Therefore, there
is a less than significant noise impact for construction activities.
Operations
Implementation of the Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity. The major noise
sources associated with the Project including the following:
• Mechanical equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.);
• Slow moving trucks on the Project site, approaching and leaving the loading areas;
• Activities at the loading areas (i.e., maneuvering and idling trucks, equipment noise);
• Back-up alarms;
• Parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and
• Off-Site Traffic Noise.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-9 4.13 | Noise
Mechanical Equipment. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the residences 130 feet
west of the Project site. Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term operation of the Project
site would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air
conditioning [HVAC] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet. At
the closest sensitive receptors located approximately 130 feet away, mechanical equipment noise would
attenuate to 43.7 dBA, which is below the City’s 65 dBA standard. Operation of mechanical equipment
would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels.
Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to stationary noise levels.
Truck and Loading Dock Noise. During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the
trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting braking activities; backing up
toward the docks; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. Loading or
unloading activities would occur on the south side of the Project site. Vehicular access to the Project site
would consist of one driveway along Sierra Avenue and two driveways along Mango Avenue at the west
and east side of the Project site, respectively. Typically, heavy truck operations generate a noise level of
64.4 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The closest residences are located approximately 290 feet west of the
nearest proposed loading areas. These closest residences would experience tr uck noise levels of
approximately 49.1 dBA, which is below the City’s acceptable limits of 65 dBA for residential noise.
Additionally, these noise levels would also be further attenuated by the intervening structures. L oading
dock doors would also be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when
a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the
exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior
loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day. Noise levels associated
with trucks and loading or unloading activities would not exceed the City’s standar ds and impacts would
be less than significant.
Back-Up Alarms. Medium and heavy-duty trucks reversing into loading docks would produce noise from
back-up alarms (also known as back-up beepers). Back-up beepers produce a typical volume of 97 dBA at
one meter from the source. The property line of the nearest sensitive receptor would be located
approximately 130 feet west of the Project driveway where trucks could be reversing and maneuvering
into the loading area. At this distance, exterior noise levels from back-up beepers would be approximately
64 dBA, which is below the City’s acceptable limits of 65 dBA for residential noise.
Parking Noise. The Project would provide 125 parking stalls, 118 trailer parking stalls, and 54 loading
spaces. Parking stalls would be located on the west, south, and east of the proposed warehouse building
near the site perimeter. Nominal parking noise would occur within the on-site parking facilities. Traffic
associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards,
which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound
levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys range from 53 to 61 dBA at
50 feet and may be an annoyance to adjacent noise-sensitive receptors. Conversations in parking areas
may also be an annoyance to nearby sensitive receptors. Sound levels of speech typically range from 33
dBA at 50 feet for normal speech to 50 dBA at 50 feet for very loud speech. It should be noted that parking
lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leq metric, which are
averaged over the entire duration of a time period.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-10 4.13 | Noise
Parking lot noise would occur within the surface parking lot on-site and would be up to 52.7 dBA at the
nearest sensitive receptors located approximately 130 feet away which is below the City’s 65 dBA
residential standard. Parking lot noise also currently occurs at the adjacent properties under existing
conditions. Parking lot noise would be consistent with the existing noise in the vicinity and would be
partially masked by background noise from traffic along Sierra Avenue. Noise associated with parking lot
activities is not anticipated to exceed the City’s noise standards during operation. Therefore, noise impacts
from parking lots would be less than significant.
Off-Site Traffic Noise. Implementation of the Project would generate increased traffic volumes along
nearby roadway segments. According to the Trip Generation Assessment and Traffic Scoping prepared by
Kimley Horn (August 2022, Draft EIR Appendix K), the Project would generate 681 daily trips that would
result in noise increases on Project area roadways. In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is
barely perceptible to people, while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable. Generally, traffic volumes on
Project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase
by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA are considered to be
less than significant.
Traffic noise levels for roadways primarily affected by the Project were calculated using the FHWA’s
Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Traffic noise modeling was conducted for conditions
with and without the Project, based on traffic volumes from the Trip Generation Assessment and Traffic
Scoping. As indicated in Table 4.13-5: Existing and Project Traffic Noise Levels, Existing Plus Project traffic-
generated noise levels on Project area roadways would range between 66.2 dBA CNEL and 73.3 dBA CNEL
at 100 feet from the roadway centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of 0.1 dBA
CNEL along Sierra Lakes Parkway and Sierra Avenue.
Table 4.13-5: Existing and Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Existing Existing Plus Project Project Change
from Existing
Conditions
Significant
Impact? ADT1 dBA
CNEL2 ADT dBA
CNEL2
Sierra Avenue
North of Summit Ave 11,600 68.4 11,736 68.5 0.1 No
Between Summit Ave and parcel 19,000 70.6 19,306 70.7 0.1 No
Between parcel and Clubhouse Dr 19,000 70.6 19,306 70.7 0.1 No
Between Clubhouse Dr and Sierra
Lakes Parkway 18,900 70.6 19,036 70.6 0.0 No
South of Sierra Lakes Pkwy 34,700 73.3 35,108 73.3 0.0 No
Sierra Lakes Parkway
West of Sierra Ave 16,000 69.8 16,408 69.9 0.1 No
Between Sierra Ave and Mango Ave 16,000 69.8 16,408 69.9 0.1 No
Summit Avenue
West of Sierra Ave 6,900 66.2 6,934 66.2 0.0 No
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Acoustical Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, Table 8.
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level
1. Existing ADT from City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015 -2035 Draft EIR, Future 5.13-3 Existing (2017) ADT Volumes
2. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-11 4.13 | Noise
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.13-2 Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction
Increases in ground-borne vibration levels attributable to the Project would be primarily associated with
short‐term construction‐related activities. Construction on the Project site would have the potential to
result in varying degrees of temporary ground-borne vibration, depending on the specific construction
equipment used and the operations involved.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction
equipment operations in their 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. The types of
construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. In general, the FTA
architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 in/sec) appears to be conservative. The
types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human
annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human
perception for extended periods of time (80 VdB annoyance threshold). Building damage can be cosmetic
or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic
damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending
on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In
addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For
example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines
show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any construction
vibration damage.
Table 4.13-6: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, lists vibration levels at 25 feet and 130
feet for typical construction equipment. Ground-borne vibration generated by construction equipment
spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. As indicated in
Table 4.13-6, based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment
operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.0003 to 0.0075 in/sec PPV at 130
feet from the source of activity (the distance from active construction zone to the nearest residential uses
to the west), which is below the FTA’s 0.20 PPV threshold.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-12 4.13 | Noise
Table 4.13-6: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity
at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle Velocity
at 130 Feet (in/sec)1
Approximate VdB
at 25 Feet
Approximate VdB
at 130 Feet2
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.0075 87 66
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.0075 87 66
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.0064 86 65
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0030 79 58
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.0003 58 37
1. Calculated using the following formula: PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment
adjusted for the distance; PPV ref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.
2. Calculated using the following formula: Lv(D) = Lv(25 feet) - (30 x log10(D/25 feet)) per the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment Manual (2018).
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Acoustical Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, Table 9.
In addition, construction VdB levels would be 66 VdB at 130 feet and would not exceed the FTA’s 80 VdB
annoyance threshold; see Table 4.13-6. It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur
throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest residential
structure(s). Therefore, vibration impacts associated with the Project construction would be less than
significant.
Operations
Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of ground-borne vibration. Ground-borne
vibration surrounding the Project currently result from heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks,
heavy duty trucks, delivery trucks, and transit buses) on the nearby local roadways. Operations of the
Project would include truck deliveries. Due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-borne vibration and the
short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced ground-borne vibration is rarely
perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to
buildings in the vicinity. According to the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, trucks
rarely create vibration levels that exceed 70 VdB (equivalent to 0.012 inches per second PPV) when they
are on roadways. Therefore, trucks operating at the Project site or along surrounding roadways would not
exceed FTA thresholds for building damage or annoyance. Impacts would be less than signi ficant in this
regard.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.13-3 For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The nearest airport to the Project site is the Ontario International Airport located approximately 10.2
miles to the southwest. The Project is not within two miles of a public airport or within an airport land use
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-13 4.13 | Noise
plan. Additionally, there are no private airstrips located within the Project vicinity. Therefore, the Project
would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport- or airstrip-related
noise levels and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.13.6 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Construction Noise
The Project’s construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels. Construction noise would be periodic and temporary noise impacts that would cease upon
completion of construction activities. The Project would contribute to other proximate construction
project noise impacts if construction activities were conducted concurrently. However, based on the noise
analysis above, the Project’s construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant following
the City of Fontana Municipal Code.
Construction activities at other planned and approved projects near the Project site would be required to
comply with applicable City rules related to noise and would take place during daytime hours on the days
permitted by the applicable Municipal Code, and projects requiring discretionary City approvals would be
required to evaluate construction noise impacts, comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval,
and implement mitigation, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts. Construction noi se impacts are by
nature localized. Based on the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts
would be limited to the Project site and vicinity. Therefore, Project construction would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts, assuming such a cumulative
impact existed, and impacts in this regard are not cumulatively considerable.
Cumulative Operational Noise
Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise. Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected
to increase over existing conditions with the development of the Project and other foreseeable projects.
Cumulative noise impacts generally occur as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout
of the Project and other projects in the vicinity. A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise
increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds the perception level
(i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The following criteria is used to evaluate the combined and
incremental effects of the cumulative noise increase.
• Combined Effect. The cumulative effect with Project noise level would cause a significant
cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over existing conditions occurs and the resulting noise level
exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use. Although there may be a significant
noise increase due to a project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it
must also be demonstrated that the project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant
portion of the noise increase must be due to the project.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-14 4.13 | Noise
• Incremental Effects. The cumulative plus project noise level causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise
over cumulative noise levels without a project.
A significant impact would result only if the combined and incremental effects criteria have been
exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source
increases. Consequently, only the Project and growth due to occur in the general area would contribute
to cumulative noise impacts.
The proposed Project is projected to result in 287 net new daily vehicular trips and would result in a
minimal traffic noise increase (max increase of 0.1 dBA) along local roadways over existing conditions as
shown in Table 4.13-5. The already minimal increase in traffic noise attributable to the proposed Project
when compared to existing conditions would be even lower with consideration of additional trips from
future development on cumulative development sites. The Project would not result in significant traffic
noise impacts. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative increases in traffic noise would not be
cumulatively considerable.
Cumulative Stationary Noise. Stationary noise sources of the Project would result in an incremental
increase in non-transportation noise sources in the Project vicinity. However, as discussed above,
operational noise caused by the Project would be less than significant. Similar to t he Project, other
planned and approved projects would be required to mitigate for stationary noise impacts at nearby
sensitive receptors, if necessary. As stationary noise sources are generally localized, there is a limited
potential for other projects to contribute to cumulative noise impacts.
No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would combine with the operational noise
levels generated by the Project to increase noise levels above acceptable standards because each project
must comply with applicable City regulations that limit operational noise. Therefore, the Project, together
with other projects, would not create a significant cumulative impact, and even if there was such a
significant cumulative impact, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to
significant cumulative operational noises.
Given that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, operational noise impacts from on -site
activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the Project site and vicinity. Thus, cumulative
operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with Project specific noise impacts, would
not be cumulatively significant.
4.13.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
4.13.8 References
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Noise and Safety.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26750/Chapter-11---Noise-and-Safety.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-15 4.13 | Noise
City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Sections 18-61 through 18-67.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH18NU_AR
TIINO.
City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 30-543.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30
ZODECO_ARTVIIINZODI_DIV6PEST_S30-543NOVI.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2023. Acoustical Assessment.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.13-16 4.13 | Noise
This page intentionally left blank.
4.14
Population and Housing
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.14-1 4.14 | Population and Housing
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.14.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing population and housing character of the Sierra
Distribution Facility Project (Project) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of future
development that could occur by adopting and implementing the Project to serve the City of Fontana
(City) population, within San Bernardino County (County). This section includes a summary of the relevant
regulatory setting necessary to evaluate potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project,
describes potential impacts, and discusses existing and goals, policies, and implementation programs and
zoning regulations that would avoid or reduce those potential impacts. Information used to prepare this
section includes resources from:
• California Department of Finance (DOF).
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
• County of San Bernardino. 2020. San Bernardino Countywide Plan.
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
• United States Census Bureau. 2019. 2019 America Community Survey.
4.14.2 Environmental Setting
Population
County of San Bernardino
The California DOF has produced population estimates for cities and counties within the State of
California. The DOF population estimates are derived by multiplying the number of occupied housing units
by persons per household. The persons per household estimates are based on 2010 Census benchmark
data, which is the most recent data available. This census data includes the County of San Bernardino
(County). The County’s total population as of January 1, 2022, was estimated to be 2,187,665 persons, as
shown in Table 4.14-1: San Bernardino County Existing Population.1 Group quarters, included within the
table, are places in which people live or stay with others like senior housing facilities and college dorm
living areas. Group quarters are usually owned or managed by an entity, which houses the residents and
provides other services such as medical care and custodial assistance. Table 4.14-1 summarizes the
County’s population in 2010, 2016, and 2022.
1 State of California, DOF. 2022. E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022, with 2020 Census Benchmark.
Sacramento, California. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-
and-the-state-2020-2022/. (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.14-2 4.14 | Population and Housing
Table 4.14-1: San Bernardino County Existing Population
Unit Existing Change from 2010 to 2022
2010a 2016a 2022b Numeric Percentage
Total Population 2,035,210 2,122,579 2,187,665 152,455 7.5%
Household Population 1,995,156 2,085,256 2,150,308 155,152 7.8%
Group Quarters 40,054 37,323 37,357 -2,697 -6.7%
Persons per Household 3.26 3.31 3.19 -0.07 -2.1%
Source:
a) State of California, DOF. 2020. E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the States, 2010-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark.
Sacramento, California. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates -e5-2010-2020/ (accessed August 2022).
b) State of California, DOF. 2022. E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022, with 2020 Census Benchmark.
Sacramento, California. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-
counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ (accessed August 2022).
The County’s total population and household populations have changed by approximately 7 percent in
the last 12 years while group quarter populations have decreased by approximately 7 percent. These
varied population changes have resulted in the County’s average household size to decrease by 2.1
percent over 12 years.
Future population growth is provided by SCAG in their 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/
Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The SCAG RTP/SCS provides the goals and policies which
guide growth within the region including growth projections for the region’s cities and counties. The
County is a member agency within SCAG along with Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and Ventura
counties. Table 4.14-2: San Bernardino County Projected Population, summarizes both the DOF’s existing
population estimates as of 2022, and the SCAG projections for the County for the years 2030, 2035, and
2045.
Table 4.14-2: San Bernardino County Projected Population
Unit Existing Projected Change 2022 to 2045
2022 2030 2035 2045 Numeric Percentage
Total
Population 2,187,665 2,474,000 2,595,000 2,815,000 627,335 28.7%
Households 675,032 751,000 793,000 875,000 199,968 29.6%
Sources: California DOF. 2021. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. Sacramento, CA: Department of Finance.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/
SCAG. 2020. Current Context Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. Page 29. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG (accessed August 2022).
Population within the County is anticipated to continue increasing through 2045 by approximately 29
percent compared to the estimated population of the County in 202 2. This is over four times the rate of
total population growth experienced by the County from 2010 to 2022. Households are also expected to
increase by approximately 30 percent by the year 2045. This rate of growth is also more than four times
the rate of household population growth experienced from 2010 through 2022.
City of Fontana
The persons per household estimates are based on 2010 Census benchmark data, which is the most recent
data available. This census data includes the City. The City’s total population as of January 1, 2022, was
estimated to be 212,809 persons, as shown in Table 4.14-3: City of Fontana Existing Population.2 Group
2 State of California, DOF. 2022. E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022, with 2020 Census Benchmark.
Sacramento, California. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e -5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-
and-the-state-2020-2022/. (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.14-3 4.14 | Population and Housing
quarters, included within the table, are places in which people live or stay with others like senior housing
facilities and college dorm living areas. Group quarters are usually owned or managed by an entity, which
houses the residents and provides other services such as medical care and custodial assistance.
Table 4.14-3 summarizes the City’s population in 2010, 2016, and 2022.
Table 4.14-3: City of Fontana Existing Population
Unit Existing Change from 2010 to 2022
2010a 2016a 2022b Numeric Percentage
Total Population 196,069 205,180 212,809 16,740 8.5%
Household Population 195,625 204,736 212,351 16,726 8.5%
Group Quarters 444 444 458 14 3.2%
Persons per Household 3.98 4.05 3.79 -0.19 -4.8%
Source:
a) State of California, DOF. 2020. E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the States, 2010-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark.
Sacramento, California. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates -e5-2010-2020/ (accessed August 2022).
b) State of California, DOF. 2022. E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022, with 2020 Census Benchmark.
Sacramento, California. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e -5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-
counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ (accessed August 2022).
The City’s total population and household populations have increased by approximately 8 percent in the
last 12 years. Furthermore, group quarter populations have increased by approximately 3 percent. Lastly,
the County’s average household size decreased by 4.8 percent over 12 years.
Table 4.14-4: City of Fontana Projected Population, displays the City’s population estimates and forecasts
based on SCAG’s Connect SoCal demographic data and DOF’s E -5 population and housing estimates. As
shown in Table 4.14-4, the City’s estimated population as of January 1, 2022, was 212,809 persons. The
City’s population is forecasted to increase to 286,700 persons by 2045 which equates to an approximate
35 percent increase of population growth between 2022 to 2045.
Table 4.14-4: City of Fontana Projected Population
2010a 2016a 2022b 2045 Forecast
City Total (persons) 196,069 205,180 212,809 286,700
a) State of California, DOF. 2020. E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the States, 2010-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark.
Sacramento, California. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates -e5-2010-2020/ (accessed August 2022).
b) State of California, DOF. 2022. E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022, with 2020 Census Benchmark.
Sacramento, California. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-
and-the-state-2020-2022/ (accessed August 2022).
c) SCAG. 2020. SCAG RTP/SCS: Connect SoCal Plan – Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics -and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 (accessed August 2022).
Households and Housing
County of San Bernardino
Housing estimates are calculated using the existing housing units in a city or jurisdiction as the baseline
housing stock and adding any new residential construction projects and land annexations while
subtracting any residential unit demolitions. This updated value then defines the city or jurisdiction’s
estimated housing units. As shown in Table 4.14-1, the County was estimated to contain 675,032
households with an average household size of 3.19 persons in 2022. These households occupy various
residence types throughout the County. Table 4.14-5: Housing Types within San Bernardino County
summarizes the housing types within the County and their estimated occupancies as of 202 2.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.14-4 4.14 | Population and Housing
Table 4.14-5: Housing Types within San Bernardino County
Single
Detached
Single
Attached Two to Four Five Plus Mobile
Homes Total Units
Total
Occupied
Units
525,570 25,620 47,409 97,958 44,097 740,654 675,032
Source: California DOF. 2021. Table 2:E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. Sacramento, CA: Department of Finance. (accessed
August 2022).
As shown in Table 4.14-5, 675,032 housing units out of the 740,654 total housing units are occupied,
leaving 65,622 housing units unoccupied. Therefore, the County maintained a vacancy rate of
approximately 8.9 percent in 2022.
The County’s average household size of 3.19 persons was applied to the total occupied units which led to
the estimation of 2,150,308 persons living within households. The remaining 37,357 persons of the
estimated total population are classified as occupying group quarters. Unlike with other households
shown in Table 4.14-1, residents of group quarters are often unrelated.3 Group quarter information is
reported by federal, state, and local agencies.
City of Fontana
As shown in Table 4.14-3, the City was estimated to contain 212,351 households with an average
household size of 3.79 persons in 2022. These households occupy various residence types throughout the
City. Table 4.14-6: Housing Types within the City of Fontana summarizes the housing types within the
City and their estimated occupancies as of 2022.
Table 4.14-6: Housing Types within the City of Fontana
Single
Detached
Single
Attached Two to Four Five Plus Mobile
Homes Total Units
Total
Occupied
Units
45,723 1,346 2,228 6,627 1,559 57,483 56,041
Source: California DOF. 2021. Table 2:E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. Sacramento, CA: Department of Finance.
As shown in Table 4.14-6, 56,041 housing units out of the 57,483 total housing units are occupied, leaving
1,442 housing units unoccupied. Therefore, the City maintained a vacancy rate of approximately
2.5 percent in 2022.
The City’s average household size of 3.79 persons was applied to the total occupied units which led to the
estimation of 212,351 persons living within households. The remaining 458 persons of the estimated total
population are classified as occupying group quarters.
Employment
County of San Bernardino
The United States Census Bureau (USCB) has provided the employment estimates for the County through
the 2021 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profile. The County was estimated to contain
a total civilian labor force population of 1,010,279 people. The USCB has provided the employment
3 USCB. 2019. Group Quarters Information. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random -samplings/2021/03/2020-census-group-
quarters.html. (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.14-5 4.14 | Population and Housing
estimates for the County through the 2021 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profile. Of
this, 934,832 were employed.4 The County employment data provided by the America Community Survey
is summarized in Table 4.14-7: San Bernardino County Employment by Industry (2021) below.
Table 4.14-7: San Bernardino County Employment by Industry (2021)
Industry Amount Percent of
Workforce
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 5,876 0.63%
Construction 74,785 7.99%
Manufacturing 74,574 7.98%
Wholesale trade 30,933 3.31%
Retail trade 117,311 12.55%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 102,706 10.99%
Information 11,772 1.26%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 42,698 4.57%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and
waste management services
87,669 9.38%
Educational services, and health care and social assistance 204,151 21.84%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 84,341 9. 02%
Other services, except public administration 47,834 5.12%
Public administration 50,182 5.37%
Total 934,832 100%
Source: United States Census Bureau. 2022. 2021 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles. Industry by Occupation for the
Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over.
https://data.census.gov/table?t=Employment&g=0500000US06071&tid=ACSST5Y2020.S2405 . (accessed February 2023).
Education services, health care, and social assistance occupations make up the largest percentage of
County’s 934,832-person workforce (21.8 percent). The lowest percentage of the County’s workforce has
occupations within the agriculture industry (0.63 percent). In 2021, the County’s employment totaled
934,832 jobs. When compared to the 2022 total housing units of 740,654 units (see Table 4.14-5), this
leads to a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.3:1.5 This means that in 2021, there were 1.3 jobs for every housing
unit in the County. A jobs-to-housing ratio greater than one implies there is suitable housing available in
the area to accommodate the workforce.
According to the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the County is projected to experience an increase in employment
of 149,486 by 2045 for a total of 1,064,000 jobs.6 The County is also projected to experience an increase
of 875,000 housing units. This would create a jobs-to-housing ratio of approximately 1.3:1, the same as in
2021.7 The County experienced a 7.5 percent unemployment rate in 2021.8 Although there are suitable
housing units in the County, additional job creation in the County would support a better balance of jobs-
to-housing ratio.
4 USCB. 2022. 2020 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles. Selected Employment Characteristics.
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Employment&g=0500000US06071&tid=ACSDP5Y2020.DP03. (accessed August 2022).
5 California DOF. 2021. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. Sacramento, CA: Department of Finance. (accessed August 2022).
6 SCAG. 2020. Current Context Demographics and Growth Forecast. Page 29. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG (accessed August 2022).
7 Ibid.
8 USCB. 2023. 2021 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles. Selected Employment Characteristics.
https://data.census.gov/table?t=Employment&g=0500000US06071&d=ACS+5 -Year+Estimates+Subject+Tables&tid=ACSST5Y2021.S2301.
(accessed February 2023).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.14-6 4.14 | Population and Housing
City of Fontana
The USCB has provided the employment estimates for the C ity through the 2020 America Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profile. The City was estimated to contain a total civilian labor force
population of 103,178 people. Of this, 96,716 were employed.9 The City employment data provided by
the America Community Survey is summarized in Table 4.14-8: City of Fontana Employment by Industry
(2021) below.
Table 4.14-8: City of Fontana Employment by Industry (2021)
Industry Amount Percent of
Workforce
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 278 0.29%
Construction 8,788 9.09%
Manufacturing 8,535 8.82%
Wholesale trade 2,984 3.09%
Retail trade 11,154 11.53%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 15,197 15.71%
Information 1,248 1.29%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 3,744 3.87%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and
waste management services
7,636 7.90%
Educational services, and health care and social assistance 19,490 20.15%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 7,456 7.71%
Other services, except public administration 5,155 5.33%
Public administration 5,051 5.22%
Total 96,716 100%
Source: United States Census Bureau. 2022. 2021 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles. Industry by Occupation for the
Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over.
https://data.census.gov/table?t=Employment&g=1600000US0624680&tid=ACSDP5Y2021.DP03 . (accessed February 2023).
Education services, health care, and social assistance occupations make up the largest percentage of C ity’s
96,716-person workforce (2 0.1 percent). The lowest percentage of the City’s workforce has occupations
within the agriculture industry (0.29 percent). In 2021, the City’s employment totaled 96,716 jobs. When
compared to the 2022 total housing units of 57,483 units (see Table 4.14-6), this leads to a jobs-to-housing
ratio of 1.7:1.10 This means that in 2021, there were 1.7 jobs for every housing unit in the City. A jobs-to-
housing ratio greater than one implies there is suitable housing available in the area to accommodate the
workforce.
According to the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the City is projected to decrease to 75,100 employed by 2045 which
represents a significant 27.4 percent decrease of employment between 2022 and 2045 .11 The City
experienced a 6.2 percent unemployment rate in 2021.12 Although there are suitable housing units in the
City, additional job creation in the City would support a better balance of jobs-to-housing ratio.
9 USCB. 2023. 2021 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles. Selected Employment Characteristics.
https://data.census.gov/table?t=Employment&g=1600000US0624680&tid=ACSDP5Y2021.DP03 . (accessed February 2023).
10 California DOF. 2021. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. Sacramento, CA: Department of Finance. (accessed August 2022).
11 SCAG. 2020. Current Context Demographics and Growth Forecast. Page 39. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG (accessed August 2022).
12 USCB. 2022. 2020 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles. Selected Employment Characteristics. Retrieved from:
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Employment&g=1600000US0624680. (accessed August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.14-7 4.14 | Population and Housing
4.14.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
There are no federal regulations that pertain to regulations for housing and population.
State
California Planning and Zoning Law
California planning and zoning law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan for future growth
(California Government Code [CGC] Section 65300). This plan must include a housing element that
identifies housing needs for all economic segments and provides opportunities for housing development
to meet that need. At the state level, the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD)
estimates the relative share of California’s projected population growth in each county based on California
DOF population projections and historical growth trends. These figures are compiled by HCD in a Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for each region of California. The RHNA is a tool used for SCAG and its
member local governments in planning for growth. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each
jurisdiction. Communities then plan, consider, and decide how they will address this need through the
process of completing the Housing Elements of their General Plans. The RHNA does not necessarily
encourage or promote growth but allows communities to prepare for growth in a way that enhances
quality of life and mobility; improves access to jobs, transportation, and housing; and in a way that would
not adversely impact the environment.
State law recognizes the vital role that local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing.
To that end, the CGC requires that the housing element achieve legislative goals to:
• Identify adequate sites to facilitate and encourage the development, maintenance, and
improvement of housing for households of all economic levels, including persons with disabilities.
• Remove, as legally feasible and appropriate, governmental constraints to the production,
maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all incomes, including those with
disabilities.
• Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income
households.
• Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable
housing. Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital
status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
• Preserve for lower-income households the publicly assisted multifamily housing developments in
each community.
California housing element laws (CGC Sections 65580–65589) require that each city and county identify
and analyze existing and projected housing needs within its jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, and
programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing for all economic
segments of the community commensurate with local housing needs.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.14-8 4.14 | Population and Housing
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments and Regional Housing Needs Assessment
SCAG is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for this
region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. It serves as a forum for addressing regional issues
concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG develops,
refines, and maintains SCAG's regional and small area socio-economic forecasting/allocation models.
SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal
and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts
on regional planning programs. As the Southern California region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, the California Department of Transportation, and other agencies
in preparing regional planning documents. The socioeconomic estimates and projections are used for
federal and state-mandated long-range planning efforts such as the RTP/SCS, the Air Quality Management
Plan, the Federal Transportation Improvement Program, and the RHNA.
The RHNA is an assessment process performed periodically as part of Housing Element and General Plan
updates at the local level. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing by income group within each
jurisdiction during specific planning periods. The RHNA is used in land use planning, to prioritize local
resource allocation and to help decide how to address existing and future housing needs. The RHNA allows
communities to anticipate growth, so that collectively the region can grow in ways that enhance quality
of life, improve access to jobs, promote transportation mobility, and address social equity and fair share
housing needs.
Southern California Association of Governments Connect SoCal
In September 2020, SCAG adopted the Connect SoCal which is a long -range visioning plan that balances
future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals towards 2045.
Connect SoCal includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply
with Senate Bill 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This
long-range plan, required by the State of California and the federal government, is updated by SCAG every
four years as demographic, economic, and policy circumstances change. The Connect SoCal is a living,
evolving blueprint for the region’s future. The City is a member jurisdiction of the San Bernardino Council
of Governments, and a participating agency in SCAG’s Connect SoCal.
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
There are no goals and policies that pertain to population and housing for the Project site within the City’s
General Plan.
4.14.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning population and housing. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.14-9 4.14 | Population and Housing
been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect
on the environment if it would:
• 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) or
• Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project’s demographics were examined in the context of existing and projected population for the
County and City and consistency with relevant planning documents is considered. Information on
population, housing, and employment for the Project site is available from several sources including the
2020-2045 RTP/SCS and population and housing data from the DOF and America Community Survey.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis examines the Project’s potential impacts on population and housing based on application of
the significance criteria/thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project
site and the surrounding characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for
changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to
protect the environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on review of Project maps and drawings; analysis
of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including
local planning documents. The determination that the Project would or would not result in “significant”
adverse effects on population and housing considers the established population and housing plans for the
City and reviews any deviation from these plans in the analysis of the Project.
4.14.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.14-1 Would the Project 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)?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project would not introduce new population or housing to the Project site. Development would
include light industrial land uses; it would result in jobs for residents in the surrounding area but would
not directly generate additional housing. The Project is to be developed on land that has been previously
disturbed and developed with existing buildings and structures used for commercial/industrial purposes.
Construction of the Project would generate temporary employment opportunities, including short-term
design, engineering, and construction jobs. Construction related jobs would not result in a significant
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.14-10 4.14 | Population and Housing
population increase because those jobs are temporary in nature and are expected to be filled by persons
within the local area. This expectation is based, among other things, on the City’s 5.9 percent
unemployment rate.13 Furthermore, the small percentage of skilled and managerial construction-related
positions could either be filled by the local workforce or by persons from the larger region. Therefore,
Project construction would not directly or indirectly induce substantial, unplanned population growth in
the City resulting in a less than significant impact.
Future operation of the Project would include employment of new workers. This would directly impact
the area by creating new job opportunities. The published SCAG Employment Density Report was used to
estimate potential employment levels for the Project. Therefore, in order to fully assess potential impacts,
the Project is analyzed in a scenario where the Project’s building area is developed with light industrial
uses. Table 4.14-9: Project Employment Generation summarizes the anticipated employment by land use
type based on the employment generation rates from the SCAG Employment Density Report.
Table 4.14-9: Project Employment Generation
Land Use Generation Rate Project SF Employment Generation
Land Use (Warehouse)
Warehousing1 1 employee/2,111 sf 398,514 189 employees
Source: SCAG. 2001. Employment Density Report. Page 4. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG .
1. Standard rate applied to the Project’s 398,514 sf of warehousing.
The Project’s planned development strategy of warehousing uses would generate a total of 189 new
employees. This would comprise approximately 0.19 percent of the City’s 2021 workforce. These jobs
could be filled by unemployed City residents, given the City’s existing unemployment rate of 5.9 percent.
