The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAddendum to the EIR for Citrus and Oleander at Santan Ana Avenue Project ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITRUS & OLEANDER AVENUE AT SANTA ANA AVENUE PROJECT (State Clearinghouse #2022110389) Oleander & Santa Ana Project MCN23-0100-R1 Prepared For: City of Fontana Planning Department 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 Contact: Salvador Quintanilla Prepared By: T&B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92602 Contact: Tracy Zinn Project Applicant: Acacia Real Estate Group, Inc. 260 Newport Center Drive, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 August 2025 Table of Contents Section Number/Title Page 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 1-1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...................................................................................................... 2-7 2.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 2-8 2.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................ 2-13 2.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 2-16 2.6 Energy ................................................................................................................................................. 2-17 2.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 2-18 2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................. 2-20 2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................................... 2-23 2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 2-24 2.11 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................ 2-27 2.12 Mineral Resources............................................................................................................................... 2-27 2.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................................... 2-28 2.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................................... 2-35 2.15 Public Services ..................................................................................................................................... 2-35 2.16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 2-36 2.17 Transportation .................................................................................................................................... 2-36 2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 2-38 2.19 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................................. 2-39 2.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................ 2-41 2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................................... 2-42 3.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Table of Contents MCN23-0100-R1 i List of Tables Table Number/Title Page Table 2-1 Approved v. Proposed Project Construction Regional AQ Emissions ............................................... 2-9 Table 2-2 Approved v. Proposed Project Construction Local AQ Emissions .................................................. 2-10 Table 2-3 Approved v. Proposed Project Operational Regional AQ Emissions .............................................. 2-10 Table 2-4 Approved v. Proposed Project Operational Local AQ Emissions .................................................... 2-11 Table 2-5 Approved v. Proposed Project Construction Health Risks .............................................................. 2-12 Table 2-6 Approved v. Proposed Project Operational Health Risks ............................................................... 2-12 Table 2-7 Approved v. Proposed Project Construction GHG Emissions ......................................................... 2-21 Table 2-8 Approved v. Proposed Operational GHG Emissions ....................................................................... 2-22 Table 2-9 Construction Level Noise Compliance ............................................................................................ 2-30 Table 2-10 Operational Noise Compliance Level .............................................................................................. 2-32 Table 2-11 Daytime Project Operational Noise Increases ................................................................................ 2-33 Table 2-12 Nighttime Project Operational Noise Increases ............................................................................. 2-33 Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Table of Contents MCN23-0100-R1 ii List of Appendices Appendix Document/Reference Title A Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Memo B Preliminary Hydrology Calculations C Storm Water Quality Management Plan D Noise Assessment E Trip Generation Assessment Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Table of Contents MCN23-0100-R1 1-1 ACRONYMS APN Assessor Parcel Number AQ Air Quality AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMPs Best Management Practices CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CEQA California Environmental Quality Act cfs Cubic feet per second CO Carbon Monoxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent dBA A-weighted decibel EIR Environmental Impact Report GHG Greenhouse Gas HRA Health Risk Assessment IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency I-G General Industrial (Zoning) Leq Equivalent Continuous Sound Level lbs/day Pounds per Day MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MM Mitigation Measure MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent NOx Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report PM10 Particulate Matter (10 microns or less) PM2.5 Particulate Matter (2.5 microns or less) s.f. Square Feet SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SOX Sulfur Oxides SP Specific Plan SWIP Southwest Industrial Park SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWQMP Storm Water Quality Management Plan VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC Volatile Organic Compounds Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Table of Contents MCN23-0100-R1 1-2 WQMP Water Quality Management Plan APN Assessor Parcel Number AQ Air Quality AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMPs Best Management Practices CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CEQA California Environmental Quality Act cfs Cubic feet per second Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Project Information MCN23-0100-R1 1-1 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title MCN23-0100-R1 Design Review Application 2. Lead Agency Name and Address City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92355 3. Contact Person and Phone Number Salvador Quintanilla 909-350-6656 4. Project Location North of Santa Ana Avenue and east of Oleander Avenue; approximately 300 feet east of the intersection. Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 0255-011-15. 5. Project Applicant Acacia Real Estate Group 6. General Plan Designation General Industrial (I-G) 7. Zoning Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan (SP), Slover East Industrial District 8. Description of Project: The Project Applicant seeks a Design Review application to allow for the development of one commerce center building, with up to 83,632 square feet (s.f.) of building space, located on a 4.65-acre parcel. The building would include up to 75,632 s.f. of industrial floor space and up to 8,000 s.f. of total office space (4,000 s.f. on the first floor and 4,000 on the second floor), which would be located north of Santa Ana Avenue and east of Oleander Avenue. The proposed building would include a truck court enclosed by screen walls having eight dock doors and 17 trailer parking spaces on the south side of the building. An additional 55 passenger vehicle parking spaces would be provided on the north and east sides of the building. Access to the Project Site would be via one 40-foot- wide driveway connecting with Santa Ana Avenue at the southeast corner of the Project Site. A 30-foot-wide fire Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Project Information MCN23-0100-R1 1-2 lane is provided around the building on the north, east, and south sides. The building would have a variable roofline with a maximum height of 44.6 feet above finished floor elevation. The building would be constructed of concrete tilt-up panels and low reflective blue glass. The building’s exterior color palette would be comprised of various shades of white and gray. Decorative building elements include parapets, mullions, and a canopy at the office entry. An eight-foot screen wall is proposed along the western boundary of the Project Site, between the proposed building and the off-site, non-conforming residential land uses to the west. A 12-foot-high concrete tilt- up screen wall is proposed around the building’s truck court. Landscaping would be provided around the perimeter of the Project Site and around the building. Proposed landscaping would be ornamental in nature and would feature trees, shrubs, and drought-tolerant accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North: To the north of the Project Site is the Fontana Adult School. North of the Adult School are residential land uses and east of the Adult School and northeast of the Project Site is Citrus High School. To the northwest of the Project Site, between Citrus Avenue and Oleander Avenue, is the Jurupa Hills High School. South: To the south of the Project Site is Santa Ana Avenue and south of that is commerce center development, which includes an Amazon Distribution Center (between Oleander and Cypress Avenues), and to the southwest is the Citrus Commerce Center (between Citrus and Oleander Avenues), both of which are in the Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan area. East: East of the Project Site are the sports fields for Citrus High School. Citrus High School is located north of the sports fields, to the northeast of the Project Site. Farther east is Cypress Avenue and east of Cypress Avenue is a single-family residential community. West: West of the Project Site are residential land uses and farther west is Citrus Avenue. West of Citrus Avenue is a commerce center development. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) None The City is the Lead Agency as set forth in CEQA Section 21067 and is responsible for reviewing and approving the Addendum to the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR. In addition to this Addendum, the City will consider the following discretionary approvals for the Proposed Project: • A Design Review permit for the proposed site and building improvements. • Approvals and permits necessary to execute the Proposed Project, including but not limited to, demolition permit, grading permit, building permit, etc. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.); the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Ca lifornia Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as set forth by the City of Fontana (City). The City is the lead agency under CEQA. Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration is only required when: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. In 2023 the City approved the Citrus and Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project (Approved Project) via certification of an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2022110389) (Certified EIR.) The Certified EIR evaluated the construction and operation of three commerce center buildings collectively having up Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-2 to 540,849 square feet (s.f.) of building space. Building 1 is proposed at the northeast corner of the intersection of Citrus Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue and would contain 151,618 s.f. of floor area including 141,618 s.f. of commerce center space and up to 10,000 s.f. of supporting office space. Building 2 is proposed at the northwest corner of the intersection of Oleander Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue and would contain 196,336 s.f. of floor area including 180,336 s.f. of commerce center space and up to 16,000 s.f. of supporting office space. Building 3 is proposed at the northeast corner of the intersection of Oleander Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue and would contain 192,895 s.f. of floor area including 176,895 s.f. of commerce center space and up to 16,000 s.f. of supporting office space. The site plan for the Approved Project is shown on Figure 2-1. The City has now received a Design Review application for the Oleander and Santa Ana Project (Proposed Project) for the entitlement of one 83,632 s.f. commerce center building located on a 4.65-acre parcel on north of Santa Ana Avenue and east of Oleander Avenue. (APN: 0255-011-15.) The site plan for the Proposed Project is shown on Figure 2-2. The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze any potential differences between the impacts identified in the Approved Project FEIR, and those that would be associated with development of the Proposed Project. As identified above, pursuant to provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City is the “Lead Agency” charged with the responsibility of deciding whether to approve development on the Proposed Project Site. As part of its decision-making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the Proposed Project would create new significant impacts or more severe significant impacts than those previously disclosed, analyzed and mitigated for in the Approved Project FEIR. Additional CEQA review beyond this Addendum would only be triggered if the Proposed Project created new significant impacts or more severe significant impacts than those disclosed, analyzed and mitigated for in the Approved Project FEIR. New threshold guidelines do not constitute “new information” requiring additional environmental review. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) states that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document for the Proposed Project, if the City finds that major revisions to the Approved Project FEIR are not necessary and that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of Subsequent or Supplemental EIR (SEIR) are triggered. As detailed herein, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts and/or more severe impacts that were not disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated for in the Approved Project FEIR. As demonstrated in this Addendum, the potential impacts associated with the Proposed Project would either be the same or less than those described in the Approved Project FEIR. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the Approved Project FEIR, nor has any new information regarding the potential for new or more severe significant environmental impacts been identified. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum to the previously certified Approved Project FEIR is the appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. In taking action on any of the approvals, the decision- making body must consider the whole of the data presented in the Approved Project FEIR and the previously adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as well as subsequently approved project- specific CEQA addenda for the Proposed Project Site, as augmented by this Addendum. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-3 Because the CEQA Guidelines do not stipulate the format or content of an Addendum, the topical areas identified in the City of Fontana’s Initial Study form (as set forth in the City’s 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted April 23, 2019) were used as guidance for this Addendum. This analysis provides the City with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the Project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information that has become available since the certification of the Citrus & Oleander at Santa Ana Avenue EIR would require additional environmental review (i.e., preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR). A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was adopted in conjunction with certification of the Citrus & Oleander at Santa Ana Avenue EIR. The MMRP specified mitigation measures that would apply to the Project to minimize the environmental effects of Project implementation. The previously adopted mitigation measures applicable to the Project will be imposed as conditions of approval on the Proposed Project. On the basis of this evaluation: I find that the significant effects that would result from the Proposed Project have been addressed in an earlier certified EIR (Citrus & Oleander at Santa Ana Avenue EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2022110389) and that none of the determinations set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 can be established and, thus, an Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander at Santa Ana Avenue EIR shall be prepared. Signature: Date: Name, Title Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-4 Figure 2-1 Approved Project Site Plan Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-5 Figure 2-2 Proposed Project Site Plan Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-6 2.1 Aesthetics Would the Project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The certified EIR determined that impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.1-6.) No mitigation was required. The Project entails the construction and operation of a building with reduced industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated for Building 3 in the certified EIR. (EIR, p. 3-7.) Refer to the site plans for the Approved Project and Proposed Project in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2, respectively. The Proposed Project’s building would be the same height and use the same building materials as compared to what was considered in the certified EIR. (EIR, p. 3-15.) The visual character and condition of the Project Site as viewed from public viewing areas adjacent to the site would be comparable to what was described in the certified EIR. (EIR, p. 4.1-6.) Further, per Figure 2-2, the proposed design orients truck docks and trucking activities to the south side of the site, so they would have no visibility to the school uses located to the north. The 20-foot-wide landscaped setback area and truck court screen walls would screen visibility of the truck court and loading docks from Santa Ana Avenue. Accordingly, impacts to scenic vistas would remain less than significant and would not be substantially more severe as a result of the Proposed Project than as a result of the Approved Project. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The certified EIR determined that impacts on scenic resources would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.1-7.) No mitigation was required. The Project entails the construction and operation of a building with reduced industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated for Building 3 in the certified EIR. Refer to the site plans for the Approved Project and Proposed Project in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2, respectively. The Proposed Project building would be the same height and use the same building materials as compared to what was considered in the certified EIR. (EIR, p. 3-15.) The visual condition of the Project Site is similar to the condition that existed when the EIR was certified in 2023, as no new development has occurred on the Project Site or the immediately surround area since that time, and the type and character of development that would occur on the Project Site is similar to what was anticipated by the certified EIR. (EIR, p. 4.1-7.) Accordingly, no impacts would occur to scenic resources and impacts would not be substantially more severe as a result of the Proposed Project than as a result of the Approved Project. 