HomeMy WebLinkAboutInitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-MND - The Conco Companie
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND)
The Conco Companies
New Industrial Building and Site Improvements
Master Case MCN 23-080, Design Review Case DRP23-016
Prepared for:
CITY OF FONTANA
City of Fontana Planning Department
Alejandro Rico, Associate Planner
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335-3528
Telephone: (909) 350-6558
Prepared by:
UltraSystems Environmental Inc.
16431 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618-4355
Telephone: 949.788.4900
FAX: 949.788.4901
www.ultrasystems.com
August 2025
Project 7248
This page intentionally left blank.
❖ PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page i
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
1. Project Title The Conco Companies – Industrial Buildings
2. CEQA Lead Agency City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Ave., Fontana, CA 92335
Alejandro Rico, Associate Planner
E: arico@fontanaca.gov
3. Project Applicant
Darren Ratekin
The Conco Companies
5141 Commercial Circle
Concord, CA 94520
E: dratekin@conconow.com
4. Project Location 13052 Dahlia Street, Fontana CA 92337
5. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers APN 0238-112-16
6. Project Site General Plan
Designation(s)
General Industrial (I-G)
7. Project Site Zoning Designation(s) Fontana Gateway Specific Plan
8. Surrounding Land Uses and
Setting The project site is surrounded by industrial uses,
including a fulfillment center to the immediate west
and a crane service to the immediate east. The
project site is bound by Santa Ana Avenue on the
north and Dahlia Street on the south.
9. Description of Project The proposed project consists of the development
of an approximately 106,289-square-foot
warehouse building on a site of 217,162 square feet
(approximately 4.99 acres), plus addition of an
outdoor area for continuation of existing storage on
the south side of an existing 28,800 square foot
building.
See Section 3.0 for additional details.
10. Selected Agencies whose Approval
is Required
City of Fontana
11. Have California Native American
tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project area
Letters were sent by the City of Fontana (the
Lead Agency), to local Native American tribes on
January 18, 2024 asking if they wished to
❖ PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page ii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
requested consultation pursuant
to Public Resources Code §
21080.3.1? If so, has consultation
begun?
participate in AB 52 consultation concerning the
proposed project in the City of Fontana. Tribes
had up to 30 days in which to respond to
notification of the project. For the proposed
project, those four tribe(s) that requested
consultation were contacted by the City per
Public Resources Code § 21074. The Gabrieleño
– Kizh Nation responded in January 2024 that
they wished to consult. That consultation took
place through email on June 12, 2024 and July
31, 2024. The San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians responded in January 2024 through
email in lieu of consultation indicating no
specific concerns with the project. The tribe also
provided three cultural resource mitigation
measures and two tribal cultural resource
mitigation measures and asked that they be
included as part of the project plan conditions.
The Kizh Nation and San Manuel were informed
that implementation of the City Conditions of
Approval provided for protection of tribal
cultural resources, concluding consultation. The
remaining three tribes did not respond. In
addition, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians
(not on the City’s AB 52 list) sent an email to
UltraSystems requesting consultation on
February 14, 2024. This message was provided
to the City. The City responded to Morongo on
July 31, 2025 asking if they wished to have a
meeting – no reply to date. .
12. Other Public Agencies No other public agencies will review the project.
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page iii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation .................................................. 1-1
1.3 CEQA Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.4 Purpose of Initial Study ..................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 Review and Comment by Other Agencies .................................................................................. 1-3
1.6 Impact Terminology ........................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.7 Organization of Initial Study ........................................................................................................... 1-4
1.8 Findings from the Initial Study ....................................................................................................... 1-5
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Existing Characteristics of the Site ............................................................................................... 2-4
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Construction Activities ....................................................................................................................3-13
3.4 Standard Requirements and Conditions of Approval .........................................................3-14
3.5 Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals .................................................................................3-14
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ........................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................4.1-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .........................................................................................4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................4.3-1
4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................4.4-1
4.5 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................................................4.5-1
4.6 Energy ....................................................................................................................................................4.6-1
4.7 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................................4.7-1
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...........................................................................................................4.8-1
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................4.9-1
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.14 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................. 4.14-1
4.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................................ 4.15-1
4.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 4.16-1
4.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 4.17-1
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 4.18-1
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 4.19-1
4.20 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................................. 4.20-1
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................... 4.21-1
5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................... 6-1
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page iv
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
6.1 Lead Agency (CEQA) ........................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Project Applicant .................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. ................................................................................................. 6-1
7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ..................................................... 7-1
TABLES
Table 2.2-1 - Summary of Land Use and Zoning ................................................................................................... 2-1
Table 3.2-1 - Estimated Project Employment Generation ................................................................................ 3-5
Table 3.5-1 – Ministerial Permits and Approvals ...............................................................................................3-14
Table 4.1-1 - Project Compliance with City of Fontana General Plan Policies Regarding Scenic Quality
and Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................................................4.1-5
Table 4.3-1 - Federal and State Attainment Status ...........................................................................................4.3-2
Table 4.3-2 – Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data .........................................................................................4.3-5
Table 4.3-3 - SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds for Significant Regional Impacts ..................................4.3-9
Table 4.3-4 - Construction Schedule .................................................................................................................... 4.3-10
Table 4.3-5 - Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions ............................................................. 4.3-10
Table 4.3-6 - Maximum Daily Project Operational Emissions ................................................................... 4.3-11
Table 4.3-7 - Results of Localized Significance Analysis.............................................................................. 4.3-12
Table 4.6-1 - Estimated Project Operational Energy Use ...............................................................................4.6-2
Table 4.7-1 – Selected Properties of Mapped Soil Units .................................................................................4.7-8
Table 4.8-1 - San Bernadino County GHG Reduction Targets for Countywide Emissions ...............4.8-6
Table 4.8-2 - Project Construction-Related GHG Emissions .........................................................................4.8-8
Table 4.8-3 - Project Operational GHG Emissions .............................................................................................4.8-8
Table 4.9-1 - Hazardous Materials Sites Within 660 Feet of the Project Site ........................................4.9-6
Table 4.10-1 - Estimated Project Water Demand ........................................................................................... 4.10-4
Table 4.13-1 - Sensitive Receivers ........................................................................................................................ 4.13-2
Table 4.13-2 - California Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Sources ............................ 4.13-4
Table 4.17-1 - Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 4.17-4
Table 4.19-1 - Estimated Project Wastewater Generation ......................................................................... 4.19-2
Table 4.19-2 - Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison: Normal and Dry Years (acre-feet
per year) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4.19-4
Table 4.19-3 - Estimated Project-Generated Solid Waste ........................................................................... 4.19-6
Table 7.0-1 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ......................................................................... 7-2
FIGURES
Figure 2.1-1 - Regional Location .................................................................................................................................. 2-2
Figure 2.1-2 - Project Location ..................................................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 3.2-1 - Master Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3.2-2 - Building 1 Floor Plan ........................................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3.2-3 - Building Elevations ............................................................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3.2-4 - Building 1 Color Boards...................................................................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3.2-5 - Building 2 Screen Wall Elevation and Color Boards ............................................................... 3-9
Figure 3.2-5 - Preliminary Landscape Plan ...........................................................................................................3-11
Figure 3.2-6 - Fence and Gate Plan ...........................................................................................................................3-12
Figure 4.1-1 - Photos of Surrounding Project Area...........................................................................................4.1-3
Figure 4.1-2 - Scenic Highways .................................................................................................................................4.1-4
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page v
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.2-1 - Important Farmland .........................................................................................................................4.2-2
Figure 4.3-1 - Sensitive Receptors ...........................................................................................................................4.3-7
Figure 4.4-1 – Project Boundary and Biological Study Area (BSA) ............................................................4.4-4
Figure 4.4-2 – CNDDB Known Occurrences: Plant Species and Habitats ................................................4.4-5
Figure 4.4-3 – CNDDB Known Occurrences: Wildlife Species ......................................................................4.4-7
Figure 4.4-4 - Land Cover Types............................................................................................................................ 4.4-12
Figure 4.4-5 – CDFW Wildlife Corridors ............................................................................................................ 4.4-14
Figure 4.5-1 - Topographic Map ...............................................................................................................................4.5-2
Figure 4.7-1 – Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones ....................................................................................4.7-4
Figure 4.7-2 - Regionally Active Faults ..................................................................................................................4.7-4
Figure 4.7-3 – Landslides and Liquefaction Hazard Zones ............................................................................4.7-7
Figure 4.9-1 - Cortese List Sites ................................................................................................................................4.9-8
Figure 4.9-2 - Airports ..................................................................................................................................................4.9-9
Figure 4.9-3 - Fire Hazard Severity Zone - State Responsibility Area .................................................... 4.9-12
Figure 4.9-4 - Fire Hazard Severity Zone – Local Responsibility Area .................................................. 4.9-13
Figure 4.10-1 - FEMA FIRM Map ........................................................................................................................... 4.10-7
Figure 4.11-1 - Project Site Current General Plan Land Use Designations .......................................... 4.11-2
Figure 4.11-2 - Project Site Current Zoning Designations .......................................................................... 4.11-3
Figure 4.12-1 - Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................... 4.12-2
Figure 4.12-2 - Oil & Gas Wells and Fields ........................................................................................................ 4.12-3
Figure 4.12-3- Geothermal Wells .......................................................................................................................... 4.12-4
Figure 4.13-1 - Sensitive Receivers ...................................................................................................................... 4.13-3
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Plans
Appendix B CalEEMod Input And Results for Air Quality Analysis
Appendix C Biological Resources Database Search
Appendix D1 Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D2 Paleontological Resources Records Search
Appendix E Soils Resources Report
Appendix F Reserved
Appendix G Environmental Site Assessment Information
Appendix H1 Drainage Report
Appendix H2 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix I Limited VMT Analysis
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page vi
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
AB Assembly Bill
AB 939 California Integrated Waste Management Act
AMSL above mean sea level
APE area of potential effect
ARB Air Resources Board
ATP Active Transportation Plan
BAU business as usual
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAT Climate Action Team
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historic Resources Inventory System
City City of Fontana
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRC California Residential Code
CUP conditional use permit
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel scale
DIF Development Impact Fee
DMA Drainage Management Areas
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOSH California Division of Safety and Health
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMS Emergency Medical Service
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAR floor area ratio
FFPD Fontana Fire Protection District
FHA Fontana Housing Authority
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FPD Fontana Police Department
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FUSD Fontana Unified School District
GHG greenhouse gas
GPCD gallons per capita per day
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page vii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
GPEIR General Plan EIR
GWP global warming potential
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
Hz hertz
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
IFC International Fire Code
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
L90 noise level that is exceeded 90% of the time ...
Leq equivalent noise level
LID Low Impact Development
Lmax root mean square maximum noise level
LOS Level of Service
LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds
Map Act California Subdivision Map Act
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM mitigation measure
MMTCO2e million metric tons of CO2e
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
ND Negative Declaration
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 Ozone
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
PPV peak particle velocity
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RMS root mean square
ROG Reactive organic gases
RP Regional Plant
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page viii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
SBCIWMP San Bernardino Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLF Sacred Lands File
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SRAs source receptor areas
STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
SWMP Stormwater Management Plan
TACs Toxic Air Contaminants
TCRs tribal cultural resources
TMP Traffic Management Plan
USDA United States Department of Agricultura
USGS United States Geological Survey
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB vibration decibels
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 1-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Proposed Project
The City of Fontana (City) is processing a request to implement a series of discretionary actions that
would ultimately allow for the construction of a 106,288 square foot warehouse on the east side of
Calabash Avenue approximately 700 feet north of Santa Ana Avenue (APNs 0236-251-01 through -
017).
1.1.1 Project Components
The proposed project would construct a 106,288-square-foot warehouse, which would include 8,000
square feet of office space and 98,288 square feet of warehouse space. The warehouse would have
12 dock doors, and 114 automobile parking stalls. The building would be built on speculation. The
future tenant is unknown but is thought likely to be warehouse use. Refer to Section 3.0, Project
Description, of this document for additional details.
1.1.2 Estimated Construction Schedule
Project construction is anticipated to begin in the Fourth Quarter of 2024 and would last
approximately 12 months, ending in 2025.
1.2 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation
The City of Fontana is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing regulations,1 the Lead Agency has the
principal responsibility for implementing and approving a project that may have a significant effect
on the environment.
1.3 CEQA Overview
1.3.1 Purpose of CEQA
All discretionary projects within California are required to undergo environmental review under
CEQA. A Project is defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 as the whole of the action having the potential
to result in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment
and is any of the following:
• An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works
construction and related activities clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing
public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and
amendment of local General Plans or elements.
• An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public
agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more
public agencies.
• An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other
entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
1 Public Resources Code §§ 21000 - 21177 and California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 1-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
CEQA Guidelines § 15002 lists the basic purposes of CEQA as follows:
• Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant
environmental effects of proposed activities.
• Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
• Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects
through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds
the changes to be feasible.
• Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the
manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
1.3.2 Authority to Mitigate under CEQA
CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where
feasible. Under CEQA Guidelines § 15041 a Lead Agency for a project has the authority to require
feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid
significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such
as the “nexus”2 and “rough proportionality”3 standards.
CEQA allows a Lead Agency to approve a project even though the project would cause a significant
effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that
there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect. In such cases, the Lead Agency must
specifically identify expected benefits and other overriding considerations from the project that
outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.
1.4 Purpose of Initial Study
The CEQA process begins with a public agency determining whether the project is subject to CEQA at
all. If the project is exempt, the process does not need to proceed any further. If the project is not
exempt, the Lead Agency takes the second step and conducts an Initial Study to determine whether
the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The purposes of an Initial Study as listed in § 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines are to:
• Provide the Lead Agency with information necessary to decide if an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should be
prepared.
• Enable a Lead Agency to modify a project to mitigate adverse impacts before an EIR is
prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for an ND or MND.
• Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on adverse effects
determined to be significant, identifying the adverse effects determined not to be significant,
explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant adverse effects would not
be significant, and identifying whether a program EIR or other process, can be used to analyze
adverse environmental effects of the project.
• Facilitate an environmental assessment early during project design.
2 A nexus (i.e., connection) must be established between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental
interest.
3 The mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the Project.
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 1-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
• Provide documentation in the ND or MND that a project would not have a significant effect
on the environment.
• Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
• Determine if a previously prepared EIR could be used for the Project.
In cases where no potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may issue an ND,
and no mitigation measures would be needed. Where potentially significant impacts are identified,
the Lead Agency may determine that mitigation measures would adequately reduce these impacts to
less than significant levels. The Lead Agency would then prepare an MND for the proposed project.
If the Lead Agency determines that individual or cumulative effects of the proposed project would
cause a significant adverse environmental effect that cannot be mitigated to less than significant
levels, then the Lead Agency would require an EIR to further analyze these impacts.
1.5 Review and Comment by Other Agencies
Other public agencies are provided the opportunity to review and comment on the IS/MND. Each of
these agencies is described briefly below.
• A Responsible Agency (14 CCR § 15381) is a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, that
has discretionary approval power over the Project, such as permit issuance or plan approval
authority.
• A Trustee Agency4 (14 CCR § 15386) is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by a project that is held in trust for the people of the State of California.
• Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law (14 CCR § 15366) are any public agencies who have the
authority (1) to grant a permit or other entitlement for use; (2) to provide funding for the
project in question; or (3) to exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the
project. Furthermore, a city or county will have jurisdiction by law with respect to a project
when the city or county having primary jurisdiction over the area involved is: (1) the site of
the project; (2) the area in which the major environmental effects will occur; and/or (3) the
area in which reside those citizens most directly concerned by any such environmental
effects.
1.6 Impact Terminology
The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of potential impacts:
• A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not
affect the particular environmental threshold in any way.
• An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that the project
would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no
mitigation.
• An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the
analysis concludes that the project would cause no substantial adverse change to the
environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments, or other enforceable
measures, that would be adopted by the lead agency.
4 The four Trustee Agencies in California listed in CEQA Guidelines § 15386 are California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, State Lands Commission, State Department of Parks and Recreation, and University of California.
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 1-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
• An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that the project
could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment.
An EIR is required if an impact is identified as potentially significant.
1.7 Organization of Initial Study
This IS/MND is organized to satisfy CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d), and includes the following sections:
• Section 1.0 - Introduction, which identifies the purpose and scope of the IS/MND.
• Section 2.0 - Environmental Setting, which describes the location, existing site conditions,
land uses, zoning designations, topography, and vegetation associated with the project site
and surrounding area.
• Section 3.0 - Project Description, which provides an overview of the project, a description
of the proposed development, project phasing during construction, and discretionary actions
for the approval of the project.
• Section 4.0 - Environmental Checklist, which presents checklist responses for each
resource topic to identify and assess impacts associated with the proposed project, and
proposes mitigation measures, where needed, to render potential environmental impacts
less than significant, where feasible.
• Section 5.0 - References, which includes a list of documents cited in the IS/MND.
• Section 6.0 - List of Preparers, which identifies the primary authors and technical experts
that prepared the Initial Study.
• Section 7.0 – Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, which identifies the
mitigation measures for the proposed project, the responsible/monitoring party, the
monitoring action, the enforcement agency, the monitoring agency, and the monitoring
phase.
Technical studies and other documents, which include supporting information or analyses used to
prepare this IS/MND, are included in the following appendices:
Appendix A Project Plans
Appendix B CalEEMod Input And Results for Air Quality Analysis
Appendix C Biological Resources Database Search
Appendix D1 Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D2 Paleontological Resources Records Search
Appendix E Soils Resources Report
Appendix F Reserved
Appendix G Environmental Site Assessment Information
Appendix H1 Drainage Report
Appendix H2 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix I Limited VMT Analysis
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 1-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
1.8 Findings from the Initial Study
1.8.1 No Impact or Impacts Considered Less than Significant
The project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental
categories listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Energy
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
1.8.2 Impacts Considered Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Based on Initial Study findings, the project would have a less than significant impact on the following
environmental categories listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when proposed mitigation
measures are implemented.
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Transportation and Traffic
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Mandatory Findings of Significance
❖ SECTION 2.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 2-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Project Location
The approximately 7.8-acre project site is located approximately 850 feet east of the intersection of
Etiwanda Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue within the City of Fontana (APN 0238-112-16). Santa Ana
Avenue abuts the northern portion of the project site, and Dahlia Street abuts the southern portion
of the project site. Refer to Figure 2.1-1, which shows the project’s location regionally, and
Figure 2.1-2, which shows the project’s specific location.
2.2 Project Setting
The project site currently includes a 28,800-square-foot industrial building in the southern portion,
with the balance of the project site a dirt lot used for storage and staging of equipment. The project
site is located within an industrial portion of the city in the Fontana Gateway Specific Plan area. It is
surrounded by industrial developments in all directions (Google Earth Pro, 2024).
2.2.1 Land Use and Zoning
The land use designations and zoning of the project site and surrounding areas are listed in
Table 2.2-1. The General Plan designation for the project site is General Industrial (I-G) and the site’s
zoning designation is Fontana Gateway Specific Plan.
Table 2.2-1
SUMMARY OF LAND USE AND ZONING
Location General Plan Zoning Existing Use
Project Site General Industrial (I-G) Fontana Gateway Specific Plan Industrial building and dirt
storage lot
Surrounding Areas
North General Industrial (I-G) Fontana Gateway Specific Plan Lab office
East General Industrial (I-G) Fontana Gateway Specific Plan Crane service
South General Industrial (I-G) Fontana Gateway Specific Plan Manufacturing center
West General Industrial (I-G) Fontana Gateway Specific Plan Fulfillment center
Source: City of Fontana, 2023a; 2023b; Google Earth Pro, 2024
❖ SECTION 2.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 2-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 2.1-1
REGIONAL LOCATION
❖ SECTION 2.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 2-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 2.1-2
PROJECT LOCATION
❖ SECTION 2.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 2-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
2.3 Existing Characteristics of the Site
2.3.1 Climate and Air Quality
The City of Fontana is characterized by a semi-arid Mediterranean climate that is the result of its
location in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB is a 6,600-square-mile area basin that is
usually quite moist near the land surface due to the influence of the marine layer. Other factors that
influence the area’s climate and meteorology are the terrain and altitude. Fontana is positioned
approximately 1,700 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in its northern half and 1,000 feet AMSL in its
southern half. Due to the City being in a valley, heavy early morning fog and low stratus clouds are
often persistent. Yearly climate patterns are characterized by warm summers, mild winters, low
levels of precipitation, and moderate humidity (Stantec, 2018b p. 5.2-1).
Air quality in Fontana generally fluctuates without a consistent seasonal pattern. Neighboring,
high-polluting coastal cities largely influence the air quality in the City and that, coupled with the
climate, trap air pollution in the valley. The SCAB is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and
San Jacinto Mountains that trap air pollution at their bases. The SCAB fails to meet national ambient
air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter, and is classified as a “nonattainment area”
for those pollutants (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.2-10).
2.3.2 Geology and Soils
The City of Fontana generally lies within the northern and northwestern portion of the Peninsular
Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California, which is characterized by northwest-southeast
trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges. Much of the region is underlain by terrace deposits,
which are unconsolidated sediments (consisting of loose soil materials, such as sand and silt) left by
streams on shore benches cut by the ocean faults (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.5-1).
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 (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.5-3).
Soils in the area are characteristic of the Southern California interior alluvial basins and consist of
alluvial deposits and floodplain soils. The City is underlain by Holocene and late Pleistocene alluvial
deposits of the Lytle Creek alluvial fan. These deposits primarily consist of unconsolidated, gray,
cobbly and bouldery alluvium (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.5-4).
2.3.3 Hydrology
As detailed in the City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.8-1), the City is located within the lower Lytle Creek watershed, which
forms the northwest portion of the Santa Ana River Watershed. This watershed drains the eastern
portion of the San Gabriel Mountains. Daytime temperatures often exceed 100 degrees during the
summer in the lower watershed, while temperatures are approximately 10-15 degrees cooler in the
upper watershed. The lower portion of Lytle Creek flows through the cities of Fontana, Rialto,
San Bernardino, and Colton, as well as a portion of the unincorporated area of San Bernardino
County. The upper reaches of Lytle Creek are generally perennial; the lower section of Lytle Creek
changes into an intermittent stream with a dry wash below Interstate 15.
❖ SECTION 2.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 2-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
2.3.4 Biology
The project site is located in an urbanized area, which provides low habitat value for special-status
plant and wildlife species. A detailed description of existing environmental setting for the project site
and the surrounding area is provided in Section 4.4 Biological Resources of this Initial Study.
2.3.5 Public Services
The City is served by a full range of public services and utilities. Fire prevention, fire protection and
emergency medical service (EMS) for the city are provided by the Fontana Fire Protection
Department (FFPD) through a contract with the San Bernardino County Fire Department. The City of
Fontana Police Department (FPD) provides police and law enforcement services in the project area.
The FPD has 306 full-time employees (188 sworn) and is comprised of four separate divisions: Office
of the Chief of Police; Administrative Services; Field Services; and Special Operations. Recreational
services within the city are provided by the City’s Department of Facilities and Parks, which
maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers. Library services within the city are
provided by the San Bernardino County Library System, which has a total of 32 branch libraries.
Within the city of Fontana, there are two libraries, including Fontana Lewis Library and Technology
Center, and the Summit Branch Library (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.12-1 to 5.12-30).
2.3.6 Utilities
The San Gabriel Valley Water Company Fontana Division (SGVWC) provides water services to the
project site (SGVWC, 2021). The City of Fontana provides sewer services to the city and wastewater
treatment services are provided by the Inland Empire Utilities Authority (IEUA) (Stantec, 2018a, p.
5.12-17). Solid waste disposal services for Fontana are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, a
private company under franchise agreement with the City. Burrtec also operates the City’s curbside
recycling (including greenwaste recycling) program. Electrical service to the site is provided by
Southern California Edison Company through a grid of transmission lines and related facilities.
Natural gas is provided by Southern California Gas Company, which maintains a local system of
transmission lines, distribution lines and supply regulation stations (City of Fontana Utilities, 2024)
.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Background
The City of Fontana (City) is processing a request to implement actions that would ultimately allow
for the construction of one new 106,289 square foot concrete tilt-up industrial building and related
site improvements on a portion of a site located east of Etiwanda Avenue, running north to south
between Santa Ana Avenue and Dahlia Street (APN 0238-112-16). The project is being processed by
the City under Master Case Number (MCN) 23-080. In addition to this CEQA documentation, the City
will require a Design Review (DRP) 23-016. The City is the Lead Agency for the purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The full site, including the proposed new building and an existing building to which an outdoor
storage area will be added, comprises 339,744 square feet (7.80 acres) of land area. The
southernmost portion of the site contains 2.81 acres and is currently developed with a single 28,800
square foot building located at 13052 Dhalia Street and occupied by the applicant, Gonsalves &
Santucci, Inc. dba Conco Companies. The balance of the site (4.99 acres) currently is used for storage
and staging of equipment and materials, and will be the site of the proposed new building.
The project is in an urbanized area of the city, south of Interstate 10 and east of Interstate 15 in the
Fontana Gateway Specific Plan area, which is primarily a planned industrial land use area
encompassing approximately 755 acres in southwest Fontana. The site is surrounded by industrial
users, including ACT Fulfillment – Etiwanda to the direct west and Bragg Crane Service to the direct
east. Development areas in the Fontana Gateway Specific Plan area, which was adopted in 1987, are
zoned General Industrial (M-2). A General Industrial zoning district accommodates the manufacture
and treatment of goods from raw materials, high cube/warehousing and logistics, and permits other
types of industrial uses not suitable for location in the M-1 District (City of Fontana, 2023a).
3.2 Project Overview
The proposed project consists of the development of an approximately 106,288-square-foot building
on a site of 217,234 square feet (approximately 4.99 acres), as well as the addition of an outdoor
storage area (enclosed by a screen wall) on the south side of Building 2, which contains 28,800 square
feet. The combined floor area ratio (FAR) for Buildings 1 and 2 would be 0.40 (135,088 square feet
of building area/339,630 square feet of land area). Maximum FAR under the City zoning is 0.70.
Figure 3.2-1 shows the master site plan, including Building 1 (the proposed project) and Building 2
(the existing building, onto which an outdoor storage area will be added). On the Building 1 site,
automobile parking is provided along the east and west boundaries of the site, as well as on the
southern end of the proposed building. Thirty-foot wide fire lanes run between the building and
parking spaces on the east and west property lines, and between the parking spaces on the south side
of the building and the south edge of the Building 1 site. An 8-foot-high wrought iron fence separates
the Building 1 and Building 2 sites. Building 2 is used for concrete forming and storage of concrete
forming equipment, and would remain in place. Equipment and materials stored in building 2 include
concrete pumps, man lifts, forklifts, compressors, generators, dimensional lumber, plywood,
formwork hardware, aluminum and steel formwork components, aluminum and steel shoring
components, and concrete pump system components (Ratekin, 2024a).
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
3.2.1 New Construction
The proposed project would construct a 106,289-square-foot warehouse, which would include up to
8,000 square feet of office space and no less than 98,288 square feet of warehouse space. Clear height
of the warehouse area is 36 feet. The warehouse would have 12 dock doors on the west side of the
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 3.2-1
MASTER SITE PLAN
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
building and would provide 114 automobile parking stalls; 114 are required. The building would be
built on speculation. The future tenant is unknown but is thought likely to be warehouse use. Building
2, which would remain in place, consists of 14,400 square feet of warehouse space, 9,521 square feet
of shop space, and 4,879 square feet of office space.
The maximum height of Building 1 reaches 48.6 feet at the northeast and southeast corners of the
building, where the office spaces are located; there is no maximum height limit for the Fontana
Gateway Specific Plan area (City of Fontana, 1987). Skylights will be mounted every 32 feet in five
north-south rows on the roof of the new Building 1, each one approximately 4 feet x 8 feet; 67
skylights are provided, compared to a requirement for 67 skylights. A complete set of project
drawings is included in Appendix A to this IS/MND.
Figure 3.2-2 shows the Building 1 floorplan, indicating potential locations of the office space at the
northeast and southeast corners of the building, as well as the location of the dock doors on the west
side of the building. Total office square footage would be up to 8,000 square feet. As shown in
Figure 3.2-3, the proposed building would have primarily tilt-up concrete walls, with limited areas
of glass at the northeast and southeast corners of the building, where the office space is located. The
north elevation of the building fronts on Santa Ana Avenue. Building exteriors will be painted in
varying shades of gray with highlights in white and Conco Green (see Figure 3.2-4). Figure 3.2-5
shows elevations of the screen wall that will enclose the outdoor storage area to be added on the
south side of Building 2.
Energy-efficient features, including insulated and glazed windows and low E coating on windows,
would be incorporated into building design to comply with the provisions of the California Green
Building Code, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations. Title 24, Part 11 requires new
structures to incorporate a variety of mandatory features to promote green buildings as means to
improve energy efficiency, reduce water demand, promote recycling, and other measures.
The project would be designed and constructed in compliance with applicable City codes, including,
but not limited to, the 2022 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical
Code, California Electrical Code, and California Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
3.2.1 Project Operations
At the time this Initial Study was prepared, the future tenant(s) of the proposed building were
unknown. For the purpose of this environmental analysis, the future uses onsite are assumed to be
any of those uses permitted in the General Industrial (M-2) zoning designation within the Fontana
Gateway Specific Plan area.5
Outdoor storage on the project site is an existing use that does not conform with uses permitted in
the M-2 zoning designation. Outdoor storage is permitted in the M-2 zone with a conditional use
permit (CUP). The project proposes construction of a concrete pad for continued outdoor storage use
next to the south side of Building 2, and includes an application for a CUP to permit continuing
outdoor storage use.
5 The M-2 zoning district within the Fontana Gateway Specific Plan permits a wide variety of industrial and related
uses including manufacturing; storage and warehousing; laboratories and research uses; transportation uses
including railroad freight terminals; some service businesses including gasoline stations; and some retail uses
including home improvement centers (City of Fontana, 1997, pp. 34-40).
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Project operation is estimated to generate 46 jobs based on employment density factors from the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), as shown below in Table 3.2-1.6 At most 15
workers are employed in the existing building (Ratekin, 2024).
Table 3.2-1
ESTIMATED PROJECT EMPLOYMENT GENERATION
Land Use Square feet Square feet per
employee
Employees
Light Manufacturing 98,288 2,605 38
Office 8,000 956 8
Total 106,288 Not applicable 46
1 Source: Natelson Company, 2001
3.2.2 Site Access, Circulation and Parking
Primary site ingress and egress to Building 2 would be provided by two driveways along the northern
edge on Santa Ana Avenue, at the east and west boundaries of the site. The west driveway (where
trucks enter to access the dock area) is 40 feet wide at its entrance, tapering down to 35 feet towards
the south, and the east driveway (fire lane) is 35 feet at its entrance, tapering down to 30 feet towards
the south. Building 1 would have 12 dock doors and 114 automobile parking stalls, including 78
standard spaces, seven ADA spaces (four ADA standard, one ADA van, one EV ADA standard, one EV
ADA Van), 23 non-ADA EV spaces (four standard EV and 19 EV capable) and six parallel spaces.
6 The employment density factor for light manufacturing is used here for a conservative estimate, as it’s very slightly
lower than the factor for warehouse use. Light manufacturing and warehousing are both permitted under the
Fontana Gateway Specific Plan.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 3.2-2
BUILDING 1 FLOORPLAN
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 3.2-3
BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 3.2-4
BUILDING 1 COLOR BOARDS
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 3.2-5
BUILDING 2 SCREEN WALL ELEVATION AND COLOR BOARDS
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
At Building 2, there are 65 stalls, including 59 standard, two ADA standard, two ADA van and two
existing. Altogether, the full site provides 179 stalls, compared to a requirement of 162 stalls.