Specifically, the warehousing portion would comprise approximately 2.1 percent of the City’s warehousing
workforce (see Table 4.14-8 above). In the event that all the new jobs created would be filled by new
workers moving to the City, the 189-person workforce would generate a 0.08 percent increase in the City’s
2022 population. This growth rate would be well within the projections of the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
and could be accommodated by existing housing within the City. Therefore, it is unlikely the Project would
directly or indirectly induce substantial, unplanned population growth in the County. Thus, the impact is
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.14-2 Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
The Project would be developed on a site that has been previously disturbed. Currently the site is
presently developed with four commercial/industrial buildings ranging from 5,000 to 25,000 square feet
13 USCB. 2020. 2020 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles. Selected Employment Characteristics .
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Employment&g=0500000US06071&tid=ACSDP5Y2019.DP03&hidePreview=false . (accessed
August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.14-11 4.14 | Population and Housing
in size. The northwestern quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a wooden pallet
facility. The northeastern quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a carnival attraction
repair facility with truck trailer parking. The southwestern quadrant is developed with one building and
open-graded gravel pavements and is utilized for truck trailer storage. The southeastern quadrant is
developed with one building and is utilized as a storage facility. The existing buildings are single-story,
metal-framed structures and are assumed to be supported on conventional shallow foundations with
concrete slab-on-grade floors.
Due to the existing commercial/industrial land uses present on the Project site, the reuse of the Project
site would not displace people or housing or necessitate the development of new housing elsewhere.
While the Project would generate short-term changes in employment during construction activities and
long-term operational jobs, these changes would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing because the Project site does not include any residences or support a residential population. As
a result, there would be no impacts related to the displacement of substantial numbers of people or
housing and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.14.6 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts concerning population and housing is buildout of the City. Impacts are analyzed using
growth projections from SCAG’s Connect SoCal. As noted in the City’s General Plan Draft EIR, cumulative
impacts associated with population and housing would be less than significant with no mitigation
required.14 Similarly, Project implementation would have no impact to a less than significant impact on
the City’s population and housing resources. As concluded above, the Project would not indirectly or
directly induce substantial population growth in an area, nor would it displace substantial numbers of
existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Furthermore, the Project’s employment opportunities would improve the City’s jobs -housing balance.
Lastly, as further discussed in Section 4.11: Land Use and Planning of this Draft EIR, the Project would
encourage alignment with objectives set by SCAG’s Connect SoCal and the City General Plan Economy,
Education, and Workforce Development Element as it would increase job diversity and opportunities in
the City. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant.
4.14.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified.
14 City of Fontana. 2022. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Page 7-6.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update. (accessed
August 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.14-12 4.14 | Population and Housing
4.14.8 References
SCAG. 2001. Employment Density Report. Page 4. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG.
https://docplayer.net/30300085-Employment-density-study-summary-report-october-31-
prepared-for-southern-california-association-of-governments.html.
SCAG. 2020. SCAG RTP/SCS: Connect SoCal Plan – Demographics and Growth Forecast.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-
growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579.
State of California, DOF. 2020. E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2010-2020,
with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5/.
State of California, DOF. 2021. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. Sacramento, CA:
Department of Finance. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/.
SCAG. 2020. Current Context Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. Page 29.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-
growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579.
State of California, DOF. 2022. E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022,
with 2020 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-
estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/.
United States Census Bureau. 2022 . 20 20 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles.
Industry by Occupation for the Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over .
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Employment&g=1600000US0624680 .
United States Census Bureau. 2022 . 2020 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles.
Selected Employment Characteristics.
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Employment&g=1600000US0624680 .
United States Census Bureau. 2022. 2021 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles.
Industry by Occupation for the Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over.
https://data.census.gov/table?t=Employment&g=0500000US06071&tid=ACSST5Y2020.S2405.
United States Census Bureau. 2022 . Group Quarters Information.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2021/03/2020-census-group-
quarters.html.
United States Census Bureau. 2023. 2021 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles.
Selected Employment Characteristics.
https://data.census.gov/table?t=Employment&g=0500000US06071&d=ACS+5-
Year+Estimates+Subject+Tables&tid=ACSST5Y2021.S2301.
4.15
Public Services
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-1 4.15 | Public Services
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.15.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates potential Sierra Distribution Facility
Project (Project) impacts on public services amenities by identifying anticipated demand and evaluating
its relationship to existing and planned public services, facilities, and availability to serve the City of
Fontana (City) population, within San Bernardino County (County). For abbreviation purposes, the general
term “public services” in this Draft EIR includes the following: fire protection, police protection, schools,
parks, and library services. This section identifies potential impacts that could result from implementation
of the Project, which includes construction and operation of the Project site.
In accordance with Appendix G of CEQA, the emphasis in this Draft EIR is on impacts to public services
that could result from implementation of the Project and that could require construction or expansion of
existing public service facilities resulting in a physical impact on the environment. CEQA Appendix G
questions related to recreation and fire service are addressed separately in this EIR in Section 4.16:
Recreation and Section 4.20: Wildfire. The environmental setting discussion is based largely on review of
relevant documents and information including the following:
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental
Impact Report.
4.15.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
The City is served by the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD), with emergency, prevention and
administrative services provided through contract by the San Bernardino County Fire Department
(SBCFD). The SBCFD provides a wide range of services including but not limited to community safety
training, fire code enforcement, hazardous materials management, alert and warning systems,
firefighting, and emergency medical services. The service boundary includes the City’s corporate limits
and the County areas within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The City’s goal is to obtain local control
for fire protection and to comprehensively serve the citizens and residents both within the City limits and
the City’s SOI.1 In July 2005, the County Board of Supervisors initiated the reorganization of its fire
operations. Following this action, the County filed an application with the San Bernardino Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) to review and consider the reorganization of the SBCFD, in order to
achieve the most effective and efficient fire protection delivery services, emergency response, paramedic,
ambulance, and disaster preparedness to residents and landowners.2
1 City of Fontana. 2022. About the Fontana Fire District. https://www.fontana.org/635/About-the-Fontana-Fire-District (accessed June 2022).
2 Ibid.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-2 4.15 | Public Services
The FFPD has a total of seven fire stations provided by the SBCFD, serving the City’s corporate limits and
the County areas within the City’s SOI. The FFPD has three levels of measures for response times including
six minutes or less for the 1st unit; eight minutes or less for the 2nd unit; and twelve minutes or less for a
full assignment. For all measures the actual response times from 2018 – 2019, estimated response times
from 2019-2020, and targeted response times from 2020-2021 are 90 percent or anticipated to be
90 percent.3 The two closest stations to the Project site are Fire Station 78, located approximately
1.8 miles southwest of the Project site at 7110 Citrus Avenue, and Fire Station 79, located approximately
two miles northwest of the Project site at 5075 Coyote Canyon Road. Fire Station 78 serves the northern
area of City and the State Route (SR) 210 Freeway. Fire Station 78 is equipped with one medic engine and
one squad vehicle; Fire Station 78 is staffed with one captain, one engineer, two firefighter medics, and
one firefighter. Located in the northern portion of the City, Fire Station 79 consisting of Medic Engine 79
and Brush Engine 79, provides paramedic and fire services to northern City residents and business owners.
Fire Station 79 also responds into the urban/wildland interface of the Front Country, including Lytle Creek
and the Interstate (I-) 15 corridor. Fire Station 79 is equipped with one medic engine and is staffed with
one captain, one engineer, and one firefighter medic.4
Police Protection
The Fontana Police Department (FPD) is comprised of four divisions including the Office of the Chief of
Police, Administrative Services, Field Services and Special Operations.5 Within these division numerous
units are used to serve the public. This includes but is not limited to records, field evidence, K -9, code
compliance, traffic, etc. The Patrol unit is the largest unit within the department and calls for routine and
emergency service are typically handled by this unit. In 2018-2019 there were a total of 127,741 calls for
service and the response time of patrol to the Priority One calls was 6:58 minutes. In 2019 the calls
increased to 133,676 and estimated response time was 5:30. The targeted numbers for 2020 -2021 are
140,359 total calls and a response time to Priority one calls of 4:30 minutes.6 The FPD also operates the
Southridge Contact Station at 11500 Live Oak Avenue. There is an additional contact station located within
the Palm Court Shopping Center, at 17122 Slover Avenue. The stations are used by officers for reporting,
but neither is staffed.7 FPD is staffed with 188 sworn officers providing law enforcement services 24 hours
a day, 365 days a year.8 According to FPD’s Police Department Monthly Report, the City’s Priority 1
response time goal is 4 minutes and 40 seconds (Emergency calls like subject not breathing, shots fired,
and other immediate risk to life/safety).9 The FPD is approximately three miles south of the Project site.
3 City of Fontana, 2019. City of Fontana, California Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2020-2021.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/32944/2020--2021-Adopted-Operating-Budget. (accessed June 2022).
4 City of Fontana. 2022. Station and Equipment. https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-Equipment. (accessed June 2022).
5 City of Fontana, 2020. City of Fontana, California Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2020-2021.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/32944/2020--2021-Adopted-Operating-Budget. (accessed June 2022).
6 Ibid.
7 City of Fontana 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015 -2035 DEIR. https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-Documents.
(accessed June 2022).
8 City of Fontana. 2022. Police Department, About Us . https://www.fontana.org/2509/About-Us. (accessed June 2022).
9 City of Fontana. 2022. 2022 Crime Statistics Are in NIBRS Format. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/38458/May -2022-
Report-for-City-Council-2. (a ccessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-3 4.15 | Public Services
Schools
Several school districts serve the City: Chaffey Joint Union High School District, Colton Unified School
District, Cucamonga Elementary School District, Etiwanda Elementary School District, Fontana Unified
School District (FUSD), Rialto Unified School District, and Fontana Adult School.10 These districts offer
educational facilities for elementary, middle school, and high school attendees.
The FUSD serves the City with education services. The FUSD serves students in preschool through adult
education using 76 different schools. According to the FUSD, during the 2021-2022 school year they
served a total of 36,368 students of which 15,046 were in elementary school; 7,941 were in middle school;
and 11,464 were in high school. There is a balance of 3,738 enrolled students, within either early
education/preschool, infant and toddler, continuation schools, or adult schools. Within the district,
students are served by 29 elementary schools, one elementary magnet school, seven middle schools, five
high schools, two continuation high schools, one online academy (ACCESS), one adult school,
27 preschools, one head start site, and two infant/toddler sites. To support operations, there are over
4,007 employees in FUSD of which: 1,987 are certificated, 1,726 are support staff, and 116 are
administrators.11
The nearest schools to the Project site are Sierra Lakes Elementary School, located approximately one
mile west of the Project site; Wayne Ruble Middle School, located approximately 1.1 miles south of the
Project site; and AB Miller High School, located approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the Project site.
Parks
Parks and recreation areas within the City are managed by City of Fontana Facilities and Parks Department.
The City of Fontana maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers.12 The nearest parks
to the Project are Cambria Park, located approximately 0.8 mile south of the Project site; Patricia Marrujo
Park, located approximately one mile west of the Project site; and Fontana Park, located approximately
1.6 miles west of the Project site.
Libraries
Other Public Facilities generally refers to libraries and government buildings that serve the population
within the jurisdiction. The Fontana Lewis Library and Technology Center is located at 8437 Sierra Avenue,
located approximately three miles south of the Project site. The closest libraries to the Project site are
Summit Branch Library, located approximately 1.8 miles west of the Project site and Carter Branch Library,
located approximately 1.8 miles east of the Project site.
10 City of Fontana. 2022. Education. https://www.fontana.org/3106/Education . (a ccessed June 2022).
11 Fontana Unified School District, 2021. Fontana Unified School District – A Quick Reference to Fontana Unified School District.
https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/143/FUSD%20Flash%20Facts%202021_2022.pdf . (accessed June 2022).
12 City of Fontana. 2022. Parks. https://www.fontana.org/156/Facilities-Parks. (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-4 4.15 | Public Services
4.15.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Emergency Management Act
In March 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) became part of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security. FEMA's continuing mission is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards
and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also
initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance
Program and the U.S. Fire Administration.
Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974
The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 was created to reduce the nation’s losses caused by
fire through better fire prevention and control, supplement existing programs of research, training, and
education, and to encourage new and improved pr ograms and activities by state and local governments.
In addition, the act established the U.S. Fire Administration and the Fire Research Center within the
Department of Commerce. The Fire Prevention and Control Act established an intensified program of
research into the treatment of burn and smoke injuries and the rehabilitation of victims of fires within the
National Institutes of Health.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) mission is to "assure safe and healthy
working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing
training, outreach, education and assistance." The agency is also charged with enforcing a variety of
whistleblower statutes and regulations.
Emergency Action Plan
All businesses are required under OSHA standards to prepare an emergency action plan (EAP) kept in the
workplace that provides procedures to be followed by all employees for reporting a fire or other
emergency and emergency evacuation, including type of ev acuation and exit route assignments.
Employers are required to have and maintain an employee alarm system, provide training, and review the
EAP with each employee covered by the plan.
Fire Prevention Plan
Businesses are required under OSHA standards to prepare a fire prevention plan that, at a minimum, must
include procedures to control accumulations of flammable and combustible waste materials, and for
regular maintenance of safeguards installed on heat-producing equipment to prevent the accidental
ignition of combustible materials. Furthermore, the fire prevention plan must contain the names and/or
job titles of employees responsible for maintaining equipment to prevent or control sources of ignition or
fires, and for the control of fuel source hazards.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-5 4.15 | Public Services
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
This Act (42 United States Code [USC] Section 5121) was signed into law to amend the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief Act of 1988 (42 USC Sections 5121-5207). Among other things, this legislation reinforces
the importance of pre-disaster infrastructure mitigation planning to reduce disaster losses nationwide
and is aimed primarily at the control and streamlining of the administration of federal disa ster relief and
programs to promote mitigation activities.
Some of the major provisions of this Act include:
i. Funding pre-disaster mitigation activities;
ii. Developing experimental multi-hazard maps to better understand risk;
iii. Establishing State and local government infrastructure mitigation planning requirements;
iv. Defining how States can assume more responsibility in managing the hazard mitigation grant
program; and
v. Adjusting ways in which management costs for projects are funded.
The mitigation planning provisions outlined in Section 322 of this Act establish performance-based
standards for mitigation plans and require states to have a public assistance program (Advance
Infrastructure Mitigation [AIM]) to be included in county government plans. Counties that fail to develop
an infrastructure mitigation plan may have their federal share of damage assistance reduced from
75 percent to 25 percent if the facility has been damaged on more than one occasion in the preceding
10-year period by the same type of event.
Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 USC 12181) prohibits discrimination on the basis of
disability in public accommodation and state and local government services. Under the ADA, the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board issues guidelines to ensure that facilities,
public sidewalks, and street crossings are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Public play a reas,
meeting rooms, park restrooms, and other buildings and park structures must comply with ADA
requirements.
International Fire Code
The International Fire Code (IFC) regulates minimum fire safety requirements for new and existing
buildings, facilities, storage, and processes. The IFC includes general and specialized technical fire and life
safety regulations addressing fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire
alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, use and storage of hazardous materials, protection of
emergency responders, industrial processes, and many other topics. The IFC is issued by the Int ernational
Code Council, an international organization of building officials.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-6 4.15 | Public Services
State
California Penal Code
All law enforcement agencies within the State of California are organized and operated in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the California Penal Code. This code sets forth the authority, rules of conduct,
and training for peace officers. Under state law, all sworn municipal and county officers are state peace
officers.
2022 California Building Standards Code
California building standards are published in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, also known
as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). The CBSC, which applies to all applications for building
permits, consists of 12 parts that contain administrative regulations for the California Building Standards
Commission and for all state agencies that implement or enforce building standards. Local agencies must
ensure the development complies with the guidelines contained in the CBSC. Cities a nd counties have the
ability to adopt additional building standards beyond the CBSC including the CBSC Part 2, named the
California Building Code (CBC) which is based upon the 2021 International Building Code, and Part 11,
named the California Green Building Standards Code, also called the CalGreen Code. The 2022 CBSC went
into effect on January 1, 2023.
2022 California Fire Code
CCR Title 24, Part 9 (2019 California Fire Code [CFC]) contains regulations relating to construction and
maintenance of buildings, the use of premises, and the management of wildland-urban interface areas,
among other issues. The CFC is updated every three years by the California Building Standards Commission
and was last updated in 2022 (effective January 1, 2023). The CFC sets forth regulations regarding building
standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as fire extinguishers and
smoke alarms, high-rise building standards, and fire suppression training. It contains regulations relating
to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the CFC also include fire
department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion
hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire
responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new
and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. Development under the Project would be subject to
applicable regulations of the CFC.
Title 8, California Code of Regulations Sections 1270 and 6773
In accordance with CCR, Title 8 Section 1270 “Fire Prevention” and Section 6773 “Fire Protection and Fire
Equipment,” the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) has established
minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are
not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements,
restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all
firefighting and emergency medical equipment.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-7 4.15 | Public Services
Mitigation Fee Act
The California Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code [CGC] Section 66000 et seq.) mandates
procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting, reporting, and
refunds. A development impact fee is a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment that is
charged by a local governmental agency to an applicant in connection with approval of a development
project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the
development project.
California Health and Safety Code
state fire regulations are set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 13000 et seq., and include
provisions concerning building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices,
and fire suppression training, as also set forth in the 2019 CBSC and related updated codes.
Assembly Bill 2926, California Government Code Section 65995, California Education Code
Section 17620, and SB 50
California has traditionally been responsible for the funding of local public schools. To assist in providing
facilities to serve students generated by new development projects, the state passed Assembly Bill 2926
(AB 2926) in 1986. This bill allowed school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new
residential and commercial/industrial building space. Development impact fees were also referenced in
the 1987 Leroy Greene Lease-Purchase Act and the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, which
required school districts to contribute a matching share of project costs for construction, modernization,
or reconstruction and create a new state program requiring the board to provide funding per pupil.
Government Code Section 65995 authorizes school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new
residential and commercial/industrial building space. Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) amended CGC Section 65995
in 1998. Under the provisions of SB 50, schools can collect fees to offset costs associated with increasing
school capacity resulting from development.
California Education Code Section 17620, et seq., allows school district governing boards to collect impact
fees from developers of new industrial, commercial, and residential construction.
The provisions of SB 50 prohibit local agencies from denying either legislative or adjudicative land use
approvals on the basis that school facilities are inadequate, and reinstate the school facility fee cap for
legislative actions (e.g., general plan amendments, specific plan adoption, zoning plan amendments).
Accordingly, these provisions limit the scope of impact review in an EIR, the mitigation that can be
imposed, and the findings a Lead Agency must make in justifying its approval of a Project (CGC Sections
65995-65996). According to CGC Section 65996, the provisions of Chapter 4.9, including development fees
authorized by SB 50, are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation….” These provisions
remain in place as long as subsequent state bonds are approved and available.
Mutual Aid Agreements
The Emergency Management Mutual Aid (EMMA) system is a collaborative effort between city and county
emergency managers in the Office of Emergency Services (OES) in the coastal, southern, and inland
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-8 4.15 | Public Services
regions of the state. EMMA provides service in the emergency response and recovery efforts at the
Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center, local Emergency Operations Centers, the Disaster Field
Office, and community service centers. The purpose of EMMA is to support disaster operations in affected
jurisdictions by providing professional emergency management personnel. In accordance with the
Mutual Aid Agreements, local and state emergency managers have responded in support of each other
under a variety of plans and procedures.
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Management Agency
In 2009, the State of California passed legislation creating the California Governor’s Office of Emergency
Management Agency (Cal-EMA) and authorizing it to prepare a Standardized Emergency Management
System (SEMS) program (Title 19 CCR Sections 2400 et seq.), which sets forth measures by which a
jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with SEMS could result in the state
withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster.
Cal-EMA serves as the lead state agency for emergency management in the state. Cal-EMA coordinates
the state response to major emergencies in support of local government. The primary responsibility for
emergency management resides with local government. Local jurisdictions first use their own resources
and, as these are exhausted, obtain more from neighboring cities and special districts, the county in which
they are located, and other counties throughout the state through the statewide mutual aid system. In
California, the SEMS provides the mechanism by which local government requests assistance. Cal-EMA
serves as the lead agency for mobilizing the state’s resources and obtaining federal resources; it also
maintains oversight of the state’s mutual aid system.
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
Public and Community Services
This Element13 of the Fontana Forward General Plan focuses on three important aspects of municipal
service provision: public safety, public facilities, and the many services provided by the Community
Services department. Fontana residents are generally very satisfied with the public services and facilities
provided by the City. Continuing this high level of service provision while making impro vements is the
theme of this element of the plan. The following goals and policies are pertinent to the Project:
Goal 1: Fontana’s crime rate continues to be below state and county rates.
Policy 1.4: Promote and enhance use of anti-crime design strategies and programs.
Goal 2: Fontana’s Fire Department meets or exceeds state and national benchmarks for
protection and responsiveness.
Policy 2.1: Continue the City’s successful partnership with the San Bernardino County Fire
Department.
13 City of Fontana. 2018. General Plan 2015-2035 Chapter 8 Public and Community Service .
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26747/Chapter -8---Public-and-Community-Services (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-9 4.15 | Public Services
San Bernardino County Fire Fees
The Project is required to comply with the provisions of the County of San Bernardino Fire Protection
District Ordinance (Ordinance No. FPD 20-01), which requires a fee payment for any developments
requiring permitting that the County applies to the funding of fire protection facilities.14
School Services Developer School Fees
In order to help finance the construction or reconstruction of school facilities needed to accommodate
students coming from new development, the FUSD may establish, levy, and collect developer fees on
residential, commercial, and industrial construction within the district, subject to restrictions specified by
law and administrative regulation, pursuant to Sections 17620 et seq. of the Education Code and Sections
65995 et seq. of the Government Code. The County is responsible for calculating square footage as part
of the building permit process. New residential development within the FUSD boundary in excess of
500 square feet can be assessed $4.08 / SF, and new commercial or industrial development and senior
housing projects can be assessed $0.66 / SF.15
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 11, Section 11.2
Any new development or improvement of real property within the limits of the City shall be subject to the
imposition of fees for capital improvements necessary to provide public services. Pursuant to Article VI of
Chapter 21 of the Fontana Municipal Code (Fontana MC), the City may allow partial or complete
satisfaction of the fee required by this section through execution of an agreement requiring construction
of public improvements and/or dedication of property. The fee required under this section shall be due
as provided for in Article V of Chapter 21 of the Fontana MC.
Development Fees
Development Impact fees16 for industrial use that would be imposed on the Project are as follows:
Fire Facilities: $ 0.034 per sf
Police: $ 0.044 per sf
Public Facilities: $ 0.042 per sf
Library: $ 0.009 per sf
Park Development: N/A for Industrial
4.15.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning public services. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been
14 San Bernardino County. 2019. Ordinance No. FPD 20-01. https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/SBCFire/documents/SBCFPD -Fire-Code-
Ordinance-20-01.signed.pdf (accessed April 2022).
15 Fontana Unified School District. 2022. Developer Fees. https://www.fusd.net/Page/639 (accessed April 2022).
16 City of Fontana. Development Fees. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Development -Impact-Fees?bidId=. (accessed
April 2023).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-10 4.15 | Public Services
utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on
the environment if it would:
• Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
▪ Fire protection;
▪ Police protection;
▪ Schools;
▪ Parks; or
▪ Other public facilities.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning public services. This analysis considers the
existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce a
potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with
the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the
Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts associated with public services.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on public services examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and
permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/thresholds outlined
above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project and the surrounding characteristics/
geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as
well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on field observations conducted by Kimley-Horn;
review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of
various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination that a
Project component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on public services considers
the available policies and regulations established by local and regional agencies and the amount of
deviation from these policies in the Project’s components.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-11 4.15 | Public Services
4.15.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.15-1 Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
I) Fire Protection?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
Potential impacts related to fire protection services are reviewed by the SBCFD on a project -by-project
basis. The Project’s land uses, fire-protection related needs, and the Project site recommended response
distance, are taken into consideration when eva luating the Project’s impact to fire protection services.
SBCFD design review would occur during specific development building permits are requested.
Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with the most current provisions of SBCFD Fee
Schedule, which requires a fee payment that the SBCFD applies to the funding of fire protection facilities.17
Mandatory compliance with the SBCFD Fee Schedule and plan review would be required prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The Project would comply with the County Fire District Standards, CFC and
CBC, including Project features that aid in fire safety and support fire suppression activities, such as fire
sprinklers, paved access, and required aisle widths. Fire protection services to the Project site would be
provided by the SBCFD. The Project site would be served by the County Fire Station 78, located
approximately 1.8 miles southwest of the Project site, and Fire Station 79, located approximately two
miles northwest of the Project site. The SBCFD strives to have a response time of less than five minutes
once a call for service is received. Based on the Project site’s proximity to two existing fire stations, the
Project would be adequately served by fire protection services, and no new or expanded unplanned
facilities would be required. Prior to commencement of any construction activities, and pursuant to the
San Bernardino County Code of Ordinance Section 85.01, the Project design plans would be reviewed by
all applicable local agencies, including the SBCFD, to ensure compliance with the County’s Development
Codes and Ordinances, the City’s Policy Plan, and all applicable emergency response and fire safety
requirements of the SBCFD and the CFC.
As structural fires represent a very small percentage of all service calls for the SBCFD, Project
implementation would not significantly increase the demand for fire services on-site and no new fire
stations would be required to service the Project. Further, as stated above, based on the Project site’s
proximity to two existing fire stations, the personnel staffed for each station, and the response times for
service received, the Project would be adequately served by fire protection services, and no n ew or
expanded unplanned facilities would be required. The Project would be required to implement on-site
fire suppression devices, installation of hydrants, and use of fire-retardant building materials. The Project
would be compliant with all applicable building and fire codes that are continually enforced t hrough an
inspection program. With the implementation of fire safety procedures and adherence to all applicable
17 San Bernardino County. 2021. San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Fee Schedule.
https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/SBCFire/documents/About/2021-22-Fire-Fees.pdf (a ccessed April 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-12 4.15 | Public Services
fire codes, operational impacts to fire protection services as a result of the Project would be less than
significant. Additionally, implementation of the Project would increase property tax revenues to provide
a source of funding that is sufficient to offset any increases in the anticipated demands for public services
generated by this Project. Finally, the Project would be required to pay Fire Facilities development impact
fee totaling $0.030 per building square foot prior to building permit issuance, whi ch would provide an
additional funding to offset any increases in the anticipated demands for public services generated by this
Project.18 Overall, the Project would receive adequate fire protection services and would not result in
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire
protection facilities, and will not adversely affect service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives. Compliance with applicable local and state regulations will ensure that the Project
implementation would result in a less than significant impact to fire protection services.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
II) Police Protection?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
The City of Fontana Police Department is approximately three miles south of the Project site. The FPD
would be provided the opportunity to review the Project’s design to verify that all feasible Crime
Prevention measures through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies are incorporated. CPTED is a way
of designing the built environment to create a safer built environment. CPTED elements include the
strategic use of nighttime security lighting, avoidance of landscaping and fencing that limit sightlines, and
use of a single, clearly identifiable point of entry. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Additionally, fees are required on new developments to pay for new facilities. Funding for the operation
and maintenance of existing services comes from the City’s General Fund. It is anticipated that the Project
site would be adequately served by existing FPD facilities, equipment, and personnel such that new
facilities would not be required. As discussed above, because the Project site is not residential, although
some calls for service are anticipated, the increase for police services would not be significantly impacted
due to construction and operation of the warehouse. Additionally, development of the Project site would
increase property tax revenues to provide a source of funding to offset any increases in the anticipated
demands for public services generated by the Project. Finally, the Project would be required to pay a
Police Facilities development impact fee totaling $0.039 per building square foot prior to building permit
issuance, which will provide an additional funding to offset any increases in the anticipated demands for
police facilities generated by this Project.19
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
18 City of Fontana. 2022. Development Fees. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Development-Impact-Fees?bidId=.
(accessed June 2022).
19 Ibid.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-13 4.15 | Public Services
III) Schools?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
The nearest schools to the Project site are Sierra Lakes Elementary School, located approximately one
mile west of the Project site; Wayne Ruble Middle School, located approximately 1.1 miles south of the
Project site; and AB Miller High School, located approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the Project site.
Because the Project is a warehouse, no students are anticipated to be directly generated by the
construction and operation of the Project. It is anticipated that most workers would come from
surrounding areas or from currently planned residential developments. Additionally, Project development
would require Development Impact Fee (DIF) payments, in accordance with the Fontana GP and SB 50, to
the corresponding school district for the construction of new schools. Each school district that serves the
City charges a different amount for development impact fees, which is usually dependent on the student
generation rates for that district. These payments would accommodate the need for new facilities based
on the increase in student population in each district.
The FUSD requires school mitigation impact fees of $0.78 per square foot for commercial/industrial
developments.20 The Project applicant would be required to pay the District’s current developer impact
fees for commercial/industrial use in effect at the time of submitting the building permit application. The
FUSD uses these fees to pay for facility expansion and upgrades needed to serve new students. While this
component of the Project would not generate any new students and increase demand for school services
such that new facilities would be required, payment of fees in compliance with Government Code Section
65996 fully mitigates all impacts to school facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
IV) Parks?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
There are no parks or recreational facilities located on the Project site. The nearest parks to the Project
site are Cambria Park, located approximately 0.9 mile south of the Project site; Patricia Marrujo Park,
located approximately one mile west of the Project site; and Fontana Park, located approximately 1.6
miles west of the Project site. Because the Project would not involve the development of habitable
structures, new residents would not be directly generated as part of the Project. It is possible that new
employees could occasionally use public parks or facilities between shifts. However, such use is likely to
20 Fontana Unified School District. 2022. Developer Fee Justification Study for Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development.
https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/Fontana%20Unified%20Developer%20Fee%20Justification%20Study%202
022.pdf (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-14 4.15 | Public Services
be negligible compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not impact local or
neighboring parks. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
V) Other Public Facilities?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
Other Public Facilities generally refers to libraries and government buildings that serve the population
within the jurisdiction. The Fontana Lewis Library & Technology Center is located at 8437 Sierra Avenue,
located approximately three miles south of the Project site. Additionally, the closest libraries to the Project
site are Summit Branch Library, located approximately 1.8 miles west of the Project site and Carter Branch
Library, located approximately 1.8 miles east of the Project site. The construction and operation of the
Project site would not result in a substantial increase in demand for these services such that a significant
deterioration of the existing facilities would occur, or such that new facilities would be required.
Regardless of any added level of use to existing libraries or other public facilities, the Project applicant
would be required to pay its fair share of DIFs to help offset incremental impacts to libraries by helping
fund capital improvements and expenditures. The City charges $0.009 per building sf to help offset costs
and improvements needed to provide library services to the residents.21 In addition, the Project would be
required to pay a Public Facilities development impact fee totaling $0.042 per building square foot prior
to building permit issuance. Therefore, the Project would not impact public facilities. Therefore, a less
than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.15.6 Cumulative Impacts
The Project is not anticipated to substantially increase the need for public services in the City. The Project
would not result in an overall net increase in City population. As discussed above, anticipated increase
demands for public services within the City was accounted for in the Fontana GP and analyzed in the
Fontana GP EIR, which accounts for cumulative growth in the City. In addition, related to all public services,
the Project would pay the required DIFs that would be appropriately allocated for police, fire, schools, and
other public facilities.
Similar to the Project, other cumulative projects would be required to demonstrate their level of impact
on public services including paying the appropriate development fees; therefore, the past, present, and
future projects would not result in a cumulative impact related to the provision of public services.
21 City of Fontana. 2022. Development Fees. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Development-Impact-Fees?bidId=
(accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-15 4.15 | Public Services
4.15.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
4.15.8 References
City of Fontana. 2022. 2022 Crime Statistics Are in NIBRS Format.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/38458/May-2022-Report-for-City-Council-2.
City of Fontana. 2022. About the Fontana Fire District. https://www.fontana.org/635/About-the-
Fontana-Fire-District.
City of Fontana, 2020. City of Fontana, California Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2020 -2021.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/32944/2020--2021-Adopted-Operating-
Budget.
City of Fontana, 2020. City of Fontana, California Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2020 -2021.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/32944/2020--2021-Adopted-Operating-
Budget.
City of Fontana, 2019. City of Fontana, California Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2019 -2020.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29901/2019--2020-Adopted-Operating-
Budget.
City of Fontana. 2022. Development Fees.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Development-Impact-Fees?bidId=.
City of Fontana. 2022. Education. https://www.fontana.org/3106/Education.
City of Fontana 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 DEIR.
https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-Documents.