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 an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.1-7.) No mitigation was required. The Project entails the construction and operation of a building with reduced industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated for Building 3 in the certified EIR. Refer to the site plans for the Approved Project and Proposed Project in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2, respectively. The proposed Project building would be the same height and use the same Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-7 building materials as compared to what was considered in the certified EIR. (EIR, p. 3-15.) The Proposed Project would be consistent with the existing zoning of the Project Site, as the zoning was changed from “Residential Planned Community (R-PC)” to “General Industrial (I-G)” as part of the Approved Project. As evaluated in the certified EIR, no component of the Project would conflict with applicable design regulations within the City of Fontana’s Zoning and Development Code that govern scenic quality. (EIR, p. 4.1-7.) Accordingly, impacts related to a conflict with applicable zoning would remain less than significant and would not be substantially more severe as a result of the Proposed Project than as a result of the Approved Project. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The certified EIR determined that impacts due to light or glare would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.1-11.) No mitigation was required. The Project entails the construction and operation of a building with reduced industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated for Building 3 in the certified EIR. Refer to the site plans for the Approved Project and Proposed Project in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2, respectively. The Proposed Project building would use the same building materials and have a similar lighting design as evaluated in the certified EIR (EIR, p. 3-15.) and thus would not result in a new or more severe aesthetic impact than as a result of the Approved Project. 2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The certified EIR determined that there would be no impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as these resources do not exist on the site. (EIR, p. 4.2-5.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR. (EIR, pp. 3-28 – 3-29.) As such, the no impact determination would be the same. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract, as these do not exist on the site. (EIR, p. 4.2-5.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR. (EIR, pp. 3-28 – 3-29.) As such, the no impact determination would be the same. c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? The certified EIR determined that there would be no impacts to forest land or timberland, as no forest land or timberland is located on the site. (EIR, p. 4.2-6.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-8 the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR. (EIR, pp. 3-28 – 3-29.) As such, the no impact determination would be the same. d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, as no forest land is location on the site. (EIR, p. 4.2-6.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR. (EIR, pp. 3-28 – 3-29.) As such, the no impact determination would be the same. 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? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not result in the loss of Farmland or forest land, as these resources do not exist on the site. (EIR, p. 4.2-6.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR. (EIR, pp. 3-28 – 3-29.) As such, the no impact determination would be the same. 2.3 Air Quality Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). It was determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 1 because Project-related activities would not exceed SCAQMD localized emissions thresholds during construction or long-term operation and, thus, would not directly cause new violations of the NAAQS and/or CAAQS. In addition, operation of the Approved Project would not result in emissions of any criteria pollutant in excess of the applicable SCAQMD regional threshold and, therefore, would not result in a long-term increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations in the SCAB. The Approved Project was determined not to conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 2 because although the Approved Project proposed a different land use than called for under the City’s General Plan, the Approved Project would have less than significant air quality impacts and thus would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the AQMP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.3-25 – 4.3-26.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in similar, but reduced, construction and operating characteristics as compared to the Approved Project and analyzed in the certified EIR due to the Proposed Project entailing a smaller building than Building 3 under the Approved Project. Because the Approved Project was determined to have less than significant air quality impacts, the Proposed Project, with a reduced building size and fewer number of loading docks, would also have less than significant air quality impacts. As such, the Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR for the Approved Project. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-9 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? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project’s construction and operational activities would not exceed the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional threshold for any criteria pollutant. (EIR, pp. 4.3-26 – 4.3-28.) Thus, the Project would not contribute cumulatively considerable volumes of any air pollutant for which the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) does not attain federal or State air quality standards. To support the certified EIR for the Approved Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. (UXR) prepared detailed air quality impact analysis, greenhouse gas analysis, and health risk assessment technical reports. To evaluate the Proposed Project and compare the Project’s impacts against the impacts of the Approved Project, UXR conducted additional technical analyses which is attached hereto as Technical Appendix A. Construction Regional and Local Emissions Table 2-1, Approved v. Proposed Project Construction Regional AQ Emissions, summarizes air pollutant emissions that would occur under the Approved Project as compared to the Proposed Project, considering the reduced size of Building 3. As shown, regional air pollutant emissions during the construction phase would be less that would have occurred under the Approved Project. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix 1 of Technical Appendix A. Table 2-1 Approved v. Proposed Project Construction Regional AQ Emissions Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Approved Project Emissions 49.00 42.90 60.40 0.07 8.21 4.83 Proposed Project Emissions 24.38 37.58 39.83 0.06 7.83 4.52 Net Change -24.62 -5.32 -20.57 -0.01 -0.38 -0.31 (Urban Crossroads, 2025a, Tables 1, 4, and 7) It should be noted that the construction emissions shown in Table 2-1 were not broken out specifically for Building 3 because construction activities and associated emissions do not scale linearly with building square footage, unlike operational emissions. In the original CalEEMod model, the full 540,849 s.f. Project Site (three buildings) was analyzed as a single land use with no separate building phases. While Building 3 accounted for approximately 36 percent of the total square footage, applying that ratio to estimate its construction emissions overestimated emissions compared to the updated Building 3 model (83,632 s.f.), confirming that square footage is not a reliable scaling method for construction. Construction emissions are driven more by equipment type, duration, and activity, which often do not vary significantly with building size. For example: the same general equipment fleet (e.g., dozers, forklifts) may be used regardless of square footage; and activities like grading, site prep, and utility installation often span multiple buildings or entire sites and are not easily assignable to a single structure. Therefore, comparing the original full-site construction emissions to the revised Building 3-only scenario provides a more realistic and conservative basis for evaluating changes in the Proposed Project impacts. In contrast, Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-10 operational emissions are closely tied to building size and use, which is why a Building 3 breakout is provided for operations but not for construction. Table 2-2, Approved v. Proposed Project Construction Local AQ Emissions, summarizes the maximum local construction air quality emissions resulting from the Approved Project as compared to the Proposed Project, considering the reduced size of Building 3. As shown, local air pollutant emissions during the construction phase would be less that would have occurred under the Approved Project. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix 1 of Technical Appendix A. Table 2-2 Approved v. Proposed Project Construction Local AQ Emissions Source Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Approved Project Emissions 42.50 35.50 7.91 4.76 Proposed Project Emissions 37.46 32.43 7.59 4.46 Net Change -5.04 -3.07 -0.32 -0.30 (Urban Crossroads, 2025a, Tables 2, 5, and 8) Operational Regional and Local Emissions Table 2-3, Approved v. Proposed Project Operational Regional AQ Emissions, summarizes air pollutant emissions that would occur under the Approved Project as compared to the Proposed Project, considering the reduced size of Building 3. As shown, regional air pollutant emissions during the operational phase would be less that would have occurred under the Approved Project. Detailed operational model outputs are presented in Appendix 1 of Technical Appendix A. Table 2-3 Approved v. Proposed Project Operational Regional AQ Emissions Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Approved Project Emissions 19.82 33.15 87.59 0.28 5.98 1.73 Approved Project Emissions Attributable to the Building 3 Site 7.07 11.82 31.24 0.10 2.13 0.62 Proposed Project Emissions 3.13 5.15 24.68 0.04 1.84 0.56 Net Change Attributable to the Building 3 Site -3.94 -6.68 -6.56 -0.06 -0.29 -0.06 (Urban Crossroads, 2025a, Tables 10, 13, and 16) Table 2-4, Approved v. Proposed Project Operational Local AQ Emissions, summarizes local air pollutant emissions that would occur under the Approved Project as compared to the Proposed Project, considering the reduced size of Building 3. As shown, local air pollutant emissions during the operational phase would be less that would have occurred under the Approved Project. Detailed operational model outputs are presented in Appendix 1 of Technical Appendix A. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-11 Table 2-4 Approved v. Proposed Project Operational Local AQ Emissions Source Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Approved Project Emissions 4.94 63.79 0.25 0.13 Approved Project Emissions Attributable to the Building 3 Site 1.76 22.75 0.09 0.05 Proposed Project Emissions 0.97 21.08 0.05 0.04 Net Change Attributable to the Building 3 Site -0.80 -1.68 -0.04 -0.01 (Urban Crossroads, 2025a, Tables 11, 14, and 17) Consistent with the conclusion presented in the certified EIR, the Proposed Project’s construction and operational impacts would be less than significant. The Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR for the Approved Project. c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Air Quality Related Health Risk The certified EIR for the Approved Project considered the development of three warehouse buildings and the future development of one additional parcel, together totaling 672,313 s.f. of building space. Existing uses on the properties were assumed to be demolished to accommodate future development of the Approved Project. The Proposed Project entails the entitlement of one 83,632 s.f. commerce center building located on a 4.65-acre parcel on a portion of the site where the Approved Project assumed Building 3. The other portion of the Building 3 site is not currently proposed for development, so the analysis herein assumes that the existing uses on the remaining portion of the Building 3 site, west of the Project Site, would remain. The existing uses contain non-conforming residential uses that are considered sensitive receivers for air pollution-related human health effects. As such sensitive receptors are located closer to the Project Site and sources of Project-related air pollutant emissions than under the Approved Project, as the certified EIR for the Approved Project assumed that these residential uses would be demolished and replaced with approved Building 3. A comparison of the air quality related health risks to the sensitive receptors from the Approved Project and Proposed Project is provided below. Table 