Circulation within the site around Building 1 would be via the 30-foot-wide fire lane that runs along
the interior of the perimeter of the site on the east, south and west sides of the building.
3.2.3 Exterior Lighting
The proposed project would include installation of exterior lighting fixtures, as necessary, for safety
and security. LED exterior fixtures would be mounted on the wall of the building. Latest LED lighting
fixtures with photosensors would be provided. Cut off shields would be provided as necessary to
prevent light spillage beyond the project boundary. Parking lot lighting would also utilize LED
technology.
Lighting for the project would comply with the requirements of Fontana Municipal Code 30-508,
Lighting and Glare, which states, “all lights shall be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from
adversely affecting adjacent residential or commercial properties. No structure or feature shall be
permitted which creates adverse glare effects.”
3.2.4 Landscaping
As shown in Figure 3.2-5, landscaping is planned primarily along the north, east and south property
lines, as well as near the northwest corner of Building 1 on the western property line and along the
east and west sides of Building 2. Proposed landscaping consists of trees and g roundcovers. A total
of 17,146 square feet of landscaped area (equal to 7.9 percent of the Building 1 lot area of 217,162
square feet) will be provided, compared to a required total of 15,227 square feet (7.0 percent).
3.2.5 Perimeter Fencing and Exterior Walls
The proposed project would maintain the existing chain link fence along the eastern property line,
and an 8-foot-high wrought iron fence would separate the site of Building 1 (to the north) from the
Building 2 site (to the south); an 8-foot-high tubular steel fence is installed along most of the western
property line, with the exception of an automobile parking area (eight spaces) near the northwest
corner of the building, accessed from Santa Ana Avenue. The 40-foot-wide west side driveway into
the site, at the south end of the auto parking area, will be controlled by an 8-foot-high telescoping
gate, which leads to the truck court area on the west side of the building. Another 8 -foot-high
telescoping gate will be located near the southeast corner of the building. The various fences and
gates are shown in Figure 3.2-6.
3.2.6 Utilities
Sanitary Sewer: The project proposes offsite sewer improvements to connect the sewer lines from
the project site to the existing sewer main in Dahlia Avenue. All sewer line sizes and connections are
subject to review by the City. The project applicant will work with the City’s Public Works
Department for necessary approvals and ensure compliance with applicable requirements.
Domestic Water: New water meters would be installed as required to meet the demands calculated
by the plumbing contractor for the project and in compliance with the requirements of the City’s
Public Works Department. The project would extend existing 10-inch water mains from Santa Ana
Avenue to the edge of the site. Water would be provided by the Fontana Water Company.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 3.2-5
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 3.2-6
FENCE AND GATE PLAN
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Dry Utilities: Natural gas service would be provided to the project site by the Southern California
Gas Company (SoCalGas), Electricity would be provided by Southern California Edison Company
(SCE), and solid waste disposal would be provided by Burrtec (City of Fontana Utilities, 2020).
Stormwater: According to the Preliminary Drainage Report (see Appendix H1), the primary
drainage solution for the site will be an underground chamber detention system. This detention
chamber system (CMP-2) has an 18-inch outlet pipe that will discharge into the proposed bubbler
catch basin in the driveway at the southwest corner of the site. The detention chamber system
(CMP-2) will mitigate the developed runoff to less than 90 percent of the existing runoff flow rate.
This onsite detention system (CMP-2) will consist of 5-foot diameter perforated CMP system (with
four barrels) located upstream under the west driveway/parking area. Ultimately the mitigated
runoff will drain down Dahlia Street which will drain to the City Storm Drain System in Etiwanda
Avenue and then drain to San Sevaine Channel (Allard Engineering, 2023).
3.3 Construction Activities
3.3.1 Onsite Construction
Construction activities would include earthwork, rebar, structural steel, concrete slab, concrete
panels, truss placement, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, glazing, roofing, landscaping, hardscape
consisting of asphalt concrete, fencing, associated site utilities, site drainage, and any associated
offsite work that may be required. Construction phasing would include earthwork, concrete slab,
concrete panels, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, glazing, roofing, landscaping, hardscape consisting
of AC and concrete, fencing, associated site utilities, site drainage, and any associated offsite work
that may be required. Construction would consist of four phases: 1) site preparation; 2) grading,
utilities trenching, and utilities installation; 3) building construction; and 4) paving and landscaping.
For safety reasons, temporary barricades would be used to limit access to the site during project
construction. Safe access for construction workers would be maintained throughout construction. It
is anticipated that up to 30 workers would be onsite during the peak construction phases.
The type of construction equipment utilized during construction is anticipated to include:
• Tractors, loaders, backhoes, dozers, excavators, skip loaders, scrapers, concrete trucks,
concrete pumps, concrete vibrators, laser screeds, and dump trucks for site preparation and
rough grading.
• Cranes, forklifts, backhoes, skip loaders, trucking, compacting equipment, manlifts, welders,
paving-skip loaders, grading equipment, trucking and rollers for building construction.
• Skip loaders, backhoes, trenchers and trucking for utility improvements.
• Bobcats, air compressors, forklifts, and delivery trucks for landscaping and irrigation.
Construction staging areas would be provided within the boundaries of the project site. Construction
workers would park vehicles onsite and construction trucks and equipment would also be parked
and stored onsite.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-14
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
3.3.2 Offsite Improvements
The project would include utility improvements (both wet and dry); domestic and fire water,
stormwater, sewer, electrical, gas, cable tv and communication.
3.3.3 Construction Schedule
Construction is anticipated to begin approximately four to five months following entitlement, which
is anticipated sometime in Second or Third Quarter 2024. Thus, construction would begin sometime
in Fourth Quarter 2024 and would last approximately 10 to 12 months, ending in 2025.
3.4 Standard Requirements and Conditions of Approval
The proposed project would be reviewed in detail by applicable City of Fontana departments and
divisions that have the responsibility to review land use application compliance with City codes and
regulations. City staff is also responsible for reviewing this IS/MND to ensure that it is technically
accurate and is in full compliance with CEQA. The departments and divisions at the City of Fontana
responsible for technical review include:
• City of Fontana Development Services Department;
• City of Fontana Public Works Department;
• City of Fontana Fire Protection District;
• City of Fontana Engineering Department.
3.5 Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals
The City will require a Design Review for the proposed project; and a Conditional Use Permit for
outdoor storage of concrete forming equipment.
Table 3.5-1 identifies the additional permits and approvals required from either the City, other
public agencies and/or quasi-public agencies (utilities) subsequent to the approval of the
aforementioned Design Review.
Table 3.5-1
MINISTERIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Agency Permit or Approval
City of Fontana Building & Safety Division Site plan review and approval, and building permits.
Fontana Fire Protection District
Building plan check and approval. Review for compliance with
the California Fire Code, California Building Code, California
Health & Safety Code and Fontana Municipal Code.
Plans for fire detection and alarm systems, and automatic
sprinklers.
Fontana Public Works Department
Approval for proposed offsite utility improvements.
Fontana Water Company Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to
provide water supply connection to new development.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 3-15
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Agency Permit or Approval
Southern California Gas Company Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to
provide natural gas connection to new development.
Southern California Edison Company Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to
provide electrical connection to new development.
T
FONT ANA
L,\Ll t U~NI .\ ❖ SECTION 4.0-ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The checked topics below indicate that a "Potentially Significant Impact'' or a "Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation Required" are likely with project implementation. In the following . pages,
these impacts will be identified .
□ Aesthetics □ Agricultural and Forest Resources □ Air Quality
~ Biological Resources ~ Cultural Resources □ Energy
~ Geology / Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ~ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
□ Hydrology/ Water Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Noise □ Population / Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation ~ Transportation ~ Tribal Cultural Resources
□ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire ~ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination (To Be Completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
IZI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed.
D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
!f.:rlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
t ui.rnll',Y.-.u· ..,on he proposed project, nothing f_u_rt_h_e_r_~_.s J'-r UJ_q_0'-i-~-ed_. _________ _
Signat re Date
P.i~ lt!Mf11
Prini ed Name 7
City ofFontana
7248/The Conco Companies -New Industrial Building and Site Improvements
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 4-1
August2025
❖ SECTION 4.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
(1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g.,
the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific
screening analysis).
(2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as
onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
(3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
(4) “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant
Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to less than significant level.
(5) Earlier analyses may be use where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an affect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
(See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. In this case, a brief disc ussion should
identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where the earlier analysis available for
review.
(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated
or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site-specific conditions for the project.
(6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached
and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
❖ SECTION 4.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
(7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used
or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
(8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant
to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
(9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
(a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
(b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significant.
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.1-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.1 Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099, would
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
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?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
A “visual environment” includes the built environment (development patterns, buildings, parking
areas, and circulation elements) and natural environment features such as hills, vegetation, rock
outcroppings, drainage pathways, and soils.
Views are characterized by visual quality, viewer groups and sensitivity, duration, and visual
resources.
• Visual quality refers to the general aesthetic quality of a view, such as vividness, intactness,
and unity.
• Viewer groups identify who is most likely to experience the view.
• High-sensitivity land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, religious institutions, and
passive outdoor spaces such as parks, playgrounds, and recreation areas.
• Duration of a view is the amount of time that a particular view can be seen by a specific viewer
group.
• Visual resources refer to unique views, and views identified in local plans, from scenic
highways, or of specific unique structures or landscape features.
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.1-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
a) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099 would the project have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact
Scenic vistas generally include extensive panoramic views of natural features, unusual terrain, or
unique urban or historic features, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance,
and focal views that focus on a particular object, scene or feature of interest.
The project site is located in an area of Fontana that is characterized by flat topography and industrial
development. The City of Fontana is located on a desert valley floor between the San Gabriel
Mountains to the north and the Jurupa Hills to the south (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.1-1). Dominant natural
visual resources in the project area comprise scenic vistas from public thoroughfares and open
spaces in the vicinity of the project to distant San Gabriel Mountains and foothills of the Jurupa
Mountains.
In general, existing views in the project vicinity include distant views of the Jurupa Mountains to the
south and distant views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. However, views of the Jurupa and
San Bernardino Mountains would not be impacted significantly because of the far distance from the
project site and the intervening buildings and trees surrounding the project site that partially block
views of the mountains (refer to Figure 4.1-1). The proposed project building would have a
maximum height of 46.5 feet, which would be similar to the buildings adjacent to the site.
Additionally, the project area is highly industrial with no high-sensitivity land uses or viewers. The
proposed new building would be consistent with the general character of the su rrounding
neighborhood in terms of architectural style, density, height, bulk, and setback. As mentioned above,
there are intervening buildings and trees that block the view of the mountains. The proposed
development would not obstruct views of distant mountains and hills for motorists traveling along
nearby roadways. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impact on scenic vistas.
b) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project
substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provides information regarding officially
designated or eligible state scenic highways designated as part of the California Scenic Highway
Program. According to Caltrans, there are no officially designated scenic highways within or
adjacent to the project area, and there are no roadways near the project site that are currently
eligible for scenic highway designation as shown in Figure 4.1-2, Scenic Highways. The closest
official state scenic highway, State Route 91 (SR-91), is approximately 20 miles southwest of the
project site. Therefore, due to the distance between the project site and nearest state scenic highway,
the project would have no impacts on trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway.
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.1-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.1-1
PHOTOS OF SURROUNDING PROJECT AREA
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.1-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.1-2
SCENIC HIGHWAYS
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.1-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
c) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project in
non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from 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?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located in an urban setting characterized by industrial land uses. Table 4.1-1
below provides the applicable policies from the City of Fontana General Plan that pertain to
aesthetics, along with a description of how the proposed project would be in compliance.
Table 4.1-1
PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES REGARDING
SCENIC QUALITY AND AESTHETICS
General Plan Element Project Compliance
Land Use Element. Goal 7: Public and private development meets high design standards.
Policies:
• Support high-quality development in
design standards and in land use
decisions.
The proposed project would construct a high-quality
warehouse development that would adhere to the city’s
design regulations, with ornamental landscaping that
would complement the surrounding industrial land
uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict
with this policy.
Source: Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.1-14
As analyzed above, the proposed project would adhere to applicable aesthetic and scenic quality
regulations and policies mandated by the City of Fontana General Plan. Additionally, the proposed
project would adhere to the city’s Municipal Code, which would ensure that building height, setbacks,
building design, parking stalls and screening would be within required threshold levels (City of
Fontana Municipal Code, 2023). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project create
a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is located in an urban area, which is characterized by medium nighttime ambient
light levels. Street lights, traffic on local streets and exterior lighting in nearby developments are the
primary sources of light that contribute to the ambient light levels in the project area. The project is
surrounded by industrial in all directions (Google Earth Pro, 2024).
The project proposes new exterior lighting throughout the site, including parking lot lighting.
Installation of lighting on the building exterior, as well as proposed parking lot lighting would be
necessary for safety and nighttime visibility throughout the project site. The new project lighting
would be visible from the surrounding area. Therefore, the project’s proposed exterior lighting is
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.1-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
expected to contribute to ambient nighttime illumination in the project vicinity. However, the
proposed project would comply with City of Fontana Municipal Code § 30-260, Lighting and Glare,
which states, “all lights shall be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting
adjacent residential or commercial properties. No structure or feature shall be permitted which
creates adverse glare effects” (City of Fontana Municipal Code, 2023). None of the materials proposed
would have a mirror finish or would be highly reflective. Refer to Appendix A of this document,
which provides the proposed project plans.
Adherence to applicable City Municipal Codes would ensure that new sources of light or glare would
not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, impacts from a new source of
substantial light or glare would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.2-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
§ 12220(g)), timberland (as defined
by Public Resources Codes § 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code § 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
a) 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?
No Impact
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established in 1982 by the California
Department of Conservation (DOC) to analyze critical agricultural farmlands and observe land
conversion change over time. The proposed project is deemed as “Urban and Built-up Land,” which
means that the land has a building density of at least one building to 1.5 acres of land and is mainly
utilized for residential, industrial or other non-agricultural business (DOC, 2023). As shown in Figure
4.2-1, the project site is about 2.6 miles from the nearest Prime Farmland. Hence, the project would
not convert farmland for non-agricultural use. No impacts would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.2-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.2-1
IMPORTANT FARMLAND
❖ SECTION 4.2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.2-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
No Impact
The Williamson Act, also known as the California Conservation Act of 1965, authorizes local
governments to work with private landowners by negotiating an agreement to tax these landowners
at lower rates if they restrict specific pieces of land to agricultural or open space use. According to
San Bernardino County’s Williamson Act Contract Map, the proposed project is shown as being on
land identified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” and does not contain any land under the specific
jurisdiction of the Williamson Act (Department of Conservation, 2020a). The City of Fontana’s
General Plan for 2015-2030 identifies the proposed project area as “I-G,” which means it is for
General Industrial uses (City of Fontana, 2017). Currently, no agricultural operations are in the
vicinity of the site (Google Earth Pro, 2023). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing
zoning for agriculture uses or any Williamson Act contracts. No impacts would occur.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Codes § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code § 51104(g))?
No Impact
The proposed project is located in a highly-urbanized setting and is zoned as M-2, indicating that it
is General Industrial (Zoning and Development Code, City of Fontana, 2022). The definitions given by
Public Resource Code (PRC) § 4526 regarding timberland, by PRC § 12220(g) for forest land, or by
California Government Code § 51104(g) for timberland zoned for production do not apply to this
type of zoning because forest and timberland do not exist there. Being in a highly-urbanized area, the
project would have no impact on either existing forestry or timberland zoning, nor would it cause
their rezoning. No impacts would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
No Impact
The project is not within a forest area, and it is located on land with a General Plan Land Use
Designation of I-G (City of Fontana, 2019a). The project would not bring about the loss or altering of
forest land because construction and other related activities would happen specifically on the project
site, which is not forest land. Consequently, the proposed project would not result in the loss and/or
conversion of forest land. No impacts would occur.
e) 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?
No Impact
The proposed project is located on land zoned as “M-2,” which allows General Industrial uses. It is
also surrounded by land with the same zoning. Therefore, the project would not involve other
❖ SECTION 4.2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.2-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impacts would
occur.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.3-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.3 Air Quality
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
4.3.1 Pollutants of Concern
Criteria pollutants are air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and
an ambient air quality standard has been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and/or the California Air Resources Board (ARB). The criteria air pollutants of concern are
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), lead (Pb), and ozone, and their precursors, such as reactive organic gases (ROG) (which are
ozone precursors). Since the proposed Conco warehouse project (proposed project or Project) would
not generate appreciable SO2 or Pb emissions,7 the analysis doesn't need to include those two
pollutants. Below is a description of the remaining air pollutants of concern and their known health
effects.
The project is in the San Bernardino County portion of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), in which the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is substantially responsible for air pollution
control.
Table 4.3-1 shows the attainment status of the SCAB for each criteria pollutant for both the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).
7 Sulfur dioxide emissions will be below 0.05 pound per day during construction and below 0.07 pound per day during
operations.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.3-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Table 4.3-1
FEDERAL AND STATE ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification
Ozone (O3) – 1-hour standard Nonattainment (Extreme)
Nonattainment
Ozone (O3) – 8-hour standard Nonattainment (Extreme)
Particulate Matter (PM10) Maintenance (Serious) Nonattainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment (Serious) Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance (Serious) Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maintenance (Primary) Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassified Attainment
Sulfates
No Federal Standards
Attainment
Lead (Pb) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
Unclassified
Visibility Reducing Particles
Sources: ARB, 2020, USEPA, 2022a.
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog
production and are precursors for certain particulate compounds that are formed in the atmosphere
and for ozone. A precursor is a directly emitted air contaminant that, when released into the
atmosphere, forms, causes to be formed, or contributes to the formation of a secondary air
contaminant for which an ambient air quality standard (AAQS) has been adopted, or whose presence
in the atmosphere will contribute to the violation of one or more AAQSs. When NOX and ROG are
released in the atmosphere, they can chemically react with one another in the presence of sunlight to
form ozone. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas
formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high
temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 is a reddish-brown pungent gas formed by the combination
of NO and oxygen. NO2 acts as an acute respiratory irritant and eye irritant and increases
susceptibility to respiratory pathogens (USEPA, 2011).
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless non-reactive pollutant produced by incomplete
combustion of fossil fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants,
refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft and trains. In urban areas, such as the project location,
automobile exhaust accounts for most CO emissions. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates
relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal
distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological
conditions, primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle
exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface-based temperature inversions are combined
with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban areas between November and
February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year when
inversion conditions are more frequent. In terms of health, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing
it in the blood, thus reducing the blood’s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.3-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
excess CO exposure can be dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions.
High concentrations are lethal (USEPA, 2010).
Particulate matter (PM) consists of finely divided solids or liquids, such as soot, dust, aerosols,
fumes and mists. Primary PM is emitted directly into the atmosphere from activities such as
agricultural operations, industrial processes, construction and demolition activities, and
entrainment of road dust into the air. Secondary PM is formed in the atmosphere from predominantly
gaseous combustion by-product precursors, such as sulfur oxides, NOX, and ROGs.
Particle size is a critical characteristic of PM that primarily determines the location of PM deposition
along the respiratory system (and associated health effects) as well as the degradation of visibility
through light scattering. In the United States, federal and state agencies have focused on two types of
PM. PM10 corresponds to the fraction of PM no greater than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter
and is commonly called respirable particulate matter, while PM2.5 refers to the subset of PM10 of
aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 micrometers, which is commonly called fine particulate
matter.
PM10 and PM2.5 deposition in the lungs results in irritation that triggers a range of inflammation
responses, such as mucus secretion and bronchoconstriction, and exacerbates pulmonary
dysfunctions, such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis. Sufficiently small p articles may
penetrate the bloodstream and impact functions such as blood coagulation, cardiac autonomic
control, and mobilization of inflammatory cells from the bone marrow. Individuals susceptible to
higher health risks from exposure to airborne PM10 pollution include children, the elderly, smokers,
and people of all ages with low pulmonary/cardiovascular function. For these individuals, adverse
health effects of PM10 pollution include coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, phlegm, bronchitis,
and aggravation of lung or heart disease, leading, for example, to increased risks of hospitalization
and mortality from asthma attacks and heart attacks (USEPA, 2022b).
Reactive organic gases (ROG) are defined as any compound of carbon, excluding CO, carbon dioxide,
carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in
atmospheric photochemical reactions. It should be noted that there are no state or national ambient
air quality standards for ROG because ROGs are not classified as criteria pollutants. They are
regulated, however, because a reduction in ROG emissions reduces certain chemical reactions that
contribute to the formation of ozone. ROGs are also transformed into organic aerosols in the
atmosphere, which contribute to higher PM10 and lower visibility. The term “ROG” is used by the ARB
for this air quality analysis and is defined the same as the federal term “volatile organic compound”
(VOC).
Ozone is a secondary pollutant produced through a series of photochemical reactions involving ROG
and NOX. Ozone creation requires ROG and NOX to be available for approximately three hours in a
stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. Because of the long reaction time, peak ozone concentrations
frequently occur downwind of the sites where the precursor pollutants are emitted. Thus, ozone is
considered a regional, rather than a local, pollutant. The health effects of ozone include eye and
respiratory irritation, reduction of resistance to lung infection and possible aggravation of
pulmonary conditions in persons with lung disease. Ozone is also damaging to vegetation and
untreated rubber (USEPA, 2022c).
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.3-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.3.2 Climate/Meteorology
Air quality is affected by both the rate and location of pollutant emissions, and by meteorological
conditions that influence movement and dispersal of pollutants. Atmospheric conditions such as
wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients, along with local topography, provide the
link between air pollutant emissions and air quality.
The project site is located wholly within the SCAB, which includes all of Orange County, as well as the
non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The distinctive climate
of the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The SCAB is in a coastal plain with
connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with
high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-
permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. Thus, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea
breezes. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely
hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds (SCAQMD, 1993).
The average annual maximum and minimum temperatures in the project area, as determined from
the nearest meteorological station, Fontana Kaiser (#043120; latitude 34.08333°; longitude -
117.5167°) (WRCC, 2023), which is approximately 1.95 miles northwest of the project site, are 73.6
degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and 48.5°F, respectively. Average winter (December, January, and February)
high and low temperatures are approximately 68.2°F and 44.5°F, respectively, and average summer
(June, July, and August) high and low temperatures are approximately 92.0°F and 60.6°F,
respectively. The annual average of total precipitation is approximately 15.32 inches, which occurs
mostly during the winter and relatively infrequently during the summer. Monthly precipitation
averages approximately 2.9 inches during the winter (December, January, and February),
approximately 1.4 inches during the spring (March, April, and May), approximately 0.8 inch during
the fall (September, October, and November), and approximately 0.05 inch during the summer (June,
July, and August).
4.3.3 Local Air Quality
The SCAQMD has divided the SCAB into source receptor areas (SRAs), based on similar
meteorological and topographical features. The project site is in SCAQMD’s Central San Bernardino
Valley air monitoring area (SRA 34), which is served by the SCAQMD’s Fontana-Arrow Monitoring
Station, located about 3.54 miles northeast of the proposed project site, at 14360 Arrow Highway in
Fontana (SCAQMD, 2022a). Criteria pollutants monitored at the Fontana-Arrow Monitoring Station
include ozone, PM10, PM2.5, and NO2. CO has not been monitored in the SCAB since 2012. The ambient
air quality data in the project vicinity as recorded from 2020 through 2022, along with applicable
standards, are shown in Table 4.3-2.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.3-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Table 4.3-2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Air
Pollutant Standard/Exceedance 2020 2021 2022
Ozone (O3)
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm)
Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm)
# Days > Federal 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm
# Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.09 ppm
# Days > California 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm
0.151
0.112
89
56
91
0.124
0.104
89
44
83
0.144
0.108
68
44
70
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3)
Est. # Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 150 µg/m3
Federal Annual Average (12 µg/m3)
76.8
ND
37.9
73.8
ND
30.1
62.4
0
32.0
Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3)
# Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 35 µg/m3
State Annual Average (12 µg/m3)
57.6
12.3
12.7
55.1
5.9
12.0
38.1
3.0
10.8
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm)
State Annual Average (0.030 ppm)
# Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.18 ppm
0.057
0.018
0
0.060
0.018
0
0.050
0.017
0
Source: ARB, 2023
ND - There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.
4.3.4 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
The SCAQMD is required to produce plans to show how air quality will be improved in the region.
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that these plans be updated triennially to incorporate
the most recent available technical information.8 A multi-level partnership of governmental agencies
at the federal, state, regional, and local levels implements the programs contained in these plans.
Agencies involved include the USEPA, ARB, local governments, Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), and SCAQMD. The SCAQMD and SCAG are responsible for formulating and
implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. The SCAQMD updates its
AQMP every three years.
The 2022 AQMP (SCAQMD, 2022b) was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on December 2, 2022. It
focuses on reducing ozone by limiting the emissions of NOx, which is a key reactant in ozone
formation. The NOx reductions are through extensive use of zero emission technologies across all
stationary and mobile sources categories. The majority of NOx emissions are from heavy-duty trucks,
ships and other state and federally regulated mobile sources that are mostly beyond the SCAQMD’s
control. The SCAQMD’s primary authority is over stationary sources, which account for
approximately 20 percent of the SCAB’s NOx emissions.
The AQMP incorporates updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories
and incorporates the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) prepared by SCAG (2020). The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS was determined to conform to the
federally mandated State Implementation Plan for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
county and city general plans.
8 CCAA of 1988.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.3-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.3.5 Sensitive Receptors
Some people, such as individuals with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function because of
other illnesses, persons over 65 years of age, and children under 14, are particularly sensitive to
certain pollutants. Facilities and structures where these sensitive people live or spend considerable
amounts of time are known as sensitive receptors. For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD
considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility
where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours (Chico and Koizumi, 2008, p. 3 -2).
Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor, because
employees typically are present for shorter periods of time, such as eight hours. Therefore, applying
a 24-hour standard for PM10 is appropriate not only because the averaging period for the state
standard is 24 hours, but because the sensitive receptor would be present at the location for the full
24 hours.
The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is a single-family residence located 4,534 feet
southwest of the project site along Jurupa Avenue (See Figure 4.3-1.).
4.3.6 Applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules
Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Rule)
During construction, the project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (fugitive dust). SCAQMD Rule
403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se; rather, it sets forth general and
specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources) in the SCAB.
The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from
construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the
atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source. SCAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits
construction activity from causing an incremental PM10 concentration impact, as the difference
between upwind and downwind samples, at the property line of more than 50 micrograms per cubic
meter as determined through PM10 high volume sampling. The concentration standard and
associated PM10 sampling do not apply if specific measures identified in the rules are implemented
and appropriately documented.
Other requirements of Rule 403 include not causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust that would
remain visible beyond the property line; no track-out extending 25 feet or more in cumulative length
and all track-out to be removed at conclusion of each workday; and using the applicable best available
control measures included in Table 1 of Rule 403.
Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings)
Construction of this project will include the application of architectural coatings and be subject to
SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Rule 1113 requires whoever applies, stores at a
worksite, or solicits the application of architectural coatings to use coatings that contain VOC less
than or equal to the VOC limits specified in Table 1 of the rule.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.3-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.3-1
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.3-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce
Emissions [WAIRE] Program)
The purpose of this rule is to reduce local and regional emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate
matter, and to facilitate local and regional emission reductions associated with warehouses and the
mobile sources attracted to warehouses in order to assist in meeting state and federal air quality
standards for ozone and fine particulate matter. This rule is applicable to warehouses located in the
SCAQMD’s jurisdiction that have 100,000 square feet or more of indoor floor space in a single
building).
The WAIRE Program requires warehouse operators to earn a minimum number of “WAIRE points”
during a 12-month compliance period. The required number of points is called the “WAIRE Points
Compliance Obligation (WPCO).” The WPCO is the product of a weighted number of annual truck
trips, the factor 0.0025, and an annual adjustment value that starts out less than 1 for the first few
years of the rule’s implementation and becomes 1 from 2026 onwards. The truck trip weighting is
based on vehicle weight class.
To meet the WPCO, a facility has to earn WAIRE points. One way is to take various actions to reduce
emissions, such as serving 365 zero-emissions (ZE) trucks in one year or installing a hydrogen fueling
station. A second option is to develop, apply for and implement a “Custom WAIRE Plan” that achieves
quantifiable, verifiable and real NOx and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions within the
SCAQMD and within three miles of the warehouse. The third method is by paying a mitigation fee
every year. In lieu of earning the required number of WAIRE points, a warehouse facility, land owner,
or operator may choose to satisfy all or any remaining part of its WPCO through payment of a
mitigation fee of $1,000 for each WAIRE Point and the fee should be paid no la ter than when the
applicable Annual WAIRE Report for that compliance period is due.
The future project tenant would be responsible for compliance with the WAIRE program and would
choose the option and actions for program compliance.
4.3.7 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact
The South Coast 2022 AQMP, discussed above, incorporates land use assumptions from local general
plans and regional growth projections developed by SCAG to estimate stationary and mobile air
emissions associated with projected population and planned land uses. If the proposed land use is
consistent with the local general plan, then the impact of the project is presumed to have been
accounted for in the AQMP. This is because the land use and transportation control sections of the
AQMP are based on the SCAG regional growth forecasts, which incorporate projections from local
general plans. The project site is located in the Fontana Gateway Specific Plan area and is zoned
General Industrial (M-2) (City of Fontana, 2023a). The land use and zoning would continue to be
consistent with the local plans and the impacts of the project are still accounted for in the AQMP.
Another measurement tool in evaluating consistency with the AQMP is to determine whether a
project would generate population and employment growth and, if so, whether that growth would
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.3-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
exceed the growth rates forecasted in the AQMP and how the project would accommodate the
expected increase in population or employment. The project would not create increases in
population and overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (RK Engineering Group, 2023) beyond those
forecasted in the AQMP.
According to a trip generation and VMT screening analysis performed for this project (RK
Engineering Group, 2023), the project has been screened out from a full VMT analysis based on the
Project Net Daily Trips Less Than 500 ADT criterion and may be presumed to have a less than
significant impact on VMT under CEQA (City of Fontana, 2020b).
Additionally, to assist the implementation of the AQMP, projects must not create regionally
significant emissions of regulated pollutants from either short-term construction or long-term
operations. The SCAQMD has developed criteria in the form of emissions thresholds for determining
whether emissions from a project are regionally significant (SCAQMD, 2019). They are useful for
estimating whether a project is likely to result in a violation of the NAAQS and/or whether the project
is in conformity with plans to achieve attainment. SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for criteria
pollutant emissions during construction activities and project operation are summarized in
Table 4.3-3. A project is considered to have a regional air quality impact if emissions from its
construction and/or operational activities exceed the corresponding SCAQMD significance
thresholds.
Table 4.3-3
SCAQMD EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS FOR SIGNIFICANT REGIONAL IMPACTS
Pollutant Construction
Thresholds (lbs/day)
Operational
Thresholds (lbs/day)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150
Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
Source: SCAQMD, 2023.
Note: lbs = pounds.
Regional Construction Emissions
Construction activities for the project are anticipated to begin in September 2024 and end in
November 2025 and would have five construction phases:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
Table 4.3-4 shows the project schedule used for the air quality, GHG emissions, and noise analyses.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.3-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Table 4.3-4
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Phase Start End
Site Preparation September 2, 2024 September 27, 2024
Grading September 28, 2024 October 25, 2024
Building Construction October 26, 2024 October 2, 2025
Paving October 3, 2025 October 31, 2025
Architectural Coating November 1, 2025 November 29, 2025
These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust,
and other air contaminants. Mobile sources (such as diesel-fueled equipment onsite and traveling to
and from the project site) would primarily generate NOX emissions. The quantity of emissions
generated daily would vary, depending on the amount and types of construction activities occurring
at the same time.