City of Fontana. 2022. Station and Equipment. https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-Equipment.
City of Fontana. 2022. Parks. https://www.fontana.org/156/Facilities-Parks.
City of Fontana. 2022. Police Department, About Us. https://www.fontana.org/2509/About-Us.
Fontana Unified School District, 2022. Developer Fees. https://www.fusd.net/Page/639.
Fontana Unified School District, 2021. Fontana Unified School District – A Quick Reference to Fontana
Unified School District.
https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/143/FUSD%20Flash%20Facts%2
02021_2022.pdf.
Fontana Unified School District. 2022. Developer Fee Justification Study for Residential and
Commercial/Industrial Development.
https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/Fontana%20Unified%20Devel
oper%20Fee%20Justification%20Study%202022.pdf.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.15-16 4.15 | Public Services
San Bernardino County. 2019. Ordinance No. FPD 20-01.
https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/SBCFire/documents/SBCFPD-Fire-Code-Ordinance-20-
01.signed.pdf.
4.16
Recreation
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.16-1 4.16 | Recreation
4.16 RECREATION
4.16.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the potential impacts from the Sierra Distribution Facility Project
(Project) to recreation within the City of Fontana (City) by identifying anticipated demand and evaluating
its relationship to existing and planned recreational facilities and availability.
In accordance with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the
emphasis in this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is on impacts to recreation by the Project that
could require construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities resulting in a physical impact on
the environment.
4.16.2 Environmental Setting
Parks
Parks and recreation areas within the City are managed by City of Fontana Facilities and Parks Department.
The City of Fontana maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers .1 The nearest parks
to the Project are Cambria Park, located approximately 0.9 miles south of the Project site; Patricia Marrujo
Park, located approximately 1.1 miles west of the Project site; and Fontana Park, located approximately
1.9 miles of a linear distance west of the Project site.
County Regional Parks
San Bernardino County Regional Parks is dedicated to providing County residents and visitors with
opportunities to host and participate in innovative and diverse recreational and educational events, while
protecting the County’s natural, cultural, historical, and land resources.2 The County Regional Parks
Department continues to improve and ensure the availability and integrity of open space activities for all
ages and communities. The County Regional Parks Department manages and maintains nine Regional
Parks throughout the County totaling approximately 9,200 acres within the Valley Region, Mountain
Region, North Desert Region, and East Desert Region.3 Each park offers diverse outdoor recreation
opportunities in settings that range from metro, mountain, and desert scenery. Among the activities that
can be found in the County parks are Lakes for fishing, sheltered group picnic facilities accommodating up
to 350 people, swim complexes with water slides, zero depth water play parks, and playgrounds. Six of
the regional parks offer scenic camping, from tent to large RV’s and dry to full ho okups.4 The closest
Regional Park to the Project site is the Cucamonga-Guasti Regional Park, located approximately four miles
southwest of the Project site.
1 City of Fontana. 2022. Parks. https://www.fontana.org/156/Facilities-Parks. (accessed August 2022).
2 San Bernardino County Regional Parks. 2022. About Us. https://parks.sbcounty.gov/about-us/. (accessed August 2022).
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.16-2 4.16 | Recreation
The Regional Parks located in each region are as follows:
Valley Region
• Cucamonga-Guasti Regional Park
• Glen Helen Regional Park
• Prado Regional Park
• Yucaipa Regional Park
Mountain Region
• Lake Gregory Regional Park
North Desert Region
• Calico Ghost Town
• Moabi Regional Park
• Mojave River Forks Regional Park
• Mojave Narrows Regional Park
East Desert Region
• Big Morongo Canyon Preserve5
County Service Areas
There are numerous County special districts that operate local parks in many unincorporated
communities. These districts operate independently from the County government and are financed by
local taxes within each respective district boundary. County Service Areas (CSAs) are separate legal
entities authorized by California laws and formed by the County Board of Supervisors to fund the County’s
provision of services, capital improvements, and provide financial flexibility. Valley Region CSAs are as
follows:
• Bloomington Recreation and Parks District
• North Etiwanda Preserve
• Oak Glen-Yucaipa6
State Parks
• Chino Hills State Park
• Silverwood Lake State Recreation Area
• Wildwood Canyon Park
• Providence Mountains State Recreation Area7
5 County of San Bernardino. 2019. San Bernardino Countywide Plan Draft EIR. Section 5.15: Recreation. https://countywideplan.com/wp-
content/uploads/sites/68/2021/01/Ch_05-15-REC.pdf (a ccessed August 2022).
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.16-3 4.16 | Recreation
National Park Service
• Death Valley National Park
• Joshua Tree National Park
• Castle Mountains National Monument
• Mojave National Preserve8
United States Forest Service
• San Bernardino National Forest
• Angeles National Forest9
Bureau of Land Management
• Sand to Snow National Monument
• Mojave Trails National Monument10
4.16.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
There are no Federal regulations pertaining to recreational services that would be applicable to the
Project.
State
California Desert Conservation Area Plan
In 1980, the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan was approved in accordance with the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act. The CDCA Plan provides for multiple use management of approximately
25 million acres, of which 10 million acres are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The
CDCA Plan is based on the concept of sustainable yield and maintenance of environmental quality. Several
significant amendments to the CDCA Plan have been made in San Bernardino County, including the
BLM Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan, BLM Northern and
Eastern Mojave Desert Management Plan, and the BLM West Mojave Plan. The proposed Desert
Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Land Use Plan Amendment was also a major amendment to the
CDCA Plan.
Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.)
The Mitigation Fee Act allows cities to establish fees that will be imposed on development projects to
mitigate the impact on the jurisdiction’s ability to provide specified public facilities to serve proposed
development projects. In order to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, a jurisdiction must follow four
requirements: (1) Make certain determination regarding the purpose and use of a fee and establish a
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.16-4 4.16 | Recreation
nexus or connection between a development project or class of project and the public improvement being
financed with the fee; (2) Segregate fee revenue from the general fund in order to avoid commingling of
capital facilities fees and general funds; (3) For fees that have been in the possession of the jurisdiction
for five years or more and for which the dollars have not been spent or committed to a project, the
jurisdiction must make findings each fiscal year describing the continuing need for the money; a nd
(4) Refund any fees with interest for which the findings noted above cannot be made.
The Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (California Government Code, Section 66477) was established by the California legislature
in 1965 to develop new or rehabilitate existing neighborhood or community park or recreation facilities.
This legislation was enacted in response to the need to provide parks and recreation facilities for
California’s growing communities. The Quimby Act gives the legislative body of a city or county the
authority, by ordinance, to require the dedication of land or payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination of
both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition of approval of a tract map or parcel map. The
Quimby Act is implemented through City Ordinance and is discussed further below.
Landscaping and Lighting Act
The Landscaping and Lighting Act (California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et seq.) enables
cities, counties, and special districts to acquire land for parks, recreation, and open space. A local
government may also use the assessments to pay for improvements and maintenance to these areas. In
addition to local government agencies (i.e., counties and cities), park and recreation facilities may be
provided by other public agencies, such as community service districts, park, and recreation districts, etc.
If so empowered, such an agency may acquire, develop, and operate recreational facilities for the public.
State of California Open Space Standards
State planning law provides a structure for the preservation of open space by requiring every city and
county in the state to prepare, adopt, and submit to the Secretary of the Resources Agency a “local
open-space plan for the comprehensive and long-range preservation and conservation of open-space land
within its jurisdiction” (California Government Code Section 65560). The following open space categories
are identified for preservation:
• Open space for public health and safety, including, but not limited to, areas that require special
management or regulation due to hazardous or special conditions.
• Open space for the preservation of natural resources, including, but not limited to, natural
vegetation, fish and wildlife, and water resources.
• Open space for resource management and production, including, but not limited to, agricultural
and mineral resources, forests, rangeland, and areas required for the recharge of groundwater
basins.
• Open space for outdoor recreation, including, but not limited to, parks, and recreational facilities,
areas that serve as links between major recreation and open space reservations (such as trails,
easements, and scenic roadways), and areas of outstanding scenic and cultural value.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.16-5 4.16 | Recreation
• Open space for the protection of Native American sites, including, but not limited to, places,
features, and objects of historical, cultural, or sacred significance such as Native American
sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines located
on public property (further defined in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 5097.9 and
5097.993)).
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
There are no goals and policies from the City’s general plan that are applicable to the Project and
recreation.
Development Fees
Development Impact fees11 for industrial use that would be imposed on the Project are as follows:
Fire Facilities: $ 0.034 per sf
Police: $ 0.044 per sf
Public Facilities: $ 0.042 per sf
Library: $ 0.009 per sf
Park Development: N/A for Industrial
4.16.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning recreation. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized
as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the
environment if it would:
• Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated or
• Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Methodology a nd Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning recreation. This analysis considers the existing
regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce a potentially
significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the
11 City of Fontana. Development Fees. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Development -Impact-Fees?bidId=. (accessed
April 2023).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.16-6 4.16 | Recreation
regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the Project’s
potentially significant environmental impacts associated with recreational resources.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on recreation examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and
permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/thresholds outlined
above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project and the surrounding characteristics/
geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as
well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on field observations conducted by Kimley-Horn;
review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of
various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination that a
Project component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on recreation standards
considers the available policies and regulations established by local and state agencies and the amount of
deviation from these policies in the Project’s components.
4.16.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.16-1 Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
Parks and recreation areas within the City are managed by City of Fontana Facilities & Parks Department.
The City of Fontana maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers. There are no parks
or recreational facilities in the Project site. The nearest park to the Project site is the Cambria Park at
17140 Cambria Avenue, located approximately 0.9 mile south of the Project site. Because the warehouse
would not involve the development of habitable structures, new residents would not directly be
generated as part of the industrial Project. It is possible that new employees could occasionally use public
parks or facilities between shifts. However, such use is likely to be negligible compared to existing
conditions. Therefore, the Project would not impact local or neighboring parks. In addition, the demand
for parks is determined by changes and increases in housing and population. In this case, the Project site
would be developed with a warehouse, and no new residents or housing would be introduced to the area.
Therefore, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.16-7 4.16 | Recreation
Impact 4.16-2 Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Because the Project would not result in an
increased demand for recreational facilities, less than significant impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.16.6 Cumulative Impacts
The Project is not anticipated to substantially increase the need for recreation in the City. The Project
would not result in an overall net increase in City population. As discussed above, anticipated increase
demands for recreation within the City was accounted for in the Fontana GP and analyzed in the Fontana
GP EIR, which accounts for cumulative growth in the City.
Similar to the Project, other cumulative projects would be required to demonstrate their level of impact
on recreation; therefore, the past, present, and future projects would not result in a cumulative impact
related to the provision of recreation.
4.16.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
4.16.8 References
City of Fontana. 2023. Development Fees.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Development-Impact-Fees?bidId=.
City of Fontana. 2022. Parks. https://www.fontana.org/156/Facilities-Parks.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 DEIR.
https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-Documents.
County of San Bernardino. 2019. San Bernardino Countywide Plan Draft EIR. Section 5.15: Recreation.
https://countywideplan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/68/2021/01/Ch_05-15-REC.pdf.
San Bernardino County Regional Parks. 2022. About Us. https://parks.sbcounty.gov/about-us/.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.16-8 4.16 | Recreation
This page intentionally left blank.
4.17
Transportation
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-1 4.17 | Transportation
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
4.17.1 Introduction
This section addresses transportation impacts related to the construction and operation of the Sierra
Distribution Facility Project (Project), including the existing transportation system, significance criteria for
transportation impacts, and potential Project impacts resulting from Project implementation. Information
presented in this section was obtained from the City of Fontana’s (City) General Plan Update 2015-2035
(Fontana GP) and following technical report located in Appendix K: Transportation:
• Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2022. Trip Generation Assessment and Traffic Scoping for the
Proposed Sierra Distribution Facility in the City of Fontana.
4.17.2 Environmental Setting
The Project site includes the development of a 398,514-square foot warehouse building including
approximately 10,000 square feet of office area on a total of 18.3 net acres in the northern portion of the
City. Fifty-four dock-high doors would be constructed along the majority of the south building wall. The
proposed building is expected to be surrounded by asphalt concrete (AC) pavement in the parking and
drive areas, Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements in the loading dock area, and concrete flatwork
and landscaped planters throughout the Project site. Development would include on-site stormwater
infiltration. The infiltration system would consist of a below-grade chamber system located in the
southeastern and southwestern portions of the Project site. The Project site is located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive within the City and is bounded to the
north and south by existing warehouse/industrial buildings, to the west by Sierra Avenue and residential
development, and to the east by Mango Avenue and a landfill.
Existing Transportation Conditions
Existing Street System
Regional access to the site is provided primarily by the State Route 210 (SR-210), located approximately
0.6 mile south of the Project site. In addition, Interstate (I-) 15 is located approximately two miles
northwest of the site. Local access would be provided via Sierra Avenue (passenger vehicles) and Mango
(truck and passenger vehicles) Avenue. The following provides a description of these roadways
surrounding the Project site.
In the Project area, Sierra Avenue has three southbound lanes and three northbound lanes with a raised,
landscaped central median within an estimated 150-foot right-of-way. On-street parking on Sierra Avenue
is not allowed. The posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour (mph). In the Fontana GP Circulation Master
Plan, Sierra Avenue is designated as a Major Highway.
Mango Avenue is a north-south undivided roadway with one lane in each direction. In the Fontana GP
Circulation Master Plan, Mango Avenue is designated as a Collector Street. The posted speed limit is
25 mph.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-2 4.17 | Transportation
Existing Transit Service
Transit service to the Project area is provided via the OmniTrans transit lines, which serve many
San Bernardino County cities in the area. The closest bus stop in the Project vicinity is at the intersection
of Sierra Avenue and Sierra Lakes Parkway, approximately 0.4 mile south of the Project site. A description
of the bus route serving the Project area is provided below.
Route 82 operates between the City of Fontana and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, traveling through
Fontana along Sierra Avenue and Jurupa Avenue. Route 82 operates on weekdays from approximately
4:30 AM to 10:15 PM with approximately 15-minute headways (the time between bus arrivals), on
Saturdays from approximately 6:15 AM to 7:30 PM with approximately 30-minute headways, and on
Sundays from approximately 6:15 AM to 7:10 PM with approximately 30-minute headways.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue do not contain any current bicycle facilities. Sidewalks are located along
southbound Sierra Avenue and discontinuous sidewalks are located along northbound Sierra Avenue.
There are no sidewalks along Mango Avenue.
4.17.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Americans With Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination toward people with disabilities
and guarantees that they have equal opportunities as the rest of society to become employed, purchase
goods and services, and participate in government programs and services. The ADA includes requirements
pertaining to transportation infrastructure. The Department of Justice’s revised regulations for Titles II
and III of the ADA, known as the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Designs, set minimum requi rements
for newly designed and constructed or altered state and local government facilities, public
accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities. These standards apply to accessible walking routes, curb ramps, and other facilities.
Surface Transportation Assistance Act Routes
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 allows large trucks, referred to as STAA trucks
that comply with maximum length and wide requirements, to operate on routes that are part of the
National Network. The National Network includes the Interstate System and other designated highways
that were a part of the Federal-Aid Primary System on June 1, 1991; states are encouraged, however, to
allow access for STAA trucks on all highways.
State
Assembly Bill 1358 – Complete Streets Act of 2008
The California Complete Streets Act of 2008 was signed into law on September 30, 2008. Beginning
January 1, 2011, Assembly Bill (AB) 1358 required circulation elements to address the transportation
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-3 4.17 | Transportation
system from a multi-modal perspective. The Complete Streets Act also requires circulation elements to
consider the multiple users of the transportation system, including children, adults, seniors, and people
with disabilities.
Senate Bill 375 – Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
Signed into law on September 30, 2008, Senate Bill (SB) 375 provides a process to coordinate land use
planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction
goals established by AB 32. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable
community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, aligns planning
for transportation and housing, and create specified incentives for the implementation of the str ategies.
The latest Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/
Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) or the Connect SoCal was adopted in 2020.
Senate Bill 743 – Amending CEQA with Respect to Evaluating Transportation Impacts
On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law. A key element of this law is the
potential elimination or deemphasizing of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures
of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts. According to the
legislative intent contained in SB 743, these changes to current practice were necessary to more
appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill
development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of GHG emissions.
As noted, SB 743 requires impacts to transportation network performance to be viewed through a filter
that promotes the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks,
and the diversification of land uses. Some alternative metrics were identified in the law, including vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) or automobile trip generation rates. SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from
continuing to analyze delay or LOS as part of other plans (i.e., the general plan), studies, or ongoing
network monitoring, but these metrics may no longer constitute the sole basis for determining CEQA
impacts once SB 743 is ratified into CEQA Guidelines.
In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the State CEQA
Guidelines, which included SB 743. Section 15064.3 of the 2019 CEQA Guidelines provides that
transportation impacts of projects are, in general, best measured by evaluating the project's VMT.
Automobile delay is no longer considered to be an environmental impact under CEQA. Automobile delay
can, however, still be used by agencies to determine local operational impacts. The provisions of this
section became mandatory July 1, 2020.
State Transportation Improvement Program
The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a multi -year capital improvement program for
transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the
Transportation Investment Fund and other funding sources. STIP programming generally occurs every two
years. The programming cycle begins with the release of a proposed fund estimate in July of odd
numbered years, followed by California Transportation Commission (CTC) adoption of the fund estimate
in August (odd years). The fund estimate serves to identify the amount of new funds available for the
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-4 4.17 | Transportation
programming of transportation projects. Once the fund estimate is adopted, Caltrans and the regional
planning agencies prepare transportation improvement plans for submittal to the CTC by December 15th
(odd years). Caltrans prepares the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program and regional
agencies prepare the Regional Transportation Improvement Plans. Public hearings are held in January
(even years) in both northern and southern California. The STIP is adopted by the CTC by April (even years).
Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released the Technical Advisory on Evaluating
Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) in December 2018. The Technical Advisory aids in
the transition from LOS to VMT methodology for transportation impact analysis under CEQA. The advisory
contains technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and
mitigation measures.
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) owns and operates the State highway system
(SHS), which includes the freeways and State routes within California. In Fontana, Caltrans maintains
SR-210, I-10, and I-15. As discussed above, VMT is now the metric used under CEQA and includes technical
recommendations regarding VMT assessment, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures.
Although Caltrans recognizes this will not apply to all projects on the SHS, this would apply to the Project.
Caltrans also recognizes that VMT is the most appropriate primary measure of transportation impacts for
capacity increasing transportation projects on the SHS.
The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002) provides guidance on
the evaluation of traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The document outlines when a traffic impact
study is needed and what should be included in the scope of the study. The Guide states the following:
“Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C” and LOS “D” on State
highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not be always feasible and recommends
that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS.”
Regional
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
As the metropolitan planning organization for the region’s six counties and 191 cities, the Regional Council
of SCAG is mandated by law to develop a long -term regional transportation and sustainability plan every
four years. On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council approved and fully adopted Connect SoCal
(2020–2045 RTP/SCS). Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use
and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility opti ons and
achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Connect SoCal identifies 10 goals that fall into four categories:
economy, mobility, environment, and healthy/complete communities. The RTP/SCS is discussed further
in Section 4.11: Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-5 4.17 | Transportation
San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program
The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) is San Bernardino’s Congestion
Management Agency (CMA). SBCTA prepares, monitors, and periodically updates the County Congestion
Management Program (CMP) to meet federal Congestion Management Process requirement and the
County’s Measure I Program. The San Bernardino County CMP defines a network of state highways and
arterials, LOS standards and related procedures, the process for mitigation of impacts of new
development on the transportations system, and technical justification for the approach.
Measure I Strategic Plan
Measure I authorizes a half-cent sales tax in San Bernardino County until March 2040 for use exclusively
on transportation improvement and traffic management programs. San Bernardino County voters first
approved the measure in 1989 and in 2004 overwhelming ly approved the extension through 2040.
Measure I includes language mandating development to pay its fair share for transportation
improvements in San Bernardino County. The Measure I Strategic Plan is the official guide for the
allocation and administration of the combination of local transportation sales tax, state and Federal
transportation revenues, and private fair -share contributions to regional transportation facilities to fund
the Measure I 2010–2040 transportation programs. The Strategic Plan identifies funding categories and
allocations and planned transportation improvement projects in the County for freeways, major and local
arterials, bus and rail transit, and traffic management systems. The City has adopted a development
impact fee (DIF) program that is consistent with Measure I requirements.
Local
City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan
The Fontana Active Transportation Plan (ATP)1 as described in the Fontana Forward General Plan, adopted
in 2017, is used to implement infrastructure improvements for better connectivity throughout Fontana
and to surrounding cities and the region by providing safe and comfortable walking and bicycling linkages.
The ATP addresses the City’s goal of becoming a community that is healthy, engaged, economically
vibrant, family-oriented, and safe. Goals, objectives, and policies from the ATP relevant to the Project are
as follows:
Goal 1: Mobility & Access - Increase and improve pedestrian and bicyclist access to
employment centers, schools, transit, recreation facilities, other community
destinations across the City of Fontana, and facilities in neighboring cities for people
of all ages and abilities.
Objective 1.B Reduce barriers to pedestrian and bicyclist travel.
Policy 1.B.2 Identify gaps in the pedestrian and bicyclist facilities network and needed
improvements to and within key activity centers such as employment centers, schools,
Fontana Metrolink station, bus stops, and retail areas, and define priorities for
eliminating these gaps by making needed improvements.
1 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Pg. 5.13-14.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update. (accessed
June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-6 4.17 | Transportation
Objective 1.C Work with transit providers to develop high quality pedestrian and bicycle accessible
transit stops and stations.
Policy 1.C.1 Coordinate with Omnitrans to establish appropriate designs for transit stops and
station access ways. Bus stops can provide shelter from the weather, real-time arrival
information, electronic signage, benches, garbage cans, and route maps. Bus stops can
also become spaces to showcase public art.
Goal 3: Infrastructure & Support Facilities - Maintain and improve the quality, operation,
and integrity of the pedestrian and bicycle network infrastructure that allows for
convenient and direct connections throughout Fontana. Increase the number of high
quality support facilities to complement the network, and create public pedestrian
and bicycle environments that are attractive, functional, and accessible to all people.
Objective 3.A Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities into private and public
development projects.
Policy 3.A.1 Support and encourage local efforts to require the construction of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities and amenities such as landscaping, wayfinding and seating areas, as a
condition of approval of new development and major redevelopment projects.
City of Fontana Development Impact Fee Program
The City of has adopted a DIF program pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 66000
et seq. The City’s Development Services Department oversees the use of the DIF fees and the DIF is used
to fund various projects included in the City’s capital improvement program, which is updated periodically.
Generally, DIF eligible intersections are those consisting of two intersecting Hierarchy of Streets Plan
roadways. Fee credits and reimbursements will be available as part of the DIF program and are g iven to
projects that are identified as a DIF program facility
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
Community Mobility and Circulation Element
The Community Mobility and Circulation Element2 is focused on connecting neighborhoods and city
destinations by expanding transportation choice in Fontana. While the element supports continuing
programs to improve travel by cars and trucks, it provides guidance on expanding the options for transit
and “active transportation” (pedestrian and bicycle mobility) for Fontana. This element represents the
City’s overall transportation plan to accommodate the movement of people and goods. Goals and policies
relevant to the Project are as follows:
Goal 3: Local transit within the City of Fontana is a viable choice for residents, easily
accessible and serving destinations throughout the City.
Policy 3.1 Maximize the accessibility, safety, convenience, and appeal of transit service and
transit stops.
2 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Community Mobility and Circulation.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26748/Chapter -9---Community-Mobility-and-Circulation. (accessed February 2023).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-7 4.17 | Transportation
Goal 6: The city has attractive and convenient parking facilities, including electric charging
stations, for both motorized and nonmotorized vehicles that meet needs that fit the
context.
Policy 6.1 Provide sufficient motor vehicle and secure bicycle parking in commercial and
employment centers to support vibrant economic activity.
Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element
The Land Use and Zoning Element3 sets forth the policy framework over the next 20 years for the physical
development of Fontana regarding transportation. This element represents the guide for decision makers
on the pattern and distribution of transportation development. Goals and policies relevant to the Project
are as follows:
Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic
prosperity.
Policy 2.3 Locate high-quality industrial uses where there is appropriate access to regional
transportation routes.
Goal 5: High-quality job-producing industrial uses are located in proximity to regional
transportation routes
Policy 5.1 Promote the Southwest Industrial Park and the I-10 corridor as preferred locations for
industrial uses.
Policy 5.2 Maintain but do not expand existing heavy industrial land use areas in proximity to
one another and to services for industrial uses.
4.17.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning transportation. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been
utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on
the environment if it would:
• Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
• Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b);
• Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or
• Result in inadequate emergency access.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning transportation resources. This analysis considers
3 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26754/Chapter -15---Land-Use-Zoning-and-Urban-Design (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-8 4.17 | Transportation
the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce
the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance
with the regulatory framework, feasible mitiga tion measures are recommended to avoid or reduce the
Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
4.17.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.17-1: Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction
The Project would be consistent with SB 375 by complying with SCAG’s Connect SoCal and SBCTA’s CMP.
The Project’s consistency analysis with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS goals is further discussed in
Table 4.11-3: Consistency with SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS within Section 4.11 of this Draft EIR. The Project
would also be consistent with SCBTA’s CMP goals which include, but are not limited to, adhering to the
CMP by maintaining and enhancing the performance of Project area’s multimodal transportation system
and minimizing travel delay refer to LOS analysis in Appendix K.
The Project would also comply with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 by being consistent with the Fontana
GP. The Complete Streets Act of 2008 requires General Plans to accommodate a balanced, multimodal
transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways in manners that
are suitable to applicable rural, suburban, or urban contexts. More specifically, the Project’s circulation
system would be designed and constructed in conformance with relevant goals and policies in the Fontana
GP’s Community Mobility and Circulation Element that pertain to the Project’s circulation system.
Table 4.17-1: Consistency Analysis, below describes the Project’s consistency with Fontana GP and
Fontana ATP goals and policies relevant to the Project.
Table 4.17-1: Consistency Analysis
Fontana GP
Community Mobility and Circulation Element
Goal 3: Local transit within the City of Fontana is a viable choice for residents, easily accessible and serving destinations
throughout the City.
Policy 3.1: Maximize the accessibility, safety,
convenience, and appeal of transit service and transit
stops.
Consistent: The Project is located within an area of the City
designated for light industrial use, consistent with Project
development. Regional Project access would be from SR -210 via the
officially designated local truck route, Sierra Avenue, approximately
0.6 mile south of the Project site. The Project would comply with the
requirements for emergency lane width, vertical clearance, and
distance would ensure that adequate emergency access is available
for all new development and redevelopment projects. Additionally,
the necessary development fees will be paid prior to construction, as
indicated in the Fontana MC Section 11.2.
Goal 6: The city has attractive and convenient parking facilities, including electric charging stations, for both motorized a nd
nonmotorized vehicles that meet needs that fit the context.
Policy 6.1: Provide sufficient motor vehicle and secure
bicycle parking in commercial and employment
centers to support vibrant economic activity.
Consistent: Per City MC, the Project would require 102 auto parking
spaces and 80 trailer parking stalls.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-9 4.17 | Transportation
However, the Project would provide 125 parking stalls, 71 trailer
stalls, 10 trailer tandem stalls, and 37 tractor trailer stalls.
Additionally, a total of 54 dock doors would be provided. Parking stalls
would be provided as follows:
• Standard = 93 stalls
• ADA Standard = 5 stalls
• ADA Van = 1 stall
• EV ADA Van = 1 stall
• EV Charging Only = 5 stalls
• EV ADA = 1 stalls
• EV Capable = 19 stall
Additionally, the Project would provide bike racks for those
commuting by bicycle as well as a locker, shower, and changing room
facility accessible for both men and women for employees bicycling
or walking to work.
Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element
Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic prosperity.
Policy 2.3: Locate high-quality industrial uses where
there is appropriate access to regional transportation
routes.
Consistent: The Project is located within an area of the City
designated for light industrial use, consistent with Project
development. Regional Project access would be from SR-210 via the
officially designated local truck route, Sierra Avenue, approximately
0.6 mile south of the Project site.
Goal 5: High-quality job-producing industrial uses are located in proximity to regional transportation routes.
Policy 5.1: Promote the Southwest Industrial Park and
the I-10 corridor as preferred locations for industrial
uses.
Consistent: The Project would be developed on an area that is
designated for light industrial land use designations. Further, the
surrounding area includes industrial, commercial, and residential
uses.
Policy 5.2: Maintain but do not expand existing heavy
industrial land use areas in proximity to one another
and to services for industrial uses.
Consistent: The Project would be developed on an area that is
designated for light industrial land use designations. Further, the
surrounding area includes industrial, commercial, and residential
uses.
Fontana ATP
Goal 1: Mobility & Access - Increase and improve pedestrian and bicyclist access to employment centers, schools, transit,
recreation facilities, other community destinations across the City of Fontana, and facilities in neighboring cities for peop le
of all ages and abilities.
Objective 1.B: Reduce barriers to pedestrian and bicyclist travel.
Policy 1.B.2: Identify gaps in the pedestrian and
bicyclist facilities network and needed improvements
to and within key activity centers such as employment
centers, schools, Fontana Metrolink station, bus stops,
and retail areas, and define priorities for eliminating
these gaps by making needed improvements.
Consistent: The Project would provide continuous sidewalks along its
frontages with Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue. This would
eliminate the discontinuous sidewalks along northbound Sierra
Avenue.
Objective 1.C: Work with transit providers to develop high quality pedestrian and bicycle accessible transit stops and stations.
Policy 1.C.1: Coordinate with Omnitrans to establish
appropriate designs for transit stops and station access
ways. Bus stops can provide shelter from the weather,
real-time arrival information, electronic signage,
benches, garbage cans, and route maps. Bus stops can
also become spaces to showcase public art.
Consistent: Transit service to the Project area is provided via the
OmniTrans transit lines. The closest existing bus stop in the Project
vicinity is at the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Sierra Lakes
Parkway, approximately 0.4 mile south of the Project site. Note that
the Project proposes a bus bay, consistent with City Standard 1005,
located below the driveway entrance along Sierra Avenue.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-10 4.17 | Transportation
Goal 3: Infrastructure & Support Facilities - Maintain and improve the quality, operation, and integrity of the pedestrian and
bicycle network infrastructure that allows for convenient and direct connections throughout Fontana. Increase the number
of high-quality support facilities to complement the network, and create public pedestrian and bicycle environments that
are attractive, functional, and accessible to all people.
Objective 3.A: Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities into private and public development projects.
Policy 3.A.1: Support and encourage local efforts to
require the construction of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and amenities such as landscaping,
wayfinding and seating areas, as a condition of
approval of new development and major
redevelopment projects.
Consistent: The Project would dedicate 34 feet of right-of-way (ROW)
for Mango Avenue. Within that 34 -foot ROW, half width
improvements would be conducted along southbound Mango
Avenue where it runs adjacent to the Project site. Improvements
would include new pavement for the southbound lane and a 12-foot-
wide parkway with five-foot wide sidewalk. Paved pedestrian paths
would be provided connecting the proposed sidewalks to the Project
site. The Project would also provide bicycle parking spaces.
Landscaping would be installed in all areas not devoted to buildings,
parking, traffic, and specific user requirements, in accordance with
the City’s Zoning and Development Code Section 30 -551 which
specifies landscape design guidelines for industrial zoning districts.
Sources: City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035. Available at: https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-
2015---2035; and City of Fontana. 2017. Fontana Active Transportation Plan. Available at https://www.fontana.org/3143/Active-
Transportation-Plan-ATP.
As demonstrated in the above table, the Project’s circulation elements would be consistent with the
Fontana GP and ATP elements pertaining to the circulation system, including transit, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, resulting in a less than significant impact. For further details, see Table 4.11-4:
Consistency with the Fontana General Plan, within Section 4.11 of this Draft EIR.
Project Trip Generation Assessment
Per the City’s TIA guidelines, “the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual is the preferred source for calculating trip generation in the City of Fontana.”
Trip generation estimated for the Project is based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11 th Edition). Based
on the building design, size, proposed parking/docks, etc., the Project operations are most comparable to
a High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 154) or High-Cube Fulfillment
Center Warehouse – Non-Sort (ITE Land Use Code 155). However, when analyzing the ITE trip rates for
these uses, it was determined that these rates may underestimate the traffic generated to some extent.
Therefore, the Warehousing use (ITE Land Use Code 150) was selected for a more conservative estimate
of traffic generation. Based on ITE Warehouse rates selected, the Project is estimated to generate 681
daily trips, with 68 trips during the AM peak hour and 72 trips during the PM peak hour (see Table 2 of
Appendix K). Following the City’s TIA guidelines for estimating trip generation, the trips were converted
to a Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) based on ITE truck trip rates. The truck mixes by number of axles were
based on the City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study for the Light Warehouse land use category. The
truck trips were then converted to PCE trips using the factors from the City’s guidelines.
The Project is estimated to generate a total of 1,07 6 PCE trips daily, with 85 PCE trips (63 inbound /
22 outbound) during the AM peak hour, and 84 PCE trips (26 inbound / 58 outbound) during the PM peak
hour. Table 4.17-2: Trip Generation Comparison, provides a comparison of the trips currently being
generated by the existing site and the trip estimated to be generated by the Project. The Project is
estimated to generate just an additional 106 PCE trips daily, with nine additional PCE trips during the AM
peak hour and 38 additional PCE trips during the PM peak hour.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-11 4.17 | Transportation
Table 4.17-2: Trip Generation Comparison
Facility Vehicle Type Daily AM Peak Hour of Generator PM Peak Hour of Generator
Total In Out Total In Out
Existing Site
Passenger Cars 93 11 6 5 1 0 1
Trucks 877 65 30 35 45 27 18
Total 970 76 36 40 46 27 19
Project Estimate
Passenger Cars 443 60 48 12 60 14 46
Trucks (PCE) 634 25 15 10 24 12 12
Total 1,076 85 63 22 84 26 58
Net Site Trip Generation 106 9 27 -18 38 -1 39
Notes: VMT Requirements: CEQA VMT Analysis - 500 or more net daily trips
LOS Requirements: Traffic Impact Analysis - more than 250 two-way peak hour trips; Traffic Impact Analysis (Small) - between 100 and 249
two-way peak hour trips; Focused Traffic Analysis - between 50 and 100 two-way peak hour trips; Trip Generation Memo - less than 50 peak
hour trips
Source: Table 3, Appendix K
Conclusion
In summary, the Trip Generation Assessment (see Appendix K) noted the Project is estimated to generate
less than 50 net new PCE trips for both the AM and PM peak hours (9 AM / 38 PM), therefore, an
evaluation of LOS is not required. As noted above, LOS is provided for informational purposes only. The
Project will be consistent with applicable local agency operational LOS standards. Overall, the Project
would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy, addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Project includes roadway improvements that
would be designed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local provisions, design requirements,
and policies. Furthermore, roadway improvements may include a combination of fee payments to
established programs, construction of specific improvements, and payment of a fair -share contribution
toward future improvements (see Appendix K for more details). Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.17-2: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 codifies the change from LOS to VMT as a metric for transportation
impact analysis. On September 27, 2013, former Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law, which
initiated a process to change transportation impact analyses completed in support o f CEQA
documentation. SB 743 eliminates LOS as a basis for determining significant transportation impacts under
CEQA and establishes VMT as a new performance metric. As a result, the State is shifting from measuring
a project’s impact to drivers (LOS) to measuring the impact of driving (VMT) as it relates to achieving State
goals of reducing GHG emissions, encouraging infill development, and improving public health through
active transportation.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-12 4.17 | Transportation
Project Screening
The Project was screened against the screening thresholds, identified in the City’s guidelines, which can
be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less than significant
impact without conducting a more detailed level analysis. Screening thresholds are broken into the
following four steps:
1. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
2. Low VMT Area Screening
3. Low Project Type Screening
4. Project Net Daily Trips Less Than 500 ADT
A land use project needs only meet one of the above screening thresholds to be presumed to result in no
significant impact under CEQA pursuant to SB 743. Per the City’s TIA guidelines, “projects that generate
fewer than 500 net average daily trips (ADT) would not cause a substantial increase in the total citywide
or regional VMT and are therefore presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. The latest
edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual is the preferr ed source
for calculating trip generation in the City of Fontana. The use of other sources of trip generation must be
approved by the Engineering Department. The screening criteria trip limit is based on net trip generation
after considering pass-by, internal capture, affordable housing, and/or existing land use trips.”
Because the Project is estimated to generate just 106 additional ADT, the Project would be screened from
VMT analysis requirements, and the Project is assumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.17-3: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project would not include the use of any incompatible vehicles or equipment on-site, such as farm
equipment. Project site ingress and egress would be provided via three driveways: one 50-foot driveway
on Sierra Avenue and one approximately 54-foot (southerly) driveway and one 35-foot (northerly)
driveway on Mango Avenue. Trucks would enter and exit the site via Mango Avenue. Mango Avenue
intersects with Sierra Lakes Parkway which reconnects with Sierra Avenue. Trucks would access
southbound Sierra Avenue from this point to reach SR-210 and regional destinations beyond. Truck traffic
generated by the site would be prohibited from using Sierra Avenue.
The anticipated roadway improvements would be compatible with the surrounding existing and future
land uses. Construction impacts associated with the Project may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic or
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-13 4.17 | Transportation
cause temporary hazards. Construction operations would be required to implement appropriate and
feasible measures to facilitate the passage of people and vehicles through/around any required road or
lane closures or implement detours if needed. Site-specific activities, such as temporary construction
activities, are approved on a project-by-project basis by the City and are required to ensure adequate
traffic flow. At the time of approval of any site-specific development plans required for the construction
of infrastructure, the Project would be required to comply with the City requirements including obtaining
a Lane Closure Permit, Encroachment Permit, and/or other measures that would maintain traffic flow and
access through standard conditions of approval that would be placed on Project buildout. Furthermore,
the traffic control measures as required by the City would be implemented as necessary to maintain
adequate circulation. Roadway improvements in and around the Project site would be designed and
constructed to meet all City requirements for street widths, corner radii, and intersection control as well
as incorporate design standards tailored specifically to Project access requirements that would result in
the safe and efficient flow of traffic within and throughout the Project site. Adhering to the City’s
regulatory requirements for general street alignments and circulation/mobility, would ensure that the
Project would not include any sharp curves for the public and Project uses, or create dangerous
intersections, or design hazards. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment),
and a less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.17-4: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project is not anticipated to result in any significant emergency access impacts during construction.
Roadway improvements could result in temporary disruption or slowing of traffic flows, but all roadways
would remain open to emergency vehicle traffic at all times. Local access would be provided via Sierra
Avenue and Mango Avenue. Project site ingress and egress would be via three driveways: one 50-foot
driveway on Sierra Avenue and one approximately 54-foot (southerly) driveway and one 35-foot
(northerly) driveway on Mango Avenue. Trucks would enter the site via northbound Sierra Avenue and
exit the site via southbound Mango Avenue. Mango Avenue intersects with Sierra Lakes Parkway which
reconnects with Sierra Avenue. Trucks would access southbound Sierra Avenue from this point to reach
SR-210 and regional destinations beyond. This would ensure that all emergency vehicles would be able to
pass the Project site using either Sierra Avenue or Mango Avenue should the need arise. A 30-foot-wide
fire lane would also circumvent the Project site.
In case of an emergency, the construction manager will have assigned staff to flag emergency response
vehicles and direct them to the emergency location. Unimpeded access throughout the Project site would
not be parked or placed in a manner that would impede access for emergency response vehicles.
Emergency access to the Project site is not constrained due to its size and overall construction footprint.
If the need would arise, all emergency vehicles would have unimpeded access to the Project site and
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-14 4.17 | Transportation
mobility through the site as is feasible prior to installation of the interior driveways and drive aisles.
Because access for construction equipment and construction vehicles carrying supplies and materials
would be provided, it is anticipated the same access points and interior roads would be used by
emergency vehicles should the need arise. Further, construction equipment and materials would not be
parked or placed in a manner that would impede access for emergency response vehicles. Site conditions,
during and after the workday, would be maintained or left in a condition that adheres to Division of
Occupational Safety and Health (better known as Cal/OSHA) safety standards to prevent hazardous
conditions for construction staff and emergency responders. In addition, prior to any project approval all
plans would be reviewed by the City fire department and City engineer to ensure all site access standards
and internal emergency access circulation requirements are included to future plans. This would ensure
needed emergency access is maintained. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency
access and a less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
4.17.6 Cumulative Impacts
Future development facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City,
would increase development in previously developed areas and could result in transportation impacts.
Future development on the cumulative development sites would be subject to discretionary permits and
require CEQA evaluation at the project-level. This means that each cumulative Project would require
separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential transportation
impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate.
Consequently, the Project would not result in significant transportation impacts. Therefore, future
development on the cumulative development sites would not result in significant environmental
transportation-related impacts, nor would future development on the cumulative development sites
conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan or regulation related to transportation. As such, the Project
would not cause a cumulatively considerable transportation impact, and no mitigation measures are
required.
4.17.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
4.17.8 References
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035. https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-
Plan-Update-2015---2035.
City of Fontana. 2017. Fontana Active Transportation Plan. https://www.fontana.org/3143/Active-
Transportation-Plan-ATP.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-15 4.17 | Transportation
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Pg. 5.13-14.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-
for-the-General-Plan-Update.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Community Mobility and Circulation.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26748/Chapter-9---Community-Mobility-and-
Circulation.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26754/Chapter-15---Land-Use-Zoning-and-
Urban-Design
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2022. Trip Generation Assessment and Traffic Scoping for the Proposed
Sierra Distribution Facility in the City of Fontana.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.17-16 4.17 | Transportation
This page intentionally left blank.
4.18
Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.18-1 4.18 | Tribal Cultural Resources
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.18.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and analyzes the Tribal Cultural
Resources impacts associated with the development of the Sierra Distribution Facility Project (Project).
Historically, the term “cultural resources” encompassed archaeological, historical, paleontological, and
tribal cultural resources, including both physical and intangible remains, or traces left by historic or
prehistoric peoples. Tribal resources refer to either a site, feature, place, cultural landsc ape, 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. Historic and archaeological resources are discussed in Draft
EIR Section 4.5: Cultural Resources and paleontological resources are discussed in Section 4.7: Geology
and Soils. The analysis is based primarily on:
• PaleoWest. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment (CRA) for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project,
City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (located in Draft EIR Appendix D).
The cultural evaluations were conducted in compliance with California Public Resources Code (PRC)
Section 5024.1 to identify prehistoric archaeological and historic resources in the Project area and
evaluate potential impacts that could result from implementation of the Project. In accordance with PRC
Section 21082.3 and California Government Code (CGC) Section 6254(r), due to the confidential nature of
the location of cultural resources, this section does not include maps or location data.
4.18.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The Project lies at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Clubhouse Drive, in the
City of Fontana, approximately 0.6 mile north of State Route 210 and 2.8 miles east of the Interstate 15.
The Project site encompasses approximately 18 acres of land on six contiguous parcels (Assessor Parcel
Numbers 1119-241-10, -13, -18, -25, -26, and -27). The Project site is in Section 29, Township 1 North,
Range 5 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted on the Devore, CA 7.5 -foot
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle. The elevation of the Project area is approximately
1,625 feet above mean sea level.1
Ethnographic Context
Ethnography is the descriptive and analytic study of the culture of particular groups or communities. An
ethnographer seeks to understand a community through interviews with its members and often through
living in and observing it (a practice referred to as "participant observation").
1 PaleoWest. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California .
Page 4.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.18-2 4.18 | Tribal Cultural Resources
Ethnographic Setting 2
Archival research and published reports suggest the Project area is situated where three traditional use
territories of Native American groups meet. The traditional use territories of the Serrano, Cahuilla, and
Gabrielino come together just southwest of the present-day city of San Bernardino near the Project area.
These cultural groups all spoke languages belonging to the Takic branch of the Shoshonean fam ily, a part
of the larger Uto-Aztecan language stock. A brief synopsis of Serrano, Cahuilla, and Gabrielino
ethnography is presented below.
The Cahuilla and Serrano belonged to nonpolitical, nonterritorial patrimoieties that governed marriage
patterns as well as patrilineal clans and lineages. Each clan, “political-ritual-corporate units” composed of
3 to 10 lineages, owned a large territory in which each lineage owned a village site with specific resource
areas. Clan lineages cooperated in defense, in large communal subsistence activities, and in performing
rituals. Clans were apt to own land in the valley, foothill, and mountain areas, provid ing them with the
resources of many different ecological niches. Unlike their Cahuilla and Serrano neighbors, the Gabrielino
had a hierarchically ordered social class that included groupings of elite, middle class, and commoners.
Class membership played a major role in determining individual lifestyles, as it depended upon both
ancestry and wealth.
In prehistoric times Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Serrano shelters are believed to have been dome shaped;
after contact they tended to be rectangular in shape. Cahuilla and Serrano shelters were often made of
brush, palm fronds, or arrowweed while the Gabrielino utilized reed. Most of the Serrano and Cahuilla
domestic activities were performed outside the shelters within the shade of large, expansive ramadas;
windbreaks, made of vertical poles covered with rush mats, provided open-air food preparation and
cooking areas at Gabrielino settlements.
The Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Serrano were, for the most part, hunting, collecting, harvesting, and
protoagricultural peoples. As in most of California, acorns were a major staple, but the roots, leaves,
seeds, and fruit of many other plants also were used. Fish, birds, insects, and large and small mammals
were also available.
To gather and prepare these food resources, the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Serrano had an extensive
inventory of equipment including bows and arrows, traps, nets, disguises, blinds, spears, hooks and lines,
poles for shaking down pine nuts and acorns, cactus pickers, seed beaters, digging sticks and weights, and
pry bars. In addition, the Cahuilla also had an extensive inventory of food processing equipment including
hammers and anvils, mortars and pestles, manos and metates, winnowing shells and baskets, st rainers,
leaching baskets and bowls, knives (made of stone, bone, wood, and carrizo cane), bone saws, and drying
racks made of wooden poles to dry fish.
Mountain tops, unusual rock formations, springs, and streams are held sacred to the Cahuilla, Gabrielino,
and Serrano, as are rock art sites and burial and cremation sites. In addition, various birds are revered as
2 PaleoWest. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
Pages 13-14.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.18-3 4.18 | Tribal Cultural Resources
sacred beings of great power and sometimes were killed ritually and mourned in mortuary ceremonies
similar to those for important individuals. As such, bird cremation sites are sacred.
Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1(b), formal notification has been provided to California Native American
tribal representatives which may have interest in projects within the geographic area traditionally and
culturally affiliated with the tribe(s). Native American groups may have knowledge about cultural
resources in the area and may have concerns about adverse effects from development on Traditional
Cultural Resources (TCRs).
Records Search and Field Survey
As discussed in Section 4.5: Cultural Resources and the CRA (see Appendix D), a records search was
conducted July 2022 at the South Central Coastal Information System (SCCIC) at California State
University, Fullerton, were consulted to identify prior studies and previously recorded cultural resources
within 0.5-mile of the Project site. Staff also examined historical maps and aerial images to characterize
the developmental history of the Project site and surrounding area. This search revealed that 17 cultural
resource studies have taken place within a 0.5-mile search radius of the Project site. Three of these
previous studies include portions of or the entirety of the current Project site. The review of the record
search data indicates that seven cultural resources have been previously documented within 0.5-mile of
the Project site: three road segments, the archaeological remains of single-family residence and a cabin
with corral, a homestead complex, and a refuse scatter (see Table 4-2 of the CRA, Appendix D). All of these
resources date to the historic period. None of the previously documented resources are located within
the Project Area. No prehistoric archaeological resources were identified within the record search area.
A pedestrian field survey of the Project site was conducted August 17, 2022. No archaeological or historical
built environment resources were identified as a result of the fieldwork effort. The entirety of the Project
area is highly disturbed with no native intact sediments observed. In addition, the four standing buildings
appear to have been constructed within the last 45 years. As such, they do not meet the minimum age
guidelines to be considered a cultural resource under CEQA.
Native American Consultation
In compliance with PRC Section 21080.3.1(b), formal notification has been provided to California Native
American tribal representatives which may have interest in projects within the geographic area
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe. Native American groups may have knowledge about
cultural resources in the area and may have concerns about adverse effects from development on tribal
cultural resources as defined in PRC Section 21074.
As part of the CRA of the Project area, PaleoWest requested a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) from
the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on June 13, 2022. Results of the SLF search were
obtained on July 21, 2022. The NAHC stated that the SLF search resulted in positive results and
recommended that the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation be contacted to request
information on known Native American cultural resources in the Project vicinity. In addition, the NAHC
provided a list of 18 individuals representing 12 Native American tribal groups that may also have
knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area. Outreach letters were sent to the Native American
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.18-4 4.18 | Tribal Cultural Resources
contacts on August 10, 2022, with follow up correspondence conducted on August 25, 2022. Seven
responses have been received to date. See Section 4.18.5: Impacts and Mitigation Measures, for details
on responses.
The City also sent out notification letters to the California Native American tribes traditionally and
culturally affiliated with the Project area on January 30, 2023 , per the requirements of Assembly Bill
(AB) 52. The City transmitted letters of notification to the following tribes: Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel
Nation, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians, and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation.
4.18.3 Regulatory Setting
State
Native American Heritage Commission
PRC Section 5097.91 established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the duties of which
include inventorying places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and identifying known
graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. PRC Section 5097.91 also specifies protocols
to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains
from a county coroner.
California Assembly Bill 52
Signed into law in September 2014, California Assembly Bill (AB) 52 created a new class of resources –
tribal cultural resources – for consideration under CEQA. Tribal cultural resources may include sites,
features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred plac es, or objects with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe that are listed or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR), included in a local register of historical resources, or a resource determined by the lead
CEQA agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant and eligible for
listing on the CRHR. AB 52 requires that the lead CEQA agency consult with California Native American
tribes that have requested consultation for projects that may affect tribal cultural resources. The lead
CEQA agency shall begin consultation with participating Native American tribes prior to the release of a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR. Under AB 52, a project that has potential to
cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource constitutes a significant effect on the
environment unless mitigation reduces such effects to a less than significant level.
PRC Sections 5097.91, 5097.98, and 5097.94 and the Native American Heritage Commission
PRC Section 5097.91 established the NAHC, the duties of which include inventorying places of religious or
social significance to Native Americans and identifying known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans
on private lands. PRC Section 5097.98 specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives
notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.18-5 4.18 | Tribal Cultural Resources
PRC Section 5097.94 establishes the powers and duties of the NAHC, including, but not limited to:
a) To identify and catalog places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans, and
known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. The identification and
cataloging of known graves and cemeteries shall be completed on or before January 1, 1984. The
commission shall notify landowners on whose property the graves and cemeteries are
determined to exist, and shall identify the Native American group most likely descended from
those Native Americans who may be interred on the property.
b) To make recommendations relative to Native American sacred places that are located on private
lands, are inaccessible to Native Americans, and have cultural significance to Native Americans
for acquisition by the state or other public agencies for the purpose of facilitating or assuring
access thereto by Native Americans.
c) To make recommendations to the Legislature relative to procedures that will voluntarily
encourage private property owners to preserve and protect sacred places in a natural state and
to allow appropriate access to Native American religionists for ceremonial or spiritual activities.
California Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050 and 7052
Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, declares that, in the event of the discovery of human
remains outside of a dedicated cemetery, all ground disturbance must cease, and the county coroner must
be notified. HSC Section 7052 establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise
disturbing human remains, except by relatives.
Local
Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035
There are no goals or policies from the City’s General Plan Update that are pertinent to the Project and
tribal cultural resources.
4.18.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning tribal cultural resources. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have
been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect
on the environment if it would:
• 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 l andscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
▪ Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or
▪ 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
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.18-6 4.18 | Tribal Cultural Resources
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds as the basis for
determining the Project’s level of significance concerning tribal cultural resources. This analysis considers
the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce
the potentially significant environmental impacts. As applicable, feasible mitigation measures are
recommended, to avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on cultural and tribal resources examines the Project’s temporary
(i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance
criteria/thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the
surrounding characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in
environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the
environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on field reconnaissance conducted by PaleoWest
personnel on August 17, 2022; confidential record search data from the South Central Coastal Information
Center of the California Historical Resources Information System ; review of Project maps and drawings;
analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records,
including local planning documents. The determination that any components of the Project may resul t in
“substantial” adverse effects on tribal cultural resources considers the existing site’s resource value and
the severity of the Project implementation on resources that may be considered significant tribal cultural
resources.
4.18.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.18-1 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 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), or
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 § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.18-7 4.18 | Tribal Cultural Resources
Construction and Operations
For purposes of this impact analysis, a TCR is defined as a property that is eligible for inclusion in the CRHR
because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that
community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the
community. PaleoWest contacted the NAHC, as part of the CRA, on June 13, 2022, for a review of the SLF.
The objective of the SLF search was to determine if the NAHC had any knowledge of Nati ve American
cultural resources (e.g., traditional use or gathering area, place of religious or sacred activity, etc.) within
the immediate vicinity of the Project area. The NAHC responded on July 21, 2022, stating that the SLF
search resulted in positive results and recommended that the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation be contacted to request information on known Native American cultural resources in the
Project vicinity. In addition, the NAHC provided a list of 18 individuals representing 1 2 Native American
tribal groups that may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area.
Outreach letters were sent to the 18 recommended individuals on August 10, 2022. These letters were
followed up on August 25, 2022. As of August 26, 2022, seven responses have been received:
• On August 11, 2022, Arysa Gonzalez Romero, Cultural Resources Analyst at the Tribal Historic
Preservation Office of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) emailed and stated that
a record check of their cultural registry revealed that the Project is not located within the Tribe’s
Traditional Use Area.
• On August 22, 2022, Lacy Padilla also responded via email and confirmed the previous response
and stated that the ACBCI would defer to the other tribes in the area.
• On August 12, 2022, Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resource Analyst for the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel
Nation (formerly known as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians), emailed and stated that the
Project is not located near any known cultural resources.
• On August 25, 2022, Andrew Salas, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh
Nation, was reached via telephone and stated that the Project is located on the tribe’s ancestral
land and that they had concerns regarding the Project that they sent to the City of Fontana
directly.
• On August 26, 2022, Robert Dorame, Chairperson of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council, was reached via telephone and stated that since most of the families in their tribe
reside in coastal areas he would defer to the Tribal Consultant and Administrator, Christina
Conley. Ms. Conley could not be reached for comment.
• On August 25, 2022, Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson of the Serrano Nation of Mission Indians,
was reached via telephone and requested that he and Co-Chairperson Wayne Walker be
contacted if any cultural materials are found during construction activities.
• On August 25, 2022, Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department Lead for the Soboba Band
of Luiseno Indians was reached via telephone and stated that he would defer to the San Manuel
Band of Mission Indians.
The City commenced the AB 52 process by transmitting letters of notification to the California Native
American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area on January 30, 2023. The City
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.18-8 4.18 | Tribal Cultural Resources
transmitted letters of notification to the following tribes: Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, Torres
Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians,
and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation.
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation has elected to be a consulting party under CEQA and requests that
the mitigation measures identified below (MMs TCR-1 and -2), be made a part of the Project/permit/plan
conditions. Additionally, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation responded with MMs TCR-3
through -5, which have been incorporated into the Project.
The CRA did not identify any Native American archaeological resources on or within the vicinity of the
Project site. Record search data obtained from the SCCIC indicate no prehistoric archaeological resources
have been documented within 0.5-mile of the Project area. Furthermore, no evidence of prehistoric
remains (e.g., areas of darker soil with concentrations of ash, charcoal, fragments of animal bone, shell,
flaked stone, ground stone, or human bone) were identified during the pedestrian survey. Because t he
Project site has been heavily disturbed, it is unlikely to contain significant prehistoric period archaeological
deposits.
No cultural resources that are eligible for listing on the CRHR as TCRs were documented in the Project
area. However, in the event that a potentially significant tribal cultural resource or the potential for
unknown buried archaeological resources that qualify as TCRs are encountered during Project-related
ground-disturbing activities, SC-CUL-1 and MM CUL-1 would apply to further minimize potential impacts
to archaeological resources. While the City of Fontana maintains standard conditions of approval
regarding cultural resources for Projects within their jurisdiction, MM CUL-1 is specific to the Project area
and was drafted in consultation with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN). When there are
conflicts between the City’s standard condition and Project specific mitigation, the MM’s shall take
precedence. Implementation of MMs TCR-1 through TCR-5 would further reduce impacts to any unknown
or inadvertently discovered archaeological resources or human remains that are identified as TCRs. All
such finds would be required to be treated in accordance with all CEQA requirements and all other
applicable laws and regulations. With implementation of SC CUL-1 and MM CUL-1 and MMs TCR-1
through TCR-5, impacts regarding a substantial adverse change of a tribal cultural resource would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to Section 4.5: Cultural Resources for SC CUL-1 and MM CUL-1.
MM TCR-1 The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall
be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural
resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information
regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to
significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by
CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall
be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds
shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.18-9 4.18 | Tribal Cultural Resources
represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a
monitor on-site.
MM TCR-2 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate
records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the
applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or
applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the project.
MM TCR-3 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing
Activities.
A. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or
approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor
shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity”
for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site
locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required
in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-
disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement
removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading,
excavation, drilling, and trenching.
B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead
agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing
activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-
disturbing activity.
C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of
the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities
performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related
materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance
to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs,
including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts,
remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or
“TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and
burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead
agency upon written request to the Tribe.
D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following
(1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the
project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that
may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with
the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the
Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction
activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the
potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity
of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall
not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.18-10 4.18 | Tribal Cultural Resources
and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in
the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole
discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for
educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
MM TCR-4 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects.
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an
inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal
completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.
B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or recognized
on the project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal
material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground-
disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the
coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the
human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they
are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the
Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section
5097.98 shall be followed.
C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public
Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum
of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh
determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that
distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that
determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh monitor
and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).)
E. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for
discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological
material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a
public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an
institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in
the area for educational purposes.
F. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to
prevent further disturbance.
MM TCR-5 Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:
A. As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be
implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than
human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.18-11 4.18 | Tribal Cultural Resources
were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary
objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery
location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be
created.
C. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as
bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that,
as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have
been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later;
other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains
can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be
removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all
sacred materials.
D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and
recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a
steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation
opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24 -
hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every
effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and
protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials
will be removed.
E. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the
project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing
activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a
designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful
reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.
F. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored
using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and
objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if
possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of
recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a
location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be
protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural
materials recovered.
G. The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure
that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery
is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a
minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data
recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the
Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be
submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific
study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human
remains.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.18-12 4.18 | Tribal Cultural Resources
4.18.6 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of tribal cultural resources impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered in connection
with the anticipated future development projects in the City. As discussed above, while the NAHC
determined that there are no known Native American cultural resources within the immediate Project
area; the potential exists for undiscovered tribal cultural resources to be adversely impacted during
Project construction. With implementation of the specified mitigation measures, construction would not
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any tribal cultural resources; a less than
significant impact would occur.
Additionally, future cumulative development projects could encounter tribal cultural resources. Thus, the
potential exists for cumulative development to result in the adverse modification or destruction of tribal
cultural resources. Potential tribal cultural resource impacts associated with other individual
developments would be specific to each site. As with the Project, all cumulative development in the area
would undergo environmental and design review on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA, in order
to evaluate potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.
All future development with the potential to impact tribal cultural resources would be subject to
compliance with the existing federal, state, and local regulatory framework concerning the protection of
tribal cultural resources. Furthermore, each future project considered for approval by the City would be
required to include mitigation measures to protect resources if they are uncovered during grading
activities.
Additionally, implementation of site-specific mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential
project impacts to as-yet-unidentified tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels. As such,
cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would be mitigated on a project-by-project level, and in
accordance with the established regulatory framework, through the established regulatory review
process. Therefore, the combined cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources associated with the
Project’s incremental effects and those of the cumulative projects would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
4.18.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified.
4.18.8 References
PaleoWest. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project, City of Fontana,
San Bernardino County, California. (Appendix D).
4.19
Utilities and Service Systems
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-1 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.19.1 Introduction
This section evaluates potential impacts of the Sierra Distribution Facility Project (Project) on utilities and
service systems within the City of Fontana (City), by identifying anticipated demand and evaluating its
relationship to existing and planned utilities services facilities and availability. For abbreviation purposes,
the general term “utilities and service systems” in this Draft EIR includes the following: water, sewer,
stormwater, electricity and natural gas, and solid waste. This section identifies potential impacts that
could result from the Project, which includes construction and operation of a warehouse facility.
This section evaluates the existing utilities and service systems that would be used by the Project and
analyzes associated environmental impacts from implementation. Information herein is derived from the
following:
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental
Impact Report.
• Water Systems Consulting, Inc., and Woodard & Curran. 2021. Upper Santa Ana River Watershed
Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan (IRUWMP).
4.19.2 Environmental Setting
The Project is approximately 18.3 net acres and is within the northeastern portion of the City of Fontana.
The Project site is presently developed with four commercial/industrial buildings ranging from 5,000 to
25,000 square feet in size. The northwestern quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a
wooden pallet facility. The northeastern quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a
carnival attraction repair facility with truck trailer parking. The southwestern quadrant is developed with
one building and open-graded gravel pavements and is utilized for truck trailer storage. The southeastern
quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a storage facility. The existing buildings are
single-story, metal-framed structures and are assumed to be supported on conventional shallow
foundations with concrete slab-on-grade floors. Ground surface cover consists mainly of open graded
gravel and exposed soil, with asphalt concrete (AC) or Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements
surrounding the buildings. Little to no vegetation exists on site. Few large trees are present between the
northwest and northeast quadrants. The immediate surrounding properties consist of light industrial uses
to the north and south, residential to the west, and the City of Rialto with a landfill to the east. Local access
would be provided via Summit Avenue, Sierra Lakes Parkway, Sierra Avenue, and Mango Avenue. As part
of the Project development, Mango Avenue would be improved and provide access to the Project site via
two driveways.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-2 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
Water
West Valley Water District
The Project site is within the service area of the West Valley Water District (WVWD).1 WVWD has a service
area of approximately 31 square miles and provides domestic water services to approximately 96,738
customers in the communities of Bloomington, Colton, Fontana, Rialto, parts of unincorporated areas in
San Bernardino, and Jurupa Valley in Riverside County .2 WVWD utilizes water from five groundwater
basins and treats surface water from Lytle Creek and State Water Project (SWP), water at its 14.4-million
gallons per day (MGD) Oliver P. Roemer Water Filtration Facility to serve over 23,000 water service
connections.3 The WVWD operates a domestic water distribution system that consists of 21 groundwater
wells, 25 separate storage reservoirs across eight pressure zones, for a total storage over 72 million gallons
(MG), and over 375 miles of transmission and distribution pipelines.
The 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed IRUWMP is the result of a collaborative planning effort
involving several local agencies. It serves as an update to the IRWMP developed in 2015 and the 2015
Regional Urban Water Management Plan. It incorporates new information, updated goals and objectives,
re-evaluates strategies, develops a process for implementation of the plan and meets all of the
requirements of the UWMP Act. The IR UWMP provided historical water supplies from 2016 to 2020 as
well as projected supplies for consecutive five-year periods between 2025 and 2045. Table 4.19-1: WVWD
Ground Water Pumped Last Five Years (AF), Table 4.19-2: WVWD Actual Water Supplies in 2020 (AF),
and Table 4.19-3: WVWD Projected Water Supply (AF), below shows these volumes from each of the
respective sources.
Additionally, WVWD also provides anticipated water supplies for a normal year, single dry year, multiple
dry years. The IR UWMP developed for the WVWD performed these calculations, which are shown in
Tables 4.19-4: WVWD Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison; Table 4.19-5: WVWD Single Dry
Year Supply and Demand Comparison; and Table 4.19-6: WVWD Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand
Comparisons.