Estimated criteria pollutant emissions from the project’s onsite and offsite project construction
activities were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version
2022.1.1.21 (CAPCOA, 2022). CalEEMod is a planning tool for estimating emissions related to land
use projects. Model-predicted project emissions are compared with applicable thresholds to assess
regional air quality impacts. Offroad construction equipment information was supplied by the client
but CalEEMod defaults were used for onroad construction traffic inputs.
As shown in Table 4.3-5, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds.
Therefore, the project’s short-term regional air quality impacts would be less than significant. Refer
to Appendix B of this document for the air quality calculations.
Table 4.3-5
MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Activity
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Emissions, 2024 3.74 36.0 34.4 9.49 5.47
Maximum Emissions, 2025 25.4 11.3 16.8 1.16 0.58
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 55
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.21) (CAPCOA, 2022), SCAQMD, 2019.
Regional Operational Emissions
The proposed project consists of the development of an approximately 106,288-square-foot building
containing 98,288 square feet of warehouse space and 8,000 square feet of office space on an
approximately 4.99-acre site. The project site is located in the Fontana Gateway Specific Plan area
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.3-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
and is zoned General Industrial (M-2) (City of Fontana, 2023a). Operational emissions generated by
area sources, motor vehicles and energy demand would result from normal day-to-day activities of
the project. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 4.3-6. As seen in the table, for
each criteria pollutant, operational emissions would be below the pollutant’s SCAQMD significance
threshold. Therefore, regional operational emissions would be less than significant.
Table 4.3-6
MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Pollutant (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 3.18 0.04 4.62 0.01 0.01
Energy Source Emissions 0.03 0.56 0.47 0.04 0.04
Mobile Source Emissions 2.03 2.71 24.5 5.37 1.39
Total Operational Emissions 5.24 3.31 29.59 5.42 1.44
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.21) (CAPCOA, 2022).
SCAQMD, 2019.
b) 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?
Less than Significant Impact
Since the SCAB is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5, related projects may exceed
an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. The SCAQMD
neither recommends quantified analyses of construction and/or operational emissions from multiple
development projects nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess
the cumulative emissions generated by multiple cumulative projects. Instead, the District
recommends that a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed by utilizing
the same significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts. Furthermore, the SCAQMD states
that if an individual development project generates less-than-significant construction or operational
emissions impacts, then the development project would not contribute to a cumulatively
considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment.
As discussed above, the mass daily construction and operational emissions generated by the project
would not exceed any of the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. Also, as discussed below, localized
emissions generated by the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance
Thresholds (LSTs). Therefore, the project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase
in emissions for the pollutants that the SCAB is in nonattainment. Thus, cumulative air quality
impacts associated with the project would be less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.3-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Construction of the project would generate short-term and intermittent emissions. Following the
SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Chico and Koizumi, 2008), only onsite
construction emissions were considered in the localized significance analysis. The single-family
residence located 4,534 feet (1,382 meters) southwest of the project site along Jurupa Avenue, is the
nearest sensitive receptor. According to the methodology, screening tables may not apply to project
sites larger than five acres (Chico and Koizumi, 2008, p. 3-4) and since the project site is 4.99 acres
and the nearest sensitive receptor is 1,382 meters, the threshold is calculated for 4.99 acres and
sensitive receptors are considered at 500 meters (1,640 feet).9 Localized significance thresholds for
projects in Source Receptor Area 34 (Central San Bernardino Valley) were obtained from tables in
Appendix C of the aforementioned methodology. Table 4.3-7 shows the results of the localized
significance analysis for the project. Localized short-term air quality impacts from construction of
the project would be less than significant.
Table 4.3-7
RESULTS OF LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS
Nearest Sensitive Receptor
Maximum Onsite Construction
Emissions (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum daily unmitigated emissions 36.0 32.9 9.3 5.4
SCAQMD LST for 4.99 acres @ 500 meters 778 27,665 229 120
Significant (Yes or No) No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (2022.1.1.21) (CAPCOA, 2022).
Screening Health Risk Assessment for Project Operations
A formal operational health risk assessment for a warehouse project in Fontana that was almost 1.2
times as large as the proposed project (Rogozen and Paitimusa, 2019) (Appendix B2) concluded that
the maximum individual cancer risk from exposure to diesel particulate matter was less than the
SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold of 10 in a million in all parts of the modeling domain (i.e., onsite
and in the surrounding neighborhood). Noncancer risks were also found to be less than significant.
In light of that finding, and the significantly smaller size of the Conco warehouse project, the potential
impact would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact
A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if construction or operation of the proposed
project would result in generation of odors that would be perceptible in adjacent sensitive areas.
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993), land uses and industrial
operations that are associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment
plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and
9 This threshold evaluates the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations,
as this siting option represents the worst-case scenario for construction-related impacts.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.3-13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
fiberglass molding. While the proposed building would be built on speculation, the future tenant is
considered most likely to be logistics use and not to be any of the land use types associated with odor
complaints. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include equipment
exhaust. Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the immediate area
surrounding the project. The project would use typical construction techniques, and the odors would
be typical of most construction sites and temporary in nature.
The project would not create substantial objectionable odors and this impact would be less than
significant.
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
X
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.4.1 Methodology
UltraSystems biologists researched readily available information, including relevant literature,
databases, agency websites, various previously completed reports and management plans, GIS data,
maps, aerial imagery from public domain sources, and in-house records to identify the following: 1)
habitats, special-status plant and wildlife species, jurisdictional waters, critical habitats, and wildlife
corridors that may occur in and near the project site; and 2) local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations that may apply to the project. Sources accessed by UltraSystems for analysis include:
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Guasti Quadrangle and
current aerial imagery (USGS, 2015; Google Earth Pro, 2024).
• The Web Soil Survey, provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (Soil Survey Staff, 2024).
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) BIOS Habitat Connectivity Viewer (CDFW,
2024a).
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), provided by the CDFW (CNDDB, 2023a).
• Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC), provided by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS; USFWS, 2023a).
• National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), provided by the USFWS (USFWS, 2023b).
• Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, 8th Edition, provided by the California
Native Plant Society (CNPS, 2023a).
• A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition (CNPS, 2023b).
• National Hydrography Dataset, provided by the USGS (USGS, 2023).
• Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, J.M. Evens, 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second
Edition, provided by California Native Plant Society Press.
• EPA Waters GeoViewer, provided by USEPA (USEPA, 2022f).
Plant and wildlife species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or under the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) are referred to collectively as listed species in this section.
Plant and wildlife species not listed under ESA or CESA but still protected by federal agencies, state
agencies, local or regional plans and/or nonprofit resource organizations, such as the California
Native Plant Society (CNPS), are collectively referred to as sensitive species in this section. The term
special-status species is used when collectively referring to both listed and sensitive species.
Aerial imagery was overlaid with geospatial data by utilizing Geographic Information System (GIS)
software to identify documented observations of the following biological or environmental
components within the project vicinity:
(1) Previously recorded observations within the project vicinity and geographic range of
special-status species and potentially suitable habitats
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
(2) Special-status vegetation communities
(3) Protected management lands
(4) Proposed and final critical habitats
(5) Waters of the State and waters of the U.S., including wetlands
(6) Wildlife corridors
An analysis of the biological study area (BSA), which comprises the project site plus a 500-foot buffer
around its perimeter, was conducted by UltraSystems biologists to evaluate habitat conditions and
assess potential impacts to biological resources (refer to Figure 4.4 1 Project Boundary and
Biological Study Area [BSA]).
The project site contains disturbed and developed/ornamental land cover and contains the existing
Conco Companies facility. The BSA contains segments of Dahlia Street in the southern segment and
Santa Ana Avenue in the northern segment, with other paved surfaces and landscaped areas (Google
Earth Pro, 2024). There are several ornamental trees in the BSA, which are propagated typically in
landscape designs for aesthetic purposes.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, 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?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Plants: 10-Mile Radius
Based on a literature review of publicly available databases (CNDDB, 2023a; CNPS, 2023a; USFWS,
2023a), a total of 30 special-status plant species (six listed and 24 sensitive), were identified as
having been recorded within a 10-mile radius of the project site (plant inventory). Refer to
Appendix C Special-Status Species Inventory and Occurrence Potential Determination for a complete
list of all species evaluated in the plant inventory, general habitat information of those species, their
respective status rankings, and the definitions of those status rankings.
Plants: CNDDB Two-Mile Query
Two of the 30 species in the plant inventory, San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum) and
Plummer's mariposa-lily (Calochortus plummerae), have been reported within a two-mile radius
from the project (CNDDB, 2023a). Both species were determined to be not expected to occur by
results of the literature review (see Figure 4.4-2, CNDDB Known Occurrences: Plant Species and
Habitats). Suitable habitat types to support these two abovementioned species include cismontane
woodlands, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forests, meadows, seeps, marshes, swamps, and
vernally mesic valley and foothill grasslands (Calflora, 2024). The BSA does not provide any of these
habitat conditions.
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.4-1
PROJECT BOUNDARY AND BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA (BSA)
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.4-2
CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES PLANT SPECIES AND HABITATS – TWO-MILE RADIUS
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Furthermore, soils on the site are extremely compacted; soil compaction, in addition to the activity
of the existing facility, would prevent special-status plant species from dispersing onto the site.
The results of the literature review determined that none of the species evaluated in the plant
inventory are expected to occur in the BSA due to the following factors: lack of suitable habitat and/or
the site is outside of the known elevation, and/or general distribution of the target species. The BSA
contains highly disturbed and developed/ornamental areas with impermeable surfaces, significantly
limiting the likelihood that special-status plant species would establish there. No impacts to special-
status plant species are expected as a result of the project, and mitigation is not required.
Wildlife: 10-Mile Radius
Based on a literature review of publicly available databases (CNDDB, 2023a; eBird 2023; USFWS
2023a; iNaturalist 2024) for reported occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project site, a total
of 50 special-status wildlife species (18 listed and 32 sensitive) were identified as having been
recorded within a 10-mile radius of the project site (wildlife inventory). Refer to Appendix C Special-
Status Species Inventory and Occurrence Potential Determination for a complete list of all species
evaluated, their respective status rankings, and the definitions of those status rankings.
The special-status species reported in the literature review were evaluated as to their potential to
occur in the BSA based on habitat, geographic and elevational range and site conditions. Due to
biological and physical disturbances within the BSA, it was determined that there is a lack of suitable
habitat to support the majority of the species in the wildlife inventory. First, some species for which
the BSA overlaps with the appropriate elevation range and species range were excluded because the
level of human activity in the surrounding areas generates more noise than ambient conditions and
represents a threat level to most species. Second, there is significant coverage by impermeable
(developed) surfaces that cannot support vegetation that is necessary to create suitable habitat to
support most of these species. Many of the wildlife species in the wildlife inventory require native
vegetation for their foraging and nesting requirements. Thus, these species would not be able to
access sufficient foraging habitat or cover for nesting or shelter requirements. Lastly, the project site
contains the existing Conco Companies facility. Disturbances (including, but not limited to,
compacted soils) related to facility functions would likely deter special-status wildlife from utilizing
the project BSA for essential functions. Two sensitive species were determined to have a low
potential to occur by results of the literature review. These species are further discussed below.
Wildlife: CNDDB Two-Mile Query
Six of the 50 species in the wildlife inventory have been reported within a two-mile radius from the
project (CNDDB, 2023a; see Figure 4.4-3, CNDDB Known Occurrences: Wildlife Species).
• burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
• California glossy snake (Arizona eglans occidentalis)
• Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis)
• Los Angeles Pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus)
• San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus)
• tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.4-3
CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES: WILDLIFE SPECIES – TWO MILE RADIUS
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly has been previously recorded on the project site (CNDDB, 2023a; see
Figure 4.4-3 CNDDB Known Occurrences: Wildlife Species), but was determined to not be expected to
occur because the BSA does not provide the soils (Delhi sands) necessary to support this species.
The remainder of the abovementioned species were determined to be not expected to occur in the
BSA by results of the literature review. These species require one or more of the following habitat
conditions, all of which are absent from the BSA: friable soils, sufficient coverage of native vegetation,
aquatic habitats, and lack or environmental disturbances.
Low Potential to Occur in the BSA
Two sensitive wildlife species, Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and western mastiff bat (Eumops
perotis californicus), were determined to have a low potential to occur within the BSA.
Results of the literature review determined that the majority of the species evaluated in the wildlife
inventory are not expected to occur within the BSA. The two sensitive wildlife species determined to
have a low potential to occur in the BSA are discussed further below. It is not anticipated that the
project would significantly impact these species because they were only determined to have a low
potential to occur in the BSA, and these mobile species would likely utilize alternate areas during
project activities.
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Cooper’s hawks are medium-sized hawks of the woodlands.
These raptors are commonly sighted in parks, neighborhoods, over fields, and even along busy
streets if there are large trees nearby for perching, and adequate prey species such as other birds and
small mammals. They prefer to breed in more densely wooded areas than those that occur in the BSA,
such as woodland openings and edges of riparian and oak habitat (Cornell Lab or Ornithology, 2023).
Cooper’s hawks build nests in pines, oaks, Douglas-firs, beeches, spruces, and other trees (Cornell
Lab of Ornithology, 2024).
Cooper’s hawk is relatively adaptive to urbanized settings such as the BSA and could utilize the area
for passage (fly-over), hunting, and foraging. The BSA does not provide optimal nesting woodland
habitat to support this species. As discussed previously, the project is not anticipated to significantly
impact Cooper’s hawk. In the event Cooper’s hawk is discovered in the BSA during preconstruction
breeding bird survey (see Mitigation Measure BIO-1 below), implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 would reduce impacts to Cooper’s hawk to less than significant.
Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) Western mastiff bat is an uncommon resident
in southeastern San Joaquin Valley and Coastal Ranges from Monterey County southward through
southern California, from the coast eastward to the Colorado Desert. The species occurs in many
open, semi-arid-to-arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, annual
and perennial grasslands, palm oases, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban areas. Crevices in cliff faces,
high buildings, trees, and tunnels are required for roosting; this species is non-migratory, and moves
among alternate daytime roosts. Western mastiff bats roost alone or in small colonies, usually of
fewer than 100 bats; however, this species also commonly shares roosts with othe r large bats such
as big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and Brazilian free-tailed bat
(Tadarida brasiliensis; Zeiner, et al., 1988-1990).
Western mastiff bat may occasionally roost in urban structures and ornamental trees. Although there
is a building and several ornamental trees on the project site, these structures do not provide
adequate roost sites for this species because they lack roosting locations from which the bats could
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
perform a vertical drop of at least ten feet to initiate flight. Urbanized settings are not considered
optimal to support this species; the BSA does not provide high-quality habitat. There is a low
potential for this species to forage onsite. However, it is not anticipated that this species would roost
on the project site or elsewhere within the BSA. As discussed previously, the project is not anticipated
to significantly impact western mastiff bat.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Birds
The ornamental trees within the BSA could provide suitable future or current nesting sites, including
nesting sites for species such as those observed during the field evaluation. In addition, bare grounds
on the project site could support ground nesting birds such as horned lark (Eremophila alpestris),
killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), and others.
Migratory birds are protected by the MBTA and also by the California Fish and Game Code, which
renders it unlawful to take10 migratory birds, and their nests, eggs, and young. California courts have
held that take includes incidental take and is not limited to hunting and fishing and other activities
that are specifically intended to kill protected fish and wildlife.
The project could potentially result in adverse impacts to MBTA birds through removal of suitable
nesting areas and project activities that would cause increased dust, vibration, noise, and other
disturbances. Implementation of a pre-construction breeding bird survey (BIO-1), discussed below,
is recommended as mitigation to offset these impacts.
Mitigation Measures
If construction occurs during the nesting season, indirect impacts to migratory birds could occur
from increased noise, vibration, and dust during construction. This could adversely affect the
breeding behavior of some birds, and lead to the loss (take) of eggs and chicks, or nest abandonment.
To maintain compliance with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, and to avoid impacts or take of
migratory non-game breeding birds and other native birds, their nests, young, and eggs, the following
measures will be implemented. Impacts to nesting birds would be a potential significant impact if
protected breeding birds are present; therefore, the measures below will help to reduce direct and
indirect impacts caused by construction-related activities to less than significant levels.
The following mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize or avoid potential impacts to
breeding birds. Implementation of mitigation measure (MM) BIO-1 (discussed below) would
minimize or avoid significant impacts to special-status wildlife species to a less than significant level.
MM BIO-1: Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Survey
If construction activities (including demolition, site clearance, grading, utilities
installation, building construction, paving, or staging) are anticipated to commence
during the nesting season (between January 1 and August 31 of any given year, or as
determined by a local CDFW office), the project proponent shall retain a qualified
avian biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey between three to
seven days prior to construction.
10 California Fish and Game Code Section 86 defines take as to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, kill, or attempt to hunt,
pursue, catch, capture, or kill (CDFW, 2024b).
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
In accordance with the MBTA and CFGC (§§ 3503, 3503.5, 3513), if a breeding bird
territory (i.e., an area where courtship, territorial, or nest material gathering
behaviors are observed) or an active bird nest is located during the pre-construction
survey and will potentially be impacted by demolition or construction activities, the
site will be mapped and location provided to the construction foreman, City, and
project applicant. The qualified biologist will establish a buffer zone around the active
nest, which will be delimited (using fencing, stakes, flagging, orange snow fencing, or
etc.) at a minimum of 100 feetfor the detected species. The biologist will determine
the appropriate buffer size based on the planned activities and tolerances of the
nesting birds. This no-activity buffer zone will not be disturbed until a qualified
biologist has determined that the nest is inactive, the young have fledged, the young
are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, or the young will
no longer be impacted by project activities.
The survey will be conducted between three to seven days prior to the onset of
scheduled activities, including building demolition and vegetation trimming or
removal and will include all potential nest sites, such as open ground, trees, shrubs,
grasses, burrows, and structures during the breeding season.
The project applicant will conduct the pre-construction survey and subsequent
removal of all physical features that could potentially serve as avian nest sites (e.g.,
staging and stockpiling, structure removal, clear and grub, grading, fill, etc.) to avoid
impacts to nesting birds.
Monitoring at least once per week by the qualified avian biologist will be performed
to determine when nesting is complete. After the nesting cycle is complete, project
activities may begin within the buffer zone.
If no breeding birds or active nests are observed during the preconstruction survey or they are
observed and will not be impacted, project activities may begin and no further mitigation will be
required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of BIO-1, the project would result in less than significant impacts to MBTA
birds, and no additional mitigation is proposed.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse impact 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?
No Impact
The project site is comprised of disturbed and developed/ornamental land covers, which contains
the existing Conco Companies facility that will remain. The BSA also contains primarily paved areas,
buildings, sidewalks, and some ornamental vegetation for landscaping purposes. The BSA does not
support riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities (CDFW, 2023). The project would
not impact riparian habitat, or sensitive natural communities identified in local, regional state, or
federal plans, policies, or regulations. No impact is anticipated in this regard; no mitigation is
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
proposed. Land cover types mapped within the BSA are discussed below and shown in Figure 4.4-4,
Land Cover Types.
Land Cover Types
Developed/Ornamental: Developed/ornamental land cover type may generally include man-made
structures such as houses, sidewalks, buildings, parks, water tanks, flood control channels,
transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges), and ornamental landscaping consisting of non-native
plant species that occurs in parks, gardens, buildings, and parking lots. Approximately 2.36 acres of
developed/ornamental land cover was mapped on the project site, comprising the southern segment.
Approximately 44.17 acres of developed/ornamental land cover was mapped in the BSA, comprising
the majority of its area.
Disturbed: Disturbed areas that comprise the majority of the project site and other areas in the BSA
are characterized by highly compacted surfaces. These surfaces contain highly compacted gravelly
soils. surfaces with gravel or highly compacted soils where there is very low cover of ruderal
vegetation. Approximately 11.92 acres of disturbed land cover was mapped within the BSA;
approximately 5.45 acres were mapped on the project site, comprising its northern segment.
The BSA does not support riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities (CDFW, 2023;
Google Earth, 2024). The project would not cause impacts on riparian habitat or sensitive natural
communities identified in local, regional state, or federal plans, policies, or regulations. No impacts
are anticipated in this regard; no mitigation is proposed.
c) 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?
No Impact
As previously discussed, the project site is situated in a developed area surrounded by commercial
and industrial facilities. Wetlands, including marshes, vernal pools, and other waters of the U.S. or
State, were not observed during the evaluation. The project would not directly remove, fill, or
interrupt the hydrology of state or federal protected wetlands. No impacts are anticipated in this
regard; no mitigation is proposed.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact
The project site and surrounding areas do not support resident or migratory fish species or wildlife
nursery sites.
A wildlife corridor is a connection of habitat, generally native vegetation, which joins two or more
larger areas of similar habitat that are otherwise separated by natural barriers, changes in vegetation
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.4-4
LAND COVER TYPES
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
composition, or land permanently altered for human activities (e.g., parks, cemeteries); and by
infrastructure, including roads, railroads, residential development, or fencing.
Wildlife corridors may either be contiguous strips of vegetation and habitat, such as ridgelines or
riverbeds, or intermittent patches of habitat or physical features spaced closely enough to allow safe
travel. Corridors can be natural, such as a riparian corridor, or man-made, such as culverts, tunnels,
drainage pipes, walls, underpasses, overpasses, or streets. Man-made corridors are often referred to
as “wildlife crossings” and they allow wildlife to pass over, under, or through physical barriers that
otherwise hinder movement. Wildlife corridors also vary greatly in size, shape, and composition.
Due to the urbanization of the region, movement of some mammals that require larger dispersal
distances would likely be deterred. Species that are less restricted in movement and/or are well-
adapted to urbanized areas such as raccoon, skunk, coyote, and mountain lion (Puma concolor) likely
move through areas of the BSA. The project area and a portion of the BSA support habitat, including
movement habitat, for species on a local scale (habitat for bird, and mammal species).
Predators (e.g., coyotes) and smaller mammals (e.g., raccoons [Procyon lotor] and striped skunks
[Mephitis mephitis]) are known to use washes (natural and channelized), culverts, underpasses, and
city streets for travelling, often but not necessarily limited to overnight hours when human activity
decreases (Baker and Timm, 1998; Grubbs and Krausman, 2009; Ng et. al., 2004).
The BSA does not overlap with CDFW wildlife corridors (CDFW, 2024a). The nearest wildlife
corridors, two CDFW Small Natural Areas, are located approximately 1.2 mile southeast from the
project site (see Figure 4.4-5, Wildlife Corridors). Examination of aerial imagery indicates that the
BSA potentially acts as a local movement corridor (i.e., hunting, foraging, and movement area).
However, due to existing urbanization within the BSA, the project would not interfere with or impede
the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or the use of established resident
or migratory wildlife corridors. No impact would occur.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact
The ornamental trees lining the southern extent of the project boundary (Google Earth Pro, 2024)
will not be removed or otherwise significantly impacted by project activities. Fugitive dust and mud
splatter generated by construction may affect trees by settling on plant surfaces and inhibiting
metabolic processes such as photosynthesis and respiration; however, these effects are expected to
be less than significant because project construction will take place approximately 260 feet from
these trees. No conflicts with the Fontana Code of Ordinances, Chapter 28, Article III, Section 28 (City
Tree Ordinance; City of Fontana, 1993) are anticipated as a result of the project. Less than significant
impact is anticipated in this regard; no mitigation is required.
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-14
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.4-5
CDFW WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
❖ SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.4-15
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact
The proposed project is not located within an HCP, NCCP, or other approved HCP area (CDFW, 2024a)
and therefore would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural
communities conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
No impacts would occur and no mitigation is proposed.
❖ SECTION 4.5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.5-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X
4.5.1 Methods
A cultural resources analysis was conducted for the Conco Companies Warehouse project site in the
City of Fontana by UltraSystems Environmental Inc. (UltraSystems) (O’Neil, et al. 2024; see Appendix
D1). Figure 4.5-1 shows boundaries of the project site and a 0.5-mile radius around the site. The
study includes a California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records and literature
search received from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State
University, Fullerton for cultural resources in the project boundary and the 0.5 -mile radius.
Additionally, a request was made to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to conduct a
search of its Sacred Lands File (SLF) for potential traditional cultural properties as well as to provide
a list of local Native American tribes and tribal representatives to contact. The NAHC request was
made on December 12, 2023, and a reply was received on January 4, 2024; letters were sent to the
listed tribes on January 5, 2024 (see Attachment C in Appendix D1). Finally, a pedestrian survey of
the project boundary was completed on January 18, 2024.
4.5.2 Existing Conditions
Based on the cultural resources records search, it was determined that no historic cultural resources
or prehistoric archeological sites have been recorded previously within the project site boundary, or
area of potential affect (APE). Within the 0.5-mile buffer zone of the APE, there were eight previously
recorded historic-era cultural resources, but no prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded
(see Appendix D1, Section 4.1). No historic or prehistoric resources were observed during the field
survey.
❖ SECTION 4.5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.5-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.5-1
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
❖ SECTION 4.5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.5-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.5.3 Impacts Assessment
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No Impact
A historical resource is defined in § 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as any object, building,
structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined to be historically significant or
significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social,
political, military, or cultural annals of California. Historical resources are further defined as being
associated with significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period
or method of construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; or possessing
high artistic values. Resources listed in, or determined eligible for, the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR), included in a local register, or identified as significant in a historic resource
survey are also considered as historical resources under CEQA.
Similarly, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria (contained in 36 CFR 60.4) are used
to evaluate resources when complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA). Specifically, the NRHP criteria state that eligible resources comprise districts, sites,
buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association, and that: (a) are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives
of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
or method of construction, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded or
may be likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory.
A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as a result of a project or
development is considered a significant impact on the environment. Substantial adverse change is
defined as physical demolition, relocation, or alteration of a resource or its immediate surroundings
such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. Direct impacts are
those that cause substantial adverse physical change to a historic property. Indirect impacts are those
that cause substantial adverse change to the immediate surroundings of a historic property, such that
the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.
The cultural resources records search conducted at the SCCIC determined that no prehistoric or
historic-era resources have been recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE of the project boundary
(Table 4.1-1 in Appendix D1), nor within the APE.
According to records at the SCCIC, no previous cultural resource surveys have included a portion of
the project site (APE), but there have been five surveys conducted within the 0.5-mile radius project
buffer that were not within the project APE (Appendix D1).
No historic buildings were identified within the project site as a result of the project site’s field
survey.
Based on the results of the records search and the onsite field survey it is unlikely that historical
cultural resources would be adversely affected by construction of the project.
❖ SECTION 4.5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.5-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
An archaeological resource is defined in § 15064.5(c) of the CEQA Guidelines as a site, area or place
determined to be historically significant as defined in § 15064(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, or as a
unique archaeological resource defined in § 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code as an artifact,
object, or site that contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions of
public interest or that has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best example of
its type, or that is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person. The project parcel has been highly disturbed by the construction of the existing
building in the southern portion of the site. It is highly unlikely that undisturbed unique archeological
resources exist on the project site as determined by the cultural resources investigation conducted
by UltraSystems, which included a CHRIS records search of the project site and 0.5-mile radius, a
search of the SLF by the NAHC, and pedestrian field survey.
The cultural resources records search conducted at the SCCIC determined that there are no known
prehistoric cultural resource sites or isolates recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the project
boundary (Table 4.1-1 in Appendix D). The records search revealed that eight historic resources
have been recorded within 0.5 mile of the project site, but none of them were located within the
project boundary.
A NAHC SLF search was conducted in an undefined area around the project site. The NAHC provided
a response letter dated January 4, 2024, which was negative for the presence of traditional cultural
properties within this area. The NAHC also provided UltraSystems with a list of local Native American
tribes and specific tribal representatives to contact regarding this project. Subsequently, 44
representatives of the 23 Native American tribes were contacted with a letter and email on January
5, 2024 requesting a reply if they have knowledge of cultural resources in the area that they could
provide, and asking if they had any questions or concerns regarding the project. These letters are
presented in Section 4.2 and Attachment C of Appendix D of this IS/MND. The contacted tribes are:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission
Indians
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation
• Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band
of Mission Indians
• Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
• Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
• Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
• Juaneño Band of Mission Indians,
Acjachemen Nation – Belardes
• Juaneño Band of Mission Indians,
Acjachemen Nation – 84A
• Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno
Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians Pala Band
of Mission Indians
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
• Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• Ramona Band of Cahuilla
• Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
❖ SECTION 4.5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.5-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
There were five responses to this outreach.
The Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians, in an email response on January 8, 2024 from Xitaly
Madrigal, Cultural Resources Analyst, indicated that the project is not located within the Tribe’s
Traditional Use Area, and they would defer to the other tribes in the area.
The Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, in a response on January 9, 2024 from Ana Rios,
Administrative Assistant, indicated that the tribe is unaware of specific cultural resources that may
be affected by the project; however, in the event of discovery of cultural resources the tribe would
like to be informed.
An email response received January 12, 2024 from Lorrie Gregory of the Cahuilla Band of Indians,
indicated no known knowledge of cultural resources in the project area; however, since the project
is within Cahuilla traditional land use, the tribe request cultural materials associated with the project
for review.
The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians responded January 9, 2024 in an email from Raylene
Borrego, Cultural Resources Technician, indicating that based on their current knowledge, the
proposed project area is not sensitive for cultural resources ; however, the project is located within
Serrano Ancestral Territory and is therefore of interest to the Tribe. As such, San Manuel wishes to
engage in consultation pursuant to AB 52.
Also, the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, in an email from Mr. Resvaloso on January 16,
2024, indicated that the project area is located outside of their Desert Cahuilla Settlement pattern,
and therefore would defer to closer tribes within that area – the San Manual Band of Mission Indians,
and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (see Attachment C in Appendix D1) .
Following up on the initial contacts, telephone calls were conducted on January 29, 2024 to the tribal
entities who had not already responded. Thirteen calls were placed with no direct answer and so
messages were left describing the project and requesting a response. These were to: the Cabazon
Band of Mission Indians, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, the Gabrieleno /
Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, the Gabrieleno / Tongva Nation, the Gabrieleno –
Tongva Tribe, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation -Belardes, the Juaneño Band
of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A, the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians, the
Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Pechanga Band of Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla, the
Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians, and the Serrano Nation of Mission Indian (see Attachment C in
Appendix D1).
Five of the tribes called did answer and provided information regarding the project site. These were
the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, the Pala Band of Mission Indians, the
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, and the Soboba
Band of Luiseño Indians.
Ms. Conley, Cultural Resource Coordinator for the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal
Council, indicated that the tribe has no comment and would defer to the Gabrieleno / Tongva Nation.
Ms. Wallick, Assistant THPO for the Pala Band of Mission Indians, indicated that the tribe has no
comment and would defer to the more local tribes.
❖ SECTION 4.5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.5-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Mr. Scott, Acting Chairman for the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, indicated that the
tribe has no comment and would defer to the more local tribes.
Ms. Madrigal, THPO for the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, stated that she would take a look at the
email/letter that was sent out to her regarding the project and would get back with a response after
having done so; to date, there has been no response.
Ms. Valdez, Cultural Resource Specialist for the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, indicated that the
tribe has no comment and would defer to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. (See Section 4.3 and Attachment C in
Appendix D1.)
The City of Fontana prepared Conditions of Approval (COA), including Cultural Conditions. In
summary this provides for the evaluation (by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor),
treatment and curation of any tribal cultural or archaeological resource that may be discovered,
including stop work in the vicinity of the find; also that preservation in place is preferred treatment,
but if not feasible then an archaeological data recovery excavation to remove the resource with
subsequent processing and analysis, along with the tribal cultural resources being returned to the
tribe; also that archaeological and Native American monitoring shall be conducted with that
monitoring and excavation to be consistent with professional standards; and that the principal
archaeological personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards and experience as a
principal investigator with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. See the
MMRP Table 7.0-1 below for full text of the COA.