Table 4.19-1: WVWD Ground Water Pumped Last Five Years (AF)
Location or Basin Name Year
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Bunker Hill (part of SBB) 5,452 5,640 5,777 4,508 5,549
Lytle (part of SBB) 1,850 2,365 2,416 2,572 3,078
Chino - - - - -
Rialto-Colton 2,123 3,923 3,353 2,779 1,420
Riverside-Arlington 2,745 1,089 1,542 1,301 1,354
Total 12,170 13,017 13,088 11,159 1 11,401
Source: West Valley Water District. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan – Part 2 – Local Agency Information. Table 10-8: DWR 6-1R
Groundwater Pumped Last Five Years (AF) . https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.81/n1s.6f9.myftpupload.com/wp -
content/uploads/2021/07/Part-2-Local-Agency-Information.pdf. (accessed September 2022).
1 West Valley Water District. 2016. West Valley Water District Boundary Map.
https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.81/n1s.6f9.myftpupload.com/wp -content/uploads/2017/11/District-Service-Area.pdf. (a ccessed
September 2022).
2 West Valley Water District. 2021. Drinking Water Quality Report. https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.81/n1s.6f9.myftpupload.com/wp -
content/uploads/2022/06/2021-Drinking-Water-Quality-Report.pdf. (a ccessed September 2022).
3 West Valley Water District. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan – Part 1 – Regional Context.
https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.81/n1s.6f9.myftpupload.com/wp -content/uploads/2021/07/Part-1-Regional-Context.pdf. (a ccessed
September 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-3 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
Table 4.19-2: WVWD Actual Water Supplies in 2020 (AF)
Water Supply Location or Basin Name 2020 Water Quality Actual Volume
Groundwater (not desalinated) Bunker Hill (part of SBB) 5,549 Drinking Water
Groundwater (not desalinated) Lytle (part of SBB) 3,078 Drinking Water
Groundwater (not desalinated) Rialto-Colton 1,420 Drinking Water
Groundwater (not desalinated) Riverside-Arlington 1,354 Drinking Water
Surface water (not desalinated) Lytle Creek 5,356 Drinking Water
Purchased or Imported Water State State Water Project - Direct Delivery 3,342 Drinking Water
Total 20,098 Drinking Water
Source: West Valley Water District. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan – Part 2 – Local Agency Information. Table 10-10: DWR 6-8R
Actual Water Supplies in 2020 (AF). https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.81/n1s.6f9.myftpupload.com/wp -
content/uploads/2021/07/Part-2-Local-Agency-Information.pdf. (accessed September 2022).
Table 4.19-3: WVWD Projected Water Supply (AF)
Water Supply Location or Basin
Name
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Volume
Groundwater
(not desalinated) Bunker Hill (part of SBB) 2,052 2,353 3,554 4,754 6,455
Groundwater
(not desalinated)
Bunker Hill (part of SBB,
via
Baseline Feeder)
5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Groundwater
(not desalinated) Lytle (part of SBB) 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900
Groundwater
(not desalinated) Rialto-Colton 4,426 4,538 4,650 4,761 4,873
Purchased or Imported
Water State
State Water Project -
Rialto Colton
Groundwater
Supplemental Supply
- - - - -
Groundwater
(not desalinated) Riverside-Arlington 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,000
Groundwater
(not desalinated) Chino - 900 900 900 900
Surface water
(not desalinated) Lytle Creek 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100
Purchased or Imported
Water State
State Water Project –
Direct Delivery 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
Total 26,978 28,791 30,603 32,415 34,229
Source: West Valley Water District. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan – Part 2 – Local Agency Information. Table 10-11: DWR 6-9R
Projected Water Supplies (AF). https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.81/n1s.6f9.myftpupload.com/wp -content/uploads/2021/07/Part-2-
Local-Agency-Information.pdf. (accessed September 2022).
Table 4.19-4: WVWD Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Total 26,978 28,791 30,603 32,415 34,229
Demand Total 23,459 25,035 26,611 28,188 29,764
Difference 3,519 3,756 3,993 4,227 4,464
Note: Volumes are in AF.
Source: West Valley Water District. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan – Part 2 – Local Agency Information. Table 10-12: DWR 7-2R
Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) . https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.81/n1s.6f9.myftpupload.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/07/Part-2-Local-Agency-Information.pdf. (accessed September 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-4 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
Table 4.19-5: WVWD Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Total 29,676 31,670 33,663 35,657 37,651
Demand Total 25,805 27,539 29,273 31,006 32,740
Difference 3,871 4,131 4,391 4,651 4,911
Note: Volumes are in AF
Source: West Valley Water District. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan – Part 2 – Local Agency Information. Table 10-14. DWR 7-3R
Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF). https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.81/n1s.6f9.myftpupload.com/wp -
content/uploads/2021/07/Part-2-Local-Agency-Information.pdf. (accessed September 2022).
Table 4.19-6: WVWD Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparisons
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year Supply Totals 29,676 31,670 33,663 35,657 37,651
Demand Totals 25,805 27,539 29,273 31,006 32,740
Difference 3,871 4,131 4,391 4,651 4,911
Second
Year
Supply Totals 29,676 31,670 33,663 35,657 37,651
Demand Totals 25,805 27,539 29,273 31,006 32,740
Difference 3,871 4,131 4,391 4,651 4,911
Third Year Supply Totals 29,676 31,670 33,663 35,657 37,651
Demand Totals 25,805 27,539 29,273 31,006 32,740
Difference 3,871 4,131 4,391 4,651 4,911
Fourth
Year
Supply Totals 29,676 31,670 33,663 35,657 37,651
Demand Totals 25,805 27,539 29,273 31,006 32,740
Difference 3,871 4,131 4,391 4,651 4,911
Fifth Year Supply Totals 29,676 31,670 33,663 35,657 37,651
Demand Totals 25,805 27,539 29,273 31,006 32,740
Difference 3,871 4,131 4,391 4,651 4,911
Notes: Volumes are in AF
Source: West Valley Water District. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan – Part 2 – Local Agency Information. Table 10-15. DWR 7-4R
Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison. https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.81/n1s.6f9.myftpupload.com/wp -
content/uploads/2021/07/Part-2-Local-Agency-Information.pdf. (accessed September 2022).
The analysis concluded that WVWD has sufficient supply capabilities to meet the expected demands of its
member agencies from 2025 through 2045 under normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. WVWD can
produce the volume of water needed to meet 100 percent of demands in normal, single-dry, and multiple-
dry years.
Based on the analysis, WVWD does not anticipate any shortage due to single or consecutive dry years.
Even though localized drought conditions should not affect supply, WVWD participates in several ongoing
water conservation measures and regional recharge projects to optimize and enhance the use and
reliability of regional water resources. WVWD also has a water shortage contingency plan to put into
action as appropriate to reduce the demand during critical drought years or other supply emergencies.
Stormwater Drainage
The Project site is within the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) Zone 2.4 Zone 2 covers
an area of 318 square miles and includes the cities of Fontana, Rialto, Colton, Grand Terrace,
San Bernardino, and Highland. Both the City and the SBCFCD provide flood control facilities for the City.
SBCFCD is responsible for the construction of dams, containment basins, channels, and storm drains to
intercept and convey flood flows through and away from developed areas. The City constructs and
4 San Bernardino County Flood Control District. ND. Flood Control Zone 2 Map. https://cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/50/floodcontrol/zone2.pdf .
(accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-5 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
maintains local storm drains that feed into the County’s area-wide system. In addition, the City has
adopted a Master Drainage Plan.
As a permittee in the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Basin Plan, the City
implements a Municipal Storm Water Management Plan, which prohibits certain discharges, and
regulates flows and mandates inspections and public education. This also allows for the City to place
controls on new development and redevelopment and specifies site-specific and construction site
maintenance practices. Stormwater controls and water quality management strategies are included in
additional detail in Section 4.10: Hydrology and Water Quality.
Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater recharge depends on numerous factors and occurs largely through snowmelt and
rainwaters that are able to enter the aquifer after entering the ground and seeping to lower depths within
the ground. Impervious surfaces introduced from development such as roofs, streets, and parking lots,
induce runoff and impede infiltration and can keep water from reaching the aquifer. Artificial groundwater
recharge is increasingly used where natural sources are insufficient and many projects include designs
that incorporate detention basis and timed release of runoff to facilitate infiltration. Approximately
51 percent of the WVWD’s water supply is from its own groundwater wells, located in five local basins:
Chino, Bunker Hill, Lytle Creek, North Riverside, and Rialto-Colton.5
Other agencies such as the SBVMWD have a system which includes 28 service connections to deliver both
native and SWP water for direct delivery or groundwater recharge within the WVWD’s boundary.
Groundwater recharge is conducted to lessen the impact of increasing well production from the various
groundwater basins within the District's boundary and to help the WVWD meet certain legal obligations.6
This program helps ensure the availability of local groundwater supplies and has become a nationally
acclaimed, award-winning program because it relies on local resources, natural organic cycles, innovative
treatment techniques and energy-saving methods.
Wastewater and Recycled Water
Wastewater treatment for the City is provided by the IEUA, which has wastewater treatment plants in the
cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga. A portion of the City’s’ wastewater is treated by the City of
Rialto.7 The wastewater collected within different portions of the WVWD water service area is treated by
the City of Rialto, the City of Colton, San Bernardino County, or the IEUA. WVWD has evaluated the
feasibility of adding recycled water as a non-potable supply but would rely on the City of Rialto or
San Bernardino County to provide the recycled water from their wastewater treatment facilities. WVWD
does not currently have a recycled water distribution system and is not pursuing recycled water use at
this time because it is not cost effective to extend facilities from the wastewater treatment plants to the
locations of potential use. However, recycled water is utilized regionally for meeting habitat needs in the
Santa Ana River.
5 West Valley Water District. 2022. Overview. https://wvwd.org/about/overview/ (accessed October 2022).
6 San Bernardino Valley Water District. 2015. Change in Groundwater Storage for the San Bernardino Basin, Rialto-Colton and Yucaipa Basin
areas. https://www.sbvmwd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=4216 (accessed June 2022).
7 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan, – Infrastructure and Green Systems Element.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26749/Chapter -10---Infrastructure-and-Green-Systems (accessed April 2023).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-6 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
Conservation
The MWD, one of the larger agencies from which the local water providers receive some of their water,
imports about half of the region’s overall supply from the Colorado River and northern California and
holds water in storage in case of drought. During an extraordinary drought cycle, MWD will limit water
supplied and mandatory conservation is required. The district created a Water Supply Allocation Plan to
approach drought in a regional and fair manner designed to minimize impacts. The governor called for a
25 percent reduction in urban water use starting in June 2015, which California communities have been
meeting and exceeding. Some of the measures used to reduce potable water consumption includes
limiting water use for landscaping, use of drought-tolerant vegetations, use of recycled water by
municipalities, and encouraging extension of recycled water lines.
Solid Waste
Solid waste and recycling services are provided to the City through Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. For waste
generated within the City, Burrtec transports the waste to the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill in Rialto for
disposal.8 The landfill has a capacity of 7,500 tons of solid waste per day and a total capacity of
101,300,000 cubic yards.9 As of June 30, 2019, the landfill had 61,219,377 cubic yards of capacity available.
The facility has a cease operation date of April 1, 2045.10 As of October 2017, the landfill accepted an
average of 3,475 tons per day leaving a daily capacity of approximately 4,025 tons per day.11
Gas and Electricity
The Project would be served by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and Southern California
Edison (SCE). There is an SCE owned and operated sub-transmission circuit along Mango Avenue, east of
the Project.12 There are currently no gas lines in the immediate Project area.13
4.19.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Safe Drinking Water Act (Federal)
The EPA administers the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the primary federal law that regulates the
quality of drinking water and establishes standards to protect public health and safety. The Department
of Health Services (DHS) implements the SDWA and oversees public water system quality statewide. DHS
establishes legal drinking water standards for contaminants that could threaten public health.
8 City of Fontana, 2020. Trash and Recycling Services. https://www.fontana.org/541/Trash -and-Recycling-Services (accessed June 2022).
9 CalRecycle, 2022. SWIS Facility Detail – Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662 (accessed June 2022).
10 Ibid.
11 City of Pasadena, 2017. ArtCenter Master Plan. https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/planning/wp -content/uploads/sites/56/2017/10/IV.M.3-
Utilities-and-Service-Systems-Solid-Waste.pdf (a ccessed June 2022).
12 Southern California Edison. 2022. Southern California Edison Power Site Search Tool.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=05a84ec9d19f43ac93b451939c330888 (accessed June 2022).
13 SoCalGas. ND. Gas Transmission Pipeline Interactive Map – San Bernardino.
https://socalgas.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=faeed481312f4e5fb056f739ff169e02 (accessed October 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-7 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. Code [USC] Section 1251 et seq.; CWA), the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is authorized to regulate any activity that would result in the
discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), which include those
waters listed in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.3 (as amended at 80 Federal Register (FR) 37104,
June 29, 2015).
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), a division of the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB), is required to provide “certification that there is reasonable assurance that an activity
that may result in the discharge to waters of the U.S. will not violate water quality standards.” Water
Quality Certification must be based on the finding that proposed discharge will comply with applicable
water quality standards.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the permitting program for discharge of
pollutants into surface waters of the U.S. under CWA Section 402.
State
Safe Drinking Water Act
California enacted its own Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, Health and Safety Code [HSC] §§ 116350 –
116405) with the California Department of Health Services (DHS) granted primary enforcement
responsibility. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR ) (Division 4, Chapter 15, “Domestic Water
Quality and Monitoring Regulations”) established DHS authority and provides drinking water quality and
monitoring requirements, which are equal to or more stringent than Federal standards.
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, which was passed in California in 1969 and amended
in 2013, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has authority over state water rights and water
quality policy. This Act divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a RWQCB
to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional level. RWQCBs engage in a number
of water quality functions in their respective regions. RWQCBs regulate all polluta nt or nuisance
discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater. Fontana is overseen by the Santa Ana
Area RWQCB.
State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the California agency focused on providing and
ensuring clean sustainable water for all state residents. This state agency works alongside other federal
programs like the Clean Water Act to regulate water sources and uses. The SWRCB regulates water
consumption for irrigation and drinking, as well as water discharges from construction, municipal uses,
stormwater, and other sources.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-8 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
Urban Water Management Planning Act
In 1983, the California legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water
Code, Sections 10610–10656), which requires specified urban water suppliers within the state to prepare
an UWMP and update it every five years. Specifically, Section 10610.04 et seq. as amended, of the
California Urban Water Management Planning Act specifies that “Urban Water Suppliers shall be required
to develop water management plans to actively pursue the efficient use of available supplies. As such,
UWMPs serve as an important element in documenting water supply availability and reliability for
purposes of compliance with Senate Bills (SB) 610 and 221, which link water supply sufficiency to large
land- use development Project approvals. Urban water suppliers also must prepare UWMPs, pursuant to
the Urban Water Management Planning Act, in order to be eligible for state funding and drought
assistance.
EMWD’s 2020 UWMP (July 2021), was prepared pursuant to CWC Division 6, Part 2.55, §10608
(Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction) and CWC Division 6, Part 2.6, Sections 10610-10657
(Urban Water Management Planning). The UWMP describes future water demands and future availability
of the water supply sources used by EMWD.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (2014)
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) consists of three legislative bills, SB 1168
(Pavley), Assembly Bill (AB) 1739 (Dickinson), and SB 1319 (Pavley). The legislation provides a framework
for long-term sustainable groundwater management across California. Under the roadmap laid out by the
legislation, local and regional authorities in medium and high priority grou ndwater basins will form
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies that oversee the preparation and implementation of a local
Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Local stakeholders have until 2017 to organize themselves in
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies. Groundwater Sustainability Plans will have to be in place and
implementation will begin between 2020 and 2022. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies will have until
2040 to achieve groundwater sustainability.
California Senate Bill 610 and 221
SB 610 and SB 221 amended State law to (1) ensure better coordination between local water supply and
land use decisions and (2) confirm that there is an adequate water supply for new development. Both
statutes require city and county decision-makers to receive detailed information regarding water
availability prior to approval of large development projects. SB 610 requires the preparation of a Water
Supply Assessment (WSA) for certain types of projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Projects that would be required to prepare a WSA include, but are not limited to, residential
developments of more than 500 dwelling units and shopping centers or business establishments
employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor area.
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881)
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) required the DWR to update the State
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) by 2009. The state’s model ordinance was issued on
October 8, 2009. Under AB 1881, cities and counties are required to adopt a state updated model
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-9 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
landscape water conservation ordinance by January 31, 2010, or to adopt a different ordinance that is at
least as effective in conserving water as the updated Model Ordinance.
2015 Update of the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (per Governor’s Executive
Order B-29-15)
To improve water savings in the landscaping sector, the DWR updated the Model Ordinance in 2015
(in accordance with Executive Order B-29-15). The Model Ordinance promotes efficient landscapes in new
developments and retrofitted landscapes. The Executive Order calls for revising the Model Ordinance to
increase water efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through more efficient irrigation
systems, greywater usage, and on-site stormwater capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that
can be covered in turf. New development projects that include landscape areas of 500 square feet or more
are subject to the Ordinance. This applies to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional projects
that require a permit, plan check, or design review.
Local agencies had until December 1, 2015, to adopt the Ordinance or adopt their own ordinance, which
must meet or exceed effectiveness. The Fontana City Council adopted an ordinance on
November 10 , 2015, amending Municipal Code Article IV of Chapter 28 regarding Landscaping and Water
Conservation, to incorporate updates consistent with the Executive Order B-29-15, as well as AB 1881.
Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606 – May 31, 2018
AB 1668 and SB 606 build on Governor Brown’s ongoing efforts to make water conservation a way of life
in California and create a new foundation for long -term improvements in water conservation and drought
planning. SB 606 and AB 1668 establish guidelines for efficient water use and a framework for the
implementation and oversight of the new standards, which must be in place by 2022.
The two bills strengthen the state’s water resiliency in the face of future droughts with provisions that
include:
• Establishing water use objectives and long -term standards for efficient water use that apply to
urban retail water suppliers; comprised of indoor residential water use, outdoor residential water
use, commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) irrigation with dedicated meters, water loss,
and other unique local uses.
• Providing incentives for water suppliers to recycle water.
• Identifying small water suppliers and rural communities that may be at risk of drought and water
shortage vulnerability and provide recommendations for drought planning.
• Requiring both urban and agricultural water suppliers to set annual water budgets and prepare
for drought.14
14 State Water Resources Control Board. 2020. California Statutes Making Conservation a California Way of Life .
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/california_statutes.html . (accessed January 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-10 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
Solid Waste
Integrated Waste Management Act – AB 939
AB 939, known as the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, required all California cities
and counties to divert 50 percent of the waste generated within their boundaries by the year 2000. The
act requires each California city and county to prepare, adopt, and submit to the California Department
of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) that
demonstrates how the jurisdiction will meet the California Integrated Waste Management Act’s
mandated diversion goals. Each jurisdiction’s SRRE must include specific components, as defined in
California Public Resources Code (PRC)§§41003 and 41303. Additionally, the SRRE must include a program
for the management of solid waste generated in the jurisdiction consistent with the following hierarchy:
(1) source reduction, (2) recycling and composting, (3) environmentally safe transformation; and (4) land
disposal.
Mandatory Commercial Recycling – AB 341
AB 341, approved in October 2011, is intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by diverting
commercial solid waste to recycling efforts and to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services
and recycling manufacturing facilities in the state. It is the policy goal of the state that not less than
75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. This
law requires California commercial businesses and public entities, that generate four or more cubic yards
of commercial solid waste per week or is a multi-family residential dwelling with five or more units, to
arrange for recycling services.
Each local jurisdiction is required to inform businesses about the recycling requirement and to keep track
of the level of recycling within the business community. In addition, each jurisdiction is required to report
to CalRecycle, the state agency that oversees recycling and solid waste, on progress in the business
community.15
California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act require areas in development projects to be
set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials. The Act required CalRecycle (formerly the
California Integrated Waste Management Board) to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local
agency relating to adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of
development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model, or an ordinance of their own,
providing for adequate areas in development projects for the collection and loading of recyclable
materials.
Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling – AB 1826
AB 1826 (2014) requires businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending
on the amount of waste they generate on a weekly basis. Additionally, AB 1826 requires that, after
January 1, 2016, all local jurisdictions implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic
15 California Legislative Information . 2011. Assembly Bill 341.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB341. (accessed July 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-11 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
waste generated by businesses, including multi-family residential dwellings with five or more units.
Organic waste includes food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, non-hazardous wood
waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste. This law phases in the mandatory
recycling of commercial organics over time.
Because the minimum threshold of organic waste generation by businesses will be decreased over time
(e.g., in 2016, affected businesses were those generating eight cubic yards or more of organic waste per
week; in 2019, affected businesses will be those generating four or more cubic yards of organic waste per
week), an increasing proportion of the commercial sector will be required to comply. AB 1826 is part of
California’s efforts intended to achieve its recycling and GHG emissions reduction goals. Reducin g the
amount of organic materials sent to landfills and increasing the production of compost and mulch are part
of the AB 32 Scoping Plan.
Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 (2016) requires a 50 percent reduction in disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020,
and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The law grants the California Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle) the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction
targets and establishes an additional target that not less than 20 percent of currently disposed edible food
is recovered for human consumption by 2025. Food waste alone accounts for approximately 17 percent
to 18 percent of total landfill disposal. Increasing food waste prevention, encouraging edible food rescue,
and expanding the composting and in-vessel digestion of organic waste throughout the state will help
reduce methane emissions from organic waste disposed in California's landfills. Additionally, compost has
numerous benefits including water conservation, improved soil health, and carbon sequestration.
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
Infrastructure and Green Systems Element
The Infrastructure and Green Systems Element16 of the Fontana GP includes the goals and policies that
will be responsible for water, wastewater, flood control, storm drainage, electricity, and natural gas
systems in the City. This GP element addresses possible impacts to the utilities’ infrastructure with policies
intended to maintain and provide adequate service levels with new development projects.
Goal 3: The City continues to have an effective water conservation program.
Policy 3.1: Support landscaping in public and private spaces with drought-resistant plants.
Goal 7: Fontana is becoming an energy-efficient community.
Policy 7.1: Promote renewable energy and distributed energy systems in new development and
retrofits of existing development to work towards the highest levels of low-carbon energy-
efficiency.
16 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Infrastructure and Green Systems Element.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26749/Chapter -10---Infrastructure-and-Green-Systems. (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-12 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
Goal 8: All residences, businesses, and institutions have a dependable, environmentally safe
means to dispose of solid waste.
Policy 8.1: Continue to use best practices for environmentally safe collection, transport and disposal
of hazardous wastes.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Waste Management
The City’s Municipal Code Section 24 explains in detail the City’s regulations regarding waste
management. This includes the guidelines for service and requirements for both the collectors of waste
and the owners of the waste-generating properties. This section also details the unlawful acts associated
with trash collection, such as prohibited containers and refuse burning.17
Utilities
The City’s Municipal Section 27 is responsible for the City’s regulations regarding utilities. This includes
underground utility districts and permitted and unlawful acts regarding the use of utilities.18
4.19.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning utilities and service systems. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form
have been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant
effect on the environment if it would:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of which could cause significant envir onmental effects (issues
related to stormwater drainage facilities are addressed in Section 4.10);
• Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry years;
• 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;
• Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; or
• Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related
to solid waste.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact level of significance concerning utilities and service systems. In addition to the
17 City of Fontana. (2022). City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 24 – Solid Waste and Recycling.
18 City of Fontana. (2022). City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 27 – Utilities.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-13 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
Project, this analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards) that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant
impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are
recommended, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on utilities and service systems examines the Project’s temporary
(i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance
criteria/ thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the
surrounding characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in
environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the r egulatory framework enacted to protect the
environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on field observations conducted by Kimley-Horn;
review of Project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of
various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination that a
Project component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on utilities and service
systems considers the available policies and regulations established by local and regional agencies and
the amount of deviation from these policies in the Project’s components.
4.19.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.19-1 Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
The Project site is presently developed with four commercial/industrial buildings ranging from 5,000 to
25,000 square feet in size. The existing buildings are single-story, metal-framed structures and are
assumed to be supported on conventional shallow foundations with concrete slab -on-grade floors.
Ground surface cover consists mainly of open graded gravel and exposed soil, with AC or PCC pavements
surrounding the buildings. Little to no vegetation exists on site. Few large trees are present between the
northwest and northeast quadrants. The immediate surrounding properties consist of light industrial uses
to the north and south, residential to the west, and the City of Rialto with a landfill to the east. Local access
would be provided via Summit Avenue, Sierra Lakes Parkway, Sierra Avenue, and Mango Avenue.
Existing utilities would be extended and upgraded as needed during construction of the Project to serve
the anticipated demands and to accommodate operation of the warehouse. All required improvements
to existing electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications utilities would occur within the existing roadways
adjacent to the Project site, including Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue. All areas adjacent to the existing
roadways also are heavily disturbed and are within the overall footprint of Project and any im pacts are
therefore, discussed and disclosed as part of this Draft EIR within the various sections of this document.
As such, upgrades to existing utilities are already evaluated as part of the overall Project. Therefore,
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-14 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
impacts associated with extension of services in these areas and within the site, are less than significant.
Services provided by each utility is discussed in additional detail below.
Construction and Operations
Water
Water to the Project site would be provided by WVWD. WVWD provides water to its service area via
groundwater, surface water, and imported water sources. Although WVWD currently has a surplus water
supply, it has projected additional water resource allocations through the year 2045. WVWD’s available
water supplies will be sufficient to meet all of the water demands of the entire Project through 2045,
including during single and multiple dry years. Table 4.19-2 and Table 4.19-3, above, shows these values.
In all cases through year 2045, even during single and multiple dry year conditions, water supplies
available to WVWD will be sufficient to meet all present and future water supply requirements of the
Project.
More specifically, based on water use rates within the WVWD Water Facilities Master Plan, the Project
would be anticipated to consume water at a rate of approximately 10.2 AFY (or 398,514 sf x (1 acre /
43,560 sf) x 1,000 gpd per acre x (0.00112 AFY / 1 gpd)) for the industrial area.19 Based on the Project
water usage rate, the Project would represent a nominal percentage of WVWD’s present and future water
supplies for both single- and multiple-dry-year scenarios. As such, the Project’s future water demands
would be met through projected future water supplies and would be conveyed and treated via existing
infrastructure without the need for new or expanded facilities.
Therefore, based on the incremental increase in demand that would result from implementation of the
Project, impacts would be less than significant.
Wastewater
Wastewater treatment for the City is provided by the IEUA, which has wastewater treatment plants in the
cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga. A portion of the City’s’ wastewater is treated by the City of
Rialto.20 The City of Rialto owns, operates, and maintains the local public sanitary sewer system, which
includes a wastewater collection system and treatment plant that serve most properties within the City
of Rialto limits.21 The Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant treats an average of 7 million gallons per day
and is a Grade V plant with tertiary treatment that discharges its treated wastewater to serve landscape
irrigation purposes (approximately 20 AFY) and to the Santa Ana River.22 The Project site would be served
by the IEUA-operated Regional Water Recycling Plant No.4 (RP-4), located in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
19 West Valley Water District. 2020. Water Facilities Master Plan. Page 3-11. https://wvwd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-Water-
Facilities-Master-Plan.pdf (accessed September 2022).
20 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan, – Infrastructure and Green Systems Element.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26749/Chapter -10---Infrastructure-and-Green-Systems (accessed April 2023).
21 City of Rialto. 2010. City of Rialto General Plan Chapter 3, Page 3-11. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1494/2010 -
General-Plan (accessed April 2023).
22 2015 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. 2016. https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/893/2015-
Urban-Water-Management-Plan-PDF (accessed April 2023).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-15 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
The IEUA has previously used wastewater generation rates for industrial uses of approximately
2,500 gallons per day per acre.23 Based on this value, wastewater generated by the approximately
18.3-acre proposed warehouse building would be approximately 45,750 gallons per day. This represents
approximately 0.33 percent of the total daily capacity of the IEUA’s 14 million gallon per day (mgd) RP-4
treatment capacity. The IEUA’s RP-4 facilities currently treat an average of 10 mgd. The Project would
therefore represent approximately 0.46 percent of the remaining treatment capacity.
Therefore, the increase in the daily wastewater generated by the Project site would be minimal and result
in a less than significant impact. All areas needed for improvement would occur in previously disturbed or
areas already proposed to be disturbed. Impacts would be less than significant.
Electric Power
SCE currently operates electric power in the City through electricity distribution lines both aboveground
and buried. SCE also operates at least six substations within the City and no power plants. The existing
buildings located within the Project site are currently occupied and are provided electricity by SCE. The
Project would connect to the existing SCE lines which would enable services to the site. Although some
new utility infrastructure may be required on the site, as described in Section 4.6: Energy, extension of
services is not anticipated to require the construction of any new off-site electric power facilities in order
to serve the Project site. Electricity demands for the Project were modeled using the California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and are estimated to be 2.0 6 Gigawatt Hours (GWh). This would constitute
a minimal increase to the County’s annual electricity use (0.0129 percent). While current electricity usage
within the Project site is not currently known, it is anticipated that SCE would provide more electricity to
the Project site as compared to what is currently consumed. This would represent a less tha n significant
impact and mitigation is not required.
Natural Gas
The SoCalGas Company provides gas services to most of southern California. It is anticipated that the
Project site would require some amount of natural gas to support future operations. Similar to electricity
demands discussed above, it is anticipated that the Project’s estimated natural gas demand of
approximately 8,142 therms would not generate a significant increase in the Countywide annual demand
(0.0015 percent) (see Table 4.6-4: Project and Countywide Energy Consumption). Additionally, it is not
anticipated that new or expanded gas supply facilities would be required to serve the site. As such, all
required improvements would be made as part of the proposed improvements in areas that would be
disturbed as part of Project implementation or in the aforementioned previously disturbed areas.
Therefore, these impacts would be less than significant.
Telecommunication
The Project site would require telecommunication services to be provided. As discussed above, existing
telecommunication lines would be located within existing adjacent rights-of-ways needed to serve the
existing surrounding development. Service to the Project site would require tying into these lines but
23 City of Fontana. 2020. Fontana Foothills Commerce Center Project Initial Study. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/261144-
2/attachment/ev4fS4xbJR8QKPTPly8FbtGuxQ -hLDQpF6MhYPK_YFzhBptO8Ao-DfINe1alwVqq9FGdSpsl807K9TPo0 (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-16 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
these improvements would occur within existing areas of disturbance such as those adjacent to existing
roadways. The construction of substantial new telecommunication infrastructures would not be required.
These impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.19-2 Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
See discussion under Impact 4.19-1. The Project’s water service providers are anticipated to have
adequate capacity to serve the projected demands. The Project would result in less than significant
impacts on services provided by the water service providers.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.19-3 Would the Project 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?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
See discussion under Impact 4.19-1. The Project’s wastewater service provider is anticipated to have
adequate capacity to treat the projected demand. The Project is anticipated to cause a less than significant
impact on services provided by the wastewater service provider.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.19-4 Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
Solid waste generated by construction and operation of the Project would be collected and handled in
compliance with any applicable regulation including those in Section 24 of the City’s Municipal Code,
through service provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. All solid wastes would be deposited at the
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-17 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
Mid-Valley Landfill, operated by the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works. The Mid-Valley
Landfill has a capacity of 7,500 tons of solid waste per day and a total capacity of 101,300,000 cubic
yards.24 As of June 30, 2019, the landfill had 61,219,377 cubic yards of capacity available. The facility has
a cease operation date of April 1, 2045.25 As of October 2017, the landfill accepted an average of 3,475
tons per day leaving a daily capacity of approximately 4,025 tons per day.26
Buildout of the Project is estimated to generate 5,658 pounds per day (ppd) of solid waste, as shown in
Table 4.19-7: Estimated Solid Waste Generation.
Table 4.19-7: Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Land Use Buildout (sf) Solid Waste Generation Rate (ppd) Solid Waste Generation (ppd)
Industrial 398,514 sf 1.42 per 100 sf 5,658
Source: CalRecycle 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates .
(accessed June 2022).
Notes: sf = square feet; ppd = pounds per day
The estimated 5,658 ppd or 2.83 tons per day generated by the Project would be adequately served by
the Mid-Valley Landfill.
Overall, sufficient landfill capacity is available in the region for the estimated solid waste generated by the
Project during operations, and Project development would not require an expansion of landfill capacity.