The result of the pedestrian survey was negative for both prehistoric and historic sites and isolates
on the project site. Based on the results of the records search and the onsite field survey, it is unlikely
that cultural resources or tribal resources would be adversely affected by construction of the project.
However, grading activities associated with development of the project would cause new subsurface
disturbance and may result in the unanticipated discovery of unique historic and/or prehistoric
archeological resources. In the event of an unanticipated discovery, implementation of COA Cultural
Condition -1 described above would ensure that impacts on archeological resources would be less
than significant.
Also, Mitigation Measure (MM) CUL-1 is recommended to train workers to recognize prehistoric and
historic cultural resources as well as paleontological resources (see Section 4.7, Geology and Soils) if
they should appear during subsurface construction activities and inform them of reporting
procedures. If cultural resources are observed and reported, this would lead to the implementation
of the COA Cultural Conditions - 1 noted above.
Mitigation Measure
MM CUL-1 Prior to the commencement of grading or excavation, workers conducting
construction activities and their foremen will receive Worker Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP) training from a qualified archaeologist regarding the
potential for sensitive archaeological and paleontological resources to be unearthed
during grading activities. The purpose of the WEAP training is to ensure compliance
with relevant federal, state and local regulations for the protection of archaeological
and paleontological resources that may be encountered during subsurface
construction activities. The WEAP will be prepared specifically for the Conco
❖ SECTION 4.5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.5-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Companies warehouse project which will construct a 106,288-square-foot
warehouse on 4.99 acres in Fontana. The workers will be directed to report any
unusual specimens of bone, stone, ceramics or other archaeological artifacts or
features observed during grading and/or other construction activities to their
foremen and to cease grading activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery
until a qualified archaeologist or Native American cultural monitor is notified of the
discovery by the Superintendent of the project site and can assess their significance.
The WEAP shall be implemented to educate all construction personnel of the region’s
cultural and paleontological resources and the regulations that must be adhered to
by all workers throughout the duration of project construction.
Training materials shall be language-appropriate for all construction personnel. Upon
completion of the WEAP, workers shall sign a form stating that they attended the
program, understand all protection measures, and shall abide by all the rules of the
WEAP. A record of all trained personnel shall be kept with the construction foreman
at the project field construction office and shall be made available to any resource
agency personnel. If new construction personnel are added to the project later, the
construction foreman shall ensure that new personnel receive training before they
start working. The archaeologist shall provide hard copies of the WEAP presentation
to the construction foreman.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 above, and the Conditions of Approval Cultural
Conditions - 1 (see MMRP Table 7.0-1 below), potential impacts related to archaeological resources
would be less than significant.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
As previously discussed in Section 4.5 b above, the project would be built on a parcel that has been
highly disturbed throughout. No human remains have been previously identified or recorded onsite.
It is unlikely that undisturbed unique archaeological resources exist on the project site. The project
proposes grading activities for the implementation of infrastructure that includes water, sewer and
utility lines. Grading and trenching activities associated with development of the project would cause
new subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unknown human
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In the unlikely event of an
unanticipated discovery, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-2 and adherence to applicable
codes and regulations would ensure that impacts related to the accidental discovery of human
remains would be less than significant.
California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 identifies procedures for the discovery of human remains.
CEQA § 15064.5 indicates the process for determining the significance of impacts on archaeological
and historical resources. California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 stipulates the notification
process during the discovery of Native American human remains, descendants, disposition of human
remains, and associated artifacts.
❖ SECTION 4.5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.5-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Mitigation Measure
MM CUL-2: If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project,
all work shall stop within a 30-foot radius of the discovery and the San Bernardino
County Coroner shall be notified (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The
Coroner shall determine whether the remains are recent human origin or older
Native American ancestry. If the coroner, with the aid of the supervising
archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, they shall contact the
NAHC. The NAHC shall be responsible for designating the Most Likely Descendant
(MLD). The MLD (either an individual or sometimes a committee) shall be responsible
for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by § 7050.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code. The MLD shall make recommendations within 24 hours of
their notification by the NAHC. These recommendations may include scientific
removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with
Native American burials (§ 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code).
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of mitigation measure CUL-2 above, potential impacts related to human
remains would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.6-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.6 Energy
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
X
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during
project construction or operation?
Electricity
Construction Use
Southern California Edison (SCE) will provide electric power for the proposed project. Temporary
electric power for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment would be provided by SCE. The
amount of electricity used during construction would be temporary and minimal, as demand would
primarily stem from use of electrically powered hand tools. Therefore, project construction would
not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electricity, and impacts would be
less than significant.
Operational Use
Project operation would require electricity for multiple purposes including, but not limited to,
building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Additionally, the supply,
conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water used by the project would indirectly result in
electricity usage. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), as part of the air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions analyses (refer to Section 4.3 and Section 4.8), was used to estimate the
electricity demand for the proposed project. The per capita values are based on an estimated
employee population of 114 which was provided by the client (Kim, Personal Communication, 2024).
Projected energy usage for the operational phase of the Conco Companies Industrial Buildings project
is summarized in Table 4.6-1.
❖ SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.6-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Table 4.6-1
ESTIMATED PROJECT OPERATIONAL ENERGY USE
Energy Type Units Value Per Capitaa
Onroad Motor
Vehicle Travel
(Fuel)b
Gallons gasoline/year 97,034 851
Gallons diesel/year 15,297 134
Electricity Use Kilowatt-hours per year 633,764 5,559
Natural Gas Use
1,000 BTU per year 2,088,061 18,316
a Based upon estimated employee population of 114; see Section 4.14. The per capita value for the onroad motor vehicle
fuel consumption is calculated from fuel consumption by passenger vehicles (automobiles and light-duty trucks).
b Onroad Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption calculated by UltraSystems using EMFAC2021(v1.0.2) emissions inventory
web platform tool (ARB, 2022) and CalEEMod (2022.1.1.21) (CAPCOA, 2023); see Appendix B1.
Electricity use calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (2022.1.1.21).
Natural Gas
Construction Use
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) will provide natural gas for the proposed project.
Construction activities, including the construction of new buildings and facilities, typically do not
involve the consumption of natural gas. Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as
a result of project construction would be temporary and negligible and would not have an adverse
effect; therefore, construction would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of natural gas. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Use
Natural gas consumption during operation would be required for various purposes, including
building heating and cooling. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), as part of the
air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analyses (refer to Section 4.3 and Section 4.8), was used
to estimate natural gas demand for the proposed project, which is presented in Table 4.6-1.
Petroleum
Construction Use
Petroleum-based fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource
expended during construction. Transportation of construction materials and construction workers
would also result in petroleum consumption. Heavy-duty construction equipment, vendor trucks,
and haul trucks would use diesel fuel. Construction workers would likely travel to and from the
project area in gasoline-powered vehicles. Construction for the proposed project is anticipated to
take 14 months, from September 2024 to November 2025. Because of the short-term nature of
construction and relatively small scale of the project, the project’s petroleum consumption would be
❖ SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.6-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
negligible when compared to California’s daily total use of approximately 1.8 million barrels of
petroleum.
During project construction, trucks and construction equipment would be required to comply with
the ARB's anti-idling regulations. ARB's In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets regulation would also
apply (CARB, 2016). Vehicles driven to or from the project site (delivery trucks, construction
employee vehicles, etc.) are subject to fuel efficiency standards established by the federal
government. Therefore, project construction activities regarding fuel use would not result in
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Use
During operations, the majority of fuel consumption resulting from the project would involve the use
of motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site, as well as fuels used for alternative modes of
transportation that may be used by employees and visitors to the project site. Annual project
operation petroleum usage from on-road motor vehicle fuel consumption was estimated using the
California Air Resources Board Emission Factor model (EMFAC2021). The California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod), as part of the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analyses (refer
to Section 4.3 and Section 4.8), was used to estimate the project’s vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
which was included in the EMFAC analysis to predict annual diesel and gasoline fuel consumption.
The project would comply with all applicable regulations and codes that require achievement of
various levels of energy efficiency in building operation. These include (1) the 2022 California's
Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations Title 24,
Part 6), and (2) the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen; California Code of
Regulations Title 24 Part 11).
As shown in Table 4.6-1, the project would consume approximately 112,331 gallons of petroleum-
based fuel per year during operation. By comparison, approximately 25 billion gallons of petroleum
were consumed in California in 2021 (EIA, 2023). The anticipated increase in consumption
associated with one year of project operation is 0.0004 percent of the statewide use. Although
implementation of the project would result in an increase in petroleum use during operation, over
time, vehicles would use less petroleum due to advances in fuel economy.
The project would consume approximately 633,764 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year and
2,088,061 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) of natural gas per year. By comparison, in 2022, the
latest year for which data are available, approximately 10,328 gigawatt hours of electricity were
consumed by SCE nonresidential customers in San Bernardino County (CEC, 2023a). SoCalGas
supplied approximately 29,472,194 million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2022 for the
nonresidential customer service area in that same year (CEC, 2023b). The increase in electricity and
natural gas demand at the project site would be negligible relative to the use in SCE’s and SoCalGas’s
service areas.
Continued use of energy resources is consistent with the anticipated growth within the city and the
general vicinity and would not result in energy consumption that would require a significant increase
in energy production for the energy provider. Based on the information provided above, the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact regarding wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.
❖ SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.6-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The initial Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6,
of the California Code of Regulations) 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.
Compliance with Title 24 will result in a decrease in GHG emissions.
The Title 24 standards are updated on a three-year schedule, with the most current 2022 standards
adopted on August 11, 2021. In December 2021, the 2022 standards were approved by the California
Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. The
Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) apply to newly constructed buildings, additions,
and alterations. They are a vital pillar of California’s climate action plan. The 2022 Energy Code will
produce benefits to support the state’s public health, climate, and clean energy goals by encouraging
implementation of efficient electric heat pumps, establishing electric-ready requirements for new
homes, expanding solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthening ventilation
standards, and more. Buildings with permit applications applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must
comply with the 2022 Energy Code. Public Resources Code §§ 25402 subdivisions (a)-(b) and §
25402.1 emphasize the importance of building design and construction flexibility by requiring the
California Energy Commission (CEC) to establish performance standards, in the form of an “energy
budget” in terms of the energy consumption per square foot of floor space (CEC, 2022).
The provisions of Title 24, Part 6 apply to all buildings for which an application for a building permit
or renewal of an existing permit is required by law. They regulate design and construction of the
building envelope, space-conditioning and water-heating systems, indoor and outdoor lighting
systems of buildings, and signs located either indoors or outdoors. Title 24, Part 6 specifies
mandatory, prescriptive and performance measures, all designed to optimize energy use in buildings
and decrease overall consumption of energy to construct and operate residential and nonresidential
buildings. Mandatory measures establish requirements for manufacturing, construction, and
installation of certain systems, equipment, and building components that are installed in buildings.
Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (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 proposed project would be designed with energy-efficient features, including insulated and
glazed windows and low-E coating on windows, and will be built in compliance with the California
Green Building Standards (CAL Green) Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11).
❖ SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.6-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
City of Fontana General Plan
Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience, of the City of Fontana General Plan focuses on resource
efficiency and planning for climate change within the elements of health, transportation, land use,
open space preservation, and infrastructure. It includes policies for new development that promote
energy-efficient development in Fontana; meet state energy efficiency goals for new construction;
promote green building through guidelines, awards and nonfinancial incentives; and continue to
promote and implement best practices to conserve water (Stantec, et al., 2018a).
Further, the roadway network in the vicinity of the project site is served by Omnitrans, the public
transit agency serving the San Bernardino Valley consisting of 28 fixed-route services (Omnitrans,
2024). Employees and visitors would be able to access the project site via the public transit system,
thereby reducing transportation-related fuel demand.
The proposed project would adhere to applicable federal, state, and local requirements for energy
efficiency, including Title 24 standards and General Plan Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.7-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
X
This section is based on tthe Report of Geotechnical Evaluations and Soils’ Infiltration Rates for
WQMP-BMP Stormwater Disposal System Design, Planned Industrial Warehouse to Existing Conco
❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.7-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Company, completed by Soils Southwest, Inc. on February 13, 2024; a complete copy of this Report
is included as Appendix E to this IS/MND .
a) 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.
Less than Significant Impact
The Alquist-Priolo Zones Special Studies Act defines active faults as those that have experienced
surface displacement or movement during the last 11,650 years (i.e., during the Holocene Period).
The project site is located in the seismically active region of Southern California; however, the project
site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Hazard Zone (see Figure 4.7-1 Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones). The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone is the Etiwanda
Avenue fault, located approximately 6.8 miles north of the project site. This fault is capable of a
magnitude 7.0 earthquake and is approximately 2.2 miles in length (USGS, 2023a; SCEDC, 2023).
The Cucamonga Fault, which follows the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, is approximately 7.6
miles north from the project site and is approximately 0.8 mile north of the Etiwanda Fault Zone. The
Cucamonga Fault Zone experiences major ruptures approximate every 600 to 700 years; its most
recent rupture was in the very recent Holocene, and both the surface ruptures and time of most
recent activity make this fault zone an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. This fault zone is
capable of producing an earthquake with a probable magnitude of between 6.0 and 7.0 (USGS, 2023a;
SCEDC, 2023).
Although the Cucamonga and Etiwanda Faults are capable of producing earthquakes with probable
magnitudes of 6.0 to 7.0, the project is at least 6.8 miles south from the nearest AP Earthquake Hazard
Zone (Etiwanda Fault). Moreover, the project would be constructed in accordance with standard
engineering practices and design criteria prescribed by the current California Building Code (CBC;
Title 24 California Code of Regulations [CCR]), which would reduce the significance of potential
impacts of seismic and geologic hazards. The CBC also dictates detailed design requirements,
structural design, soils and foundations considerations, and regulates the design and construction of
excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate
the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions (CBC, 2022). This would ensure that public
safety risks resulting from potential seismic shaking event would be minimized, and impacts would
be less than significant. These practice and design criteria would minimize the potential risks
associated with rupture of an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation would be required.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact
The nearest fault, an unnamed fault near Fontana approximately 5.6 miles in length (see
Figure 4.7- 2, Regionally Active Faults; USGS, 2023a), is located approximately 1.9 miles northeast
from the project site (Bryant 2017); however, little information on this fault is available (USGS 2023a;
❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.7-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
CGS 2023). Although this unnamed fault is located approximately 1.9 miles from the project site, the
proposed project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including
current California Building Code (Title 24, CCR) as described in 4.7(a)(i), which would minimize the
potential risks associated with strong seismic ground shaking (CBC, 2022). Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.7-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.7-1
ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES
Figure 4.7-2
REGIONALLY ACTIVE FAULTS
❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.7-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.7-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact
Liquefaction is the sudden decrease in the strength of cohesionless soils due to dynamic or cyclic
shaking. Saturated soils behave temporarily as a viscous fluid (liquefaction) and consequently lose
Other capacity to support the structures built on them. The potential for liquefaction decreases with
increasing clay and gravel content but increases as the ground acceleration and duration of shaking
increase. Liquefaction potential has been found to be the greatest where the groundwater level and
loose sands occur within 50 feet of the ground surface.
The project site is considered non-susceptible to liquefaction due to the depth to groundwater, which
was not found to depths of 31 feet below ground surface during geotechnical exploration of the site
(Soils Southwest, 2024, p. 8). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation
would be required.
iv) Landslides?
Less than Significant
The site and surroundings are relatively flat; therefore, the potential for earthquake-induced
landslides onsite is considered remote (Soils Southwest, 2024, p. 9). Impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation is needed.
❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.7-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.7-3
LANDSLIDES AND LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ZONES
❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.7-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact
Construction
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS) Web Soil
Survey (see Appendix E has mapped two soil types on the project site: Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5
percent slopes (TuB); and Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes (TvC; Soil Survey Staff
2023).
The Web Soil Survey provides soil erosion factors for both soil types mapped on the project site.
Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. The estimates
are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and
saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being
equal, the higher the K value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water (Soil
Survey Staff, 2023).
A wind erodibility group (WEG) consists of soils that have similar properties affecting their
susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The soils assigned to group 1 are the most
susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible (Soil Survey Staff,
2023). Table 4.7-1 reports selected properties of soils mapped on the project site.
Table 4.7-1
SELECTED PROPERTIES OF MAPPED SOIL UNITS
Name Symbol K Factor,
Whole Soil
Wind
Erodibility
Group (WEG)
Percent
Clay
Plasticity
Index
Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to
5 percent slopes TuB .15 2 3.0 0.0
Tujunga gravelly loamy
sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes TvC .10 2 2.5 0.0
Source: Soil Survey Staff, 2023.
Based on their K Factor, Whole Soil, both TvC and TuB soils have a low susceptibility to sheet and rill
erosion by water, as shown in Table 4.7-1. However, both of these soils are highly susceptible to
wind erosion, which could potentially result in soil erosion and the loss of topsoil.
The project owner would be required by the California State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) to obtain coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance
Activities (General Permit; Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002)). The General Permit
regulates discharges to waters of the U.S. from stormwater and authorized non-stormwater
associated with construction activity from sites that disturb one or more acres of land.
The Construction General Permit requires potential dischargers of pollutants into waters of the U.S.
to prepare a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which establishes
enforceable limits on discharges, requires effluent monitoring, designates reporting requirements,
❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.7-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
and requires construction best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate point and
non-point source discharges of pollutants, including sediment resulting from wind or water erosion.
As further detailed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project applicant would be
required to obtain a General Permit prior to project construction. This General Permit would require
the project owner, to prepare and implement a SWPPP prior to ground-disturbing construction
activities to identify construction BMPs to avoid or minimize soil erosion, including soil erosion by
wind.
Implementation of wind and water erosion BMPs during construction are intended to minimize or
avoid soil erosion. Therefore, construction-related impacts regarding soil erosion or the loss of top
soil would be less than significant and mitigation is not required.
Operation
The permeable landscaped areas would be managed to minimize erosion, as required by the County
of San Bernardino Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permit (Order No. R8-2010-0036;
see Section 4.10[a]). Impacts from soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant
because the proposed project must be designed to retain, to the maximum extent practicable,
stormwater and sediment (via erosion) generated on the project. Therefore, the potential for
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during the operational phase of the project would be
less than significant. Mitigation is not required.
c) 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?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located on geologic surficial deposits mapped as alluvial fan deposits, alluvial wash
deposits (Holocene period), and young alluvial fan deposits (Holocene to Late Pleistocene period).
These deposits encompass alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits; both unconsolidated and semi-
consolidated (Stoneburg 2024).
Landslides
As mentioned previously, the project site is located in an area that has generally flat topography and
is highly developed (Google Earth Pro, 2024). The project site is not within an area evaluated for
landslide hazards; Additionally, as detailed in the City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
(LHMP), there have been no reported historical occurrences of landslides in the City of Fontana (City
of Fontana, 2017a). Therefore, potential impacts anticipated in regard to landslides would be less
than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Lateral Spreading
Seismically-induced lateral spreading involves primarily lateral movement of earth materials due to
ground shaking. It differs from slope failure in that complete ground failure involving large
movement does not occur due to the relatively smaller gradient of the initial ground surface. Lateral
spreading is demonstrated by near-vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement of the
soil mass involved. The topography at the project site and in the immediate vicinity of the site is
❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.7-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
characterized by very shallow slopes, with no significant nearby slopes or embankments. Under these
circumstances, the potential for lateral spreading at the project site is considered low. Therefore,
impacts from lateral spreading would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
Subsidence
Soil shrinkage and/or bulking as a result of remedial grading depends on several factors including
the depth of over-excavation, the grading method and equipment utilized, and average relative
compaction. The proposed project would adhere to the applicable federal, state, and local regulations
including current California Building Standards Code (Title 24, CCR) which would minimize the
potential risks associated with soil shrinkage and/or bulking. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation would be required.
Liquefaction
As detailed above, the project site would not encounter groundwater, which was measured at
approximately 286 feet bgs (CASGEM, 2024). Therefore, impacts resulting from liquefaction would
be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
Collapse
Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that collapse and compact with the
addition of water or excessive loading. These soils are distributed throughout the southwestern
United States, specifically in areas of young alluvial fans, debris flow sediments, and loess
(wind-blown sediment) deposits. Soil collapse occurs when the land surface is saturated at depths
greater than those reached by typical rain events. This saturation eliminates the clay bonds holding
the soil grains together. Similar to expansive soils, collapsible soils result in structural damage such
as cracking of the foundation, floors, and walls in response to settlement.
The project site is located on alluvial fan deposits, alluvial wash deposits (Holocene period), and
young alluvial fan deposits (Holocene to Late Pleistocene period; Stoneburg 2024). However, the
soils mapped on the project site have low representative clay values (3.0 percent and 2.5 percent,
respectively; see Table 4.7-1). Additionally, the proposed project would comply with applicable
federal, state, and local regulations, including current California Building Standards Code (Title 24,
CCR) which would minimize the potential risks associated with soil collapse. Therefore , impacts
would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
c) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact
Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in soil moisture. Soil moisture may change from
landscape irrigation, rainfall, and utility leakage. Repeated changes in soil volume due to water
content fluctuations may compromise structure foundations. Expansive soils are commonly very
fine-grained with high to very high percentages of clay. Design provisions such as adequate
reinforcements, deeper foundations or other measures may help alleviate the effects of soil
expansion but may not completely eliminate the problem.
❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.7-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
The soils mapped on the project site have Plasticity Index rating of 0.0 percent for both soil types
(Soil Survey Staff 2023); both of these ratings correlate to an expansion potential of “Very Low” (Day,
2000).
The project would not be located on an expansive soil, and project-related impacts resulting from
expansive soils would be less than significant. No mitigation is proposed.
d) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
No Impact
As proposed, the project would join the City’s existing sewage system through a connection on Dahlia
Street; therefore the project would not include septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems (see Section 3.2.6, Utilities). For this reason, no impacts associated with septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems would occur and mitigation is not required.
e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The project site boundary is underlain by a mix of alluvial deposits from the Holocene and late
Pleistocene epochs (Morton and Miller 2006, in Stoneburg 2024). While Holocene alluvial units are
considered to be of high preservation value, material found there is unlikely to be fossil material due
to the modern associated dates of the deposits. Pleistocene alluvial deposits, however, are
considered to be of high preservation value and are likely to contain fossils (Stoneburg 2024).
The degree of paleontological sensitivity of a particular area is based on various factors including the
documented presence of fossiliferous resources on a site or in nearby areas, the presence of
documented fossils within a particular geologic formation, and whether or not the original
depositional environment of the sediments is one that might have been conducive to the
accumulation of organic remains that might have become fossilized over time. Holocene (11,700
years before present) alluvium is generally considered to be geologically too young to contain
significant nonrenewable paleontological resources, and is therefore typically considered to have low
paleontological sensitivity. However, Pleistocene (over 11,700 years old) alluvial and alluvial fan
deposits often yield important terrestrial vertebrate fossils, such as extinct mammoths, mastodons,
giant ground sloths, extinct species of horse, bison, camel, saber-toothed cats, and others. A portion
of the deposits that underlie the project site are late Pleistocene sediments and are thus considered
a high-value paleontological resource.
Any substantial excavations below the uppermost layers should be closely monitored to quickly and
professionally collect any specimens without impeding development. Grading and excavation
activities associated with development of the project would cause new subsurface disturbance and
could result in the unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources. In the event of an
unexpected discovery, implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 would ensure paleontological
resources or unique geologic features are not significantly affected.
Mitigation Measure
❖ SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.7-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
MM GEO-1 The project proponent shall retain a qualified paleontologist on-call during ground
disturbances during the project construction phase (to include demolition, site
preparation, grading, utilities installation, building construction, and paving). If
paleontological resources are uncovered during project construction, the contractor
shall halt construction activities within 50 feet of the find and notify the City of
Fontana . The on-call paleontologist shall be notified and shall recover, analyze, and
curate the find(s). Subsequently, the monitor shall remain onsite for the duration of
the ground disturbance to ensure the protection of any other resources that are found
during construction on the project site.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 above, potential impacts related to
paleontological resources would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.8-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
4.8.1 Background Information on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.8.1.1 Introduction
Life on earth depends on energy coming from the sun. About half the light reaching Earth's
atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and then radiated
upward in the form of infrared heat. About 90 percent of this heat is then absorbed by carbon dioxide
(CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG) and radiated back toward the surface, which is warmed to
a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (NASA, 2023).
Human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century, the burning of fossil
fuels such as coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2. This happens because
the coal or oil burning process combines carbon in the fuel with oxygen in the air to make CO 2. To a
lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased
concentrations of GHGs (NASA, 2023).
GHGs are defined under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) as CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6). Associated with each GHG species is a "global warming potential" (GWP), which
is a value used to compare the abilities of different GHGs to trap heat in the atmosphere. GWPs are
based on the heat absorbing ability of each gas relative to that of CO2, as well as the decay rate of each
gas (the amount removed from the atmosphere over a given number of years). The GWPs of CH4 and
N2O are 25 and 298, respectively (GMI, 2023). "Carbon dioxide equivalent" (CO2e) emissions are
calculated by weighting each GHG compound's emissions by its GWP and then summing the products.
HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 would not be emitted in significant amounts by the Conco Warehouse Project
sources, so they are not discussed further.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas consisting of molecules made up
of two oxygen atoms and one carbon atom. It is produced when an organic carbon compound (such
as wood) or fossilized organic matter (such as coal, oil, or natural gas) is burned in the presence of
oxygen. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid-1700s, industrial activities have increased
in scale and distribution. Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were stable at a range
of 275 to 285 ppm (IPCC, 2007). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth
System Research Laboratory indicates that the global concentration of CO2 was 416.59 parts per
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.8-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
million (ppm) in August 2023 (ESRL, 2023). These concentrations of CO2 exceed by far the natural
range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores.
Methane (CH4). Methane is a colorless, odorless non-toxic gas consisting of molecules made up of
four hydrogen atoms and one carbon atom. CH4 is combustible, and is the main constituent of natural
gas, a fossil fuel. It is released when organic matter decomposes in low oxygen environments. Natural
sources include wetlands, swamps and marshes, termites, and oceans. Anthropogenic sources
include the mining of fossil fuels and transportation of natural gas, digestive processes in ruminant
animals such as cattle, rice paddies, and the buried waste in landfills. Over the last 50 years, human
activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the
atmospheric concentration of CH4. Other anthropogenic sources include fossil-fuel combustion and
biomass burning.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is a colorless, non-flammable gas with a sweetish odor,
commonly known as “laughing gas,” and sometimes used as an anesthetic. N2O is naturally produced
in the oceans and in rainforests (USEPA, 2011). Manmade sources of N2O include the use of fertilizers
in agriculture, nylon and nitric acid production, cars with catalytic converters and the burning of
organic matter. Concentrations of N2O also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
GHGs are regulated at the national, state, and air basin level; each agency has a different degree of
control. The USEPA regulates at the national level; the ARB regulates at the state level; and the
SCAQMD regulates at the air basin level in the Conco Buildings project area.
Federal Regulations
The USEPA collects several types of GHG emissions data. These data help policy makers, businesses,
and the USEPA track GHG emissions trends and identify opportunities for reducing emissions and
increasing efficiency. The USEPA has been maintaining a national inventory of GHG emissions since
1990 and in 2009 established mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large GHG emissions
sources.
The EPA is also achieving GHG reductions through partnerships and initiatives, evaluating policy
options, costs, and benefits, advancing the science, partnering internationally and with states,
localities, and tribe, and helping communities adapt.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards
In May 2010, the USEPA finalized the first-ever national GHG emissions standards under the Clean
Air Act, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The 2010
CAFE standards were for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles (USEPA, 2023a). In April
2020, NHTSA and USEPA amended the CAFE and GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and
light trucks and established new less stringent standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026
(NHTSA, 2021).
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule
On September 27, 2019, the USEPA and the NHTSA published the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
(SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program (NHTSA, 2020), which revoked California’s
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.8-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates in
California. The loss of the ZEV sales requirements would likely result in additional gasoline-fueled
vehicles being sold in the State and criteria emissions increasing. On April 30, 2020, USEPA and
NHTSA issued the Final SAFE Rule (USEPA, 2023b), which relaxed the federal GHG emissions and
CAFE standards resulting in the probable increase of CO2 emissions. However, this regulation was
repealed on December 21, 2021 by the Biden administration (NHTSA, 2021).
State Regulations
Executive Order (EO) S 3-05
On June 1, 2005, the governor issued EO S 3-05, which set the following GHG emission 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.
To meet these targets, the Climate Action Team (CAT)11 prepared a report to the Governor in 2006
that contained recommendations and strategies to help ensure that the targets in EO S-3-05 are met.
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)
In 2006, the California State Legislature enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,
also known as AB 32. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG emissions in California. AB 32 required that
GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The ARB is the state agency
charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of GHGs that cause global warming.
AB 32 also required that by January 1, 2008, the ARB determine what the statewide GHG emissions
level was in 1990, and that it approve a statewide GHG emissions limit, so it may be applied to the
2020 benchmark. The ARB approved a 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million metric tons of CO 2e
(MMTCO2e), on December 6, 2007, in its Staff Report. Therefore, in 2020, emissions in California were
required to be at or below 427 MMTCO2e.
Under the “business as usual or (BAU)” scenario established in 2008, statewide emissions were
increasing at a rate of approximately one percent per year, as noted below. It was determined that
the 2020 estimated BAU of 596 MMTCO2e would have required a 28 percent reduction to reach the
1990 level of 427 MMTCO2e.
Climate Change Scoping Plan
The first AB 32 Scoping Plan (ARB, 2008) contained the main strategies to achieve the 2020
emissions cap. The plan was developed by the ARB with input from the CAT and proposed a
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon emissions in California, improve the
environment, reduce oil dependency, diversify energy sources, and enhance public health while
creating new jobs and improving the state's economy. The GHG reduction strategies contained in the
11 The Climate Action Team (CAT) members are state agency secretaries and the heads of agencies, boards, and
departments, led by the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). They coordinate
statewide efforts to implement global warming emission reduction programs and the state's Climate Adaptation
Strategy.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.8-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
AB 32 Scoping Plan included direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and
non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade
system.
In May 2014, the ARB adopted the First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan (ARB, 2014). This update
identified the next steps for California's leadership on climate change. It described progress made to
meet the near-term objectives of AB 32 and defined California's climate change priorities and
activities for the next several years. It also framed activities and issues facing the state as it develops
an integrated framework for achieving both air quality and climate goals in California beyond 2020.
In the original AB 32 Scoping Plan, the ARB approved a total statewide GHG 1990 emissions level and
2020 emissions limit of 427 million metric tons (MT) of CO2e. As part of the update, the ARB revised
the 2020 Statewide limit to 431 million MT of CO2e, an approximately one percent increase from the
original estimate. The 2020 Business as Usual forecast in the update is 509 million MT of CO 2e. The
state would have needed to reduce those emissions by 15.3 percent to meet the 431 million MT of
CO2e 2020 limit.
In November 2017, the ARB published the 2017 AB 32 Scoping Plan (ARB, 2017), which built upon
the former AB 32 Scoping Plan and updates by outlining priorities and recommendations for the state
to achieve its 2030 GHG target of a 40 percent reduction in GHGs by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.
The major elements of the framework proposed were: enhancement of the Renewables Portfolio
Standard (RPS) and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS); a Mobile Source Strategy, Sustainable
Freight Action Plan, Short Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, Sustainable Communities
Strategies, and a Post 2020 Cap and Trade Program; a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from
the refinery sector; and an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan.
On November 16, 2022, the ARB circulated its Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon
Neutrality (ARB, 2022). It identifies a technologically feasible, cost-effective path to achieve carbon
neutrality by 2045 or earlier. Through the lens of carbon neutrality, the plan expands the scope to
more meaningfully consider how our natural and working lands (NWL) contribute to our long -term
climate goal.
Renewables Portfolio Standard (Scoping Action E-3)
The California Energy Commission estimates that in 2000 about 12 percent of California’s retail
electric load was met with renewable resources. Renewable energy includes (but is not limited to)
wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas.
California’s current RPS is intended to increase that share to 44 percent by 2024. Increased use of
renewables will decrease California’s reliance on fossil fuels, thus reducing emissions of GHGs from
the electricity sector. Governor Brown signed into legislation Senate Bill (SB) 350 in October 2015,
which requires retail sellers and publicly-owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity
from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030.
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375)
Senate Bill (SB) 375 passed the Senate on August 30, 2008, and was signed by the Governor on
September 30, 2008. Per SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions
and contributes approximately 45 percent of the GHG emissions in California, with automobiles and
light trucks alone contributing almost 30 percent. SB 375 indicates that GHGs from automobiles and
light trucks can be reduced by new vehicle technology. However, significant reductions from changed
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.8-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
land use patterns and improved transportation also are necessary. SB 375 states, “Without improved
land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375
does the following: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable
community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions; (2) aligns
planning for transportation and housing; and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation
of the strategies.
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, the governor issued Executive Order B-30-15, which added an interim target of
GHG emissions reductions to help ensure the State meets its 80 percent reduction by 2050, as set in
EO S-3-05. The interim target is reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent by 2030. It also directs state
agencies to update the Scoping Plan, update Adaptation Strategy every three years, and take climate
change into account in their planning and investment strategies. Additionally, it requires the state’s
Five-Year Infrastructure Plan will take current and future climate change impacts into account in all
infrastructure projects.
Title 24
California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative
mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. Although these standards were not originally
intended to reduce GHGs, energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased
energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The standards are
updated every three years, to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient
technologies and methods. The 2019 standards were a major step towards meeting the Zero Net
Energy goal by the year 2030. The latest iteration is the 2022 Energy Code, adopted on August 11,
2021, that builds upon California’s goals towards building decarbonization and net carbon neutrality
by emphasizing energy efficient innovations (CEC, 2022b). Its four areas of focus for the construction
of new buildings include encouraging electric heat pump technology, establishing electric-ready
requirements, expanding solar photovoltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards, and
strengthening ventilation standards.
San Bernardino Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan
The County of San Bernardino is committed to planning sustainably for the future while ensuring a
livable, equitable, and economically vibrant community. Planning sustainably includes
acknowledging the local role in climate change and how the County can mitigate its greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and prepare for (i.e., adapt to) anticipated climate-related changes. The County
adopted its first Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan (GHGRP) in September 2011 and updated
it in June 2021 (LSA Associates, 2021). The GHGRP provided the GHG emissions inventory for the
year 2007, and the target of reducing GHG emissions 15 percent below 2007 levels by 2020. The
County has implemented strategies to reduce its GHG emissions identified in the 2011 GHGRP, which
has helped the County meet its 2020 GHG reduction targets. Since the adoption of County’s GHGRP,
the State has enacted new climate change regulations, most notably Senate Bill (SB) 32, which
provides statewide targets to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 2007 levels by 2030 (LSA
Associates, 2021).
The State has set goals for reducing GHG emissions by 2020, 2030, and 2045 through AB 32, SB 32,
SB-100, EO-B-55-18. The State passed an executive order (EO-B-55-18), which mandates statewide
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.8-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
net carbon neutrality by 2045. In the interim, the State has also provided a target of 40 percent below
2020 levels by 2030. The County has identified this target as 40 percent below 2020 emission levels
by 2030. The 2030 target will put the County on a path toward the State’s long-term goal to achieve
zero net carbon emissions by 2045 (LSA Associates, 2021). As shown in Table 4.8-1, in 2030, San
Bernardino County would need to reduce its emissions to 1,754,098 MTCO2e to meet the GHG
reduction target of 40 percent below 2020 levels.
Table 4.8-1
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GHG REDUCTION TARGETS FOR COUNTYWIDE EMISSIONS
Strategy Target
2020 Target 15 percent below 2007 baseline levels
2020 Emissions Goal (MTCO2e) 5,315,000
2030 Target 40 percent below 2020 BAU levels
2030 Emissions Goal (MTCO2e) 1,754,098
Source: San Bernardino County GHG Reduction Plan Update, (LSA Associates, Inc., 2021, p.22),
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
City of Fontana
The City of Fontana approved and adopted a General Plan on November 13, 2018. Chapter 12 of the
plan on Sustainability and Resilience addresses policies for Fontana to meet the greenhouse gas
reduction goals for 2030 and subsequent goals set by the state. These policies include continuing to
collaborate with San Bernardino County Transportation Authority on greenhouse gas inventories
and climate action planning. The state goals focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40
percent below 1990 levels by 2030 by increasing renewable electricity production to 50 percent.
Major sources of greenhouse gases in Fontana include onroad transportation (comprising 39
percent) and building energy (comprising 51 percent) (City of Fontana, 2023c). To reduce GHG,
Fontana is using LED lighting in new developments, energy savings in wastewater treatments, and
implementing Smart Bus technologies. Fontana is incorporating land use strategies and transit-
oriented development to reduce vehicle miles traveled, which will also decrease GHG emissions.
4.8.3 Impact Thresholds
The following thresholds of significance are based on criteria in Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines. A project has the potential to create a significant environmental impact if it would:
• Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment; or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
emissions of GHG.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.8-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.8.4 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact
California has enacted several pieces of legislation that relate to GHG emissions and climate change,
much of which set aggressive goals for GHG reductions within the state. Per Senate Bill 97, the
California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, which address
the specific obligations of public agencies when analyzing GHG emissions under CEQA to determine
a project’s effects on the environment. However, neither a threshold of significance nor any specific
mitigations are included or provided in these CEQA Guideline amendments.
GHG Significance Threshold
Neither the City of Fontana, the SCAQMD nor the State CEQA Guidelines Amendments provide
adopted quantitative thresholds of significance for addressing a commercial project’s GHG emissions.
Nonetheless, § 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines serves to assist lead agencies in determining the
significance of the impacts of GHGs. As required in § 15064.4, this analysis includes an impact
determination based on: (1) an estimate of the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from
the project; (2) a qualitative analysis or performance based standards; (3) a quantification of the
extent to which the project increases greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing
environmental setting; and (4) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or
requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or
mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.
SCAQMD’s guidance uses a tiered approach rather than a single numerical emissions threshold. If a
project’s GHG emissions “fail” the non-significance of a given tier, then one goes to the next one.
The threshold selected for this analysis is Tier 3, which establishes a screening significance threshold
level to determine significance using a 90 percent emission capture rate. For Tier 3, the SCAQMD
estimated that at a threshold of approximately 3,000 metric tons (tonnes) CO2e per year, emissions
would capture 90 percent of the GHG emissions from new residential or commercial projects
(SCAQMD, 2008).
Construction GHG Emissions
Construction is an episodic, temporary source of GHG emissions. Emissions are generally associated
with the operation of construction equipment, import or export of soil, and the disposal of
construction waste. To be consistent with the guidance from the SCAQMD for calculating criteria
pollutants from construction activities, only GHG emissions from onsite construction activities and
offsite hauling and construction worker commuting are considered as project generated. As
explained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in its 2008 white
paper (CAPCOA, 2022), the information needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture,
transport, and end of life of construction materials would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level;
CEQA does not require an evaluation of speculative impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15145). Therefore,
the construction analysis does not consider such GHG emissions but does consider non speculative
ones.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.8-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Estimated criteria pollutant emissions from the Conco Industrial Buildings project were calculated
using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1.1.21 (CAPCOA, 2022),
which was described in Section 4.3.7. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.8-2. The
total construction GHG emissions would be 491 metric tons CO2e. Consistent with SCAQMD
recommendations and to ensure that construction emissions are assessed in a quantitative sense,
construction GHG emissions have been amortized over a 30-year period. The amortized value, 16.37
MTCO2e, has been added to the Conco Industrial Buildings Project’s annual operational GHG
emissions. For each construction year, annual GHG emissions would be far below the threshold
of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year and therefore would be less than significant. No mitigation is
necessary.
Table 4.8-2
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS
Year/Phase Annual Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2024 155 0.01 < 0.005 157
2025 330 0.02 0.01 334
Total 485 0.03 0.01 491
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.21) (CAPCOA,
2022).
Operational GHG Emissions
The proposed Conco Industrial Buildings Project would construct a 106,289-square-foot warehouse,
which would include approximately 8,000 square feet of office space and 98,288 square feet of
warehouse space, which would result in operational emissions from area sources, motor vehicles,
and energy demand. The operational GHG emissions calculated by CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.21
(CAPCOA, 2022) are shown in Table 4.8-3. Total annual unmitigated emissions from the Conco
Industrial Buildings Project, including the amortized construction emissions, would be 1,466
MTCO2e per year.12
Table 4.8-3
PROJECT OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Estimated Project Generated CO2e
Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Area Sources 2.16
Energy Demand (Electricity & Natural Gas) 265
Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 969
Solid Waste Generation 63.7
12 Calculations are provided in Appendix B1.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.8-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Emission Source
Estimated Project Generated CO2e
Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Water Demand 150
Construction Emissionsa 16.37
Total 1,466
a Total construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years and added to those resulting from the
operation of the project.
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.21) (CAPCOA, 2022).
Therefore, under the first significance criterion, GHG emissions would be less than significant, and
no mitigation is necessary.
b.) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG?
Less than Significant Impact
The City of Fontana does not have an adopted climate action plan. An approach to identifying
potential conflict with GHG reduction plans, policies, or regulations is to examine General Plan
provisions that prescribe or enable GHG emissions control. The Final EIR for the General Plan Update
(City of Fontana, 2018b) lists policies in the General Plan Update that reduce GHG emissions and help
to quantify emissions reductions. However, the policies prescribe actions to be taken by the City, and
not measures to be implemented by a project proponent. Nevertheless, the proposed project would
not conflict with any of the GHG emission reduction policies ; an analysis of project consistency with
General Plan policies intended to reduce GHG emissions is provided in Section 4.11,. Therefore, the
project would not hinder the implementation of General Plan policies for reducing GHG emissions.
❖ SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.9-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working
in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X
The analysis in this section is based in part upon the RecCheck radius search for 13502 Dahlia Street,
Fontana, CA 92337 completed by ERS Inc. on January 17, 2024. A complete copy of this Report is
included as Appendix G to this IS/MND.
❖ SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.9-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
Transportation of hazardous materials/waste is regulated by California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Title 26. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) enforce federal and state regulations and respond to hazardous materials transportation
emergencies. Emergency responses are coordinated as necessary among federal, state and local
governmental authorities and private persons through a state-mandated Emergency Response Plan.
Due to the significant short-term risks to public health and the environment associated with
hazardous waste management during transportation of wastes, specific Commercial Hazardous
Waste Shipping Routes are designated with the intent of minimizing the distance that wastes are
transported and the proximity to vulnerable locations.
The proposed project includes the construction of a warehouse. Construction activities would be
temporary and would involve transport, storage, and use of chemical agents, solvents, paints, and
other hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities. Chemical transport,
storage, and use would comply with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); California hazardous waste control law; California
Division of Safety and Health (DOSH); South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and
the City of Fontana Fire Protection District requirements. The proposed project would comply with
all applicable laws and regulations. Construction impacts in regard to hazardous materials would be
less then significant.
Operation
At the time this IS/MND was prepared, the future tenant(s) of the proposed building were unknown.
For the purpose of environmental analysis, the future uses onsite are assumed to be any of those uses
permitted by the City of Fontana’s General Plan land use designation of General Industrial (I-G), and
the City’s Municipal Code. During operations, the future tenant may require the routine transport of
hazardous materials for maintaining supplies onsite and for disposal of waste offsite. Transportation
of hazardous materials can result in accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or explosion.
The residences nearest to the project site are located along Jurupa Avenue, approximately 0.75 mile
southeast of the project site. Since hazardous materials must not be transported through existing
residential areas, the tenant would propose routes that are surrounded primarily by existing
industrial land uses. The project site is located within the Fontana Gateway Specific Plan, an
industrial-zoned portion of the City. Therefore, if any accidental releases of hazardous materials were
to occur, they would be anticipated to occur in the primarily industrial areas and along roads leading
to and from the project site.
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety
prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as described in
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and implemented by Title 13 of the CFR.
Appropriate documentation would be provided for all hazardous waste that is transported, as
required by existing hazardous materials regulations. Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety
❖ SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.9-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Code requires businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials onsite to
submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to firefighters, health officials, planners, public safety
officers, health care providers, regulatory agencies, and other interested persons (see mitigation
measure MM HAZ-1 below). The business plan must include an inventory of the hazardous materials
handled, facility floor plans showing where hazardous materials are stored, an emergency response
plan, and provisions for employee safety and emergency response training.
Further, proper documentation would be required to identify which hazardous materials would be
transported and which routes they would be transported along. Therefore, MM HAZ-1 (see below)
would be implemented to ensure that the future tenant would provide proper hazardous materials
transportation information.
In addition to the suggested mitigation measure the future tenant would be required to comply with
existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the US Environmental Protection
Agency, State of California, County of San Bernardino, and City of Fontana related to storage, use, and
disposal of hazardous materials, which would reduce the potential risk of hazardous materials
exposure to a level that is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure would be adopted to minimize or avoid impacts related to routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials:
MM HAZ-1 In the event that the future tenant will handle hazardous materials above the
reportable quantity threshold specified in the tenant’s Hazardous Materials Business
Plan (HMBP) pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 19 Sections 5010.1 et
seq. The HMBP shall contain in inventory of hazardous materials at the facility;
emergency response plans and procedures to be followed in the event of a reportable
release or threatened release of a hazardous material; requirements to train
employees in safety procedures in the event of a release or threatened release of a
hazardous material; and a site map depicting loading areas, internal roads, adjacent
streets, storm and sewer drains, site entrances/exits, emergency shutoffs, evacuation
staging areas, hazardous material handling and storage areas, and emergency
response equipment. The tenant shall, in coordination with the City of Fontana,
identify routes along which hazardous materials may routinely be transported.
Transportation routes for hazardous materials shall comply with California Vehicle
Code Sections 31303(b) (the transportation shall be on state or interstate highways
which offer the least overall transit time whenever practicable); and 31303(c) (the
transporter shall avoid, whenever practicable, congested thoroughfares, places
where crowds are assembled, and residence districts as defined in [California Vehicle
Code] Section 515). The tenant and the City shall consider distances of routes to
sensitive areas such hospitals, schools, handicapped facilities, prisons and stadiums
in their selection of hazardous materials transportation routes, in accordance with
Code of Federal Regulations Title 49 Section 397.71(b)(9)(vi).
Level of Significance After Mitigation
In addition to compliance with the established regulatory framework, mitigation measure HAZ-1
requires implementation of an emergency response plan and designated transportation route(s) to
ensure that potentially significant impacts regarding hazardous materials are minimized or
❖ SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.9-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
eliminated. Impacts to the public or the environment resulting from the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant after mitigation.
b) 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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
Project construction would involve transport, storage, and use of chemical agents, solvents, paints,
and other hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities. Chemical
transport, storage, and use would comply with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); California hazardous waste control law (California Health
and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Hazardous Waste Control); California Division of Safety
and Health (DOSH); and San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD) requirements. The
construction contractor would maintain equipment and supplies onsite for containing and cleaning
up small spills of hazardous materials; and in the event of a release of hazardous materials of quantity
and/or toxicity that onsite workers could not safely contain and clean up, would notify the SBCFPD
immediately.13 Therefore, compliance with applicable laws and regulations during project
construction would reduce the potential for accidental releases of hazardous materials, and
construction hazards impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Operation
As the future tenant(s) of the proposed project are not known at this time, there is a potential that
the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment during
operation through accidental release of hazardous materials. Typical incidents that could result in
accidental release of hazardous materials involve: leaking storage tanks; spills during transport;
inappropriate storage; inappropriate use; and/or natural disasters. Accidental releases such as these
could cause contamination of soil, surface water, groundwater, and toxic fumes. Depending on the
nature and extent of the contamination, groundwater supplies could become unsuitable for use as a
domestic water source. Human exposure to contaminated soil or water could h ave potential health
effects depending on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of
exposure.
Chemicals and wastes stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks would follow guidelines
mandated by the federal and state agencies. Aboveground tanks storing hazardous chemicals would
have secondary containment to collect fluids that are accidentally released. Underground storage
tanks and connecting piping would be double-walled and would have monitoring devices with alarms
installed to constantly monitor for unauthorized releases in accordance with federal and state
standards.
13 The San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD) is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for
Riverside County; the Certified Unified Program coordinates and makes consistent enforcement of several state and
federal regulations governing hazardous materials. DEH also provides emergency responses to hazardous materials
incidents in Calaveras County (SBCFPD, 2024).
❖ SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.9-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Applicable existing standards include the Cal/OSHA operational requirements, California Health and
Safety Code § 25270.7, and Fontana Fire Protection District regulations regarding the installation and
operation of underground tanks. These existing measures would minimize impacts to a less than
significant level.
Transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or
explosion, and there is a potential for licensed vendors to transport hazardous materials to and from
the project site. As discussed previously, the proposed project is subject to compliance with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws (including Title 49 of the CFR) and regulations pertaining to
the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous waste. Additionally, with the
implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-1, the future tenant would coordinate with the city to
ensure that transportation of hazardous materials would create less than significant impacts.
Therefore, with compliance with these regulations and mitigation measures, the proposed project
would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit, thereby ensuring that potential
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to mitigation measure HAZ-1 above.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
In addition to compliance with established regulatory framework, mitigation measure HAZ-1
requires implementation of an emergency response plan and designated transportation route(s).
Impacts regarding the accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant with
the implementation of mitigation.
c) 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?
No Impact
The project is not located within 0.25 mile of a school. The closest school to the project site, Henry J.
Kaiser High School, is approximately 1.6 miles east of the project site (Google Earth Pro, 2023).
Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) 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?
No Impact
Government Code § 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to compile
and update, at least annually, lists of the following:
• Hazardous waste and substances sites from the DTSC EnviroStor database.
• Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites by county and fiscal year in the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database.
❖ SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.9-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
• Solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous
waste levels outside waste management units.
• SWRCB Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAOs).
• Hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to § 25187.5 of the Health
and Safety Code, identified by DTSC.
These lists are collectively referred to as the “Cortese List”. The project site is not included in the
Cortese List (CalEPA, 2023). The project site (the existing building at 13052 Dahlia Street) is listed as
a small quantity generator of hazardous wastes (SQG) on the Resource Conservation and
Reclamation Act (RCRA) database under the name Force Offshore LLC (ERS, 2024, p. 29). One Cortese
List site is listed within 0.25 mile of the project site: CBI NA-CON Inc. at 11001 Etiwanda Avenue, a
LUST site. A gasoline release affected soil; the case was closed in 1992 (see Figure 4.9-1; ERS, 2024).
Hazardous materials sites within 0.125 mile (660 feet) of the project site are listed in Table 4.9-1
below.
Table 4.9-1
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES WITHIN 660 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE
Site Name
Address
Distance and Direction from project site
Additional information
Home Shopping Network Fulfillment Center
13423 Santa Ana Avenue
SQG
Patrick Industries, Inc.
13050 Santa Ana Ave
0.11 mile north
Hazmat handler and hazardous waste generator:
San Bernardino County Fire Department
Karan and Associates
13181 Santa Ana Ave
0.11 mile north
Hazmat handler:
San Bernardino County Fire Department
RReef Mgmt, Conway Logistics
13101 Dahlia St
0.12 mile southeast
Permitted air emissions source:
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Source: ERS, 2024
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
Less than Significant Impact
The closest airport to the project site, the Ontario International Airport, is located approximately 3.2
miles west of the project site (see Figure 4.9-2; Google Earth Pro, 2024). The project is located within
Ontario International Airport’s 60-65 dB CNEL Noise Impact Zone (ONT-IAC, 2018a). However,
warehouses under Industrial, Manufacturing, and Storage Uses are in the “Normally Compatible Land
❖ SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.9-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Use” category (ONT-IAC, 2018). Therefore, the project is a permitted use and impacts would be less
than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.9-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.9-1
CORTESE LIST SITES
❖ SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.9-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.9-2
AIRPORTS
❖ SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.9-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
The project would comply with applicable City regulations, such as City’s Fire Code, in regard to
providing adequate emergency access. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Fontana
would review project site plans, including location of all buildings, fences, access driveways and other
features that may affect emergency access. Fire lanes would be provided for adequate emergency
access. The site design for the proposed project includes access and fire lanes that would
accommodate emergency ingress and egress by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic
vehicles. All onsite access and sight-distance requirements would be in accordance with City and
Caltrans design requirements. The City’s review process and compliance with applicable regulations
and standards would ensure that adequate emergency access would be provided at the project site
at all times.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation and Traffic, the City requires preparation
and implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for all projects that require construction in
the public right-of-way (ROW). The TMP must be reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic
Engineer prior to the start of construction activity in the public ROW. The typical TMP requires such
things as the installation of K-rail between the construction area and open traffic lanes, the use of
flagmen and directional signage to direct traffic where only one travel lane is available or when
equipment movement creates temporary hazards, and the installation of steel plates to cover
trenches under construction. Emergency access must be maintained. Therefore, the proposed project
would implement mitigation measure TRANS-1. With implementation of mitigation measure
TRANS-1, impacts in regard to emergency access during construction would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to mitigation measure TRANS-1 in Section 4.17.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
After implementation of mitigation measure TRANS-1 above, the project would have less than
significant construction-phase impacts on emergency access.
Operation
City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The purpose of the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is to provide a plan for reducing
and/or eliminating risk in the City of Fontana. The goals of the LHMP are to: protect life, property,
and the environment; improve public awareness; protect the continuity of government; and improve
emergency management preparedness, collaboration and outreach. The LHMP states that interstates
would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes (City of Fontana, 2017, p. 124). The
proposed project would not be adjacent to any interstates; therefore, the proposed project would not
interfere with the City of Fontana’s emergency response and evacuation routes. Additionally, as
mentioned above, the proposed project design would undergo a site design review to ensure that
❖ SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.9-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
there would be adequate emergency ingress and egress within the project site. Therefore, the
proposed project would have less than significant impacts in regard to emergency and evacuation
plans.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) developed Fire Hazard
Severity Zones (FHSZ) for State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Very High FHSZs for Local
Responsibility Areas (LRA). As shown on Figure 4.9-3 Fire Hazard Severity Zone– State Responsibility
Area and Figure 4.9-4, Fire Hazard Severity Zone – Local Responsibility Area, the project site is not
located within either an SRA FHSZ or a Very High FHSZ LRA for San Bernardino County (CAL FIRE,
2023).
The State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has created, and
continues to revise, a map of all FHSZs within the state, including those in the City. The “Very High
FHSZ” can be used to enforce enhanced regulations from the State Fire Marshal published within the
California Building Code that relate to ignition and ember-resistive building construction within the
city.
The proposed project site is located within an industrialized area, and is surrounded by development.
The project site is not located adjacent to wildlands that may increase the risk of wildland fires.
Additionally, the project would be developed in compliance with all applicable fire codes. The project
would have no impact.
❖ SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.9-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.9-3
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE– STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA
❖ SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.9-13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.9-4
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE – LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA
❖ SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.10-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition
of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or offsite; X
(ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;
X
(iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
UltraSystems staff researched readily available information, including: 1) relevant literature,
databases, agency web sites, various previously completed reports and management plans, GIS data,
maps, aerial imagery from public domain sources, and in-house records; 2) local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations that may apply to the project;
In addition, the following technical studies prepared by Allard Engineering for the Conco Industrial
Site were utilized in the analysis:
• Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for the Conco Industrial Site (WQMP; Allard
Engineering, 2023a).
❖ SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.10-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
• Preliminary Drainage Report for the Conco Industrial Site (Drainage Report; Allard
Engineering, 2023b).
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is currently developed. Under existing conditions, stormwater leaving the project
site drains south on to Dahlia Street, and then into the existing City storm drain system at the
intersection of Dahlia Street and Etiwanda Avenue. This storm drain discharges into the San Sevaine
Channel. From San Sevaine Channel, stormwater discharges into the Santa Ana River (Reach 3; Allard
Engineering, 2023a), which is a water of the U.S.
Impacts related to water quality would occur during four different periods: (1) during the demolition
phase and (2) during the earthwork and construction phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation,
and sedimentation would be the greatest; (3) following construction, prior to the establishment of
ground cover in the landscaped areas, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high; and
(4) following completion of the project, when impacts related to sedimentation would diminish, but
those associated with urban runoff would increase.
Construction Pollutant Controls
The project owner would be required by the California State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) to obtain coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance
Activities (General Permit; Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002)). The General Permit
regulates discharges to waters of the U.S. from stormwater and authorized non-stormwater
associated with construction activity from sites that disturb one or more acres of land.
The Construction General Permit requires potential dischargers of pollutants into waters of the U.S.
to prepare a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which establishes
enforceable limits on discharges, requires effluent monitoring, designates reporting requirements,
and requires construction best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate point and
non-point source discharges of pollutants, including sediment resulting from wind or erosion.
The project would be required to obtain a General Permit, prepare an SWPPP, and implement
construction stormwater BMPs prior to commencement of construction activities. Additionally,
BMPs must be maintained, inspected before and after each precipitation event, and repaired or
replaced as necessary. Because the project is required by the SWRCB to comply with all applicable
conditions of General Permit Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, potential violations
of water quality standards or stormwater and authorized non-stormwater discharge requirements
during project construction would be less than significant.
Operational Pollutant Controls
The 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 Area-Wide Urban Storm
Water Runoff Management Program regulates, through Order No. R8-2010-0036 and NPDES No.
❖ SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.10-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
CAS618036, the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. through stormwater and urban runoff
conveyance systems, including flood control facilities. These conveyance systems are commonly
referred to as municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), or storm drains. In this context, the
NPDES Permit is also referred to as an MS4 Permit.
Pursuant to the MS4 Permit, Principal Permittees (i.e., the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District) and Co-Permittees (the City of Fontana is a Co-Permittee) must regulate discharges of
pollutants in urban runoff from anthropogenic sources into storm water conveyance systems within
their jurisdiction.
As new development and redevelopment occurs, it can significantly increase pollutant loads in
stormwater and urban runoff, because increased population density results in proportionately
higher levels of vehicle emissions, vehicle maintenance wastes, municipal sewage wastes, household
hazardous wastes, fertilizers, pet waste, trash, and other anthropogenic pollutants (SWRCB, 2013).
The San Bernardino County MS4 Permit requires new development and significant redevelopment
projects to incorporate post-construction low-impact development (LID) BMPs into project design
to reduce or eliminate the quantity, and improve the quality of, stormwater being discharged from
the project site.
A preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Allard Engineering, 2023a) has been prepared for
the proposed project site, in accordance with the MS4 Permit, and is included herein as Appendix
H2. The MS4 and the associated WQMP require the implementation of Low Impact Development
(LID) features to ensure that most stormwater runoff is treated and retained onsite.
The project is a proposed redevelopment/expansion of an existing commercial site. The project also
proposes frontage parkway improvements that include a sidewalk, planters, and curb and gutter. The
site would consist of a single drainage management area (DMA-1) based on proposed onsite flow
patterns. DMA-1 measures 7.8 acres and includes a proposed Contech infiltration/retention chamber
System-1 for water quality retention/infiltration; a network of storm drainpipes/ribbon
gutters/valley gutters conveyance systems, including grate inlets with trash baskets/filters for pre-
treatment; and a bubbler catch basin and a Contech detention chamber system for high flow
detention and mitigation (Allard Engineering 2023a, p. 1-1).
The proposed detention chamber system (CMP-2) has an 18” outlet pipe that will discharge into the
proposed bubbler catch basin in the driveway at the southwest corner of the site. The detention
chamber system (CMP-2) will mitigate the developed runoff to less than 90 percent of the existing
runoff flow rate. This onsite detention system (CMP-2) will consist of a five-foot diameter perforated
CMP system (with 4-barrels) located upstream in the west driveway/parking area (Allard
Engineering, 2023b; pg. 3).
Stormwater will be conveyed to the underground Infiltration/Retention Chamber System-1/existing
dry well system via the proposed/existing storm drain system onsite for water quality mitigation.
The site is exempt for Hydrological Conditions of Concern (HCOC) mitigation in low flow situation.
For storms larger than the 100-year storm event, the runoff will overflow the Infiltration/Retention
Chamber System and will drain into the Detention Chamber System for high flow mitigation. The
Detention Chamber will outflow via pipe at a mitigated flow rate into the bubbler catch basin at the
southwest corner. Whereas the existing drywell system will overflow on surface and drain into the
bubbler catch basin at the southwest corner, water from bubbler catch basin will drain out on surface
into the proposed parkway drain which will discharge into the frontal street gutter in Dahlia Street.
❖ SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.10-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Water will follow the existing street gutter and drain into the existing City storm drain system. (Allard
Engineering, 2023a; p. 4-6 to 4-7).
The WQMP also includes non-structural source control BMPs including storm drain system stenciling
and signage, education of tenants and property owners on stormwater BMPs, activity restrictions,
landscape management BMPs, BMP maintenance, compliance with applicable local water quality
ordinances, spill contingency plan, litter/debris control program, employee training, catch basin
inspection program, housekeeping of loading docks, vacuuming, and compliance with all applicable
NPDES permits. (Allard Engineering, 2023a; p. 4-10 to 4-12).
With implementation of construction and operational BMPs, potential impacts to water quality
would be less than significant and mitigation is not proposed.
b) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is in the Chino Subbasin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR,
2003). The proposed project is within the service area of the Fontana Water Company (FWC; FWC,
2023a). The water supply for the FWC service area is from Lytle Creek surface flow, wells in the Lytle
Basin, Rialto Basin, Chino Basin, and another groundwater basin known as No Man’s Land. Water
from the California State Water Project is purchased from the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. A portion of the water supply can be purchased from
Cucamonga Valley Water District during water shortages or under emergency situations (FWC,
2023b). Groundwater supplies available to FWC are expected to increase from 21,533 acre-feet in
2025 to 25,883 acre-feet in 2045, and to comprise about half of FWC’s total water supplies in each of
those years (West Yost, 2021, p. 6-29).
Projected future water demands have been estimated based on the anticipated population growth,
based on population projections from the Southern California Association of Governments ; and
assuming continuation of existing General Plan land use designations in most of the City (SCAG; West
Yost, 2021, Appendix E, p. 7). The proposed warehouse building is permitted in the General Plan
designation onsite, and thus is accounted for in FWC water demand projections. Project operation is
estimated to use about 6,742 gallons per day (gpd) of water based on 125 percent of wastewater
generation rates from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD, 2024).
Table 4.10-1
ESTIMATED PROJECT WATER DEMAND
Land Use Square feet Water Demand, gallons per day
Per 1,000 square
feet
Total
Warehouse 98,288 48.75 4,792
Office 8,000 243.75 1,950
Total 106,288 Not applicable 6,742
1 Source: LACSD, 2024
❖ SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.10-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Under existing conditions, approximately 41 percent of the project site is impervious; as proposed,
including installation of LID BMPs, impervious area would increase to approximately 92 percent
(Allard Engineering, 2023a, p. 4-8 and p. 4-18). However, the proposed LID measures described in
Section 4.10 a), Operational Pollutant Controls, would maximize the volume of stormwater runoff
that would be captured and allowed to infiltrate the soil to add to groundwater recharge. These LID
measures are described in detail and illustrated in the WQMP (Allard Engineering, 2023a), presented
in Appendix H2.