Impacts would be less than significant for the operational phase.
Regulatory Compliance
Additionally, AB 341 requires all businesses in California that generate four cubic yards or more of waste
per week to implement one of the following actions in order to reuse, recycle, compost, or otherwise
divert commercial solid waste from disposal:
• Source separate recyclable and/or compostable material from solid waste and donate or self-haul
the material to recycling facilities.
• Subscribe to a recycling service with their waste hauler in the service area.
• Provide recycling service to their tenants (if commercial or multifamily complex).
• Demonstrate compliance with the requirements of California Code of Regulations Title 14.
Furthermore, the Project would implement the requirements of the City’s Integrated Waste Department's
Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual on refuse and recycling storage and access for service, as well as
addressing the City's recycling goals. The requirements of the MC Chapter 24, Solid Waste and Recycling,
would also be implemented to ensure that the Project complies with all applicable state and federal laws,
including, but not limited to, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.27 A construction waste
management plan would be submitted and implemented in compliance with Section 4.408 of the 2019
24 CalRecycle, 2022. SWIS Facility Detail – Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662 (accessed June 2022).
25 Ibid.
26 City of Pasadena, 2017. ArtCenter Master Plan. https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/planning/wp -content/uploads/sites/56/2017/10/IV.M.3-
Utilities-and-Service-Systems-Solid-Waste.pdf (a ccessed June 2022).
27 City of Fontana. Municipal Code Chapter 24 – Solid Waste and Recycling.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH24SOWARE (accessed July 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-18 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
CALGreen Code. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur as the Project would not generate
solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.19-5 Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
Refer to Impact 4.19-4 above. Less than significant impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.19.6 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of public utilities and service systems, cumulative impacts are considered for projects
located within Fontana. As discussed above, all impacts from the Project site to utilities and service
systems would be less than significant in consideration of compliance with existing laws, ordinances,
regulations, and standards. In addition, the Project site would recycle and implement measures on-site to
reduce the waste stream to landfill(s). The Project applicant would pay the applicable development i mpact
and service fees. Impacts related to stormwater drainage facilities are addressed in Section 4.10.
Therefore, impacts are not anticipated to be cumulatively considerable. Other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects would be anticipated to implement similar measures or implement
mitigation to fully mitigates their contribution to cumulative impacts. Therefore, there are no significant
cumulative impacts anticipated relative to utility and service systems, and the Project’s contribution
toward potential future utility and service system impacts in the City is not cumulatively considerable.
4.19.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
4.19.8 References
California Legislative Information. 2011. Assembly Bill 341.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB341 .
CalRecycle, 2022. SWIS Facility Detail – Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662 .
CalRecycle 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-19 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Infrastructure and Green Systems Element.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26749/Chapter-10---Infrastructure-and-
Green-Systems.
City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 24 – Solid Waste and Recycling.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH24SOWARE .
City of Fontana. 2022. City of Fontana Municipal Code – Section 27 – Utilities.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH27UT .
City of Fontana. 2020. Fontana Foothills Commerce Center Project Initial Study.
https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/261144-2/attachment/ev4fS4xbJR8QKPTPly8FbtGuxQ-
hLDQpF6MhYPK_YFzhBptO8Ao-DfINe1alwVqq9FGdSpsl807K9TPo0.
City of Fontana. 2020. Trash and Recycling Services. https://www.fontana.org/541/Trash-and-Recycling-
Services.
City of Pasadena. 2017. ArtCenter Master Plan. https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/planning/wp-
content/uploads/sites/56/2017/10/IV.M.3-Utilities-and-Service-Systems-Solid-Waste.pdf.
City of Rialto. 2010. City of Rialto General Plan Chapter 3, Page 3 -11.
https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1494/2010-General-Plan.
Hazard Management Consulting. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
IEUA. 2022. About Us. https://www.ieua.org/about-us/.
IEUA. 2022. Groundwater. https://www.ieua.org/everything-water/groundwater/.
IEUA. 2020. Regional Water Recycling. https://18x37n2ovtbb3434n48jhbs1-wpengine.netdna-
ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/IEUA_recycle14_5.6.14.pdf.
IEUA. 2022. Services Area Map. https://ieua-
gis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/StorytellingTextLegend/index.html?appid=94ffa569367c4d4eb98f843
6f5b53125.
San Bernardino County Flood Control District. ND. Flood Control Zone 2 Map.
https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/DPW/docs/zone2.pdf.
San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. 2016.
https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/893/2015-Urban-Water-Management-
Plan-PDF.
San Bernardino Valley Water District. 2015. Change in Groundwater Storage for the San Bernardino
Basin, Rialto-Colton and Yucaipa Basin areas.
https://www.sbvmwd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=4216.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.19-20 4.19 | Utilities and Service Systems
SBVMWD. 2015. Change in Groundwater Storage for the San Bernardino Basin, Rialto-Colton and
Yucaipa Basin areas. https://www.sbvmwd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=4216.
State Water Resources Control Board. 2020. California Statutes Making Conservation a California Way of
Life.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/california_statut
es.html. SoCalGas. ND. Gas Transmission Pipeline Interactive Map – San Bernardino.
https://socalgas.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=faeed481312f4e5fb056f7
39ff169e02.
Southern California Edison. 2022. Southern California Edison Power Site Search Tool.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=05a84ec9d19f43ac93b451939c330888.
West Valley Water District. 2016. West Valley Water District Boundary Map.
https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.81/n1s.6f9.myftpupload.com/wp -
content/uploads/2017/11/District-Service-Area.pdf.
West Valley Water District. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan – Part 1 – Regional Context.
https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.81/n1s.6f9.myftpupload.com/wp -
content/uploads/2021/07/Part-1-Regional-Context.pdf.
West Valley Water District. 2020. Urban Water Management Plan – Part 2 – Local Agency Information.
https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.81/n1s.6f9.myftpupload.com/wp -
content/uploads/2021/07/Part-2-Local-Agency-Information.pdf.
West Valley Water District. 2020. Water Facilities Master Plan. Page 3-11. https://wvwd.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/2020-Water-Facilities-Master-Plan.pdf.
West Valley Water District. 2021. Drinking Water Quality Report.
https://secureservercdn.net/104.238.69.81/n1s.6f9.myftpupload.com/wp -
content/uploads/2022/06/2021-Drinking-Water-Quality-Report.pdf.
West Valley Water District. 2022. Overview. https://wvwd.org/about/overview/.
4.20
Wildfire
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-1 4.20 | Wildfire
4.20 WILDFIRE
4.20.1 Introduction
This section evaluates potential wildfire hazard impacts that may result from the implementation of the
proposed Sierra Distribution Facility (Project). This section identifies existing wildfire hazard conditions of
the Project and surrounding areas; considers applicable federal, state, and local goals and policies;
identifies and analyzes environmental impacts; and recommends measures to minimize or avoid potential
adverse impacts as a result of Project implementation.
Information presented in this wildfire hazards impact analysis is derived largely from the following:
• City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
• City of Fontana. 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP).
• City of Fontana Municipal Code (MC).
4.20.2 Environmental Setting
Environmental Setting
The Project is located in San Bernardino County (County) within the northeastern portion of the City of
Fontana (City). The Project site is presently developed with four commercial/industrial buildings ranging
from 5,000 to 25,000 square feet in size. The northwestern, northeastern, southwestern, and
southeastern quadrants are existing developments with single-story, metal framed structures and are
assumed to be supported on conventional shallow foundations with concrete slab-on-grade floors. The
area surrounding the Project contains residential uses and light-industrial uses. The Project is directly east
of Sierra Avenue and multiple residential properties. Mango Avenue and a landfill are directly east of the
Project site. In addition, Windflower Avenue runs perpendicular to Sierra Avenue between the north and
south portions of the Project site.
According to available historical sources, the Project site was historically undeveloped vacant land as early
as 1896 and was developed in phases from 1982 to 1990. The Project site was historically occupied by
light industrial businesses including: All Am erican Pipe & Steel Distribution; Days Express Inc.;
Anderson Trucking Services; Apollo Amusement; San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling; S.J. Steel Inc.;
Active Steel, Inc.; and National Pallets (1987-Present). The Project site is currently occupied by the
following businesses: San Gabriel Valley Lumber & Milling, 6075 Sierra Avenue in the northwest portion;
5975 Sierra Ave. 16899 Windflower Avenue on the southwest portion; Davis Partners, 17010 Windflower
Avenue on the northeast portion; and Aluma Systems, 17051 Windflower Avenue on the southeast
portion.
The Project site’s existing site topography generally slopes downward to the south at a gradient of three
percent. The elevation at the Project site ranges from 1,630 feet mean sea level (amsl) in the northern
region of the site to 1,612 feet amsl in the southern region.1 Annual mean precipitation ranges from 13 to
1 Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Infiltration Report.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-2 4.20 | Wildfire
29 inches across the surface of the subbasin and averages about 17 inches and the depth to groundwater
is reported approximately 150-250 feet below ground surface (bgs) with a flow direction towards south.2
Existing Fire Designations
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped areas of significant fire
hazards in the state through its Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). These maps place areas
of the state into different Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) based on a hazard scoring system using
subjective criteria for fuels, fire history, terrain influences, housing density, and occurrence of severe fire
weather where urban conflagration could result in catastrophic losses. As part of this mapping system,
land where CAL FIRE is responsible for wildland fire protection and generally located in unincorporated
areas is classified as a State Responsibility Area (SRA). Where local fire protection agencies are responsible
for wildfire protection, the land is classified as a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). In addition to establishing
local or state responsibility for wildfire protection in a specific area, CAL FIRE designates areas as very high
fire hazard severity zones FHSZs (VHFHSZ), High (HFHSZ), and Moderate (MFHSZ). According to the State
of California Fire Hazard Severity Zone viewer, the entire Project site is designated as an LRA.3 And it is not
located within a VHFHSZ.4
The City is located in a LRA, therefore, fire protection for the City is the responsibility of the City.
Emergency services to the Project would be provided by the San Bernardino County Fire Department
(SBCFD) through the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD). The FFPD in collaboration with the SBCFD, is
comprised of 33 staff members and emergency response personnel are deployed from seven fire stations
located strategically throughout the City.5 The Project site would be immediately accessible via
Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue. The two closest stations to the Project site are Fire Station 78, located
approximately 1.8 miles southwest of the Project site at 7110 Citrus, and Fire Station 79, located
approximately two miles northwest at 5075 Coyote Canyon Road.
Wildfire Characteristics
According to the National Park Service (NPS), a wildfire, or wildland fire, is described as a non -structure
fire that occurs in vegetation such as trees, grasses, and shrubs, and is not a prescribed fire.6 Wildfires
have differing causes including lightning strikes, wind-blown embers, but are most commonly caused by
human activities. Wildfires may originate in undeveloped areas and spread to developed or urban areas
where the landscape and structures are not designed and maintained to be ignition or fire resistant. The
International Association of Fire Chiefs’ Ready, Set, Go! website defines a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)
as areas where homes are built near or among lands prone to wildland fire.7 The potential for wildland
2 Ibid.
3 CAL FIRE. 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. (accessed June 2022).
4 CAL FIRE, 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA – Fontana. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf (accessed
June 2022).
5 City of Fontana. 2017. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017 -Local-Hazard-Mitigation-
Plan. (accessed June 2022).
6 National Park Service. 2018. Types of Wildland Fire . https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fire/types-of-wildland-fire.htm. (accessed June 2022).
7 International Association of Fire Chiefs . 2019. Wildland Urban Interface. https://www.wildlandfirersg.org/s/iafc2/what-is-the-wildland-
urban-interface-MCVXRWBEHSZFCQ7IV6PER5CF6UVQ?language=en_US. (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-3 4.20 | Wildfire
fires represents a hazard where development is adjacent to open space or in proximity to wildland fuels
or FHSZ. Fires that occur in WUI areas may affect natural resources as well as life and property.
A wildfire [or “wildland” fire] is a type of fire that spreads through open land, burning all types of
vegetation and threatening buildings and structures. It often begins unnoticed, spreads quickly, and is
usually signaled by dense smoke that may be visible from miles around. Wildfires can be caused by human
activities (such as arson or campfires) or by natural events, such as lightning. Wildfires often occur in
undeveloped forests, grasslands or other such areas with ample vegetation and spread to develop ed
areas, threatening life, safety, and property. If wildfires are not promptly controlled, they may quickly
grow into a small or large-scale disaster. Even small fires can threaten lives and resources and destroy
improved properties. The indirect effects of wildfires to the citizens and businesses in the City can also be
catastrophic.8
4.20.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA)
In March 2003, FEMA became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. FEMA's continuing
mission is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response
and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities,
trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire
Administration.
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
This Act (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 5121) was signed into law to amend the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sections 5121-5207). Among other things, this legislation reinforces
the importance of pre-disaster infrastructure mitigation planning to reduce disaster losses nationwide
and is aimed primarily at the control and streamlining of the administration of federal disas ter relief and
programs to promote mitigation activities. Some of the major provisions of this Act include:
i) Funding pre-disaster mitigation activities;
ii) Developing experimental multi-hazard maps to better understand risk;
iii) Establishing state and local government infrastructure mitigation planning requirements;
iv) Defining how states can assume more responsibility in managing the hazard mitigation grant
program; and
v) Adjusting ways in which management costs for projects are funded.
The mitigation planning provisions outlined in Section 322 of this Act establish performance-based
standards for mitigation plans and require states to have a public assistance program (Advance
8 City of Fontana. 2017. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017 -Local-Hazard-Mitigation-
Plan. (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-4 4.20 | Wildfire
Infrastructure Mitigation [AIM]) to develop county government plans. The consequence for counties that
fail to develop an infrastructure mitigation plan is the chance of a reduced federal share of damage
assistance from 75 percent to 25 percent if the damaged facility has been damaged on more than one
occasion in the preceding 10-year period by the same type of event.
National Fire Plan 9
In 2000, the National Fire Plan was developed by the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and
Interior as a report on how to respond to severe, ongoing fire activity, reduce impacts of fires on rural
communities and the environment, and ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the future. This report,
entitled Managing the Impacts of Wildfire on Communities and the Environment: A Report to the President
in Response to the Wildfires of 2000, became the basis of the National Fire Plan. The Nationa l Fire Plan
addresses five objectives: Firefighting, Rehabilitation, Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Community Assistance,
and Accountability (FAR NFP). The National Fire Plan developed its implementation strategy via its 10-Year
Comprehensive Strategy and its Implementation Plan. Based on these two reports, in 2002 the President
at the time (George W. Bush) announced the Healthy Forest Initiative to implement the National Fire Plan;
this became the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. The National Fire Plan , as enacted under the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, works towards the goals of reducing the devastation of wildland
fires and improving the health of forests and rangelands.
The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy 10
Under the direction of the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act of 2009
(the FLAME Act), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture created the National
Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy Report. This report contains a cohesive wildfire
management strategy as directed by the FLAME Act and under the advisement of the intergovernmental
Wildland Fire Leadership Council. The most recent version of this report is 2014’s The National Strategy:
The Final Phase in the Development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy.
State
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CAL FIRE protects the people of California from fires, responds to emergencies, and protects and enhances
forest, range, and watershed values providing social, economic, and environmental benefits to rural and
urban citizens. Another major responsibility of CAL FIRE’s is to use their firefighters, fire engines, and
aircraft to respond to wildland fires. In 2021 (between January 1 and December 29), there were a total of
3,781 wildfires in the state. As of June 24, 2022, there have been a total of 3,311 wildfires in the state. 11
The Office of the State Fire Marshal supports CAL FIRE’s mission by focusing on fire prevention. It provides
support through a wide variety of fire safety responsibilities including by regulating buildings in which
people live, congregate, or are confined; by controlling substances and products which may, in and of
9 US Department of the Interior and USDA Forest Service. 2002. National Fire Plan.
https://www.fs.fed.us/database/budgetoffice/NFP_final32601.pdf . (a ccessed June 2022).
10 USDA/USFS. ND. National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. https://www.fs.usda.gov/restoration/cohesivestrategy.shtml.
(accessed June 2022).
11 CAL FIRE. 2022. https://www.fire.ca.gov/stats -events/. (a ccessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-5 4.20 | Wildfire
themselves, or by their misuse, cause injuries, death, and destruction by fire; by providing statewide
direction for fire prevention in wildland areas; by regulating hazardous liquid pipelines; by reviewing
regulations and building standards; and by providing training and education in fire protection methods
and responsibilities.
State Fire Regulations
Fire regulations for California are established in Section 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Services
Code and include regulations for structural standards (similar to those identified in the California Building
Code (CBC)); fire protection and public notification systems; fire protection devices such as extinguishers
and smoke alarms; standards for high-rise structures and childcare facilities; and fire suppression training.
The State Fire Marshal is responsible for enforcement of these established regulations and building
standards for all state-owned buildings, state-occupied buildings, and state institutions within California.
California Fire Plan
The California Fire Plan is a cooperative effort between the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection
and CAL FIRE. By placing the emphasis on what needs to be done long before a fire starts, the Fire Plan
looks to reduce firefighting costs and property losses, increase firefighter safety, and to contribute to
ecosystem health. The Multiyear Strategic Fire Plan for California is the most current plan.12
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 4290 and 4291
These regulations, which implement minimum fire safety standards related to defensible space, apply to
the perimeters and access to all commercial, industrial, and residential building construction with an SRA
(approved after January 1, 1991), and within lands classified and designated as VHFHSZ (after July 1, 2021).
The person(s) who control, lease, maintain, operate, or own said building in, upon, or adjoining a
mountainous area, forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is covered
with flammable materials is required to preserve a defensible space of 100 feet from the perimeter of the
building. The regulations shall include the following:
1. Road standards for fire equipment access.
2. Standards for signs identifying streets, roads, and buildings.
3. Minimum private water supply reserves for emergency fire use.
4. Fuel breaks and greenbelts.
These regulations do not supersede local regulations which equal or exceed minimum regulations
adopted by the state.
California Building Code, Chapter 7A
Chapter 7A of the CBC focuses primarily on preventing ember penetration into homes, a leading cause of
structure loss from wildfires. These codes have been developed through decades of after fire structure
12 2018-2023 Strategic Fire Plan for California. 2019. https://www.paperturn-view.com/cal-fire-communications/strategicplan2019-
final?pid=MjU253660&p=5. (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-6 4.20 | Wildfire
“save” and “loss” evaluations to determine what causes buildings to ignite or avoid ignition during
wildfires. The resulting fire codes now focus on mitigating former structural vulnerabilities through
construction techniques and materials so that the buildings are resistant to ignitions from direct flames,
heat, and embers, as indicated in the CBC (Chapter 7A, Section 701A Scope, Purpose and Application).
California Fire Code, Chapter 49 Requirements for WUI Fire Areas
This code provides minimum standards to increase the ability of a building or structure to resist the
intrusion of flame or burning embers being projected by a vegetation fire and contributes to a systematic
reduction in fire losses through the use of performance and prescriptive requirements. Buildings and
structures located on unincorporated land designated as an SRA Moderate, High, and VHFHSZ and land
designated as VHFHSZ by a city or other local agency shall maintain the required hazardous vegetation
and fuel management standards.
Fire hazard designations are based on topography, vegetation, and weather, amongst other factors with
more hazardous sites including steep terrain, unmaintained fuels/vegetation, and WUI locations. Projects
situated in HFHSZ’s require fire hazard analysis and application of fire protection measures that have been
developed to specifically result in defensible communities in these WUI locations.
California Fire Code
CCR Title 24, Part 9 (2019 California Fire Code) contains regulations relating to construction and
maintenance of buildings, the use of premises, and the management of WUI areas, among other issues.
The California Fire Code is updated every three years by the California Building Standards Commission and
was last updated in 2022 (effective January 1, 2023). The Fire Code sets forth regulations regarding
building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as fire
extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building standards, and fire suppression training. It contains
regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the code also
include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and
explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist
fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for
new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. Development under the Project would be
subject to applicable regulations of the California Fire Code.
Title 8 California Code of Regulations Sections 1270 and 6773
In accordance with CCR, Title 8 Section 1270 “Fire Prevention” and Section 6773 “Fire Protection and Fire
Equipment,” the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) has established
minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are
not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements,
restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all
firefighting and emergency medical equipment.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-7 4.20 | Wildfire
California Building Standards Code
California building standards are published in the CCR, Title 24, also known as the California Building
Standards Code (CBSC). The CBSC, which applies to all applications for building permits, consists of
12 parts that contain administrative regulations for the California Building Standards Commission and for
all state agencies that implement or enforce building standards. Local agencies must ensure the
development complies with the guidelines contained in the CBSC. Cities and counties can adopt additional
building standards beyond the CBSC including the CBSC Part 2, named the CBC which is based upon the
2018 International Building Code, and Part 11, named the California Green Building Standards Code, also
called the CalGreen Code.
California Health and Safety Code
State fire regulations are set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 13000 et seq., and include
provisions concerning building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices,
and fire suppression training, as also set forth in the 2022 CBSC and related updated codes.
Emergency Mutual Aid Agreements (EMAA)
The EMAA system is a collaborative effort between city and county emergency managers in the Office of
Emergency Services (OES) in the coastal, southern, and inland regions of the state. EMMA provides service
in the emergency response and recovery efforts at the Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center,
local Emergency Operations Centers, the Disaster Field Office, and community service centers. The
purpose of EMAA is to support disaster operations in affected jurisdictions by providing professional
emergency management personnel. In accordance with the EMAA, local and state emergency managers
have responded in support of each other under a variety of plans and procedures.
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Management Agency (Cal -EMA)
In 2009, the State of California passed legislation creating the Cal-EMA and authorizing it to prepare a
Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) program (Title 19 CCR Section 2400 et seq.), which
sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with
SEMS could result in the state withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event
of an emergency disaster.
Cal-EMA serves as the lead state agency for emergency management in the state. Cal-EMA coordinates
the state response to major emergencies in support of local government. The primary responsibility for
emergency management resides with local government. Local jurisdictions first use their own resources
and, as these are exhausted, obtain more from neighboring cities and special districts, the county in which
they are located, and other counties throughout the state through the statewide mutual aid system. In
California, the SEMS provides the mechanism by which local government requests assistance. Cal-EMA
serves as the lead agency for mobilizing the state’s resources and obtaining federal resources; it also
maintains oversight of the state’s mutual aid system.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-8 4.20 | Wildfire
Local
Fontana General Plan 2015-2035
The City of Fontana General Plan (Fontana GP) discusses fire hazards and uses the CAL FIRE fire threat
potential mapping. Based on the location within the City and proximity to the fire threat areas, the City
recognizes that some developments may be subject to significant risk from wildfire. Specifically, the City
recognizes that some of its area is within the High and Very High FHSZ. The Project is within a Fire Hazard
Overlay.13 Areas within the Fire Hazard Overlay are required to adhere to applicable fire codes for
buildings and structures, fire access, and other standards in accordance with the Fire Hazard Overlay
District,14 California Fire Code, and the City Municipal Code, and encourage the retrofit of non-conforming
land uses.
Based on fire hazards and proximity of the wildland urban interface the City addresses Fire Access
standards which notes that clear emergency vehicle access to buildings is important and is regulated by
the adopted and amended California Fire Code (CFC), which the City has adopted, and Fontana Land
Development Engineering standards. More specifically, the Fontana GP notes all portions of a building
must be within 150 feet of a serviceable fire access road, road grades must be less than 12 percent grade,
support 75,000 pounds; roads must be 26 feet wide, and project perimeters adjacent to fuel modification
zones and fire hazard areas must have adequate vehicular access for fire fighting vehicles .
In relation to vegetation management, the Fontana GP requires all new development within high fire
severity zones to have a fire protection plan (FPP) approved by the fire code official. The FPP is required
to include mitigation measures consistent with the unique problems within a given area and account fo r
geology, topography, flammable vegetation, and localized climate. In addition, the FPPs must address
water supply, access, building ignition and fire resistance, fire protection systems and equipment,
defensible space, and vegetation management, and must be consistent with the requirements of
California Building Code Chapter 7A, the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code, and the City’s
Municipal Code.
In consideration of the above, the Fontana GP lists goals and policies related to wildland fire and fire
safety. Although most of these items are related to actions on the part of the City, they are listed below
as a reference for the Project and implementing and maintaining a project that is respectful of the
potential for wildfire.
Public and Community Services Element 15
Goal 2: Fontana's Fire Department meets or exceeds state and national benchmarks for
protection and responsiveness.
13 City of Fontana. 2022. General Plan Land Use Map. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-
04-20-2022?bidId=. (accessed October 2022).
14 City of Fontana. 2022. Division 8 – Fire Hazard Overlay District Section 30-656.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30ZODECO_ARTIXOVDI_DIV8FIHAOVDI .
(accessed October 2022).
15 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Public and Community Services Element.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26747/Chapter -8---Public-and-Community-Services. (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-9 4.20 | Wildfire
Policy 2.1: Continue the City’s successful partnership with the San Bernardino County Fire
Department.
Noise and Safety Element 16
Goal 7: Threats to public and private property from urban and wildland fire hazards are
reduced in Fontana.
Policy 7.1: The City shall continue to require residential, commercial, and industrial structures to
implement fire hazard-reducing designs and features.
City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City’s LHMP was last updated in June 2017. The intent of the LHMP is to demonstrate the plan for
reducing and/or eliminating risk in the City. The LHMP process encourages communities to develop goals
and projects that will reduce risk and build a more disaster resilient community by analyzing potential
hazards. Section 4.4, Wildfire Hazard Profile17, of the LHMP includes a discussion on the existing wildfire
regulatory environment, past wildfire occurrences, location/geographic extent of wildfire, wildfire
magnitude/severity, frequency/probability of future occurrences of wildfire, and information reg arding
future development within high fire hazard severity zones.
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 11, Section 11.2
Any new development or improvement of real property within the limits of the City shall be subject to the
imposition of fees for capital improvements necessary to provide fire protection services. Pursuant to
Article VI of Chapter 21 of the Fontana Municipal Code (Fontana MC), the City may allow partial or
complete satisfaction of the fee required by this section through execution of an agreement requiring
construction of public improvements and/or dedication of property. The fee required under this section
shall be due as provided for in Article V of Chapter 21 of the Fontana MC.
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 30, Article IX – Overlay Districts, Division 8 – Fire Hazard
Overlay District
The fire hazard overlay provisions apply to areas designated on the Fontana GP land use map. The fire
hazard overlay district is created to provide greater public safety to City residents and structures in areas
prone to wildfires, by establishing development standards for these areas. Projects within the overlay
district, required a fuel modification zone plan to be prepared for each new tentative tract map, parcel
map or design review application. The Project is located within the overlay.
4.20.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions
concerning wildfire. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as
16 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Noise and Safety. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26750/Chapter -
11---Noise-and-Safety. (accessed June 2022).
17 City of Fontana. 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard M itigation Plan 2017 -- 4.4 Wildfire Hazard Profile.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017 -Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan. (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-10 4.20 | Wildfire
significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the
environment if it would:
• If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
▪ Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
▪ Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby
expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire;
▪ Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or
▪ Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project site is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for
determining the impact’s level of significance concerning wildfire. This analysis considers the existing
regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the
potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with
the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the
potentially significant environmental impacts at the site.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts from wildfire hazards examines the proposed Project’s temporary
(i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance
criteria/thresholds outlined above. For each criterion, the analyses are generally divided into two main
categories: (1) temporary impacts; and (2) permanent impacts. Each criterion is discussed in the context
of Project components that share similar characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the
potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework
enacted to protect the environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on field observations; review of Project maps and
drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public
records, including local planning documents. The determination that a Project component would or would
not result in “substantial” adverse effects on wildfire hazards standards c onsiders the available policies
and regulations established by local and regional agencies and the amount of deviation from these policies
in the Project’s components.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-11 4.20 | Wildfire
4.20.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.20-1 If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
According to CAL FIRE’s Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones exhibit, the Project resides in a Non-VHFHSZ
Zone and is not identified as a State Responsibility Area (SRA ). The nearest VHFHSZ within an SRA is
approximately 2.3 miles north of the Project site.18 However, according to the City’s Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan19, the Project site is identified within a High FHSZ within an LRA. Emergency services to
the Project would be provided by the SBCFD through the FFPD, which would serve as first responders in
case of any structural fire and medical emergency response service, as well as other diverse emergency
management and response programs. Although urban structural fire conflagration is relatively low in the
City, the SBCFD is able to provide rapid response through the implementation of programs such as their
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) that consists of certified paramedics who are trained to provide
Advanced Life Support (ALS) services to treat a variety of in juries and illnesses. The two closest stations
to the Project site are Fire Station 78, located approximately 1.8 miles southwest of the Project site
at 7110 Citrus, and Fire Station 79, located approximately two miles northwest of the Projects site at
5075 Coyote Canyon Road. It is important that existing roadways and emergency routes are maintained
in support of emergency vehicles and that the proposed Project provide adequate site access for
emergency vehicles.
As described previously in Section 4.17: Transportation, the plan checks and building permit process by
the FFPD and SBCFD includes review of access for emergency vehicles, in accordance with the CFC.
Compliance with the requirements for emergency lane width, vertical clearance, and distance would
ensure that adequate emergency access is available for all new development and redevelopment projects.
The Project site is also within an existing developed area of the City where roadways already exist, so no
new roadways are required. Additionally, the developer is expected to pay the necessary development
fees prior to construction, as indicated in the Fontana MC Section 11.2. Due to quick response times,
building designs compliance with state, regional, and local codes, and designation of the Project site in a
Non-VHFHSZ zone, the Project will cause a less than significant impact to the SBCFD’s emergency response
plan and evacuation plan.
Lastly, according to the City’s General Plan Land Use Map,20 the Project site is located in a Fire Hazard
Overlay. Therefore, the Project would adhere to the regulations, development standards, and guidelines
provided in the City’s Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30, Article IX – Overlay Districts, Division 8
18 Cal Fire. 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4466cf1d2b9947bea1d4269997e86553 . (accessed June 2023).
19 City of Fontana. 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Figure 4-6: Wildfire Hazard Severity Zones. https://www.fontanaca.gov/3196/Local-
Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-LHMP. (accessed June 2023).
20 City of Fontana. 2022. General Plan Land Use Map. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General -Plan-Land-Use-Map-
04-20-2022?bidId=. (accessed October 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-12 4.20 | Wildfire
– Fire Hazard Overlay District, which would ensure greater public safety is provided in areas prone to
wildfires. Therefore, through compliance with applicable fire codes, fire access, and other standards in
accordance with Fire Hazard Overlay District, CFC, and Fontana MC, the Project would not substantially
impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and a less than significant
impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.20-2 If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
According to CAL FIRE’s Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones exhibit, the Project resides in a Non-VHFHSZ
Zone and is not identified as an SRA. However, according to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the
Project site is identified within a High FHSZ within an LRA. The City identifies factors contributing to the
high, widespread wildfire risk in the City; these include narrow and often one-lane and/or dead-end roads
complicating evacuation and emergency response, nature and frequency of ignitions and increasing
population density leading to more ignitions; slope of the foothills; and residential development along the
foothills. The Project site is not located in areas with steep slopes that can accelerate the spread of wildfire
and it is listed as a non-VHFHSZ site, so wildfire risk is minimal. The site and surrounding areas contain
little to no vegetation and do not contain tall or even a substantial number of tall trees that would
experience a crown fire. Due to the existing urbanized setting of the Project, wildfire risk is minimal due
to lack of fuel.