The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge, or impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin. Project-related impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is proposed.
c) 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 offsite;
Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project site is situated on relatively level ground, with a slope of approximately 1.5
percent (Allard Engineering, 2023a, p. 4-8). No water features, including streams or rivers were
observed on the project site.
Site preparation and grading at the project site would comply with City of Fontana grading code
requirements. Furthermore, construction of the proposed project would disturb more than one acre
of ground and therefore, as noted earlier, it would be required to obtain coverage under the
Construction General Permit. Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil are
required to obtain coverage under the General Permit (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES
No. CAS000002) from the SWRCB. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing,
grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling and excavation, but does not include
regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility
(SWRCB, 2022).
The General Permit requires the development of a SWPPP by a certified qualified SWPPP developer.
The required SWPPP would be project-specific and would prescribe site-specific stormwater BMPs
which would be intended to minimize or avoid onsite erosion, through either stormwater or wind,
and thus minimize or avoid siltation in receiving waters.
With implementation of a project-specific SWPPP and proper maintenance and replacement of
required stormwater BMPs (as necessary), potential impacts resulting in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or offsite would be minimized or avoided, and impacts would be less than significant. No
mitigation is proposed.
❖ SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.10-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff;
Less than Significant Impact
As detailed in the proposed project’s WQMP and in Section 4.10 a) above, the proposed project
would incorporate operational LID BMPs in compliance with MS4 requirements. The proposed site
drainage area consists of a single drainage management area (DMA-1) based on the proposed flow
pattern onsite. DMA-1 would include existing drywell systems and a proposed Contech
infiltration/retention chamber System-1 for water volume retention/infiltration; a network of storm
drain pipes/ribbon gutters/valley gutters conveyance system including grate inlets with trash
baskets/filters for pre-treatment; a bubbler catch basin; and a Contech detention chamber system
for high flow detention and mitigation. Stormwater will be conveyed to the underground
Infiltration/Retention Chamber System-1/existing dry well system via the proposed /existing storm
drain system onsite for water quality mitigation (Allard Engineering, 2023a; p. 4-6 to 4-7).
The MS4 also requires the implementation of water quality features to ensure that runoff is treated
prior to discharge into receiving waters (infiltration), storm drains or other regional conveyance
facilities, as described above. With adherence to existing state water quality requirements, including
MS4 requirements, the proposed project would minimize or avoid causing a substantial increase in
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would not: (1) result in flooding on- or offsite;
(2) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (3)
create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less
than significant; mitigation is not required.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact
The project site is located on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) for San Bernardino County, California and Incorporated Areas (Map Number
06071C8642J, effective September 26, 2014; FEMA, 2014). FEMA has mapped the project site as Zone
X, Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain (FEMA; 2014, 2023a, b). See
Figure 4.10-1.
Since the project site is above the 100- and 500-year floodplains, it is not anticipated that
floodwaters would reach the project site, or that the proposed project would impede or redirect
flood flows. Therefore, no impacts associated with flooding would occur, and no mitigation is
proposed.
❖ SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.10-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.10-1
FEMA FIRM MAP
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.10-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Since the project site is above the 100- and 500-year floodplains, it is not anticipated that floodwaters
would reach the project site, or that the proposed project would impede or redirect flood flows.
Therefore, no impacts associated with flooding would occur, and no mitigation is proposed.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
No Impact
As described in Section 4.10-iv) above, the proposed project site is above the 100-year and the
500-year flood hazard zones and it is not anticipated that the site would become inundated due to
flood.
A tsunami is a sea wave (or series of waves) of local or distant origin that results from large -scale
seafloor displacements associated with large earthquakes, major submarine slides, or exploding
volcanic islands (California Seismic Safety Commission, 2023). Tsunami Inundation Zones are not
mapped for San Bernardino County. The closest mapped zones are in Orange County. A review of the
Orange County, California Tsunami Inundation Maps (CGS, 2023a) revealed that the tsunami
inundation zone nearest to the proposed project site is at Huntington Beach in Orange County,
approximately 38 miles southwest of the project site. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the
proposed project would become inundated due to a tsunami.
A seiche is an oscillating wave caused by wind, tidal forces, earthquakes, landslides and other
phenomena in a closed or partially closed water body such as a river, lake, reservoir, pond, and other
large inland water body. A review of aerial imagery (Google Earth Pro, 2023) revealed no water
bodies large enough to support a seiche within a five-mile radius of the proposed project site.
Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would be inundated by a seiche.
Per the County of San Bernardino General Plan Hazard Overlays map (County of San Bernardino,
2010), the project site is located outside of a dam inundation area. Additionally, the City of Fontana
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of Fontana, 2017, p. 37) states there is no major dam located
upstream from the Fontana area; therefore, the city currently is not susceptible to dam inundation.
Because of the project’s inland location, relatively flat topography, and lack of an adjacent body of
water, the project site would not be at risk of flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche, and therefore would
not be at risk of release of pollutants through inundation. No impact would occur, and no mitigation
is proposed.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact
As detailed in the WQMP prepared for the project and discussed in Section 4.10 a), the project
design would comply with all applicable City of Fontana regulations regarding stormwater runoff, as
well as the San Bernardino County MS4 permit (Order No. R8-2010-0036, NPDES No. CAS618036) to
which the City of Fontana is a signatory, and the LID capture and infiltration facilities would, through
natural infiltration of soils, ensure that the water quality objectives of the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB; Region 8) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan; RWQCB, 2017
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.10-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
are met. It is not anticipated that the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan.
According to the Fontana Water Company (FWC)’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, FWC is well-
positioned to withstand the effects of a single dry year and a five-year drought at any period between
2025 and 2045. FWC’s drought risk was specifically assessed between 2021 and 2025, assuming that
the next five years are dry years. In each case, water supplies comfortably meet water demands. This
remains true whether the drought occurs in 2021, 2045, or any year between (SGVWC, 2020).
No conflicts with the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater plan
are anticipated as a result of the project, and mitigation is not proposed.
❖ SECTION 4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.11-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact
The project site currently consists of an industrial building and a dirt lot that serves as storage for
industrial equipment (Google Earth Pro, 2024). The proposed project would stay within its
boundaries and would not expand into right-of-way or adjacent properties. Therefore, the project
would not divide an established community, and there would be no impact.
b) 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?
No Impact
As shown in Figure 4.11-1, the City’s General Plan land use designation for the project site is General
Industrial (I-G) (City of Fontana, 2023a). As shown in Figure 4.11-2, the City’s zoning designation
for the project site is Fontana Gateway Specific Plan (City of Fontana, 2023b). The I-G land use
designation is allowed to be developed with uses such as manufacturing, warehousing, fabrication,
assembly, processing, trucking, equipment, automobile and truck sales and services (City of Fontana,
2023d). The Fontana Gateway Specific Plan is primarily a planned industrial land use that would
provide economic development and job opportunities (City of Fontana, 1997, p. 1). The proposed
project would develop an industrial warehouse on the underutilized portion of the project site, which
would provide economic development and job opportunities within the City compared to existing
conditions. Additionally, the project would adhere to all of the applicable development regulations of
the City’s Municipal Code and the Fontana Gateway Specific Plan. Therefore, the project would be
consistent with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations, and would result in no impact.
❖ SECTION 4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.11-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.11-1
PROJECT SITE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
❖ SECTION 4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.11-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.11-2
PROJECT SITE CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATIONS
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.12-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
X
a) 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?
b) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-3 as shown in Figure 4.12-
1. The MRZ-3 classification is divided into two sub-classifications (3a and 3b), based on knowledge
of the economic characteristics of the resources. An example of an MRZ-3a area would be where there
is direct evidence of surface exposure of a geologic unit, such as a limestone body, known to be or to
contain a mineral resource elsewhere but that has not been sampled or tested at the current location.
An example of an MRZ-3b area would be where there is indirect evidence such as a geophysical or
geochemical anomaly along a permissible structure which indicates the possible presence of a
mineral deposit, or that an ore-forming process was operative (DOC, 2000. pp. 5-6).
According to the Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design section of the City of Fontana General Plan, the
City does not include mining in any of its zoning categories (Stantec, 2018a). It is unlikely that anyone
would propose establishing new surface mining operations within the city since mining is not
allowed within the city. According to the ‘Well Finder’ tool generated by the California Department
of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources, the project site is not located near (i.e.,
within one mile of) any oil or gas wells or geothermal wells. The nearest active oil or gas well is
located 12.5 miles to the southwest as shown in Figure 4.12-2, and the nearest active geothermal
well is located 14 miles to the northeast of the project as shown in Figure 4.12-3.
Although this project is located within MRZ-3, the project cannot and will not interfere with the
availability of these resources since they cannot be accessed due to the City of Fontana’s General Plan,
which does not allow active mining within the city limits. Therefore, the project site is not an
important local mineral resource recovery site and the project would have less than a significant
impact on the availability of known mineral and oil-based resources of value to the region or state
residents, and on any locally important mineral resource recovery sites.
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.12-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.12-1
DESIGNATED MINERAL RESOURCE ZONES
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.12-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.12-2
OIL & GAS WELLS AND FIELDS
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.12-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.12-3
GEOTHERMAL WELLS
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.13-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.13 Noise
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
X
4.13.1 Characteristics of Sound
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or
amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in hertz [Hz] or cycles per second),
and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The decibel (dB) scale is a logarithmic scale that
describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the
sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally
sensitive to all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to
human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating
against upper and lower frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. The
scale is based on a reference pressure level of 20 micropascals (zero dBA). The scale ranges from
zero (for the average least perceptible sound) to about 130 (for the average human pain level).
4.13.2 Noise Measurement Scales
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze adverse effects of community noise on people.
Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on
people depends largely upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of
day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:
• Leq, the equivalent noise level, is an average of sound level over a defined time period (such
as 1 minute, 15 minutes, 1 hour or 24 hours). Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of
a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during
exposure.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.13-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
• L90 is a noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time at a given location; it is often used
as a measure of “background” noise.
• Lmax is the root mean square (RMS) maximum noise level during the measurement interval.
This measurement is calculated by taking the RMS of all peak noise levels within the sampling
interval. Lmax is distinct from the peak noise level, which only includes the single highest
measurement within a measurement interval.
• CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 4.77-dBA
“penalty” added to noise during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and a 10-dBA penalty
added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in
the evening and nighttime (Caltrans, 2013). The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a
60-dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a calculation of 66.7 dBA CNEL.
• Ldn, the day-night average noise, is a 24-hour average Leq with an additional 10-dBA “penalty”
added to noise that occurs between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Ldn metric yields values within
1 dBA of the CNEL metric. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be
equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment.
4.13.3 Existing Noise
The City of Fontana 2015 General Plan Noise and Safety Element (Stantec, 2018a, p. 11-9) defines
“noise-sensitive” uses as areas of 24 hours per day of exposure, such as residential uses, hospitals,
rest homes, long-term care facilities, and mental care facilities. Sensitive receivers14 for shorter-term
exposures are defined as schools, libraries, places of worship, and passive recreation uses.
The only sensitive receivers in the project vicinity are single-family residences south, southeast and
southwest of the project site and Henry J. Kaiser High School to the southeast, along Jurupa Avenue.
Sensitive receiver areas are shown in Figure 4.13-1. Table 4.13-1 summarizes information about
selected individual sensitive receivers. The nearest sensitive receiver to the Proposed Project site is
4,485 feet away.
Table 4.13-1
SENSITIVE RECEIVERS
Description Location Distance From Site
Boundary (feet)a
Single-Family Residence 11340 Countryside Drive 4,485
Henry J Kaiser High School 11155 Almond Avenue 8,254
14 The representative targets of adverse noise impacts are called “sensitive receivers” in this document, while those of
adverse air quality impacts are termed “sensitive receptors.”
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.13-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Figure 4.13-1
SENSITIVE RECEIVERS
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.13-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.13.4 Regulatory Setting
State of California
The most current guidelines prepared by the state noise officer are contained in Appendix D of the
General Plan Guidelines issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in 2017
(OPR, 2017). These guidelines establish four categories for judging the severity of noise intrusion on
specified land uses:
• Normally Acceptable: Is generally acceptable, with no mitigation necessary.
• Conditionally Acceptable: May require some mitigation, as established through a noise
study.
• Normally Unacceptable: Requires substantial mitigation.
• Clearly unacceptable: Probably cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
The OPR noise compatibility guidelines assign ranges of CNEL values to each of these categories. The
ranges differ for different types of sensitive receivers, and are shown in Table 4.13-2.
Table 4.13-2
CALIFORNIA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE SOURCES
Land Use Category Noise Exposure (dBA, CNEL)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential – Low-Density Single-Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes
Residential – Multiple Family
Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing
Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.13-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
City of Fontana General Plan Noise and Safety Element
The City of Fontana General Plan EIR Noise and Safety Element (Stantec, 2018a) has the following
goals, policies and actions that apply to proposed project:
Goal 1: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning
through 2035 (Stantec, 2018a, p.11.12).
Policies
• New sensitive land uses shall be prohibited in incompatible areas.
• Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into areas irrevocably committed to land uses that
are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors.
• Where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation routes, mitigation shall be
provided to ensure compliance with state-mandated noise levels.
• Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial and educational land uses shall
be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-sensitive uses.
Land Use Category Noise Exposure (dBA, CNEL)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and
Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that
any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise
insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only
after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise
insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed
windows and fresh air supply system or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be
discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the
noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included
in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2017.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.13-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Actions
A. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in excess of
65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): Residential Uses; Hospitals; Rest Homes;
Long Term Care Facilities; and Mental Care Facilities.
B. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in excess of
65 Leq(12) (Equivalent Continuous Sound Level): Schools; Libraries; Places of Worship; and
Passive Recreation Uses.
C. The State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines shall be
followed with respect to acoustical study requirements.
Goal 2: The City of Fontana provides a diverse and efficiently operated ground transportation
system that generates the minimum feasible noise on its residents through 2035 (Stantec, 2018a,
p.11.13).
Actions
A. On-road trucking activities shall continue to be regulated in the City to ensure noise impacts
are minimized, including the implementation of truck-routes based on traffic studies.
B. Development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise
level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses shall provide appropriate mitigation measures.
C. Noise mitigation practices shall be employed when designing all future streets and highways,
and when improvements occur along existing highway segments.
Goal 3: The City of Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spill over” noise
(Stantec, 2018a, p.11.13).
Policy
• 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.
Actions
A. Projects located in commercial areas shall not exceed stationary-source noise standards at
the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses.
B. Industrial uses shall not exceed commercial or residential stationary source noise standards
at the most proximate land uses.
C. Non-transportation noise shall be considered in land use planning decisions.
D. Construction shall be performed as quietly as feasible when performed in proximity to
residential or other noise-sensitive land uses.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.13-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
City of Fontana Municipal Code
The City of Fontana’s Municipal Code15 contains several provisions potentially related to construction
and operation of the proposed project. Prohibited noises enumerated in Chapter 18 (Nuisances),
Article II. - Noise include:16
• Construction or repairing of buildings or structures. The erection (including excavating),
demolition, alteration or repair of any building or structure other than 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 case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety, and
then only with a permit from the building inspector, which permit may be granted for a period
not to exceed three days or less while the emergency continues and which permit may be
renewed for periods of three days or less while the emergency continues. If the building
inspector should determine that the public health and safety will not be impaired by the
erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or structure or the excavation of
streets and highways within the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and if he shall further
determine that loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest, he may grant
permission for such work to be done on weekdays within the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.,
upon application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during the
progress of the work.17
• Noise near schools, courts, place of worship or hospitals. The creation of any loud, excessive,
impulsive or intrusive noise on any street adjacent to any school, institution of learning,
places of worship or court while the premises are in use, or adjacent to any hospital which
unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which disturbs or unduly
annoys patients in the hospital; provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such streets
indicating that the street is a school, hospital or court street.18
• Blowers. The operation of any noise-creating blower or power fan or any internal combustion
engine other than from the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday and the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on a Saturday, the operation of which causes noise due to the
explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless the noise from such blower or fan is muffled and
such engine is equipped with a muffler device sufficient to deaden such noise.19
• Piledrivers, hammers, etc. The operation between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any
piledriver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist or other
appliance, the use of which is attended by loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise.20
City of Fontana Conditions of Approval
The construction contractor shall use the following source controls at all times:
15 https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH18NU_ARTIINO .
16 City of Fontana Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Article II, §§ 18-63(a)(7), (8), (10), and (11). Last revised September 11,
2007.
17 City of Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(7).
18 City of Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(8).
19 City of Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(11).
20 City of Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(10).
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.13-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
a. Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on
Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays unless it is approved by the building
inspector for cases that are considered urgently necessary as defined in Sec tion 18-63(b)(7)
of the Municipal Code.
b. For all noise-producing equipment, use types and models that have the lowest horsepower
and the lowest noise generating potential practical for their intended use.
c. The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is
properly operating (tuned-up) and lubricated, and that mufflers are working adequately.
d. Have only necessary equipment onsite.
e. Use manually-adjustable or ambient-sensitive backup alarms. When working adjacent to
residential use(s), the construction contractor will also use the following path controls,
except where not physically feasible, when necessary:
• Install portable noise barriers, including solid structures and noise blankets, between the
active noise sources and the nearest noise receivers.
• Temporarily enclose localized and stationary noise sources.
• Store and maintain equipment, building materials, and waste materials as far as practical
from as many sensitive receivers as practical.
4.13.5 Significance Thresholds
The City of Fontana has not published explicit thresholds for use in determining significance of noise
impacts under CEQA. In keeping with standard practice, two criteria were used in this analysis for
judging noise impacts. First, noise levels generated by the proposed project must comply with all
relevant federal, state, and local standards and regulations. Noise impacts on the surrounding
community are limited by local noise ordinances, which are implemented through investigations in
response to nuisance complaints. It is assumed that all existing applicable regulations for the
construction and operation of the proposed project would be enforced. In addition, the proposed
project should not produce noise levels that are incompatible with adjacent noise-sensitive land uses.
The second measure of impact used in this analysis is a significant increase in noise levels above
existing ambient noise levels as a result of the introduction of a new noise source. An increase in
noise level due to a new noise source has a potential to adversely impact people. The proposed
project would have a significant noise impact if it would do any of the following:
• Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards recommended in the City
of Fontana General Plan Noise Element.
• Generate construction noise exceeding 80 dBA Leq (FTA, 2018, p. 179).
• Include construction activities in or within 500 feet of residential areas between 6:00 p.m. of
one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day, without a permit.
• Contribute, with other local construction projects, to a significant cumulative noise impact.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.13-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
• Increase operational exposures at sensitive receivers (mainly because of an increase in traffic
flow) by 5 dBA Leq or more.
4.13.6 Impact Analysis
c) 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?
Less than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project includes the construction of a 106,289-square-foot warehouse, which would
include approximately 8.000 square feet of office space and 98,288 square feet of warehouse space.
The warehouse would have 12 dock doors on the west side of the building and would provide 117
automobile parking stalls; 114 are required. Construction activities, especially with heavy equipment
operation, would create noise effects on and adjacent to the construction site. Long-term noise
impacts include project-generated onsite and offsite operational noise sources. Onsite noise sources
from the operation of the warehouse facility would include the use of mechanical equipment such as
air conditioners, landscaping and building maintenance activities, and onsite truck travel. Offsite
noise would be attributable to project-induced traffic, which would cause an incremental increase in
noise levels within and near the project vicinity. Each is described below.
Short-Term Construction Noise
Noise impacts from construction activities are a function of the noise generated by the operation of
construction equipment and onroad delivery and worker commuter vehicles, the location of
equipment, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. The nearest sensitive
receivers to the Proposed Project site include the residential neighborhood located 4,485 feet
southwest of the Project site and Henry J Kaiser High School located approximately 8,254 feet to the
east. Given the distance of the sensitive receivers from the Proposed Project site, and the presence of
intervening buildings, exposures would be relatively low and the total exposures at the nearest
sensitive receivers would be below the short-term exposure criterion of 80 dBA Leq. As a result,
impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Noise
Onsite
Onsite noise sources from the proposed warehouse facility would include operation of rooftop
mechanical equipment such as air conditioners, parking lot activities, and truck deliveries. Noise
levels from these sources are generally lower than those from the traffic on streets bordering the
project site. For example, noise levels for typical air conditioning units and heat pumps are about 60
dBA Leq at 50 feet (Janello and Thill, 2018, p. 43). With distance-related attenuation, exposures to
sensitive receivers would be comparable to or less than existing ambient noise levels.
Furthermore, § 18-63 of the City of Fontana Development Code limits onsite noise impacts of the
operation of any noise-creating blower or power fan or any internal combustion engine other than
from the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on a weekday and the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on a
Saturday, the operation of which causes noise due to the explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.13-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
the noise from such blower or fan is muffled and such engine is equipped with a muffler device
sufficient to deaden such noise.
Since the Proposed Project site is already located in an industrial area and not near any sensitive
receivers, onsite noise from the Proposed Project would not significantly impact ambient noise levels
in the vicinity. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mobile Sources
The principal noise source in the project area is traffic on local streets. The project may contribute to
a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity due to project-generated vehicle
traffic on neighborhood roadways and at intersections. A noise impact would occur if the project
contributes to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels affecting sensitive receivers along
roadways that would carry project-generated traffic.
Because the Project is already located within a noisy environment and is not near any sensitive
receivers, roadway noise associated with project operation would not expose a land use to noise
levels that are considered incompatible with or in excess of adopted standards, and impacts would
be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Vibration can result from a source (e.g., subway
operations, vehicles, machinery equipment, etc.) that causes the adjacent ground to move, thereby
creating vibration waves that propagate through the soil to the foundations of nearby buildings. This
effect is referred to as groundborne vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root -mean-
square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration levels. PPV is defined as the maximum
instantaneous peak of the vibration level, while RMS is defined as the square root of the average of
the squared amplitude of the level. PPV is typically used for evaluating potential building damage,
while RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) is typically more suitable for evaluating human response (FTA,
2018, pp. 110-111).
The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB. The vibration
velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level
of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible
levels for most people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such
as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical
outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled
trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is
rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB to 100 VdB, which is the
general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings (FTA, 2018, p. 120).
Construction Vibration
Construction activities for the project have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne
vibration. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that propagate through the
ground and diminishes in intensity with distance from the source. Vibration impacts can range from
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.13-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration
at moderate levels, to slight damage of buildings at the highest levels. The construction activities
associated with the project could have an adverse impact on both sensitive structures (i.e., building
damage) and populations (i.e., annoyance). Given the Project’s distance from the nearest sensitive
receivers and its current location within an industrial zone, Project construction would not result in
generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels on sensitive receivers or
the nearby area. Impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Vibration
Groundborne vibration at the project site and immediate vicinity currently results from heavy-duty
vehicular travel (e.g., freight trucks) on the nearby local roadways, and the project would not result
in a substantial increase of these heavy-duty vehicles on the public roadways.21 Considering the
distances to sensitive receivers (the nearest being nearly 4,500 feet from the project site), project
operation will not generate groundborne vibration that could cause significant impacts respecting
either architectural damage or human annoyance. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with
operation of the project would be less than significant.
e) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact
The closest public airport is the Ontario International Airport, located approximately 4.5 miles due
west of the project site. The project site lies within the 60- to 65-dBA CNEL noise impact zone of that
airport (ONT-IAC, 2018a). However, according to the Ontario International Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan, warehouses are a “normally compatible land use” at any level of exposure (ONT-
IAC, 2018b, pp. 2-47 to 2-50). No people will reside in the project area in the operational phase, and
the designation of “normally compatible land use” takes into account exposure to onsite workers.
Therefore, noise impacts would be less than significant.
21 CalEEMod results indicate an ADT of 22 for heavy duty trucks.
❖ SECTION 4.14 – POPULATION AND HOUSING ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.14-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
a) 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)?
Less than Significant Impact
The project proposes a 107,670-square-foot warehouse building. It does not involve construction of
any residential uses or expansion of existing infrastructure. The project is estimated to generate 46
operational jobs, as shown below in Table 4.14-1, based on employment density factors from the
Southern California Association of Governments. Project construction would also generate a small
number of temporary jobs. It is anticipated that employees from the local workforce would be hired
during both the construction and operational phases of the project. Existing employment in the
existing building onsite is estimated at 15 workers (Ratekin, 2024b).
Table 4.14-1
ESTIMATED PROJECT EMPLOYMENT GENERATION
Land Use Square feet Square feet per
employee
Employees
Light Manufacturing 98,288 2,605 38
Office 8,000 956 8
Total 106,288 Not applicable 46
1 Source: Natelson Company, 2001
Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur regarding unplanned growth as a result of the
project. Based on the discussion above, a less than significant impact would occur.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
❖ SECTION 4.14 – POPULATION AND HOUSING ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.14-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
No Impact
The project site is currently zoned Fontana Gateway Specific Plan, and surrounding streets include
Dahlia Street and Santa Ana Avenue. The project site does not contain any residential structures.
Therefore, the project would not displace any housing or people, and the project would not
necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.15-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.15 Public Services
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
a) Fire Protection?
Less than Significant Impact
Fire prevention, fire protection, and emergency response services for the city of Fontana are
provided by the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) through a contract with the San Bernardino
County Fire Department. The FFPD also investigates and mitigates hazardous materials and has
firefighters with special expertise in wildfires. The FFPD is staffed with 119 full-time personnel, 108
safety employees, and 11 non-safety personnel (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.12-4). The FFPD has a response
time goal for all service calls to arrive on the scene in six minutes or less (City of Fontana, 2020a, p.
357).
There are seven fire stations in the city. Fire Station 74 is the closest to the project site and is located
at 11500 Live Oak Avenue, approximately 2.3 miles to the east. This station is located in the southern
Fontana community of Southridge and is staffed with one captain, one engineer, and one firefighter
medic and has one medic engine (City of Fontana, 2024).
The project proposes a 106,289-square-foot warehouse. The project site is not located in a Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2024). The project would comply with Fontana Municipal Code
Section 5-425, City of Fontana Fire Code (Municode.com, 2024) and with applicable portions of the
City of Fontana Municipal Code, Chapter 11: Fire Prevention.
Furthermore, the adequacy of existing water pressure and water availability in the project area
would be verified by the FFPD during the proposed project’s plan check review process. Compliance
with the above-mentioned codes and FFPD standards is mandatory and routinely conditioned upon
projects. The project, once operational, would be inspected periodically by the FFPD.
The Fontana Fire Protection District collects development mitigation fees for fire facilities which
would be available to fund additional fire protection facilities as needed. The project’s demands on
fire protection services would have a less than significant impact.
❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.15-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
b) Police Protection?
Less than Significant Impact
The City of Fontana Police Department (FPD) provides police and law enforcement services in the
project area. The Fontana Police Station is at 17005 Upland Avenue, approximately 5.9 miles
northeast of the project site (Google Earth Pro, 2023). As of 2020, the latest date for which such
information is available, the FPD had 188 sworn officers and is comprised of four divisions: Office of
the Chief of Police, Administrative Services, Field Services, and Special Operations (City of Fontana,
2024). With an estimated population of 214,436 in 2020, the City of Fontana standard for police
protection prescribes a ratio of 1.4 sworn police officers per 1,000 residents (Stantec, 2018b. p. 5.12-
1) (City of Fontana, 2020a. p. 33). Demands for police protection are generated by the population and
the total building area in police agencies’ service areas. The project development would not add
population in FPD’s service area. The increase in building area of 106,288 square feet would be minor
and is permitted under the Fontana Gateway Specific Plan.
Therefore, less than significant impacts on police protection services would occur.
c) Schools?
No Impact
The project site is located within the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD). FUSD provides public
education for 36,536 students and includes 29 elementary schools, seven middle schools, and
five high schools (FUSD, 2023). FUSD schools serving the project site include Shadow Hill Elementary
(grades K-5), Southridge Middle School (grades 6-8), and Henry J Kaiser High School (grades 9-12).
Shadow Hill Elementary School is 2.25 miles south of the project site at 14300 Shadow Drive.
Southridge Middle School is 1.50 miles southwest of the project site at 11851 Cherry Avenue. Henry
J. Kaiser High School is 2.5 miles south of the project site at 11155 Almond Avenue (Google Earth Pro,
2023). Demands for schools are generated by the numbers of households in the school’s service
areas. The project does not propose any new residential uses. Therefore, no impact on schools would
occur.
d) Parks?
Less than Significant Impact
The City owns 41 public parks totaling 335 acres. Martin Tudor Jurupa Hills /Mary Vagle Center/
Regional Park, 861 acres in the southern part of Fontana, brings the total park acreage in the City to
1,196 acres (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.12-30). The City of Fontana’s park-to-resident ratio minimum
standard is five acres of public parkland per 1,000 persons. The city has an estimated population of
208,393 residents (Census, 2023). Therefore, the city’s existing parkland ratio is 5.08 acres per 1000
residents, which meets the established General Plan parkland ratio goal.
Demands for parks are generated by the population in the parks’ service areas. The project does not
propose residential land uses and is not anticipated to add new residents to the city. While it is
possible that employees at the project site may visit nearby parks, the potential impact would be less
than significant.
e) Other Public Facilities?
❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.15-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
No Impact
Library services in the city are provided by the San Bernardino County Library System, which is
comprised of 32 branch libraries. Within the city of Fontana, there are three libraries: the Fontana
Lewis Library and Technology Center located at 8437 Sierra Avenue; the Summit Branch Library
located at 15551 Summit Avenue; and the Kaiser High School Library located at
11155 Almond Avenue (SBCL, 2023). The Kaiser High School Library is located approximately 1.6
miles east of the project site (Google Earth Pro, 2024). Demands for libraries are generated by the
population in the libraries’ service areas. The project does not propose development of housing, and
project development would not increase population. Therefore, the project would have no impact on
other public facilities.
❖ SECTION 4.16 - RECREATION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.16-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.16 Recreation
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact
Recreational services in the city of Fontana are provided by the City’s Department of Facilities and
Parks, which maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers (City of Fontana,
2020a). The City’s park acreage standard is five acres of public park land per 1,000 residents. The
City currently has approximately 1,359 acres total in parks and land for public use, enough to meet
this performance standard (Stantec, 2018a, p. 7.10).
The project proposes a 107,670-square-foot industrial building. The residential population is not
expected to increase as a result of the proposed project. While the project would create limited
employment opportunities (both during the construction and operational phases), it is anticipated
that employees from the local workforce would be hired during both phases. Moreover, the land uses
nearest to the project site are primarily general industrial.
The parks nearest to the project, all within three miles in the City of Fontana, include Chaparral Park
at 11415 Rancherias Drive, and Oak Park at 14180 Live Oak Avenue, to the southeast of the project
site. In addition, Southridge Park at 14501 Live Oak Ave and Southridge Village Open Space Reserve
are located to the southeast from the project site. It is possible that employees at the project site may
visit these parks; however, the potential impact of these visits on parks would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.16 - RECREATION ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.16-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
No Impact
The project does not propose new or expanded recreational facilities that would have potential
adverse effects on the environment. Therefore, no impact would occur.
❖SECTION 4.17– TRANSPORTATION❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.17-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.17 Transportation
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X
The analysis below is based on a Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening
Analysis, which was conducted by RK Engineering, Inc. on May 22, 2023 (Refer to Appendix I). The
trip generation assessment estimates the combination of existing and future vehicular trips from the
project site based on the implementation of the proposed project.
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project is east of Etiwanda Avenue, running north to south between Santa Ana Avenue
and Dahlia Street. Santa Ana Avenue and Dahlia Street are classified as local streets, but Etiwanda
Avenue is classified as a Major Highway in the General Plan (City of Fontana, 2018a, p. 9.10).
Vehicular access to the project is proposed via two full-access unsignalized driveways located along
Santa Ana Street. Access for pedestrians from the public right-of-way (ROW) to the building on site
would also be via the walkway along Santa Ana Avenue.
The project site’s primary connection to the nearest regional transportation corridor, the I -10
Freeway, approximately 0.75 miles to the north, is from Etiwanda Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet
to the west of the project site (Google Earth Pro, 2024). The nearest public transit facility (i.e., bus or
train stop) is the Omnitrans bus stop about 2,500 feet southwest of the project site, at the intersection
of Jurupa Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue, serviced by the Omnitrans Route 82 with buses every 60
minutes. (Omnitrans, 2024).
No Class I, II, or III bikeways are located along Etiwanda Avenue or anywhere else near the project
site. The nearest bicycle trail is located on Cherry Avenue between Slover Avenue and Jurupa Avenue,
approximately two miles to the east (City of Fontana, 2018a, p. 9.11). There will be no conflict with
present or future bicycle or pedestrian facilities.
❖SECTION 4.17– TRANSPORTATION❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.17-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
The following City and County plans, ordinances, and policies would apply to the project.
Fontana General Plan – Chapter 9: Community Mobility and Circulation Element
The Community Mobility and Circulation Element of the Fontana General Plan 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. It is aligned with the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS concepts of Neighborhood
Mobility Areas and Livable Corridors (City of Fontana, 2018a, p. 9.3). The proposed project would
conform to the City of Fontana Standard Design Guidelines (City of Fontana, 2023e), and therefore
the proposed project would not conflict with the General Plan.
City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
The 2017 Fontana ATP is used to implement infrastructure improvements for better connectivity
throughout Fontana, to surrounding cities, and to the region by providing safe and comfortable
walking and bicycling linkages (City of Fontana, 2018b, p. 5.13-14). The proposed project would not
create walking or bicycling linkages, and therefore the proposed project would not conflict with ATP.
City of Fontana Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program
The City’s DIF program was adopted pursuant to Government Code § 66000 et seq. Fontana’s
Development Services Department oversees the use of the DIF fees, which fund projects in the City’s
capital improvement program (City of Fontana, 2018b, p. 5.13-14). The proposed project is not part
of the DIF program, and therefore the proposed project would not conflict with the DIF program.
San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program
The CMP intends to provide the analytical basis for transportation decisions through the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process, a multi-year capital improvement program of
transportation projects on and off the State Highway System. The San Bernardino County CMP,
published by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, defines a network of state
highways and arterials in the county and provides guidelines regarding level of service (LOS)
standards, impact criteria, and a process for mitigation of impacts on CMP facilities (City of Fontana,
2018b, p. 5.2-13 & 14).
With certain exceptions, the minimum acceptable Level of Service (LOS) for San Bernardino County
Congestion Management Plan (CMP) facilities is defined as LOS “E.” More specifically, the CMP states,
“In no case shall the LOS standards established be below the LOS “E” or the current level, whichever
is farthest from LOS “A.” When the LOS on a segment or at an intersection fails to attain the
established LOS standard, a deficiency plan shall be adopted pursuant to Section 65089.4” (SANBAG,
2016, p. 2-1).
As mentioned above, the project would have primary and emergency access along Santa Ana Avenue
and regional corridor access via Etiwanda Avenue, with access to the I-10 Freeway. As per the
General Plan DEIR of the City’s General Plan Update 2015-2035, the section of Etiwanda Avenue that
is located between Jurupa Avenue and Slover Avenue currently operates at a LOS “D” (City of Fontana,
2018b, p. 5.13-9). Etiwanda Avenue is specified as a San Bernardino CMP roadway within the City of
Fontana and is forecast to operate equal to or less than the CMP threshold of LOS “E” (City of Fontana,
❖SECTION 4.17– TRANSPORTATION❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.17-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
2018b, p. 5.13-35) Therefore, the service level is not expected to change once the proposed project
is constructed and operational, due to the limited number of daily trips created by the project.
Given that the proposed project would not interfere with public transit or bicycle transportation, or
conflict with the provisions of the City General Plan’s Circulation Element, the City’s ATP and San
Bernardino’s CMP, the project impact would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact
The City of Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines For Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and
Level of Service Assessment (Guidelines) provide recommendations in the form of thresholds of
significance and methodology for identifying VMT-related impacts. The proposed project is subject
to a VMT analysis and will adhere to the recommendations and practices described in the City’s
guidelines (RK Engineering, 2023. p. 3).
The City of Fontana has developed four types of screening criteria that can be applied to effectively
screen projects from project-level assessment. The screening steps are identified below:
• Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening
• Step 3: Low Project Type Screening
• Step 4: Project Net Daily Trips Less Than 500 Average Daily Trips (ADT)
As specified in the Guidelines, a detailed traffic impact analysis will be required if a project is forecast
to generate 50 or more peak hour trips to any intersection. If a project is expected to generate less
than 50 peak hour trips, a traffic analysis shall not be required, and a trip generation memorandum
will be considered sufficient for traffic analysis purposes. Based on the net project trip generation
(i.e., 24 AM PCE peak hour trips and 25 PM PCE peak hour trips), the proposed project is not required
to prepare a traffic impact analysis and is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts
on the operations of the roadway network and intersections (RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2023. p. 4).
Furthermore, consistent with the Guidelines, the proposed project is screened out from a full VMT
analysis based on Step 4: Project Net Daily Trips Less than 500 ADT screening criteria (refer to Table
4.17-1). Therefore, it is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT under CEQA.
❖SECTION 4.17– TRANSPORTATION❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.17-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Table 4.17-1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use ITE
Code Qty DU1 Trip Type
Peak Hour
Daily AM PM
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Land Uses Trip Generation Rates2
Warehouse 150 -- TSF3
All Vehicles 0.09 0.08 0.17 0.06 0.12 0.18 1.17
Trucks 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.35
Passenger Cars 0.07 0.07 0.14 0.04 0.10 0.14 1.36
Proposed Project Vehicle Trip Generation
Proposed
Project 150 207.15 TSF All Vehicles 9 9 18 6 13 19 184
Vehicle Mixed Trip Generation4
Passenger Vehicles (79.57%) 8 6 14 5 10 15 146
2-Axel Trucks (3.46%) 0 1 1 0 1 1 6
3-Axel Trucks (4.64%) 0 1 1 0 1 1 9
4-Axel Trucks (12.33%) 1 1 2 1 1 2 23
Total Trucks5 1 3 4 1 3 4 38
Total Proposed Project Non-PCE Trip Generation 9 9 18 6 13 19 185
PCE Trip Generation6
Passenger Vehicles (PCE = 1.0) 8 6 14 5 10 15 146
2-Axel Trucks (PCE = 2.0) 0 2 2 0 2 2 12
3-Axel Trucks (PCE = 2.5) 0 2 3 0 2 3 23
4-Axel Trucks (PCE = 3.0) 3 3 6 3 3 6 69
Total Proposed Project PCE Trip Generation [A] 11 13 24 8 17 25 250
Source: RK Engineering Group Inc., 2023 (i.e., Appendix H)
1 DU = Dwelling Units
2 AM peak hour total, PM peak hour total, and daily trip generation rates for Warehouse land use are referenced from
the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). Peak hour in and out trip generation rates were derived utilizing
passenger vehicle and truck fleet mix splits referenced from the City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study (August
2003).
3 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
4 The truck fleet mix (i.e., entering and exiting splits) is based on the “Heavy Warehouse” land use category’s
recommended large truck mix referenced from the City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study (August 2003).
5 Recommended PCE Factors per City of Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines For Vehicles Miles Traveled
(VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (October 2020).
6 PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent
c) 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)?
Less than Significant Impact
Vehicles would access the facility via one of the two driveways along Santa Ana Avenue. Access for
pedestrians from the public right-of-way (ROW) to the building on site would be via the walkway
along Santa Ana Avenue. All onsite access and sight-distance setbacks would be in accordance with
the City of Fontana design requirements. The project would not substantially alter or impact roads,
sight lines, or offsite land uses. The proposed project would not house or utilize farm equipment,
construction equipment, or other unusually slow vehicles that would present a traffic hazard.
Therefore, the project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature, and the impacts
would be less than significant.
❖SECTION 4.17– TRANSPORTATION❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.17-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
During the project construction phase, lanes and sidewalks may be temporarily closed off. To ensure
that circulation and emergency access during construction are adequate, the City requires
preparation and implementation of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for all projects that
require construction in the public ROW. Therefore, the proposed project would implement the
mitigation measure TRANS-1. With the implementation of the mitigation measure TRANS-1, the
impacts regarding emergency access during construction would be less than significant.
Operation
The project would comply with applicable City regulations, such as the requirement to comply with
the city’s Fire Code concerning providing adequate emergency access, as well as the California
Building Standards Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Fontana would review
project site plans, including the location of all buildings, fences, access driveways, and other features
that may affect emergency access. Fire lanes would be provided for adequate emergency access. The
site design for the proposed project includes access and fire lanes that would accommodate
emergency ingress and egress by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. All
onsite access and sight-distance requirements would be in accordance with City and Caltrans design
requirements. The City’s review process and compliance with applicable regulations and standards
would ensure that adequate emergency access would be provided at the project site at all times.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access and there would
be no impact in this regard.
Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-1 The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) must be reviewed and approved by the
City’s Traffic Engineer prior to the start of construction activities in the public ROW.
The typical TMP requires measures to minimize hazards arising from lane closures
and/or from movement of construction equipment, such as installation of a K-rail
between the construction area and open traffic lanes, the use of flaggers, and
directional signage to direct traffic;, and to minimize hazards from open trenches, the
installation of steel plates to cover trenches. The TMP also requires that Emergency
access be maintained at all times.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
After the implementation of the mitigation measure TRANS-1 as described above, the project would
have less than significant construction-phase impacts on emergency access.
❖SECTION 4.18– TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.18-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as defined
in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k)?
X
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.
X
4.18.1 Methods
Information from the Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory Report, dated February 12, 2024 (see
Appendix D1), prepared by UltraSystems for the Conco Companies Warehouse project describes the
research for and analysis of potential cultural resources data conducted for the project. This research
included a cultural resources record search by the SCCIC, a SLF record search by the NAHC, and a
pedestrian survey assessment (see Section 4.5 above).
No prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were observed during the field survey. The
cultural resources records search by the SCCIC determined that no historic cultural resources or
prehistoric archeological sites have been recorded previously within the project site boundary, or
area of potential affect (APE) (see Appendix D1, Section 4.1). The results of the pedestrian
assessment indicate it is highly unlikely that prehistoric properties would be adversely affected by
❖SECTION 4.18– TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.18-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
construction of the project. The sources described above suggest that there is a low potential for
finding prehistoric resources.
The NAHC’s Sacred Land File records search (see Attachment C of Appendix D1 of this IS/MND) was
negative for the local presence of a Traditional Cultural Resource (TCR) site.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
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)?
No Impact
The Cultural Resources investigation determined that there are no historical resources or TCRs listed
or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k) within the project site or within a 0.5-mile radius surrounding the
project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.
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.
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes
regarding potential impacts on TCRs, as defined in Public Resources Code § 21074. TCRs are sites,
features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the California Register of
Historical Resources or local register of historical resources (California Natural Resources Agency
[CNRA], 2007).
As part of the AB 52 process, Native American tribes must submit a written request to a lead agency
to be notified of projects within their traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must
provide written, formal notification to those tribes within 14 days of deciding to undertake a project.
The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receiving the AB 52 notification if they
want to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation
process within 30 days of receiving the tribe’s request. Consultation concludes when either (1) the
parties agree to mitigation measures (MMs) to avoid a significant effect on a TCR, or (2) a party,
acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes mutual agreement cannot be reached.
In compliance with AB 52, letters were sent by the City of Fontana’s Planning Department (City) to
all applicable Native American Tribes. Rina Leung, Senior Planner with the City’s Community
Development Department, initially took the lead for this process. The letters were sent January 18,
❖SECTION 4.18– TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.18-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
2024 by certified mail to the following tribes (George Velarde, Assistant Planner, personal
communications to S. O’Neil via email January 18 and January 22, 2024):
• Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation,
• Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians,
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians,
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, and
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.
The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation) contacted the City January 8,
2024 prior to the City letters being sent to tribal representatives notifying them of AB 52
consultation. They also contacted the City via email January 18, 2024, requesting consultation in a n
exchange of emails stating they will provide the City with written comments in lieu of a meeting.
(George Velarde, Assistant Planner, personal communications to S. O’Neil via email January 30,
2024). A meeting had not been arranged to date and the Kizh Nation did not yet provide suggested
mitigation measures (Alex Rico, Associate Planner, personal communication to S. O’Neil via telephone
call May 21, 2024.) On May 21, 2024 Mr. Rico contacted the Kizh Nation to ask about conducting
consultation and the tribe responded they did want a meeting, but no date was set. On June 10, 2025
Mr. Rico sent an email to the Kizh Nation stating that an email response with tribal information would
be acceptable in lieu of a meeting. On June 12, 2024 via email the Kizh Nation provided Mr. Rico with
tribal background, information on tribal cultural resources in the project region, as well as suggested
mitigation measures. In an email July 31, 2024, Mr. Rico thanked the tribe for the material they
provided and noted that “the materials provided and note that the maps, articles and other resources
provided are a general overview of the City as a whole. In the absence of substantial evidence
demonstrating significant impacts as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21074,
the City has, nevertheless, included preservation of tribal cultural resources as a condition of project
approval.”. Mr. Rico thanked the tribe for participating in the consultation process
Kristen Tuosto with the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (aka Yuhaaviatem of San Manuelo
Nation) responded to Rina Leung, Senior Planner, on January 25, 2024 stating that the project site is
within traditional Serrano territory and that, while the Tribe did not have any concerns with the
project as planned, they provided three cultural resource mitigation measures and two tribal cultural
resource mitigation measures, and requesting that they be made part of the project plan conditions.
Mr. Rico determined the City’s Conditions of Approval (COA)for the project meet San Manuel’s
concerns expressed in their several suggested mitigation measures (A. Rico, Associate Planner,
personal communication to S. O’Neil via telephone call May 21, 2024). The COA were provided to the
tribe by email on July 22, 2025. Mr. Rico and City staff determined that San Manuel Band did not
request consultation, and that inclusion of the City’s COA in this IS/MND meets the TCR concerns
expressed by the tribe (A. Rico, personal communications to S. O’Neil via telephone calls July 31 and
August 5, 2024). The tribe provided edits to the COA to Mr. Rico on August 6, 2025. They were edited
by the City on August 13, 2025 and the edits were agreed upon by the tribe on August 14, 2025.
On February 14, 2024 Laura Chatterton, Cultural Resource Specialist for the Morongo Band of
Mission Indians (not a tribe on the City’s AB 52 contact list) sent an email to S. O’Neil stating that they
will request AB 52 consultation; this email was forwarded to Mr. Rico February 15, 2024 which he
acknowledged February 21, 2024. Despite not being required by AB 52, Mr. Rico responded to the
Morongo Band via email on July 31, 2025 asking if they wish to conduct consultation for this project
(A. Rico, personal communications to S. O’Neil via telephone call July 31, 2024). There has been no
response to date (A. Rico, personal communications to S. O’Neil via telephone call August 5, 2024).
❖SECTION 4.18– TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.18-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
There has been no response from the Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band, the Soboba Band of
Luiseño Indians, or from the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians (Velarde, Assistant Planner,
personal communications to S. O’Neil via email February 6, 2024; and A. Rico, Assistant Panner,
personal communication to S. O’Neil via telephone call May 21, 2024).
Mr. Velardes was replaced February 8, 2024 as the City’s Project Manager by Alex Rico (Velarde,
Assistant Planner, personal communications to S. O’Neil via email February 6, 2024).
No prehistoric archaeological resources were observed during the field survey. Previous cultural
resources surveys within the 0.5-mile radius resulted in no archaeological sites or isolates being
recorded. The NAHC’s search of their SLF was negative for the presence of a traditional cultural
resource in the project area. During the cultural resources record search by the SCCIC, no record of
prehistoric resources was found. The results of the pedestrian assessment indicate it is highly
unlikely that prehistoric properties will be adversely affected by construction of the project. The
cultural resource study findings at the SCCIC and other sources suggest that there is a low potential
for finding resources.
Mitigation for minimizing impacts on potential TCRs is applicable to the project site because the land
at the site was largely used for agriculture through the late 19th into the 20th century, and
development for commercial use did not take place until the late 20th century. With the resulting
disturbance, the potential for subsurface prehistoric deposits is considered to be low. However,
mitigation would be implemented to further reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
The applicable preservation measures and associated mitigation measure related to TCRs are
described below.
In lieu of specific TCR mitigation measures, the City of Fontana’s COA and the Cultural Resource
Mitigation Measures will be applied. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians reviewed these
measures and accepted them with suggested edits. These COA were compared to the measures
provided by the Kizh Nation and the three measures concerning Native American monitoring,
unanticipated discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource objects, human remains and associated funerary,
or ceremonial objects are directly covered under the COA and the mitigation measures provided
under the Cultural Resources section; CUL-1 and CUL-2.
In summary, the COA provides for the evaluation (by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor),
treatment and curation of any tribal cultural or archaeological resource that may be discovered; this
includes required stop work in the vicinity of the find during the evaluation and treatment; also that
preservation in place is the preferred treatment, but if not feasible then an archaeological data
recovery excavation to remove the resource with subsequent processing and analysis would be
conducted, along with the tribal cultural resources being returned to the tribe; also that
archaeological and Native American monitoring shall be conducted with that monitoring and
excavation to be consistent with professional standards; and that the principal archaeological
personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards and experience as a principal
investigator with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. (See the MMRP Table
7.0-1 below for full text of the COA.)
Also, see Mitigation Measure (MM) CUL-1 (see Section 4.5) which is provided to train workers to
recognize prehistoric and historic cultural resources if they should appear during subsurface
construction activities and inform them of reporting procedures. If cultural resources are observed
and reported, this would lead to the implementation of the COA Cultural Conditions - 1 provided in
Section 4.5 and described above.
❖SECTION 4.18– TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.18-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 and the Conditions of Approval Cultural
Conditions - 1 (see Section 4.5 above and MMRP Table 7.0-1 below), potential impacts related to
archaeological resources would be less than significant.
Also, with implementation of mitigation measure CUL-2 (see Section 4.5 above), potential impacts
related to human remains would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.19-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact
Domestic Water: As detailed in threshold 4.19 b) below, there would be sufficient water supplies
to serve the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not require new or expanded water
facilities. The project would have a less than significant impact.
Wastewater Treatment: The City’s sanitary sewer system involves more than 437 miles of sewer
lines and pump stations (Stantec, 2018a, p. 10.7). Regional domestic wastewater treatment services
❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.19-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
are provided under the Regional Sewer Service Contract with the Inland Empire Utilities Agency
(IEUA). The City’s wastewater is treated at the IEUA’s Regional Plant 4 (RP-4) in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. The plant has undergone several expansions to increase the wastewater treatment
capacity to its current 14 million gallons per day (mgd). The plant treats an average effluent
wastewater flow of approximately 10 mgd (IEUA, 2024).
The project proposes additional industrial development on 4.99 acres of an approximately 7.80-acre
site. As shown in Table 4.19-1, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 5,393
gallons per day of wastewater based on wastewater generation factors from the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District (LACSD, 2024). . The wastewater estimated to be generated by the proposed
project per day is a fraction of IEUA’s RP-4 residual capacity of about 4 mgd. Therefore, there is
sufficient capacity available at the RP-4 to meet the needs of the proposed project.
Table 4.19-1
ESTIMATED PROJECT WASTEWATER GENERATION
Land Use Square feet Wastewater Generation, gallons per day
Per 1,000 square
feet
Total
Warehouse 98,288 39 3,833
Office 8,000 195 1,560
Total 106,288 Not applicable 5,393
1 Source: LACSD, 2024
The project proposes offsite sewer improvements to connect the sewer lines from the project site to
the existing sewer network in Dahlia Avenue. All sewer line sizes and connections are subject to
review by the City. The project applicant will work with the City’s Public Works Department for
necessary approvals and ensure compliance with applicable requirements. No new treatment
facilities or expanded entitlements will be required. Therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impact regarding wastewater treatment.
Stormwater Drainage: The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) is
responsible for implementing and overseeing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) programs for the City of Fontana. The project would be required by the California State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to obtain coverage under a General Permit for Discharges
of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order
2009-0009-DWQ, as authorized by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act). The project would be
required to obtain an NPDES permit, prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and
implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) prior to commencement of construction activities;
additionally, BMPs must be maintained, inspected after each precipitation event, and repaired or
replaced as necessary (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.12-23 - 5.12-24).
The San Bernardino County Area-Wide Urban Storm Water Runoff Management Program regulates,
through Order No. R8-2010-0036, the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. through
stormwater and urban runoff conveyance systems, including flood control facilities. These
conveyance systems are commonly referred to as municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s),
or storm drains. Pursuant to the NPDES Permit (NPDES, also referred to as an MS4 Permit; NPDES
No. CAS618036), Principal Permittees (i.e., San Bernardino County Flood Control District) and
Co-Permittees (the City of Fontana is a Co-Permittee) must regulate discharges of pollutants in urban
runoff from anthropogenic sources into storm water conveyance systems within their jurisdiction.
❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.19-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Project compliance with regulatory requirements would reduce potential erosion/siltation impacts
during the construction phase of the project to a less than significant level. The proposed project
would be designed in compliance with applicable City of Fontana regulations regarding stormwater
runoff and the project would be reviewed by the City of Fontana Public Works Department to ensure
that the development would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. Refer to Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water
Quality, for additional information.
Under existing conditions, stormwater leaving the project site drains south on to Dahlia Street, and
then into the existing City storm drain system at the intersection of Dahlia Street and Etiwanda
Avenue. This storm drain discharges into the San Sevaine Channel . From San Sevaine Channel,
stormwater discharges into the Santa Ana River (Reach 3; Allard Engineering, 2023a), which is a
water of the U.S.
Electric Power: Electric power for the City of Fontana is provided by Southern California Edison
(SCE) (City of Fontana Utilities, 2023). The proposed project is located in a developed area, and
infrastructure for providing electric power to the area is well established. SCE typically utilizes
existing utility corridors to reduce environmental impacts, and has energy-efficiency programs to
reduce energy usage and maintain reliable service throughout the year (SCE, 2021). The project
would be constructed in accordance with all applicable Title 24 regulations, and would not
necessitate the construction or relocation of electric power facilities. Therefore, a less than significant
impact would occur.
Natural Gas: The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) is the primary distributor of retail
and wholesale natural gas across Southern California, including the City of Fontana. SoCalGas
provides services to residential, commercial, and industrial consumers, and al so provides gas for
electric generation customers. In its 2022 California Gas Report, SoCalGas analyzed a 14-year
demand period, from 2022-2035, to determine its ability to meet projected demand (California Gas
and Electric Utilities, 2022. p. 115).
SoCalGas expects total gas demand to decline 1.5 percent annually from 2022 to 2035 as a result of
energy-efficiency standards and programs, renewable electricity goals, modest economic growth in
its service region, and advanced metering infrastructure (California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2022,
p. 115). Moreover, SoCalGas plans on implementing aggressive energy-efficiency programs that will
result in natural gas savings across all sectors that will ensure longevity of its natural gas supplies
and adequate generation rates (California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2022, p. 133). Therefore,
anticipated natural gas supply is adequate to meet demand in the SoCalGas region, and the proposed
project is not expected to impact this determination. Thus, no natural gas facilities would have to be
constructed or relocated, and a less than significant impact would occur.
Telecommunications Facilities: Telecommunication services, including internet, phone, and
television, for the city of Fontana are provided by AT&T (City of Fontana Utilities, 2023). AT&T
operates two cell towers within the city boundaries. The proposed project would not interfere with
operation of AT&T’s facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.19-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
Less than Significant Impact
The Fontana Water Company (FWC) provides water services to the project site (FWC, 2021). FWC
water use projections are based on continuation of existing General Plan land uses in most of the
city—including the project site—and forecasts of future population (West Yost, 2021, p. 3-6). The
General Plan designation for the project site is I-G (General Industrial) within the Fontana Gateway
Specific Plan area. The project proposes industrial use conforming with the existing General Plan
designation. Therefore, project water use is included in FWC forecasts of future water use. As detailed
in Table 4.19-2, the City of Fontana would have adequate water during normal, dry and multiple dry
years. Therefore, FWC would be able to adequately supply water to the project and would not require
the development of an additional water supplies to serve the project. Im pacts would be less than
significant.
TABLE 4.19-2
SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON: NORMAL AND DRY YEARS (acre-feet per year)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
NORMAL WATER YEARS
Supply totals 45,593 46,909 48,655 50,442 51,943
Demand totals 45,593 46,909 48,655 50,442 51,943
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
SINGLE DRY YEARS
Supply totals 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Demand totals 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
MULTIPLE DRY YEARS
First year Supply totals 42,886 44,124 45,776 47,447 48,859
Demand totals 42,886 44,124 45,776 47,447 48,859
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second
year
Supply totals 41,415 42,610 44,206 45,820 47,183
Demand totals 41,415 42,610 44,206 45,820 47,183
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.19-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Third year Supply totals 34,074 35,057 36,369 37,697 38,819
Demand totals 34,074 35,057 36,369 37,697 38,819
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth
year
Supply totals 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Demand totals 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth year Supply totals 36,526 37,580 38,987 40,411 41,613
Demand totals 36,526 37,580 38,987 40,411 41,613
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: West Yost, 2021, p. 7-6 – 7-8
c) 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?
Less than Significant Impact
As described under threshold 4.19 a) above, the volume of wastewater generated by the project
represents only a small fraction of the existing daily capacity of the wastewater treatment facility
providing service in the area. Therefore, the wastewater anticipated to be generated by the projec t
would be within the existing capacity of the wastewater treatment provider and less than significant
impacts would occur.
d) 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?
Less than Significant Impact
Solid waste disposal services for Fontana are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, a private
company under franchise agreement with the City. Burrtec also operates the City’s curbside recycling
(including green waste recycling) program. Currently, the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill located
adjacent to the City of Fontana, in Rialto, is the primary solid waste depository for the area (Stantec,
2018a, 5.12-20).
The current permitted solid waste disposal at the Mid-Valley Landfill is 7,500 tons per day. The
facility has 61,219,377 tons of capacity remaining and the anticipated life for the landfill at its
currently permitted capacity is through 2045 (CalRecycle, 2023).
❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.19-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Project construction and operation would generate solid waste requiring disposal at local landfills.
Materials generated during construction of the project would include paper, cardboard, metal,
plastics, glass, concrete, lumber scraps and other materials. During construction (short-term) and
operation (long-term), bulk solid waste, excess building material, fill, and other construction-related
solid waste, would be disposed of in a manner consistent with State of California Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989 and would be removed from the project site. Existing regulations related to
recycling during construction and operation phases of the project require that the project provide
readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage,
and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated
cardboard, glass, plastics, and metals.
The project is anticipated to have 114 employees (Ratekin, 2024) which, using the solid waste
generation rate in Table 4.19-3, would result in an estimated generation of 242 tons of waste per
year. As discussed above, the current permitted solid waste disposal at the Mid-Valley Landfill is
7,500 tons per day. Therefore, the project’s construction and operational wastes would represent a
small fraction of the City’s daily and maximum landfill capacity.
Table 4.19-3
ESTIMATED PROJECT-GENERATED SOLID WASTE
Land Use Square Feet
Solid Waste Generation, pounds per day
Per square foot total
Industrial 106,289 0.01251 1,329,
or 242 tons per year
Notes:
1 Cal Recycle, 2006. The generation rate is the median of two rates provided in the source.
Since sufficient permitted landfill capacity exists to support operation of the proposed project, no
adverse impact on either solid waste collection service or the landfill disposal system would occur.
Therefore, project impacts on existing solid waste disposal facilities would be less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact
In 1989, the California Legislature enacted the California Integrated Waste Management Act
(AB 939), in an effort to address solid waste problems and capacities in a comprehensive manner.
The law required each city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year
2000.
The San Bernardino Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (SBCIWMP) outlines the goals,
policies, and programs the County and its cities would implement to create an integrated and
cost-effective waste management system that complies with the provisions of AB 939 and its
diversion mandates. The Infrastructure and Green Systems Element of the City of Fontana General
Plan outlines programs to reduce, recycle and properly divert solid waste from sanitary landfills
(Stantec, 2018a, p. 10.8).
❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.19-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Solid waste generated by the project would be collected by Burrtec Waste Industries, the designated
waste hauler, and transported offsite to transfer facilities and landfills for reuse, recycling and/or
disposal, as appropriate (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.12-20). Burrtec delivers solid waste to the Mid-Valley
Landfill, which operates under a permit from San Bernardino County Department of Public Health,
Solid Waste Management Division which requires regular reporting and monitors compliance.
The proposed project would comply with the SBCIWMP and the City’s waste reduction procedures
and comply with applicable elements of AB 1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and
Recycling Access Act of 1991) and other applicable local, state, and federal solid waste disposal
standards, thereby ensuring that the solid waste stream to regional landfills is reduced in accordance
with existing regulations. Impacts are considered less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.20 - WILDFIRE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.20-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified
as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
a) 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?
No Impact
As shown in Figure 4.9-1 in Section 4.9 of this IS/MND, the project site is not located in a State
Responsibility Area (SRA) (i.e., where the State is responsible for the costs of wildfire prevention and
suppression). The nearest SRA to the project site is in unincorporated lands of the County of San
Bernardino approximately 8.4 miles to the north. In addition, as shown in Figure 4.9-2 the project
site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within a Local Responsibility
Area (LRA), (i.e., where cities or counties are responsible for the costs of wildfire prevention and
suppression). The nearest VHFHSZ in LRA to the project site is about 1.3 miles to the southeast within
the City of Fontana. Therefore, the proposed project would not “substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan” and as such would have no impact.
b) 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 wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
❖ SECTION 4.20 - WILDFIRE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.20-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
No Impact
As indicated under item a) above the project site is not located in or near a SRA or a VHFHSZ within
a LRA. Therefore, the proposed project would not, "due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire” and as such would have no impact.
c) 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?
No Impact
As indicated under item a) above the project site is not located in or near a SRA or a VHFHSZ within
a LRA. Therefore, the proposed project would not "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” and as such would have no impact.
d) 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?
No Impact
As indicated under item a) above, the project site is not located in or near a SRA or a VHFHSZ within
a LRA. Therefore, the proposed project would not "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” and as such would have no impact.
❖ SECTION 4.21 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.21-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project have:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) The potential to substantially degrade
the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X
c) Environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Section 4.4 of this document addresses the impacts on biological resources. The project site is
located in a highly urbanized area characterized by commercial and industrial development
containing disturbed and developed/urban land cover and contains the existing Conco Companies
facility.
Two of the 30 species in the plant inventory, San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum)
and Plummer's mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae), were reported within a two-mile radius from
❖ SECTION 4.21 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.21-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
the project. No appropriate habitat type is provided to support these two species of plants within the
project area.
The results of the literature review determined that most of the species evaluated in the wildlife
inventory are not expected to occur within the project site. The two species of sensitive wildlife
determined to have a low potential to occur within the project site are discussed in Section 4.4. It is
not anticipated that the project would significantly impact these species because they were only
determined to have a low potential to occur in the area and these nomadic species would likely utilize
alternate areas during project activities.
The project site supports ornamental vegetation that could potentially provide cover and nesting
habitat for bird species that have adapted to urban areas and are protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code. The mitigation measure (MM) BIO-1, as
discussed in Section 4.4, will be implemented to minimize or avoid potential impacts on breeding
birds. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on plant and wildlife species.