Therefore, due to the presence of surrounding development, presence of area roadways, lack of steep
slopes, and concrete construction of the Project, it is not likely to be affected by a wildfire during
construction or operations. Lastly, the warehouse structure would be predominantly concrete which is
not typically susceptible to fire. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.20-3 If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the Project require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-13 4.20 | Wildfire
Construction and Operations
According to CAL FIRE’s Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones exhibit, the Project resides in a Non-VHFHSZ
Zone and is not identified as an SRA. However, according to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the
Project site is identified within a High FHSZ within an LRA. The Project includes construction of an
approximately 398,514-square foot warehouse facility, located at the northeast corner of Sierra Avenue
and Clubhouse Drive within the City, and is bounded to the north and south by existing commercial/
industrial buildings, to the west by Sierra Avenue, and to the east by Mango Avenue. The Project does not
include any interior roadways, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or above ground power or utility
lines that would exacerbate a fire hazard with their installation or in their operations. The improvements
of Mango Avenue similarly would not exacerbate fire hazard as the roadway improvement would increase
accessibility to the Project site. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant and n o additional
impacts related to fire protection or wildfire would occur. No mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.20-4 If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the Project expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
According to CAL FIRE’s Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones exhibit, the Project resides in a Non-VHFHSZ
Zone and is not identified as an SRA. However, according to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the
Project site is identified within a High FHSZ within an LRA. As discussed above, the Project does not contain
steep slopes and is flat. Slopes can be an important factor relative to wildfire because steeper slopes can
facilitate more rapid-fire spread. No flooding risk would occur should a wildfire occur in the Project
vicinity. No evidence of on-site landslides or debris flow was observed during field investigations or
documented on the California Geologic Survey Landslide inventory. There is no risk of land sliding and
rockfall for the Project site and surrounding locations, as these areas do not have steep slopes or contain
loose rock or debris. According to the City of Fontana Flood Insurance Rate Map,21 published by FEMA,
Community Panel Number 06071C7920H, dated August 27, 2008, the Project site is located in Zone X, an
area of minimal flood hazard.22 The potential for flooding on the Project site, therefore, is considered low.
As noted above, the Fontana MC has a fire hazard overlay district provision for areas designated on the
Fontana GP land use map. Projects within the overlay district must prepare a fuel modification zone plan
for each new tentative tract map, parcel map, or design review application. Therefore, in conformance
with the Fontana MC, a fuel modification zone plan has been prepared for the Project. The fuel
21 City of Fontana. 2017. Flood Insurance Rate Map. https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4473/Flood -Insurance-Rate-Map-
11x17. (accessed June 2023).
22 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2022. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer . https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd . (accessed June 2022).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-14 4.20 | Wildfire
modification zone plan for the Project establishes fuel zones in conformance with Section 30 -658 of the
Fontana MC that includes permanent fuel modification zones, access requirements and protection
measures. The Project’s fuel modification zone plan protects the site from wildfire exposure and reduces
exposure to the City of Fontana residents, people, and structures from wildfires. Refer to Figure 3-7:
Conceptual Landscape Plan and Fuel Modification Zone Plan. The final fuel modification zone plan would
be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal in advance of going to the Planning Commission . A Fire
Protection Plan (FPP) would also be prepared in advance of going to the Planning Commission, consistent
with Chapter 49 or the California Fire Code. The FPP must be approved by the Fire Marshal in advance of
going to the Planning Commission. The Project would adhere to the requirements of the FPP.
Additionally, the Project would include the installation of an integrated, on-site system consisting of
measures designed to capture and control stormwater. These measures may include, but would not
necessarily be limited to, underground storm drainpipes, catch basins, underground infiltration basins,
and other structural best management practices to capture on-site stormwater runoff, and temporarily
capture and hold stormwater before conveying the runoff offsite. In addition, the Project includes BMPs
and low impact development to minimize run-off and maximize infiltration. These structures are designed
to accommodate both existing drainage flows and potential drainage flow increases that would result
from Project implementation.
The Project also would not introduce new slopes that would exacerbate existing hazards of wildfire.
Therefore, due to the existing topography and low slopes both on the Project site and surrounding areas
as well as proposed drainage improvements, as well as impervious areas and landscaping incorporated
into Project design, the Project would not substantially exacerbate risks with slope instability due to
landslides or flooding if a wildfire should occur in these areas.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4.20.6 Cumulative Impacts
Projects have the potential to be cumulatively considerable, when evaluated in the context of other past,
present, or reasonably foreseeable projects that make a cumulative contribution to impacts. Cumulative
development occurring within the vicinity and similar FHSZs would be subject to risk of wildfire hazards.
Cumulative projects also would be subject to compliance with the CBC and California Fire Code, as well as
local regulations (Fontana MC), and all proposed construction would be required to meet minimum
standards for fire safety. Development occurring within the City, or those future projects adjacent to and
near the Project site would be subject to review by the City to ensure cumulative development is designed
to provide a minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities. This would include compliance
with state and local fire codes, inclusion of fire sprinklers if required, proper fire hydrant system, paved
access, and secondary emergency access routes. Implementation of these plans a nd policies, in
conjunction with compliance with the local fire code and City standards, would ensure cumulative impacts
with respect to wildfire hazards are less than significant.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-15 4.20 | Wildfire
4.20.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.
4.20.8 References
CAL FIRE. 2019. Strategic Fire Plan for California. https://www.paperturn-view.com/cal-fire-
communications/strategicplan2019-final?pid=MjU253660&p=5.
CAL FIRE. ND. FHSZ Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
CAL FIRE. 2022. Stats and Events. https://www.fire.ca.gov/stats-events/.
CAL FIRE. 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA – Fontana.
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf.
City of Fontana. 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2017 -- 4.4 Wildfire Hazard Profile.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Public and Community Services Element.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26747/Chapter-8---Public-and-Community-
Services.
City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan – Noise and Safety.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26750/Chapter-11---Noise-and-Safety.
City of Fontana. 2022. General Plan Land Use Map.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-04-20 -
2022?bidId=.
City of Fontana. 2017. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2022. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer.
https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa
9cd.
International Association of Fire Chiefs. 2019. Wildland Urban Interface.
https://www.wildlandfirersg.org/s/iafc2/what-is-the-wildland-urban-interface-
MCVXRWBEHSZFCQ7IV6PER5CF6UVQ?language=en_US.
USDA/USFS. ND. National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/restoration/cohesivestrategy.shtml.
National Park Service. 2018. Types of Wildland Fire. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fire/types-of-
wildland-fire.htm.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 4.20-16 4.20 | Wildfire
Southern California Geotechnical. 2021. Infiltration Report.
US Department of the Interior and USDA Forest Service. 2002. National Fire Plan.
https://www.fs.fed.us/database/budgetoffice/NFP_final32601.pdf.
5.0
Other CEQA Considerations
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 5-1 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sierra Distribution Facility Project
(Project) discusses additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impact considerations,
including Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Growth-inducing Impacts.
5.1 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible
environmental changes that would be caused by a proposed project. Generally, the section states that a
project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if the following occurs:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources in a way that would
make their nonuse or removal unlikely;
• The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
• The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential
environmental accidents associated with the project; and
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use
of energy).
The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources in a way that
would make their nonuse or removal unlikely.
The Project would not involve the utilization of nonrenewable resources in a manner that would make
their nonuse or removal unlikely. Nonrenewable resources associated with the development of the
Project would include fossil fuels. Fossil fuels would serve as energy sources during both Project
construction and operations. Fossil fuels would act as transportation energy sources for construction
vehicles and heavy equipment during the construction period and by vehicles and equipment used during
Project operations. Though the Project would endeavor to utilize fossil fuels efficiently, their use would
be vital for construction and operations activities, making their nonuse unlikely. However, the Project
would not require the continued use of fossil fuels at the end of its operational life.
By nature of being a nonrenewable resource, fossil fuels, once consumed, cannot be replaced. Those fuels,
once spent, may be transformed into another form of matter such as exhaust or smoke. Standard vehicles
and equipment used by the Project in both construction and operational phases would likely utilize fossil
fuels. Some construction and operational equipment such as forklifts may be electrified and therefore not
rely on fossil fuels. Energy-efficient equipment would be utilized according to their availability and in order
to comply with energy regulations and policies.
The Project applicant does not propose any fueling stations and would not store significant amounts of
fossil fuels on the site. Any Fossil fuels stored on-site would not be stored in a manner that would make
their removal unlikely. No infrastructure is proposed to store fossil fuels in large amounts or without the
ability of removal.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 5-2 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
The Project would also require the commitment of land on which the Project would be developed for
industrial use. Land is another finite resource in that once developed and in active use it removes the
ability for that land to be used for other uses and developments. However, land developments associated
with the Project would not remove the possibility of redevelopment in the future. The land development
would not, therefore, make the nonuse of the land unlikely.
The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to
similar uses.
There were no significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the Project. The uses associated with
the Project would not modify the land in a way that would require future development to be developed
similarly.
Hazardous waste usage would be minimal; mostly used for cleaning and operational maintenance.
Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations would ensure that the usage and storage of any
hazardous materials and waste would be completed in the safest and most efficient manner. Similarly,
the Project would comply with any federal, state, and local air quality and wate r quality regulations to
further ensure the least amount of environmental impact. The light industrial warehousing nature of the
Project is unlikely to lead to impacts that would relegate future generations and developments to similar
uses.
The Project would be developed in a portion of the City of Fontana (City) classified with Light Industrial
land use designation and zoning. The Project would not modify this land use designation. Therefore, the
Project would not influence future development in that land area as the existing land use designation
would be unchanged.
The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any
potential environmental accidents associated with the project.
The Project is intended to develop one warehousing facility and is not anticipated to release hazardous
materials into the environment. Construction and operation of the Project would utilize chemical
substances common with typical construction and warehousing activities and do not generally pose a
significant hazard to the public or environment. However, in the event that hazardous materials are either
used or stored on the Project site, mitigation measures are proposed, which would both reduce the
significance of any impacts and ensure the Project’s compliance with any federal, state, and local policy
regarding hazardous materials and accidents.
The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the
wasteful use of energy).
The Project would comply with any applicable federal, state, and local regulation and law regarding the
use of resources during both construction and operations. As established in Section 4.19: Utilities and
Service Systems, development of the Project would not significantly impact water, electricity, solid waste,
and telecommunications resources. It was found that the West Valley Water District, the water supplier
for the City and Project site, has adequate supplies to serve the Project’s expanded demand. Further,
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 5-3 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
development of the Project would include the use of energy-efficient vehicles and equipment in
accordance with the most recent federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, resources used for the
Project, including energy, would be done in an efficient, justifiable manner.
5.2 Growth -Inducing Impacts
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) requires that EIRs include a discussion of ways in which a project
could induce growth. The State CEQA Guidelines identify a project as “growth-inducing” if it fosters
economic or population growth or if it encourages the construction of additi onal housing either directly
or indirectly in the surrounding environment. New employees from commercial or industrial development
and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms
of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic
activity in the area. The Project would therefore have a growth-inducing impact if it would:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional
housing;
• Remove obstacles to population growth;
• Require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental
effects; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either
individually or cumulatively.
A project’s potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen
through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Under CEQA,
the potential for growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental nor necessarily beneficial,
and neither is it automatically considered to be of significance to the environment. This issue is presented
to provide additional information on ways in which the Project could contribute to signific ant changes in
the environment, beyond the direct consequences of implementing the Project examined in the preceding
sections of this Draft EIR.
Direct Growth-Inducing Impacts in the Surrounding Environment
Potential growth-inducing effects are examined through analysis of the following questions:
Would the project directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the
construction of additional housing? No
Population and Employment
The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimated that the City’s population reached 212,809 people
in January of 2022, with the average household size in being 3.79 persons per household.1
1 California Department of Finance. 2022. Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2021 -2022, with
2020 Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/Demographics/estimates/e -5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-
the-state-2020-2022/. (accessed February 2023).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 5-4 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
The California Employment Development Department (EDD) provided an annual average unemployment
rate of 3.3 percent for the City in December 20 22. This translated to an average of 3,500 people
unemployed in 2022.2 This is their most recent annual average. This current rate is their most recent
estimate.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) produced an employment density report that
contained average employee generation rates for various land uses within its member counties. The
report estimated that for warehousing uses, one employee is generated for every 2,111 square feet of
building space.3 The Project’s 398,514-square foot building space would generate approximately 189 new
employees. These employees would comprise approximately 8.9 percent of the average unemployed
population in the City. This would not directly necessitate economic growth since the City’s unemployed
population would be suitable to meet the employment needs of the Project.
Assuming that each new employee would enter the City along with a new household, each employee
would count as a 3.79-person household and would comprise a total population increase of approximately
716 persons. The City would experience a population growth. However, this growth would be
approximately 0.3 percent of the City’s estimated population in 20 22 and below the average rate of
population growth experienced by the City. Therefore, although the Project could foster population
growth, the projected population growth would not exceed average rates of growth already experienced
by the City.
Housing
The DOF estimates that the City contains 57,483 housing units in 2022, of which 56,041 are occupied.
Assuming one housing unit per household induced by the Project, a total of approximately 189 housing
units would be required to house the Project’s potential employees. The 1,442 vacant housing units would
be able to adequately serve the households and residents generated by the Project. Therefore, this would
not necessitate growth within the City. Senate Bill 330 requires that cities maintain no net loss policy for
their housing in which housing potential in the City may not be reduced, only maintained or increased.
The Project site does not contain housing and is zoned for light industrial use.
Would the project remove obstacles to population growth? No
The Project site currently consists of developed parcels, which were previously improved with industrial
structures (see Section 3.0: Project Description for more information). The demolition of these structures
would not induce population growth since they would be replaced with the warehouse facility.
Additionally, the zoning and General Plan designation for the Project site is Light Industrial and would not
allow for residential development without a Zone Change or General Plan Amendment to a residential
designation. The Project would be an allowed and expected use within this land use zone and would
therefore not create or remove an obstacle for growth.
2 Employment Development Department. 2023. Current Month Unemployment Rate and Labor Force Summary – Cities and Sub-County Places.
Available at https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/unemployment-and-labor-force.html#collapseUno. (a ccessed February 2023).
3 Southern California Association of Governments. 2001. Employment Density Study Summary Report. Page 4. Yorba Linda, CA: The Natelson
Company, Inc.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 5-5 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
The Project’s development is localized to the Project site. The construction of the new infrastructure
would not amend the Land Use or increase density on the parcels adjacent or north of the Project site.
The development of the Project would involve the expansion and updating of utility facilities such as
electricity and water connections. The Project would also involve the improvement of existing roadways
including Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue. These improvements would serve the existing residences and
businesses in the City and improve services to these facilities and City connectivity. Roadway
improvements included in the Project are discussed in Section 4.17: Transportation and analyzed in the
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (see Appendix K). Substantial upgrades to the roadway system outside of the
general Project area, which would promote further development are not included as components of the
Project.
Would the project require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause
significant environmental effects? No
The Project site was previously disturbed and developed with commercial, industrial, and residential uses.
These uses required utility and infrastructure improvements in order to function. The Project would
include infrastructure improvements and connections to existing facilities to allow for the efficient use of
resources such as natural gas, electricity, and water. Improvements to the Project adjacent streets would
also include underground dry utility facilities (e.g., cable, electric, telephone, natural gas, television, and
fiber optics) along the Project’s frontage streets: Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue. The environmental
impacts associated with the facility improvements associated with the Project have been analyzed in
Section 4.1: Aesthetics through Section 4.20: Wildfire of this EIR. In the presence of potentially significant
impacts which were not minimized by the Project design features, mitigation measures have been
proposed which, when implemented, would reduce potential impacts stemming from the Project’s
development to less than significant levels. Further, the Project would not require the expansion of utility
facilities such as water treatment plants or landfills. Adequate capacity was concluded for each of those
facilities.
Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either
individually or cumulatively.
Refer to Section 4.1: Aesthetics through 4.20: Wildfire of this EIR. No cumulative impacts were discovered
during the analysis of the Project.
5.3 References
California Department of Finance. 2022. Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the
State, January 1, 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/Demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-
for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/.
Employment Development Department. 2023. Current Month Unemployment Rate and Labor Force
Summary – Cities and Sub-County Places. Available at
https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/unemployment-and-labor-
force.html#collapseUno.
Southern California Association of Governments. 2001. Employment Density Study Summary Report.
Page 4. Yorba Linda, CA: The Natelson Company, Inc.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 5-6 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
This page intentionally left blank.
6.0
Alternatives
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-1 6.0 | Alternatives
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs)
“describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which would
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of
the significant effects of the Project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” (State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6). The State CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR include sufficient information
about each Alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the Project. If an
alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the
Project as proposed, the significant effects of the Alternative must be discussed, but these effects may be
discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the Project as proposed (CCR Section 15126.6[d]).
The EIR is not required to consider every conceivable Alternative to a project but is guided by a rule of
reason. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. Section 15126.6[d]) states that
the EIR must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed
decision making and public participation. Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines on alternatives
(Section 15126.6(a) through (f)) are summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements
for the Alternative’s analysis in the Draft EIR.
• “The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location which are
capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be
more costly” (Section 15126.6(b)).
• “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact” (Section
15126.6(e)(1)). “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice
of Preparation (NOP) is published, or if no Notice of Preparation was published, at the time the
environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in
the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent
with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior Alternative
is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative
among the other alternatives” (Section 15126.6(e)(2)).
• “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that require an EIR
to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall
be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
Project” (Section 15126.6(f)).
• “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives
are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency,
other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally
significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can
reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already
owned by the proponent)” (Section 15126.6(f)(1)).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-2 6.0 | Alternatives
• For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the Project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR”
(Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A)).
• “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and
whose implementation is remote and speculative” (Section 15126.6(f)(3)).
6.2 Range of Alternatives
The lead agency is responsible for selecting this range of project alternatives for examination and must
publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. This section describes four alternatives to
the Project. These alternatives include the No Project Alternative, Drop Lot/Trailer Storage Alternative,
Reduced Footprint Alternative, and Alternative Site Alternative. The four alternatives are discussed in
more detail below.
Alternatives were developed based on information provided by the Project Applicant. Among the factors
that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives, as described in Section
15126.6(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, are environm ental impacts, site suitability, economic viability,
availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries,
and whether the Project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an
alternative site.
As discussed above, one of the main purposes of the range of alternatives is to discuss different projects
that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening significant effects, especially effects that are found
to be significant and unavoidable. In the case of the Project, as discussed throughout Section 4.0:
Environmental Impact Analysis, there would be no significant and unavoidable Project impacts.
The CEQA Guidelines do not require an EIR to consider every plausible alternative to a project, but rather
must examine in detail only the ones which the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the
basic project objectives. An EIR also does not need to consider alternatives whose effects cannot be
reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. If t he lead agency
determines no alternative projects or locations are feasible, it must disclose the reasons for this
conclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). The alternatives that were selected for additional
consideration were chosen in accordance with the above-listed CEQA Guidelines, represent a reasonable
range of alternatives, and will encourage discussion in a manner to foster meaningful public participation
and informed decision making.
6.3 Project Objectives
As discussed above, one of the evaluation criteria for the alternative discussion is the ability of a specific
alternative to attain most of the basic Project objectives. The basic Project objectives are listed in
Section 3.0: Project Description are as follows:
Objective 1: Implement the City of Fontana’s desire to create a revenue generating use, which
generates limited demands on City public services and that capitalizes on nearby
transportation corridors and truck routes, stimulates employment, and responds to
current market opportunities.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-3 6.0 | Alternatives
Objective 2: Revitalize a section of the City with new industrial use(s) that continue to expand the
City’s production capacity.
Objective 3: Provide infrastructure and landscaping improvements to Sierra Avenue and Mango
Avenue vicinity to enhance aesthetics as well as improve safety and traffic flow.
Objective 4: Facilitate goods movement for the benefit of local and regional economic growth.
Objective 5: Provide new state-of-the-art development that will generate a positive fiscal balance
increasing the City tax base and a potential for added point of sale tax base for the City
moving forward.
Objective 6: Provide additional temporary and permanent employment opportunities while improving
the local balance of housing and jobs.
6.4 Criteria for Selecting Alternatives
Per Section 15126.6 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on
alternatives to a project, or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening significant
impacts of a project, even if the alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project
objectives or would be more costly. This alternatives analysis, therefore, focuses on project alternatives
that could avoid or substantially lessen environmental impacts of the Project related to the environmental
categories listed in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines while meeting the Project’s objectives.
Comments received during the NOP process included issues related to air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, landfill proximity, increased vehicle traffic, warehouse intensity, public safety, and roadway
safety. While all of these considerations are addressed throughout this DEIR and in the respective
chapters, they also were considered to develop the reasonable range of alternatives and to address the
concerns. Due to Project site characteristics, a reduction in building size is considered as an alternative for
the Project, however further modifications to the Project site were deemed infeasible to due development
code constraints.
Three alternatives were carried forward, including the No Project Alternative. These alternatives are
described in Section 6.7: Comparison of Project Alternatives. The following subsection (Section 6.5:
Alternatives Considered but Rejected), describes the Alternative Sites Alternative that was considered,
but rejected, and provides reasoning for not carrying this Alternative forward for evaluation in this EIR.
6.5 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) states that an EIR should identify any alternatives that were
considered by the lead agency but rejected because the Alternative would be infeasible, fail to meet most
of the basic project objectives, or unable to avoid significant environmental impacts. Further, an EIR may
consider an alternative location for the proposed project but is only required to do so if significant project
effects would be avoided or substantially lessened by moving the project to another site and if the project
proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-4 6.0 | Alternatives
Alternative Site Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A) notes the following concerning alternative project locations:
• The key question and first step in (alternative location) analysis is whether any of the significant
effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another
location. Only locations that would avoid or substantia lly lessen any of the significant effects of
the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) requires consideration of an Alternative Site that the Project
Applicant would be reasonably able to acquire, control, or gain access to develop. The CEQA
Guidelines section also posits that the alternative location chosen should substantially reduce or
avoid potential environmental impacts. In the case of the proposed Project, an alternative site is
not considered applicable or feasible, as the Project Applicant does not control other
undeveloped property of similar size within the City or in the immediate area. Additionally, there
are very few remaining developable sites in the City that are approximately commensurate in size
to the Project. Further, due to the lack of significant environmental impacts identified during
Project analysis, an alternative site would not be likely to substantially reduce any potential
impact created by Project implementation. For the above reasons, the Alternative Site Alternative
was rejected from further consideration and is not discussed further.
6.6 Alternatives to the Project Selected for Analysis
The three analyzed alternatives present a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. The analysis in
this section focuses on significant and unavoidable impacts attributable to each Alternative and the ability
of each Alternative to meet basic Project objectives.
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The “No Project” Alternative (Alternative 1) allows decision-makers the ability to compare the impacts of
approving the Project with impacts of not approving the Project by leaving the Project site in its existing
condition.
Alternative 2: Drop Lot/Trailer Storage Alternative
The Drop Lot/Trailer Storage Alternative (Alternative 2) would utilize the Project site for drop lot and
trailer storage, in lieu of the proposed warehouse use.
Alternative 3: Reduced Footprint Alternative
The “Reduced Building Footprint” Alternative (Alternative 3) presents a project variation in which the
proposed warehouse building would be developed at a smaller scale (approximately 298,886 square feet,
or a 25 percent reduction in square footage when compared to the Project) and would be further
distanced from Sierra Avenue. Other components of the Project would remain as feasible.
6.7 Comparison of Project Alternatives
Per the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), additional significant effects of the alternatives are
discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the Project as proposed. For each Alternative, the
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-5 6.0 | Alternatives
analysis below describes each Alternative, analyzes the impacts of the Alternative as compared to the
Project, identifies significant impacts of the Project that would be avoided or lessened by the Alternative,
assesses the Alternative’s ability to meet most of the Project objectives, and evaluates the comparative
merits of the Alternative and the Project. The following sections provide a comparison of the
environmental impacts associated with each of the Project alternatives, as well as an evaluation of ea ch
Project alternative to meet the Project objectives.
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative (No Project -Related Development)
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, requires an evaluation of the “No Project” alternative for
decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving a project with the impacts of not approving it.
Alternative 1 assumes that the 398,514 square foot Project would not be developed, which means there
would be no warehousing facility, landscape improvements, or surface lot improvements developed on
the Project site.
The Project site is bound to the west by Sierra Avenue, to the east by Mango Avenue, and Windflower
Avenue enters the Project site from Sierra Avenue. The Project site is presently developed with four
commercial/industrial buildings ranging from 5,000 to 2 5,000 square feet in size. The northwestern
quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a wooden pallet facility. The northeastern
quadrant is developed with one building and is utilized as a carnival attraction repair facility with truck
trailer parking. The southwestern quadrant is developed with one building and open -graded gravel
pavements and is utilized for truck trailer storage. The southeastern quadrant is developed with one
building and is utilized as a storage facility. The existing buildings are single-story, metal-framed structures
and are assumed to be supported on conventional shallow foundations with concrete slab -on-grade
floors. Ground surface cover consists mainly of open graded gravel and exposed soil, with AC or PCC
pavements surrounding the buildings. Little to no vegetation exists on site. Few large trees are present
between the northwest and northeast quadrants.
Although this Alternative assumes “No Development” (as required by CEQA), this is considered a
speculative assumption as the land is assumed to remain in private ownership (as there are no offers to
purchase the land for public open space use). It is more likely that, eventually, the land would be
developed with some form of industrial development in keeping with the City’s General Plan land use
designation and zoning.
Alternative 1 Impact Comparison to the Project
Alternative 1 would avoid all potential significant impacts that could occur from Project construction and
operation as, by definition, it assumes that no development would occur and therefore no grading,
construction or operational traffic and related impacts such as air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and
transportation would occur. The lack of significant impacts associated with Alternative 1 would also
remove the significant impacts initially identified for the Project. As there were no significant and
unavoidable Impacts associated with development of the Project, Alternative 1 would not remove any
significant or unavoidable effects.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-6 6.0 | Alternatives
Aesthetics
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to aesthetics in relation to the proposed Project.
Under Alternative 1, the warehouse site would remain in its current developed state. However, as
previously discussed, the land use designation and zoning for the Project site is industrial, and as such,
those uses could be developed on the site in the future. Until such time though, this Alternative assumes
that the Project site would remain developed with the existing industrial buildings, outdoor storage, and
paved asphalt areas. However, the proposed Project is for a new state of the art building with enhanced
landscaping, and site improvements. This Alternative would be inferior when compared to the proposed
Project.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to agriculture and forestry resources in relation to
the proposed Project. Furthermore, no impact was anticipated to each of the impact discussions.
Alternative 1 would continue current uses of the site, which does include agricultural, or forestry uses.
Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar when compared to the proposed Project. This
Alternative would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the proposed Project
Air Quality
Short-term air quality impacts from grading and construction activities associated with the Project would
not occur with Alternative 1, as no land uses would be disturbed, and the Project’s proposed warehouse
and associated parking and landscaping would not be constructed. The Project’s construction-related
emissions, which would be less than significant with mitigation measures and requirements incorporated,
would be avoided.
Operational emissions from the Project would be associated with area sources, energy sources, mobile
sources, and off-road emissions. Operational emissions associated with this Project would be less than
significant. Operational impacts associated with the existing commercial/ industrial uses would remain
and would continue to disturb the natural, pervious surface. Operational emissions of the existing use
would be less than that of the Project.
Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding air quality impacts, as no
increase in short and long-term emissions associated with the Project would occur.
Biological Resources
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to biological resources in relation to the proposed
Project. Without mitigation, the Project was anticipated to generate significant impacts related to the
disturbance of bird nests as a result of construction-related activities. These effects were reduced to less
than significant with the application of mitigation measures. No construction activities are anticipated
under Alternative 1, which means Alternative 1 would be less likely to disturb birds’ nests. Therefore,
impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project. This alternative is
environmentally superior to the proposed Project.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-7 6.0 | Alternatives
Cultural Resources
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to cultural resources in relation to the proposed
Project. The proposed Project was found to generate significant impacts due to the potential presence of
unknown culturally significant resources. These resources may be encountered during construction
activities and therefore would remain significant without mitigation. However, mitigation geared towards
best practices upon identification of resources would be implemented; effectively reducing impacts to
less than significant levels. Alternative 1 would not include construction activities which would potentially
aggravate cultural resources. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to
the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project.
Energy
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to energy resources in relation to the proposed
Project. Under Alternative 1, the Project would not be developed. The Project site is currently developed
with light industrial uses and storage yards. As such, energy consumption currently exists on the site.
However, energy usage on the site currently would be similarly impactful to the proposed Project.
Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar when compared to the proposed Project.
Therefore, this alternative is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Geology and Soils
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to geological or soil resources in relation to the
proposed Project. The Project was not found to generate significant impacts to geology and soil resources
and was not found to require mitigation. Potential impacts to geological and soil resources or associated
hazards due to Project implementation were largely correlated to the construction activities which would
occur on the Project site. However, construction and demolition activities included in Project
development would be forgone in Alternative 1 and would therefore further reduce potential
exasperation of soil features. The site would continue to operate as it is currently, and ground moving
activities would not be implemented. No impact to geological resources would occur. Therefore, impacts
under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is
environmentally superior to the proposed Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to GHG resources in relation to the proposed
Project. The Project was also analyzed to produce GHG emissions that were within SCAQMD thresholds.
Under Alternative 1, any new emissions that would have been generated by the Project would no longer
apply, and the site would continue to function as it does currently. However, because the site is currently
developed and active for light industrial uses, GHG emissions are currently generated on site. These
emissions were similarly not identified as exceeding SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts under this
alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is
environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-8 6.0 | Alternatives
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified due to hazards or hazardous materials in relation
to the proposed Project. The proposed Project was found to generate significant impacts due to the
potential for accidental exposure to harmful hazardous materials. These impacts were associated with
encounters that may occur during construction of the Project. These impacts were mitigated to less than
significant levels through the application of Best Practices for site reconnaissance and materials removal.
Under Alternative 1, the site would continue to operate with the existing uses and would not conduct
construction activities. Construction hazards would therefore be removed. Therefore, impacts under this
alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is
environmentally superior to the proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to hydrology and water quality in relation to the
proposed Project. Alternative 1 would continue existing commercial/industrial operations on-site and
would not result in the improvement of water quality through infrastructure improvements as proposed
by the Project. This Alternative would not alter or substantially change current hydrologic conditions when
compared to the development of the Project components nor increase the rate of stormwater runoff that
would negatively affect the water quality. In addition, Alternative 1 would eliminate the need to seek
discretionary permits such as the SWQMP as listed in Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality.
However, these impacts were found to be less than significant in the Project, regardless. Therefore,
impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project. Therefore, this
alternative is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Land Use and Planning
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to land use or planning regulations in relation to
the proposed Project. Under Alternative 1, the Project site would retain the Project site in its condition,
and as such, existing uses would be maintained, and no warehousing and associated Project components
would be developed. The current uses as well as the Project are consistent with the current General Plan
land use designation and zoning, and as such, either condition would be consistent with this designation.
Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project. Therefore,
this alternative is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Mineral Resources
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to mineral resources in relation to the proposed
Project. Furthermore, no impact was anticipated to each of the impact discussions. Alternative 1 would
continue current uses of the site, which does not include mineral extraction or protection uses. Therefore,
impacts under this alternative would be similar when compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this
alternative is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Noise
The Project’s construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant. The Project’s operation-
related vibration impacts are also anticipated to be less than significant. The Project’s construction-related
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-9 6.0 | Alternatives
noise and vibration impacts would not occur with Alternative 1 as no warehouse would be constructed.
Therefore, the construction-related noise and vibration impacts that would occur with the Project would
be avoided with this Alternative.
Implementation of the Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity. Operational noise
generated by the Project would not exceed City standards, and therefore have a less than significant
impact on sensitive receptors. Once operational, the Project would be a source of ground-borne vibration;
however, the impact would be less than significant. Noise and vibration impacts associated with the
existing use would continue, although at a duration and occasion less than that of the Project.
Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding noise and vibration. The short-
term construction-related or long-term operational vehicular noise level and vibration increases
associated with the Project would not occur.
Population and Housing
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified due to population and housing dynamics in
relation to the proposed Project. The Project was not anticipated to generate a significant increase to the
City’s population or require the development of additional housing. Under Alternative 1 construction-
related employment would not be introduced to the City. However, due to the site’s developed state and
active uses, employment would remain. Neither circumstance would require the relocation of housing or
the development of new housing. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar when
compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally equivalent to the
proposed Project.
Public Services
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified due to public services in relation to the proposed
Project. Under Alternative 1, no warehouse or associated improvements would be developed, and as such,
no new Development Impact Fees would be paid to the City of Fontana for various City services.
Additionally, because the Project site is currently developed and in use, there would not be an increased
need for police and fire services to account for the lack of new development. Therefore, this alternative
is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Recreation
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to recreational resources in relation to the
proposed Project. Furthermore, it was concluded that the Project would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Alternative 1 would continue current uses of
the site, which includes light industrial and non-recreational uses. Therefore, impacts under this
alternative would be similar when compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is
environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-10 6.0 | Alternatives
Transportation
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to transportation resources in relation to the
proposed Project. The Project was estimated to generate fewer than 50 additional PCE trips upon its
implementation compared to existing uses. Additionally, the Project was screened from VMT analysis due
to a low trip count (approximately 102 additional trips compared to existing trips). Infrastructure
improvements proposed for the Project included the dedication of 34 feet of right-of-way (ROW) for
Mango Avenue. Within that 34-foot ROW, half width improvements would be conducted along
southbound Mango Avenue where it runs adjacent to the Project site. The Project would also provide
bicycle parking spaces.
Under Alternative 1, site specific trips would remain at their current levels, removing the additional trips
associated with Project implementation. However, roadway and pedestrian improvements would not be
implemented as proposed by the Project. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar when
compared to the proposed Project. This alternative is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to tribal cultural resources in relation to the
proposed Project. The Cultural Resource Assessment conducted for the Project site did not identify any
Native American archaeological resources on or within the vicinity of the Project site. However, there is a
potential for unknown buried archaeological resources that qualify as TCRs to be encountered during
Project-related ground-disturbing activities. Under Alternative 1, the site would continue its current uses
and would not conduct ground moving activities. Alternative 1 would not involve the construction of uses
that could potentially disturb tribal cultural resources. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be
reduced when compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally superior
to the proposed Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to utility resources in relation to the proposed
Project. Given the Project’s scope and nature (i.e., warehouse construction and landscape maintenance),
Project operations would create a demand for water, and increase wastewater or solid or waste
generation. Alternative 1 would, however, retain the Project site in its current developed and in-use
condition. Under Alternative 1, utilities and service system demand that would occur during Project
construction would not occur. Utility demand would remain consistent as no new uses would be
developed. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be reduced when compared to the proposed
Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project.
Wildfire
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified due to wildfire hazards in relation to the proposed
Project. Due to the existing urbanized setting of the Project site, wildfire risk is determined to be minimal.
Additionally, roadways improvements proposed for Mango Avenue would increase accessibility to the
Project site and reduce wildfire-related hazards. Under Alternative 1, the Project site would continue with
its current light industrial uses. However, planned roadways improvements would not occur which could
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-11 6.0 | Alternatives
alleviate potential hazards. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to those found for
the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Under Alternative 1, the site would remain in its existing uses and would therefore not meet any of the
Project objectives including: (1) Implementing the City of Fontana’s desire to create a revenue generating
use, which generates limited demands on City public services and that capitalizes on nearby
transportation corridors and truck routes, stimulates employment, and responds to current market
opportunities; (2) Revitalize a section of the City with new industrial use(s) that continue to expand the
City’s production capacity; (3) Provide infrastructure and landscaping improvements to Sierra Avenue and
Mango Avenue vicinity to enhance aesthetics as well as improve safety and traffic flow ; (4) Facilitate goods
movement for the benefit of local and regional economic growth; (5) Provide new state-of-the-art
development that will generate a positive fiscal balance increasing the City tax base and a potential for
added point of sale tax base for the City moving forward; and (6) Provide additional temporary and
permanent employment opportunities while improving the local balance of housing and jobs.
Alternative 2: Drop Lot/Trailer Parking Alternative
Alternative 2 assumes the proposed warehouse space would not be constructed and instead, the site
would be utilized for a drop lot/trailer parking lot. Alternative 2 would accommodate approximately 592
trailer stalls. The main entrance would continue to be via Mango Avenue. Truck access would continue to
be prohibited from Sierra Avenue, with sole truck access being from Mango Avenue. In the southeast
corner of the Alternative 2, a guard shack and automobile parking would be provided. Drive aisles would
range in width from 75 to 100 feet wide. Landscaping would be provided along street frontages. Any off-
site improvements associated with the proposed Project would remain consistent with the Alternative.
Alternative 2 Impact Comparison to the Project
Alternative 2 assumes the proposed warehouse space would not be constructed in its original location
and instead, the site would be utilized for drop lot/trailer parking lot consisting of 592 trailer parking stalls.
The major change between the proposed Project and Alternative 2 would be that Alternative 2 would
reduce long-term impacts to scenic views, and utilities and public services. Other resource areas such as
traffic, air quality, GHG, and noise among others would have a similar or greater impact from
implementation of Alternative 2.
Aesthetics
Alternative 2 would eliminate impacts on scenic views as no warehouse would be developed. However,
similar to the proposed Project, the general grading activities for the whole site would be similar to the
Project. When compared to the proposed Project, aesthetics impacts associated with Alternative 2 would
be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding long-term aesthetic impacts,
and a similar impact on site grading activities.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-12 6.0 | Alternatives
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
No significant and unavoidable impacts to agriculture and forestry resources were identified in relation to
the proposed Project. As previously stated, no impact was anticipated to each of the impact discussions.
Alternative 2 would include the development of drop lot/trailer parking uses to the site. No warehouse
site would be developed under this Alternative. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar
compared to those found for the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally
equivalent to the proposed Project.
Air Quality
Alternative 2 would construct and utilize the site as an auto/truck/trailer parking yard. With that,
Alternative 2 would result in less emissions in the construction stage when compared to the proposed
Project. The capacity of the parking yard in Alternative 2 would be greater than that of the proposed
Project, providing 592 trailer parking stalls. As such, the vehicular traffic generated from the proposed
Project is anticipated to be higher under Alternative 2 with the increase in coverage utilized for additional
parking and vehicular use. Because the traffic generated under Alternative 2 would be higher than the
proposed Project, the emissions generated from Alternative 2 would also be greater, worsening the
impact. As such, the proposed Project would have reduced emissions.
Alternative 2 would be environmentally inferior to the Project regarding air quality impacts because of
the increase in traffic that would occur under this Alternative. As a such, a higher intensity in air quality
impacts would occur from Alternative 2.
Biological Resources
Both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would disturb the same footprint for construction, and as
such, would result in similar biological resource impacts. As with the proposed Project, mitigation would
be required to reduce biological resource impacts to a level of less than significant. As such, similar impacts
would occur with implementation of Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would be an environmentally equivalent alternative compared to the Project regarding
biological resources, as the same habitat, plant or wildlife species would be modified or impacted.
Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would disturb the same footprint for construction, and as such,
would result in similar cultural resource impacts. As with the proposed Project, implementation of
MM CUL-1 and TCR-3 would be required to reduce cultural resource impacts to a level of less than
significant. As such, similar impacts would occur with implementation of Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would be an environmentally equivalent alternative compared to the Project regarding
cultural resources, as the same footprint would be modified or impacted.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-13 6.0 | Alternatives
Energy
Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would require energy during both the construction and operations
phases of the Project, although Alternative 2 would require less energy for site development when
compared to the proposed Project due to the development as an auto/truck/trailer parking yard.
However, Alternative 2 would generate more traffic than the proposed Project and is anticipated to
expend higher amounts of fuel/diesel. Therefore, it is assumed that Alternative 2 would require more
energy than the proposed Project in the long term. As such, Alternative 2 would be environmentally
inferior to the Project regarding energy impacts.
Geology and Soils
Both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would disturb the same footprint for construction, and as
such, would result in similar geology and soils impacts. As with the proposed Project, mitigation would be
required to reduce geology and soils impacts to a level of less than significant. As such, similar impacts
would occur with implementation of Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding geological, soils, and
paleontological resources. The exposure of people to seismic, geologic, and soil hazards under this
Alternative would be equivalent to the Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No significant and unavoidable impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions were identified in relation to the
proposed Project. Further, the Project was found to generate GHG emissions at levels below SCAQMD
thresholds. Alternative 2 would likely increase emissions in the long-term due to the increased capacity
for trucks. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be environmentally inferior to the Project regarding GHG
emissions.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact in this regard with mitigation incorporated.
Alternative 2 would disturb the same footprint as the proposed Project, and as such, would also result in
less than significant impacts similar to the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, mitigation
measures MMs HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would be required to further reduce hazards impacts to a level of
less than significant.
Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding hazards and hazardous
materials since the same ground disturbing activities would occur.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would disturb the same footprint for construction, and as such,
would result in similar hydrologic and water quality impacts. As such, similar impacts would occur with
implementation of the Alternative 2.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-14 6.0 | Alternatives
Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding hydrology and water quality,
since although lower, an increase in stormwater capacity would occur and impervious surfaces would
increase.
Land Use and Planning
No significant and unavoidable impacts due to land use and planning were identified in relation to the
proposed Project. However, Alternative 2 would not be consistent with and the zoning permitted uses for
the Project site. According to the City Zoning and Development Code, truck and trailer storage is not a
permitted use within the industrial zoning district in which the site is located.1 Therefore, impacts under
this alternative would be greater compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is
environmentally inferior to the proposed Project.
Mineral Resources
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to mineral resources in relation to the proposed
Project. Furthermore, no impact was anticipated to each of the impact discussions. Alternative 2 would
develop the site for auto/truck/trailer parking yard, which does not include mineral extraction or
protection uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be equivalent when compared to the
proposed Project.
Noise
Both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would generate noise and vibration during both the
construction and operations phases of the Project. Alternative 2 would have a shorter construction
timeframe since auto/truck/trailer parking yard would be developed in place of warehousing, and as such,
a reduced short-term construction noise impact. However, because Alternative 2 would include an
increased amount of traffic compared to the proposed Project, it is anticipated that Alternative 2 would
have a greater long-term operational traffic related noise impact. Because the proposed Project would
have a greater short-term construction noise impact and Alternative 2 would have a greater long-term
operational noise impact, it is assumed that Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would have a
comparable noise impact.
Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding noise and vibration, because
the short-term construction-related or long-term operational vehicular noise level and vibration increases
associated with the Project, although lower, would remain similar to the proposed Project.
Population and Housing
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified due to population and housing dynamics in
relation to the proposed Project. The Project was not anticipated to generate a significant increase to the
City’s population or require the development of additional housing. Under Alternative 2 construction-
related employment would not be introduced to the City. However, due to the site’s developed state and
active uses, employment would remain. Neither circumstance would require the relocation of housing or
1 City of Fontana. ND. Chapter 30 – Zoning and Development Code, Article VII. Industrial Zoning Districts.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=CH30ZODECO_ARTVIIINZODI . (accessed July 2023).
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-15 6.0 | Alternatives
the development of new housing. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar when
compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally equivalent to the
proposed Project.
Public Services
The need for public services is anticipated to be greater under the proposed Project than under
Alternative 2, because Alternative 2 would only develop the site for auto/truck/trailer parking yard. As
such, less need for public services for police, fire, schools, and other facilities would be necessary. Both
alternatives would require the Project applicant to pay any applicable DIFs. In this regard, Alternative 2 is
anticipated to generate less impacts to public services.
Therefore, the Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior when compared to the proposed Project.
Recreation
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to recreational resources in relation to the
proposed Project. Furthermore, it was concluded that the Project would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreationa l facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Alternative 2 would develop an
auto/truck/trailer parking yard. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar when
compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally equivalent to the
proposed Project.
Transportation
The Project would have a less than significant impact on transportation as it relates to a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities. Additionally, the Project would not have an impact or conflict with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3.
Alternative 2 would provide a different site use, which includes an auto/truck/trailer parking yard. There
would be a greater number of vehicles and trucks associated with Alternative 2. As such, it is assumed
that Alternative 2 would create a greater impact as it relates to traffic, and indirectly on, air quality and
GHG. It is assumed that Alternative 2 would have a greater impact than the proposed Project as the
trailer/auto parking lot could generate increased traffic and emissions for the site and surrounding area.
Alternative 2 would be environmentally inferior to the proposed Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources
The proposed Project would cause a less than significant impact to tribal cultural resources with mitigation
measures. Implementation of TCR-1 through TCR-3 would further reduce the potential of impacts to tribal
cultural resources. Alternative 2 would disturb the same footprint and as such has the same potential to
unearth tribal cultural resources. Because Alternative 2 would develop the same footprint, it is assumed
that the parking lot area would require shallower grading than the proposed Project. As s uch, it is
concluded that Alternative 2 could result in less chances that resources are uncovered compared to the
site’s development under the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the
Project regarding tribal cultural resources.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-16 6.0 | Alternatives
Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 2 would result in fewer utility and service system related impacts compared to the proposed
Project. Although temporary increases in utility demands from construction activities would be necessary,
Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding impacts to utilities and service
systems in the long-term because the proposed auto/truck/trailer parking yard would require less utilities
for maintenance and functionality than the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 2 would be
environmentally superior alternative.
Wildfire
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified due to wildfire hazards in relation to the proposed
Project. Due to the existing urbanized setting of the Project site, wildfire risk is determined to be minimal.
Additionally, roadways improvements proposed for Mango Avenue would increase accessibility to the
Project site and reduce wildfire-related hazards. Under Alternative 2, the Project site would be developed
for auto/truck/trailer parking yard uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to
those found for the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally equivalent to the
proposed Project.
Ability to Meet Objectives
Alternative 2 would be slightly less construction intensive, but has the potential to be more traffic
intensive and thus generate more air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation
impacts than the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would not meet any of the Project objectives.
Alternative 2 would not maximize the City’s benefit when compared to the proposed Project utilizing one
of the remaining industrial zoned large sites for trailer/auto parking lot.
Alternative 3: Reduced Building Footprint (25 Percent Reduction)
Alternative 3 would entail the development of a single warehouse building at a smaller square footage
than what was proposed for the Project. The Alternative would involve the development of a 298,886
square foot warehousing building which would include approximately 7,500 square feet of office space.
Modifications would occur to multiple on-site features such as parking, landscaping, and setbacks. i
summarizes the similarities and differences between the Project design features and Alternative 3’s
design features.
Table 6-1: Alternative 3 Design Comparison
Feature Project Alternative 3
Net Site Area 18.30 ac; 797,033 sf 18.30 ac; 797,033 sf
Warehouse Building Area 388,514 sf 291,386 sf
Office Building Area 10,000 sf 7,500 sf
Total Building Area 398,514 sf 298,886 sf
Lot Coverage 50% 38%
Building Height 75’ 75’
Auto Parking Provided 125 stalls 94 stalls
Truck Trailer Parking Provided 118 stalls 89 stalls
Floor Area Ratio 0.500 0.375
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-17 6.0 | Alternatives
Feature Project Alternative 3
Sierra Avenue Setback: 25’ 25’
Mango Avenue Setback: 20’ 20’
Rear/Interior Setbacks: 5’ 5’
Abutting R or C-1 Zone 10’ 10’
Landscape Area 21.4%; 85,181 sf 21.4%; 63,886 sf
Notes:
ac = acre
sf = square foot
Off-site improvements to the adjacent roadway of Mango Avenue would remain consistent with the
Project.
Alternative 3 Impact Comparison to the Project
Alternative 3 would minimize impacts related to the scale of the Project. Therefore, environmental impact
areas such as aesthetics, energy, utilities and service systems, and wildfire hazards may see a nominal
improvement regarding potential impact significance. However, these resource areas are anticipated to
have a less than significant impact under the Project. An evaluation of the impacts associated with the
development of Alternative 3 (Reduced Building Intensity) are described below.
Aesthetics
No significant and unavoidable impacts due to aesthetic resources were identified in relation to the
proposed Project. The same general aesthetics impacts would occur with the Reduced Building Footprint
when compared to the Project. Although the building footprint would be reduced by 25 percent with this
Alternative, the same general mass and scale of the site would be the same. The main difference would
be in the increased buffer of building intensity adjacent to Sierra Avenue, with the warehousing buildin g
further setback from the roadway. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to those
found for the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally equivalent to the proposed
Project.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
No significant and unavoidable impacts to agriculture and forestry resources were identified in relation to
the proposed Project. As previously stated, no impact was anticipated to each of the impact discussions.
Alternative 3 would include the development of similar warehouse uses to those proposed by the Project
in the same site. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to those found for the
proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Air Quality
No significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality were identified in relation to the proposed Project.
As previously stated, the Project would exceed construction-based ROG generation. However, this would
be mitigated to less than significant levels. The Project not would conflict with established air quality plans
for the region and pollutant generation. The Project would not 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 with implementation of mitigation.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-18 6.0 | Alternatives
Alternative 3 proposes the same warehousing land use as the Project although the warehousing building
space would be reduced by 99,628 square feet for Alternative 3. Presumably, this would reduce potential
operational emissions through the reduced building area. However, the majority of operational emissions
stemmed from mobile sources such as vehicles and construction equipment. The vehicular traffic
generated from the Project is not anticipated to be significantly reduced under Alternative 3. Operations
of Alternative 3 is expected to be similar to the Project. Although under Alternative 3 that proposed uses
would be reduced by 25 percent, because the site’s use would not be greatly reduced under Alternative 3.
Alternative 3 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding air quality impacts because a
slight decrease in construction and traffic would occur and as a much less intense air quality impact would
occur from Alternative 3.
Biological Resources
No significant and unavoidable impacts to biological resources were identified in relation to the proposed
Project. Both the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative and the Project would disturb the same footprint
for construction because the reduced building footprint is still affecting the same amount of site; no
portion will remain undeveloped, and existing uses are already disturbed. As such, would result in similar
biological resource impacts. As with the Project, mitigation measures would be required t o reduce
biological resource impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, impacts under this alternative
would be similar to those found for the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally
equivalent to the proposed Project.
Cultural Resources
No significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources were identified in relation to the proposed
Project. As explained above, both the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative and the Project would
disturb the same footprint for construction, and as such, would result in similar cultural resource impacts.
As with the Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce cultural resource impacts to a level
of less than significant. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to those found for the
proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Energy
No significant and unavoidable impacts to energy resources were identified in relation to the proposed
Project. Alternative 3 and the proposed Project would require energy during both the construction and
operations phases of the Project, although Alternative 3 would result in less energy usage due to less
building square footage and increased landscaping. When compared to the proposed Project, Alternative
3 would result in fewer energy-related impacts than the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 3 would
be environmentally superior to the Project regarding energy impacts, as a decrease in energy
consumption would occur compared to the proposed Project.
Geology and Soils
No significant and unavoidable impacts to geologic and soil resources were identified in relation to the
proposed Project. Potential impacts to geological and soil resources or associated hazards due to Project
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-19 6.0 | Alternatives
implementation were largely correlated to the construction activities which would occur on the Project
site. Although the building footprint would be smaller in Alternative 3, ground clearing activities would
still include the footprint assessed in the Project. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be
similar to those found for the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally equivalent
to the proposed Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No significant and unavoidable impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions were identified in relation to the
proposed Project. Further, the Project was found to generate GHG emissions at levels below SCAQMD
thresholds. Alternative 3 would likely reduce emissions impacts through a reduction in energy use in a
smaller space. With a reduction in energy use emissions, the mobile source emissions associated with
vehicular travel would be reduced compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would
generate fewer GHG emissions.
Alternative 3 would be environmentally superior compared to the Project regarding GHG emissions
because it will reduce the energy need. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be less than those
found for the proposed Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
No significant and unavoidable impacts due to hazards and hazardous materials were identified in relation
to the proposed Project. Both the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative and the Project would disturb
the same footprint for construction, and as such, would result in similar hazards impacts. As with the
Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce hazards impacts to a level of less than
significant. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to those found for the proposed
Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
No significant and unavoidable impacts due to hydrology and water quality were identified in relation to
the proposed Project. As explained above, both the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative and the
Project would disturb the same footprint for construction, and as such, would result in similar hydrology
and water quality impacts. The Project was not found to require mitigation to reduce impacts to less than
significant levels. This would remain consistent with this alternative. Therefore, impacts under this
alternative would be similar to those found for the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is
environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Land Use and Planning
No significant and unavoidable impacts due to land use and planning were identified in relation to the
proposed Project. Both the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative and the Project would be consistent
with both the General Plan land use designation and zoning for the Project site. Therefore, impacts under
this alternative would be similar to those found for the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is
environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-20 6.0 | Alternatives
Mineral Resources
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to mineral resources in relation to the proposed
Project. Furthermore, no impact was anticipated to each of the impact discussions. The Reduced Building
Footprint Alternative would develop similar uses on the Project site, which does not include mineral
extraction or protection uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar when compared
to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Noise
No significant and unavoidable impacts due to noise were identified in relation to the proposed Project.
Both the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative and the Project would generate noise during both the
construction and operations phases of the Project. When compared to the Project, the Reduced Building
Footprint Alternative would result in similar noise-related impacts than the Project. Therefore, impacts
under this alternative would be similar to those found for the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative
is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Population and Housing
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified due to population and housing dynamics in
relation to the proposed Project. The Project was not anticipated to generate a significant increase to the
City’s population or require the development of additional housing. Under Alternative 3 construction-
related employment would be introduced to the City. However, it would not require the relocation of
housing or the development of new housing. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar
when compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally equivalent to the
proposed Project.
Public Services
No significant and unavoidable impacts to public services were identified in relation to the proposed
Project. Both the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative and the Project would require additional public
service needs, although the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative would require less public service
needs when compared to the Project given the reduction in size. When compared to the Project, the
Reduced Building Footprint Alternative would result in fewer public service-related impacts than the
Project; however, it is anticipated these reductions would be nominal. Therefore, impacts under this
alternative would be similar to those found for the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is
environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Recreation
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified to recreational resources in relation to the
proposed Project. As previously stated, it was concluded that the Project would not increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The Reduced Building Footprint Alternative
would develop the site similarly to those proposed Project. Therefore, impacts under this alternative
would be similar when compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally
equivalent to the proposed Project.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-21 6.0 | Alternatives
Transportation
No significant and unavoidable impacts due to transportation effects were identified in relation to the
proposed Project. As stated previously, the Project was estimated to generate fewer than 50 additional
PCE trips upon its implementation compared to existing uses. Additionally, the Project was screened from
VMT analysis due to a low trip count (approximately 102 additional trips compared to existing trips).
Because the proposed Project was found to not have an impact on transportation and because
Alternative 3 would further reduce the overall Project footprint by 25 percent, it is assumed that
Alternative 3 would have a lesser impact than the proposed Project. Alternative 3 would be
environmentally superior compared to the proposed Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources
No significant and unavoidable impacts to tribal cultural resources were identified in relation to the
proposed Project. Both the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative and the Project would disturb the same
footprint for construction, and as such, would result in similar tribal cultural resource impacts. Therefore,
impacts under this alternative would be similar to those found for the proposed Project. Therefore, this
alternative is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
No significant and unavoidable impacts to utilities and service systems were identified in relation to the
proposed Project. Both the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative and the Project would require
additional utilities and service system’s needs, although the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative would
require approximately 25 percent less utility needs when compared to the Project given the reduction in
size. When compared to the Project, the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative would result in fewer
utility and service system impacts related impacts than the Project; however, it is anticipated these
reductions would be nominal and would remain with a designation of less than significant. Therefore,
impacts under this alternative would be similar to those found for the proposed Project. Therefore, this
alternative is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Wildfire
No significant and unavoidable impacts due to wildfire hazards were identified in relation to the proposed
Project. Both the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative and the Project would disturb the same footprint
for construction, and as such, would result in similar wildfire impacts. As with the Project, development
of the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative would include fire suppression methods that would reduce
the potential for fire as well as roadway improvements to increase emergency mobility. Therefore,
impacts under this alternative would be similar to those found for the proposed Project. Therefore, this
alternative is environmentally equivalent to the proposed Project.
Ability to Meet Objectives
Alternative 3 would generally meet some of the Project objectives, including: (2) Revitalize a section of
the City with new industrial use(s) that continue to expand the City’s production capacity ; (3) Provide
infrastructure and landscaping improvements to Sierra Avenue and Mango Avenue vicinity to enhance
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-22 6.0 | Alternatives
aesthetics as well as improve safety and traffic flow; (4) Facilitate goods movement for the benefit of local
and regional economic growth; and (6) Provide additional temporary and permanent employment
opportunities while improving the local balance of housing and jobs.
In addition to meeting some of the Project objectives, Alternative 3 would result in fewer environmental
impacts. However, Alternative 3 would not allow for the level of development of the larger warehouse
facilities and still require the same level of infrastructure costs, and therefore would not meet project
objectives. Specifically, this Alternative with a smaller warehouse would not fully meet Project objective
(1) Implement the City of Fontana’s desire to create a revenue generating use, which generates limited
demands on City public services and that capitalizes on nearby transportation corridors and truck routes,
stimulates employment, and responds to current market opportunities. Consistent with Objective 5, the
Project would need to provide a positive fiscal balance to the City. Alternative 3 would provide a reduced
fiscal return to the City, this as a result of the smaller facility. Therefore, Alternative 3 does not maximize
the City’s benefits realized or achievement of the Project Objectives when compared to the Project.
6.8 Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior Alternative from among the range of
reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. Section 15126.6 (e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires
that an environmentally superior alternative be designated and states that if the environmentally superior
Alternative is Alternative 1, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the
other alternatives.
Based on the summary of information presented above, the environmentally superior Alternative is
Alternative 1. Because Alternative 1 would leave the Project site essentially unchanged and would not
have the construction and operational effects that would be associated with any of the alternatives, this
Alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the Project or any of the other alternatives.
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that if the “No Project” alternative is found to
be environmentally superior, “the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among
the other alternatives. Aside from Alternative 1, the Alternative 3: “Reduced Building Intensity”
Alternative would have the least environmental impacts.
The context of an environmentally superior alternative is based on the consideration of several factors
including the reduction of environmental impacts to a less than significant level, the Project objectives,
and an alternative’s ability to fulfill the objectives with minimal impacts to the existing site and
surrounding environment. According to Table 6-2: Comparison of Project Alternatives Environmental
Impacts with the Project, Alternative 1 would be the environmentally superior Alternative because it
would eliminate all of the potentially significant impacts of the Project. However, while Alternative 1 is
the environmentally superior Alternative, it is not capable of meeting any of the basic objectives of the
Project.
After Alternative 1, the environmentally superior Alternative to the Project is the one that would result in
the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. Based on the evaluation undertaken, Alternative 3:
“Reduced Building Footprint” is the environmentally superior Alternative. This is an environmentally
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-23 6.0 | Alternatives
superior project alternative because it would have the least environmental impacts because although the
impacts would not be entirely avoided, the impacts would be decreased when compared to the Project.
However, Alternative 3 achieves the Project objectives to a far lesser extent and does not maximize the
City’s benefits when compared to the Project. Most critically, Alternative 1 would not meet the Project
objectives.
Table 6-2: Comparison of Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts with the Project
EIR Chapter
Project - Level of
Impact After
Mitigation
Alternative 1-
No Project
Alternative 2 –
Drop Lot/
Trailer Storage
Alternative 3-
Reduced Building
Footprint
4.1 – Aesthetics Less Than Significant + - =
4.2 – Agriculture and Forestry No Impact = = =
4.3 – Air Quality Less Than Significant – + -
4.4 – Biological Resources Less Than Significant – = =
4.5 – Cultural Resources Less Than Significant – = =
4.6-- Energy Less Than Significant = + -
4.7 – Geology and Soils Less Than Significant – = =
4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less Than Significant = + -
4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous
Materials Less Than Significant – = =
4.10 – Hydrology and Water
Quality Less Than Significant = = =
4.11 – Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant = + =
4.12 – Mineral Resources No Impact = = =
4.13 – Noise Less Than Significant - = =
4.14 – Population and Housing Less Than Significant = = =
4.15 – Public Services Less Than Significant = - =
4.16 – Recreation Less Than Significant = = =
4.17 – Transportation and
Traffic Less Than Significant = + -
4.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources Less Than Significant - - =
4.19 – Utilities and Service
Systems Less Than Significant - - =
4.20—Wildfire Hazards Less Than Significant = = =
Attainment of Project Objectives Meets all of the
Project Objectives
Meets none of
the Project
Objectives
Meets none of
the Project
Objectives
Meets all of but
two of the
Project
Objectives
A plus (+) sign means the Project Alternative has more impacts compared to the Project.
A minus (-) sign means the Project Alternative has less impact compared to the Project.
An equal sign (=) means the Project Alternative has similar impact compared to the Project.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 6-24 6.0 | Alternatives
This page intentionally left blank.
7.0
EIR Consultation and Preparation
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 7-1 7.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation
7.0 EIR CONSULTATION AND PREPARATION
This section is consistent with the requirements set forth in PRC Section 21153 and State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15129, which states: “The EIR shall identify all federal, state, or local agencies, other organizations,
and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR, and the persons, firm, or agency preparing
the draft EIR, by contract or other authorization.” Refer to Section 2.3: Notice of Preparation/Early
Consultation for a summary of public notification and consultation.
The NOP and NOP comment letters are provided in Appendix A: Notice of Preparation & Public Scoping
Meeting. The City provided multiple opportunities for public input, both as part of the CEQA process and
as part of Project scoping. In addition to required public notifications under CEQA, the C ity has engaged
in extensive consultation with the Native American tribes, pursuant to AB 52, as discussed further in
Section 4.18: Tribal Cultural Resources.
7.1 EIR Consultation
Lead Agency
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Contact: Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner (Project Planner)
Public Agencies/Organizations
• City of Fontana
• Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA)
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
• West Valley Water District
• Fontana Fire Protection District
Interested Parties
As noted above, the City engaged in public and agency consultation through the NOP and public scoping
process. The following entities provided comments on the NOP, which have been considered as part of
this EIR preparation process:
Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
(CARECA)
Jeff Modrzejewski, Executive Director
San Bernardino County Local Enforcement Agency;
County of San Bernardino, Department of Public
Health, Environmental Health Services
Sarah Cunningham, REHS II, Environmental Health
Services/LEA
South Coast Air Quality Management District Sam Wang, Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning,
Rule Development & Implementation
State of California, Department of Justice Christie Vosburg, Supervising Deputy Attorney General;
Rob Bonta Attorney General
Native American Heritage Commission Cameron Vela, Cultural Resource Analyst
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 7-2 7.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation
7.2 List of Preparers
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, California 92501
Contacts: Kevin Thomas, CEP, ENV-SP, Principal
Candyce Burnett, Project Manager
Meghan D. Karadimos, Task Manager
Olivia Chan, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Health Risk Assessment/Noise/Energy
Joe Shultz, Traffic Engineer
John Fyne-Nsofor, Environmental Analyst
Sabrina Wallace, Environmental Analyst
Cameron Bauer, Environmental Analyst
Aaron Hull, Environmental Analyst
Amanda McCallum, Document Production
(Air Quality Assessment, Health Risk Assessment, Energy Assessment, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Assessment, Acoustical Assessment)
1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
Contact: Olivia Chan
(Trip Generation Assessment and Traffic Scoping for the Proposed Sierra Distribution Facility in the City of
Fontana)
401 B Street, Suite 60
San Diego, California 92101
Contact: Joe Shultz
Technical Subconsultants
ELMT Consulting, Inc.
2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098
Santa Ana, California 92711
(Habitat Assessment)
Contact: Travis J. McGill, Director; Biologist
PaleoWest, LLC
301 9th Street, Suite 204
Redlands, California 92374
(Cultural Resource Assessment)
Contacts: Tiffany Clark, Associate Archaeologist
Gena Severen, Associate Archaeologist
(Paleontological Resource Assessment)
Contact: Heather Clifford, Senior Paleontologist
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 7-3 7.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation
Southern California Geotechnical, Inc.
22885 Savi Ranch Parkway, Suite E
Yorba Linda, California 92887
(Geotechnical Investigation)
Contacts: Robert G. Trazo, Principal Engineer
Joseph Lozano Leon, Staff Engineer
(Results of Infiltration Testing)
Contacts: Robert G. Trazo, Principal Engineer
Ryan Bremer, Staff Engineer
Ricardo Frias, Staff Engineer
Hazard Management Consulting, Inc.
211 W. Avenida Cordoba, Suite 200
San Clemente, California 92672
(Phase I Environmental Site Assessment)
Contact: Mark S. Cousineau, Principal
(Results of a Soil and Soil Gas Investigation)
Contacts: Mark S. Cousineau, Principal
Paul A. Roberts, Principal Geologist
Huitt-Zollars, Inc.
3990 Concours, Suite 330
Ontario, California 91764
(Preliminary Hydrology Report)
Contact: David White, P.E.
(Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan)
Contact: David White, P.E.
City of Fontana
Sierra Distribution Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2024 7-4 7.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation
This page intentionally left blank.