The project site is located on geological surficial deposits mapped as alluvial fan deposits and alluvial
wash deposits from the Holocene period, and young alluvial fan deposits from the Holocene to the
late Pleistocene, discussed in Section 4.7. MM GEO-1 will be implemented to ensure that if
paleontological resources are uncovered during project construction, the on-call paleontologist shall
be notified and provided the necessary time and funds to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s).
Subsequently, the monitor shall remain on site for the duration of disturbance to the ground to
ensure the protection of any other resources found during construction on the project site. Therefore,
the project would have a less than significant impact on paleontological resources.
Section 4.5 and Section 4.18 of this document address potential impacts on Cultural Resources and
Tribal Cultural Resources. The project would be built on vacant land that has been graded. Based on
the Cultural Resources records search, it was determined that no historic cultural resources have
been previously recorded within the project site boundary. The result of the pedestrian survey was
negative for both prehistoric and historic sites and isolates on the project site. Based on the results
of the records search and tribal consultation, it is unlikely that cultural resources or tribal resources
would be adversely affected by construction of the project. No human remains have been previously
identified or recorded on site. It is unlikely that there are undisturbed unique archaeological
resources on the project site. However, grading activities associated with the development of the
project would cause new subsurface disturbance and could potentially result in the unanticipated
discovery of archaeological resources. The COA CUL-1, MM CUL-1, and MM CUL-2 are recommended
to reduce potential impacts on archeological resources and human remains to a less than significant
level.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project would be consistent with regional plans and programs that address
environmental factors such as air quality, water quality, and other applicable regulations that have
been adopted by public agencies with jurisdiction over the project to prevent or mitigate
environmental effects.
❖ SECTION 4.21 - MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 4.21-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Sections 4.3 and 4.13 of this Initial Study address the potential impacts related to Air Quality and
Noise, respectively. As detailed in Section 4.3, the impacts on air quality associated with the
construction and operation of the project would be less than significant and do not warrant
mitigation. As detailed in Section 4.13, the impacts of construction and operational noise associated
with the project site were found to be less than significant and do not warrant mitigation.
The project would create employment opportunities during both the construction and operational
phases; employees from the local workforce would be hired during the construction and operational
phases of the project. The project is not of the scope or scale to induce people to move from outside
of the project area to work on the proposed project. The project does not include a housing
component or otherwise support an increase in the resident population of the city and would utilize
existing infrastructure for its operation. Therefore, the indirect population growth resulting solely
from the project is expected to be less than significant.
Because the project would not increase individual environmental impacts after the recommended
mitigation measures are implemented, the incremental contribution to cumulative impacts is
anticipated to be less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
As detailed in Section 4.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), current ongoing remediation would
result in less than significant impacts. Furthermore, the future tenant is unknown at this time and the
use of specific hazardous materials is unknown. With the implementation of the mitigation measures
HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3, the potential impacts associated with the handling of hazardous materials
would be less than significant.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation and Traffic, the City requires preparation
and implementation of a Traffic Management Plan for all projects that require construction in the
public right-of-way to the implementation of safety measures during construction and ensure
emergency access is maintained. Therefore, with the implementation of MM TRANS-1, the
construction and operational traffic impacts associated with the project would be less than
significant.
Since the project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings after the
recommended mitigation measures are implemented, the impact is anticipated to be less than
significant.
As discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.20 of this document, after the implementation of mitigation
measures, it was found that the possible adverse environmental effects were less than significant on
humans, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 5-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
5.0 REFERENCES
Allard Engineering, 2023a. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for the Conco Industrial Site,
13052 Dahlia Street, Fontana, CA. June 15, 2023.
Allard Engineering, 2023b. Preliminary Drainage Report for the Conco Industrial Site, 13052 Dahlia
Street, Fontana, CA. June 20, 2023.
ARB, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: a framework for change. California Air Resources Board.
December 2008. Accessed online at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_sc
oping_plan.pdf, on January 10, 2024.
ARB, 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, Building on the Framework. California
Air Resources Board. May 2014. Accessed online at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_up
date_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf, on January 10, 2024.
ARB, 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. California Air Resources Board. Accessed
online at https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, on January 10,
2024.
ARB, 2020. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations. Accessed online at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-
designations, on January 10, 2024.
ARB, 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan. Accessed online at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
12/2022-sp.pdf, on January 10, 2024
ARB, 2023. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. Accessed online at https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/, on
January 10, 2024.
ARB, 2016. Commerical Vehicle Idling Requirements July 2016. California Air Resources Board.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
12/commercial_vehicle_idling_requirements_July%202016.pdf Accessed January 4, 2024.
ARB, 2022. California Air Resources Board. EMFAC2021 Emissions Inventory. Accessed online at
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory/af7c76b854b9cbc177d5019965c50e001f522806
on January 4, 2024.
Calflora, 2024. Information on California plants for education, research and conservation.
Observation Search. Available at https://www.calflora.org/entry/observ.html. Accessed on
January 4, 2024.
CAPCOA, 2023. California Emissions Estimator Model®, Version 2022.1.1.21. California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association. Accessed online at www.caleemod.com, on January 10, 2024
CEC (California Energy Commissions), 2022a. What Drives California’s Gasoline Prices? Accessed
online at https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-insights/what-drives-
californias-gasoline-
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 5-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
prices#:~:text=California%20Consumption,12.4%20billion%20gallons%20during%2020
21, on January 10, 2024.
CEC, 2022b. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Accessed online at
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-
standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency, on January 10, 2024.
CEC, 2023a. Electricity Consumption by County. Acced online at
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, on January 10, 2024.
CEC, 2023b. Gas Consumption by County Accessed online at
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, January 10, 2024.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Game). 2023. California Natural Community List. June 2023
Retrieved from https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. Accessed on
December 5, 2023.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2024a. BIOS Habitat Connectivity Viewer.
Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed on January 4, 2024.
CDFW, 2024b. Hunting Licenses and Tags Available at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Hunting#:~:text=Fish%20and%20Game%20Code%20S
ection%2086%20defines%20%22Take%22%20as%20hunt,nonrefundable%20license%
20agent%20handling%20fee. Accessed on January 9, 2024.
Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council), 2023. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Available at:
https://www.cal-ipc.org. Accessed on December 6, 2023.
CASGEM (California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program), 2024. Available at
https://www.casgem.water.ca.gov/. Accessed on January 10, 2024.
CGS (California Geological Survey), 2023a. California Tsunami Maps. Available at
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps. Accessed on December 5, 2023.
CGS, 2023b. Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones Map. Available at:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/maps/ee92a5f9f4ee4ec5aa731d3245ed9f53/about. Accessed on
December 5, 2023.
Chico, T. and Koizumi, J. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. South Coast Air
Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, California. Accessed online at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-
thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2, on January 10, 2024.
City of Fontana, 1992. Master Storm Drainage Plan. Available at
https://www.fontanaca.gov/3535/Master-Storm-Drainage-Plan. Accessed on December 5,
2023.
City of Fontana, 1993. Code of Ordinances. Chapter 28, Article III. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH28V
E_ARTIIIPRHESISPTR
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 5-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
City of Fontana, 1997. Fontana Gateway Specific Plan. Accessed online at
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10838/Fontana-Gateway-Specific-
Plan?bidId= on December 8, 2023.
City of Fontana, 2017a. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. June 2017. Approved and
adopted August 14, 2018. CC Resolution No. 2018-072. Available at:
https://fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.
Accessed on December 5, 2023.
City of Fontana, 2018a. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035, Adopted November 13,
2018. Accessed online at https://www.fontanaca.gov/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---
2035 on September 6, 2023.
City of Fontana, 2018b. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental
Impact Report, Adopted June 8, 2018. Accessed online at
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update on October 1, 2023.
City of Fontana, 2023b. General Plan Land Use and Zoning Interactive Map. Accessed online at
https://fontanaca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ecc67f90c51440
eca0d17fd5a6e59c92, accessed on January 10, 2024.
City of Fontana, 2023a. Zoning and Development Code, Chapter 30 Article IVV – Industrial Zoning
Districts. Accessed online at
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=C
H30ZODECO_ARTVIIINZODI on December 7, 2023.
City of Fontana, 2023c. Chapter 12 Sustainability and Resilience. Fontana General Plan. Approved
and Adopted by City Council November 13, 2018. Accessed online at
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26751/Chapter-12---Sustainability-
and-Resilience, on January 10, 2024.
City of Fontana, 2023d. Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design. Accessed online at
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26754/Chapter-15---Land-Use-
Zoning-and-Urban-Design, on January 17, 2024.
City of Fontana, 2023e. City of Fontana Design Standards. Dated October 10. 2023. Accessed online
at https://www.fontanaca.gov/3483/Design-and-Construction-Standards on January 18,
2023.
City of Fontana Municipal Code, 2024. Municipal Code. Available at
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances, on January 17, 2024.
City of Fontana Utilities, 2024. Utilities. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/3032/Utilities,
on January 17, 2024.
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). 2023a. RareFind 5 (Internet). California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (5.2.14). Available at
https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed on December 5, 2023.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 5-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
CNDDB, 2023b. Natural Diversity Database. Special Animals List. October 2023. California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. Available at
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406 Accessed on December 5,
2023.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society), 2023a. Rare Plant Program. Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Retrieved from:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed on December 5, 2023.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2023b, A Manual of California Vegetation Online Edition.
California Native Plant Society, CA. 1300 pp. Retrieved from:
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/. Accessed on December 5, 2023.
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2024. All About Birds. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.
Available at https://www.allaboutbirds.org Accessed on January 4, 2024.
Day, Robert W. 2000. Geotechnical Engineer’s Portable Handbook, First Edition. December 18, 2000.
McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, New York. Accessed on January 4, 2024.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources), 2023. DWR Groundwater Basin Boundary
Assessment Tool (BBAT). Available at https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/. Accessed on
December 5, 2023.
DWR, 2003. Bulletin 118: California’s Groundwater, Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin
(Groundwater Basin Number 8-002). Available at: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-
Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-
Basin-Descriptions/8_002_01_ChinoSubbasin.pdf, Accessed on December 12, 2023.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2023a. Division of Safety of Dams, California Dam
Breach Inundation Maps. Available at: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/. Accessed
on December 5, 2023.
DWR, 2023b, Water Data Library. Available at www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary. Accessed on
December 7, 2023.
eBird. 2024. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. All About Birds. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.
Available at https://www.allaboutbirds.org. Accessed on January 5, 2024.
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), 2023. California State Energy Profile. Accessed online
at https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA on January 4, 2024.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 2014. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for San
Bernardino County, California and Incorporated Areas (Map Number 06071C8642J).
Effective September 26, 2014. Available at https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps. Accessed on
December 27, 2023.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 2023a. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL)
Viewer. Accessed online at: https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/national-flood-hazard-
layer, on December 27, 2023.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 5-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 2023b. Glossary: Flood Zones Available at:
https://www.fema.gov/glossary/flood-zones. Accessed on December 27, 2023.
FWC (Fontana Water Company), 2023a. Fontana Water Company Service Map. Available at:
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/Service_Area_FONTANA.pdf. Accessed on December 12, 2023.
FWC, 2023b. Fontana Water Company Water Sources. Available at:
https://www.fontanawater.com/water-quality-supply/water-sources/. Accessed on
December 12, 2023.
FPD (Fontana Police Department). 2024. About us. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontanaca.gov/2509/About-Us, on January 17, 2024.
GMI, 2023. What is a Global Warming Potential? And Which One Do I Use? GHG Management Institute.
Accessed online at https://ghginstitute.org/2010/06/28/what-is-a-global-warming-
potential/, on January 10, 2024.
Google Earth Pro, 2024. Google Earth Pro V 7.3.6.9345 (March 27, 2023). City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California, U.S.A. 34.°03’11.25”N-117°31’07.36”W. Eye alt 4765 ft.
Available at https://earth.google.com/web/. Accessed on January 4, 2024.
IEUA (Inland Empire Utilities Agency), 2024. Regional Plant No. 4. Accessed online at:
https://www.ieua.org/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-4/, on January 16, 2024.
iNaturalist, 2024. iNaturalist A Community for Naturalists. Available at:
https://www.inaturalist.org/. Accessed on January 4, 2024.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007.
Janello, C.J and M.S. Thill, 2018. Mill District Mixed-Use Project Environmental Noise and Vibration
Assessment, Healdsburg, California. Prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. for WRA, March
21, p. 43. Available at
https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/2844?fileID=4182.
Accessed on July 10, 2024.
Jepson (Jepson Flora Project [eds.]), 2024. The Jepson Herbarium, Jepson eFlora, Available at
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Accessed on January 5, 2024.
Kim, Joseph. 2024. Personal Communication from Joseph Kim, AIA, LEED AP to Bob Reicher. RE:
[EXTERNAL] RE: 7248 Conco Warehouse Project Description. “number of anticipated
employees.” January 16, 2024.
LSA Associates, Inc., 2021. San Bernardino County Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. June
2021. LSA Project No. SBE2002. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 21,
2021. Accessed online at:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/LUS/GreenhouseGas/GHG_2021/GHG%20Reduction
%20Plan%20Update-Greenhouse%20Gas%20Reduction%20Plan%20Update%20-
%20Adopted%209-21-2021.pdf, on January 10, 2024.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 5-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
NASA, 2023. What is the greenhouse effect? Accessed online at
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/, on January 10, 2024.
NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), 2020. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
'SAFE' Vehicles Rule. Accessed online at https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-
economy/safe, on January 10, 2024.
Omnitrans, 2024. Transit Services. Accessed Online at
https://omnitrans.org/services/overview/#:~:text=Omnitrans%20fixed%2Droute%20se
rvice%20consists,throughout%20the%20San%20Bernardino%20Valley. On January 16,
2024.
Ratekin, Darren (Real Estate Development Manager, The Conco Group). 2024a. Email (July 15, 2024).
Ratekin, Darren (Real Estate Development Manager, The Conco Group). 2024b. Email (May 24, 2024).
RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2023. Santa Ana Avenue Warehouse Project Trip Generation and Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis, City of Fontana.
RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 2016. 1995 Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa
Ana River Basin (Region 8). updated in February 2008, June 2011, and February 2016.
Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/.
Accessed on December 12, 2023.
SBCFPD (San Bernardino County Fire Protection District). 2024. Emergency Response. Accessed
online at: https://sbcfire.org/hmemergencyresponse/, on January 18, 2024.
SANBAG (San Bernardino Associated Governments), 2016. San Bernardino County Congestion
Management Program. Dated June 2016. Accessed online at
https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/congestion-management-plan-2016/ on January 18, 2024.
Sawyer et al., J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition.
California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, CA. 1300 pp.
SBCSD (Can Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department). 2024. Fontana Station. Accessed online at:
https://wp.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/patrol-stations/fontana/, on January 17, 2024.
SCAQMD, 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA., Accessed online at
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ceqa-air-
quality-handbook-(1993), on January 10, 2024.
SCAQMD, 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance
Threshold. Accessed online at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-
thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf?sfvrsn=2, on January 10, 2024.
SCAQMD, 2022a. Site Survey Report for Fontana. May 19. Accessed online at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-monitoring-network-
plan/aaqmnp-fontana.pdf?sfvrsn=11, on January 10, 2024
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 5-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
SCAQMD, 2022b. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. Accessed online at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-
air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16, on January 10,
2024.
SCAQMD, 2023. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. South Coast Air Quality Management
District. Accessed online at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-
coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25, on January 10, 2024
Shuford, W.D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked
assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate
conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field
Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento.
Sibley, David Allen. 2000. National Audubon Society, The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New
York.
Soil Survey Staff, 2023. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available at http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
Accessed on December 14, 2023.
Stantec et al, 2018a. Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015 – 2035. Adopted on November 13,
2018. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---
2035, on January 4, 2024.
Stantec, 2018b. Draft General Plan EIR. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update on January 4, 2024.
Stoneburg, Brittany. 2024. Paleontological Records Search for the Conco Warehouse Project in
Fontana, San Bernardino County. Western Science Center. Conducted annuary 18, 2024.
SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board). 2013 Water Quality Order No. 2013-0001-
DWQ NPDES General Permit NO. CAS000004 WDRs for Storm Water Discharges from Small
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems MS4s Available at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/phsii2012_
5th/order_final.pdf. Accessed on December 20, 2023.
SWRCB. 2024a. GeoTracker. CBI NA-CON, INC. Accessed online at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0607100090, on January 17,
2024.
SWRBC. 2024b. GeoTracker. Bragg Companies. Accessed online at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=fontana#, on January
17, 2024.
UltraSystems (UltraSystems Environmental, Inc.), 2024. Biological Resources Evaluation Report for
the Fairfield Hotel/Restaurant Project. January 2024.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 5-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2024. WATERS GeoViewer. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer. Accessed on December 5, 2023.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2010. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Carbon Monoxide (Final Report, Jan 2010). Accessed online at
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686, on January 10, 2024.
USEPA, 2011 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Control Regulations. Accessed online at
https://www3.epa.gov/region1/airquality/nox.html, on January 10, 2024.
USEPA, 2021. Regulations for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Passenger Cars and Trucks. Accessed
online at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-
greenhouse-gas-emissions-passenger-cars-and, on January 10, 2024.
USEPA, 2022a. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). Accessed online at
https://www.epa.gov/green-book, on January 10, 2024.
USEPA, 2022b. Particulate Matter (PM) Pollution. Accessed online at https://www.epa.gov/pm-
pollution, on January 10, 2024.
USEPA, 2022c. What is Ozone? Accessed online at https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution-and-your-
patients-health/what-ozone, on January 10, 2024.
USEPA, 2022e. Regulations for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Passenger Cars and Trucks. Accessed
online at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-
greenhouse-gas-emissions-passenger-cars-and, on January 10, 2024
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022f. WATERSKMZ version 2.0. (updated
September 20, 2022) Available at https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/viewing-waters-data-
using-google-earth. Accessed on January 9, 2024.
USEPA, 2023a. Final Rule for Model Year 2012 - 2016 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Accessed online at
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-model-
year2012-2016-light-duty-vehicle, on January 10, 2024
USEPA, 2023b. The Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Final Rule for Model Years 2021 -
2026. Accessed online at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-
engines/safer-affordable-fuel-efficient-safe-vehicles-final-rule, on January 10, 2024.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. 2023a. Official Species List:
Consultation Code: 2024-0026742. Carlsbad, California. December 14, 2023.
USFWS. 2023b. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) website, National Wetlands Mapper. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed on December 5, 2023.
USFWS. 2023c. USFWS Critical Habitat Portal. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. Accessed on
December 9, 2023.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 5-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
USGS (United States Geological Survey), 2015. Guasti Quadrangle, California, 7.5-Minute Series. Scale
1:24,000. Prepared for U.S. Topo: The National Map. Available at https://prd-
tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/StagedProducts/Maps/USTopo/PDF/CA/CA_Guasti_20150313_T
M_geo.pdf. Accessed on December 12, 2023.
USGS, 2023. National Hydrography Dataset. Available at https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/.
Accessed on October 17, 2023.
WBWG (Western Bat Working Group), 2023. Species Matrix. Available at
http://wbwg.org/matrices/species-matrix/. Accessed on December 5, 2023.
West Yost (West Yost Associates), 2017. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. San Gabriel Valley
Water Company – Fontana Division. Final Report, December 2017. Available at
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/San-Gabriel-
Fontana_Amended-Final-December-2017-1.pdf. Accessed on December 5, 2023.
WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center), 2023. 1981-2010 Monthly Climate Summary. Fontana
Kaiser, California (Coop Station 043120). Retrieved from: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-
bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3120, Accessed on January 10, 2024.
WSC (Water Systems Consulting, Inc.), 2015. San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water
Management Plan), 2015. Accessed online at https://wvwd.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/SBVMWD_RUWMP_Rev20160615.pdf, accessed on March 29,
2023.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife.
Vol. I-III. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Updated
September, 2000. Available at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-
Range.
❖ SECTION 6.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS ❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 6-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
6.1 Lead Agency (CEQA)
George Velarde, Assistant Planner
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana CA 92335-3528
T: 909-350-6569
6.2 Project Applicant
Darren Ratekin
The Conco Companies
5141 Commercial Circle
Concord, CA 94520
6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc.
6.3.1 Environmental Planning Team
Betsy Lindsay, M.A., MURP, ENV SP, Project Director
Robert Reicher, MBA, B.S., ENV SP, Project Manager
6.3.2 Technical Team
Allison Carver, B.S., B.A., Senior Biologist
Amir Ayati, B.S., Staff Scientist
Andrew Soto, B.A., Word Processing/Technical Editing
Audrey McNamara, B.A., Biologist
Brandie Metcalf, M.S., M.A., Senior Marketing Specialist
Erik Segura, B.S., ENV SP, Associate Planner
Gulben Kaplan, M.S., B.S., GIS Analyst
Isha Shah, M.S., Environmental Engineer
Marissa Kassisieh, B.A., Assistant Planner
Matthew Sutton, M.S., B.A., ISA, Staff Biologist
Megan Black, M.A., Archaeological Technician
Michael Rogozen, D. Env, Senior Principal Engineer
Stephen Chesterman, BEng, GIS Analyst
Stephen O’Neil, M.A., RPA, Cultural Resources Manager
Steven Borjeson, B.A., Senior Planner
Victor Paitimusa, B.A., ENV SP, Assistant Project Manager
6.3.3 Subconsultants
RK Engineering Group, Inc. – Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis
Justin Tucker, P.E., Principal Engineer
❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 7-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with
§ 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and § 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, which requires all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting
programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The MMRP ensures implementation of the measures being
imposed to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified through the
use of monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project
oversight; reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the
decision-making body or authorized staff person.
It is the intent of the MMRP to: (1) provide a framework for document implementation of the
required mitigation; (2) identify monitoring/reporting responsibility; (3) provide a record of the
monitoring/reporting; and (4) ensure compliance with those mitigation measures that are within the
responsibility of the lead agency and/or project applicant to implement.
The following subjects require mitigation:
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
The following subjects do not require mitigation:
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry
Air Quality
Energy
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Services
Wildfire
Table 7.0-1 lists impacts, mitigation measures adopted by the City of Fontana in connection with
approval of the proposed project, level of significance after mitigation, responsible and monitoring
parties, and the project phase in which the measures are to be implemented. Only those
environmental topics for which mitigation is required are listed in this Mitigation, Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 7-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
Table 7.0-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
RESPONSIBLE
MONITORING
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
4.4 Biological Resources
Threshold 4.4a):
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 the
California Department
of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
MM BIO-1: Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Survey
If construction activities, including staging, are anticipated to
commence during the nesting season (between January 1 and
August 31 of any given year, or as determined by a local CDFW
office), a qualified avian biologist shall conduct a preconstruction
nesting bird survey between three to seven days prior to
construction.
In accordance with the MBTA and CFGC (§§ 3503, 3503.5, 3513), if
an active bird nest of a species protected by the MBTA is located
during the pre-construction survey and would potentially be
affected, a no-activity buffer zone shall be delineated on maps and
marked in the field by fencing, stakes, flagging, or other means up
to 500 feet for raptors, or 100 feet for non-raptors. Materials used
to demarcate the nests will be removed as soon as work is
complete, or the fledglings have left the nest. The qualif ied avian
biologist will determine the appropriate size of the buffer zone
based on the type of activities planned near the nest and bird
species.
The survey will be conducted between three to seven days prior to
the onset of scheduled activities, including building demolition and
vegetation trimming or removal and will include all potential nest
sites, such as open ground, trees, shrubs, grasses, bu rrows, and
structures during the breeding season.
Project
Applicant
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. Project
Construction
❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 7-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
RESPONSIBLE
MONITORING
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
The project applicant will make every effort to conduct the pre -
construction survey and subsequent removal of all physical
features that could potentially serve as avian nest sites (e.g.,
staging and stockpiling, structure removal, clear and grub, grading,
fill, etc.) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
If a breeding bird territory or an active bird nest is located during
the pre-construction survey and will potentially be impacted by
demolition or construction activities, the site will be mapped, and
location provided to the construction supervisor, City, and project
applicant. The qualified biologist will establish a buffer zone
around the active nest, which will be delimited (fencing, stakes,
flagging, orange snow fencing, etc.) at a minimum of 100 feet, or as
the qualified biologist determines is appropriate, for the detected
species. The biologist will determine the appropriate buffer size
based on the planned activities and tolerances of the nesting birds.
This no-activity buffer zone will not be disturbed until a qualified
biologist has determined th at the nest is inactive, the young have
fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the
young have left the area, or the young will no longer be impacted
by project activities.
Periodic monitoring by a qualified avian biologist will be
performed to determine when nesting is complete. After the
nesting cycle is complete, project activities may begin within the
buffer zone.
4.5 Cultural Resources
❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 7-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
RESPONSIBLE
MONITORING
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
Threshold 4.5b)
Would the project
cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological
resource pursuant to §
15064.5?
Conditions of Approval -- Cultural Conditions 1:
Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources,
cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity (60-foot
buffer) of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural
and archaeological resources unearthed by project c onstruction
activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist meeting
the Secretary of Interior standards, tribal monitor, and
representatives from the Consulting Tribes to provide Tribal input
with regards to significance and treatment. 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 reburial
in the project footprint. 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, the SOI archaeologist shall
develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall
be provided to the Consulting Tribes for review and comment. The
archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and
implement the Plan accordingly.
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.
Project
Applicant
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. Prior to Project
Construction
❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 7-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
RESPONSIBLE
MONITORING
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any
activities associated with the project, work in the immediate
vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the
County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and
Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the
project.
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.
Threshold 4.5b)
Would the project
cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological
resource pursuant to §
15064.5?
MM CUL 1:
Prior to the commencement of grading or excavation, workers
conducting construction activities and their supervisors will
receive Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
training from a qualified archaeologist regarding the potential for
sensitive archaeological and paleontological resources to be
unearthed during grading activities. The workers will be directed
to report any unusual specimens of bone, stone, ceramics or other
archaeological artifacts or features observed during grading
and/or other construction activities to their supervisors and to
cease grading activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery
until a qualified archaeologist or Native American cultural monitor
Project
Applicant
Field
Verification
1.City of Fontana
2.City of Fontana
3.Prior to Project
Construction
❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 7-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
RESPONSIBLE
MONITORING
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
is notified of the discovery by the Superintendent of the project site
and can assess their significance. WEAP shall be implemented to
educate all construction personnel about the area’s environmental
conditions and the regulations that must be adhered to by all
workers throughout the duration of project construction.
Training materials shall be language-appropriate for all
construction personnel. Upon completion of the WEAP, workers
shall sign a form stating that they attended the program,
understand all protection measures, and shall abide by all the rules
of the WEAP. A record of all trained personnel shall be kept with
the construction supervisor at the project field construction office
and shall be made available to any resource agency personnel. If
new construction personnel are added to the project later, the
construction supervisor shall ensure that new personnel receive
training before they start working. The archaeologist shall provide
hard copies of the WEAP presentation to the construction
supervisor.
Threshold 4.5b)
Would the project
cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological
resource pursuant to §
15064.5?
With implementation of Conditions of Approval CC-1 and
mitigation measure CUL-1 above, potential impacts related to
archaeological resources would be less than significant.
Refer to
mitigation
measures
COA CC-1
and CUL-1
above.
Refer to
mitigation
measures
COA CC-1
and CUL-1
above.
Refer to mitigation
measures COA CC-1
and CUL-1 above.
Threshold 4.5c)
Would the project
disturb any human
MM CUL-2: If human remains are encountered during excavations
associated with this project, all work shall stop within a 30-foot
radius of the discovery and the San Bernardino County Coroner
Project
Applicant
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 7-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
RESPONSIBLE
MONITORING
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
remains, including
those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
will be notified (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The
Coroner will determine whether the remains are recent human
origin or older Native American ancestry. If the coroner, with the
aid of the supervising archaeologist, determines that the remains
are prehistoric, they will contact the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will be responsible for designating
the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD (either an individual
or sometimes a committee) will be responsible for the ultimate
disposition of the remains, as required by § 7050.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code. The MLD will make recommendations
within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. These
recommendations may include scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated
with Native American burials (§ 7050.5 of the Health and Safety
Code).
3. Project
Construction
4.7 Geology and Soils
Threshold 4.7f)
Project could directly
or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological
resource or site or
unique geologic
feature.
MM PALEO-1:
If paleontological resources are uncovered during project
construction, the contractor shall halt construction activities in the
immediate area and notify the City. The on-call paleontologist shall
be notified and afforded the necessary time and funds to recover,
analyze, and curate the find(s). Subsequently, the monitor shall
remain onsite for the duration of the ground disturbance to ensure
the protection of any other resources that are found during
construction on the project site
Project
Applicant
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. Project
Construction
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 7-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
RESPONSIBLE
MONITORING
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
Threshold 4.9a)
Would the project
create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
and,
Threshold 4.9b)
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?
MM HAZ-1:
In the event that the future tenant will handle hazardous materials
above the reportable quantity threshold, threshold specified in the
tenant’s Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) pursuant to
California Code of Regulations Title 19 Sections 5010.1 et seq. The
HMBP shall contain in inventory of hazardous materials at the
facility; emergency response plans and procedures to be followed
in the event of a reportable release or threatened release of a
hazardous material; requirements to train employees in safety
procedures in the event of a release or threatened release of a
hazardous material; and a site map depicting loading areas,
internal roads, adjacent streets, storm and sewer drains, site
entrances/exits, emergency shutoffs, evacuation staging areas,
hazardous material handling and storage areas, and emergency
response equipment. The tenant shall, in coordination with the City
of Fontana, identify routes along which hazardous materials may
routinely be transported. Transportation routes for hazardous
materials shall comply with California Vehicle Code Sections
31303(b) (the transportation shall be on state or interstate
highways which offer the least overall transit time whenever
practicable); and 31303(c) (the transporter shall avoid, whenever
practicable, congested thoroughfares, places where crowds are
assembled, and residence districts as defined in [California Vehicle
Code] Section 515). The tenant and the City shall consider
distances of routes to sensitive areas such hospitals, schools,
handicapped facilities, prisons and stadiums in their selection of
hazardous materials transportation routes, in accordance with
Code of Federal Regulations Title 49 Section 397.71(b)(9)(vi).
Future
Tenant
Review and
Approval of
a Hazardous
Materials
Business
Plan
1. County of San
Bernardino Fire
Department
2. City of Fontana
3. Post-Construction
❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 7-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
RESPONSIBLE
MONITORING
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
Threshold 4.9f)
Impair
implementation of or
physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Refer to mitigation measure TRANS-1 below.
Refer to
mitigation
measure
TRANS-1
below.
Refer to
mitigation
measure
TRANS-1
below.
Refer to mitigation
measure TRANS-1
below.
4.17 Transportation
Threshold 4.17d)
Would the project
result in inadequate
emergency access?
MM TRANS-1:
The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) must be reviewed
and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer prior to the start of
construction activity in the public ROW. The typical TMP requires
such things as the installation of a K-rail between the construction
area and open traffic lanes, the use of flaggers and directional
signage to direct traffic where only one travel lane is available or
when equipment movement creates temporary hazards, and the
installation of steel plates to cover trenches under constru ction.
Emergency access must be maintained at all times.
Project
Applicant
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. During
Construction
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
❖ SECTION 7.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM❖
7248/The Conco Companies – New Industrial Building and Site Improvements Page 7-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2025
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
RESPONSIBLE
MONITORING
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
Threshold 4.18a)(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.
Refer to City Conditions of Approval Cultural Conditions-1, and
mitigation measures MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 above.
Project
Applicant
Field
Verification,
Review and
Approval of
Cultural
Resources
Monitoring
and
Treatment
Plan
1. Native American
Tribes and City of
Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. During
Construction