2-5, Approved v. Proposed Project Construction Health Risk, summarizes the maximum construction-related cancer and non-cancer health risk resulting from short-term construction activities under the Approved Project as compared to the Proposed Project, considering the reduced size of Building 3 but also that the Proposed Project’s building will be closer to residential receivers than the certified EIR assumed. As shown, construction-related human health impacts would increase from a risk factor 1.24 to a risk factor of 3.16 in one million. However, both the Approved Project and the Proposed Project would both result in less-than-significant impacts under CEQA and would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold for construction risk of 10 in one million. The Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts, as the health risk would remain well below the 10 in one million significance threshold. Non-cancer hazard index risks would be unchanged, remaining less than significant, and less than 0.01. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendices 1 and 2 of Technical Appendix A. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-12 Table 2-5 Approved v. Proposed Project Construction Health Risks Source Cancer Risk Per Million Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor Approved Project Risk 3.16 Proposed Project Risk 1.24 Net Change +1.93 Source Hazard Index Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor Proposed Project Risk ≤0.01 2022 Project Risk ≤0.01 Net Change ≤0.01 (Urban Crossroads, 2025a, Table 21) Pertaining to the Proposed Project’s long term operation, Table 2-6, Approved v. Proposed Project Operational Health Risk, summarizes the maximum operational air quality emissions resulting from the Approved Project as compared to the Proposed Project, considering the reduced size of Building 3. As shown, health risks to the maximum exposed residential receptor, worker receptor, and school receptor resulting from air pollutant emissions during Project’s long-term operation would be less that would have occurred under the Approved Project. This is because with the Proposed Project, Building 3 would be smaller, have fewer dock doors, and generate less truck traffic than the Approved Project. Detailed model outputs are presented in Appendices 1 and 2 of Technical Appendix A. Table 2-6 Approved v. Proposed Project Operational Health Risks Source Cancer Risk Per Million Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor Maximum Exposed Worker Receptor Maximum Exposed School Receptor Approved Project Emissions 1.19 0.26 0.50 Approved Project Emissions Attributable to the Building 3 Site 0.43 0.09 0.18 Proposed Project Emissions 0.37 0.01 0.03 Net Change Attributable to the Building 3 Site -0.06 -0.08 -0.15 Source Hazard Index Maximum Exposed Sensitive Receptor Maximum Exposed Worker Receptor Maximum Exposed School Receptor Approved Project Emissions ≤0.01 ≤0.01 ≤0.01 Approved Project Emissions Attributable to the Building 3 Site ≤0.01 ≤0.01 ≤0.01 Proposed Project Emissions ≤0.01 ≤0.01 ≤0.01 Net Change Attributable to the Building 3 Site ≤0.01 ≤0.01 ≤0.01 (Urban Crossroads, 2025a, Tables 22, 23, and 24) Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-13 Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR. d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting substantial number of people? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact related to odors. (EIR p. 4.3-32.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project entails a smaller Building 3 and reduction of industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated in the certified EIR, resulting in fewer vehicle trips and less mobile source air pollutant emissions. Also, the smaller building would generate a lesser amount of solid waste required to be stored in outdoor containers, reducing odor potential from temporary refuse storage. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance. As such, the Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR. 2.4 Biological Resources Would the Project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have no impact on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. (EIR pp. 4.4-7 – 4.8-8.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site. Accordingly, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact to any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species and no impact would occur. Therefore, impacts would not be substantially more severe as a result of the Proposed Project than as a result of the Approved Project. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have no impact on riparian or other sensitive habitats. (EIR p. 4.4-8.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground- disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site. Accordingly, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact to riparian or other sensitive habitats and no impact would occur. Therefore, impacts would not be substantially more severe as a result of the Proposed Project than as a result of the Approved Project. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-14 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? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have no impact on State- or federally-protected wetlands. (EIR pp. 4.4-8 – 4.4-9.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site. Accordingly, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact to wetlands and no impact would occur. Therefore, impacts would not be substantially more severe as a result of the Proposed Project than as a result of the Approved Project. 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 wildlife nursery sites? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have no impact to the movement of native resident or migratory fish of wildlife species. The Project Site does not contain natural, surface drainage/watercourse or ponding features, and there are no water bodies on or adjacent to the Project Site that could support fish. The Project Site also does not serve as a wildlife corridor nor is it connected to an established corridor, and there are no native wildlife nurseries on or adjacent to the Site. Therefore, there is no potential for the Approved Project or the Proposed Project to interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site. The Approved Project and the Proposed Project would remove vegetation (i.e., trees, shrubs, and grasses) from the Project Site that provides potential roosting and nesting habitat for birds common to the Fontana area. To protect these birds during nesting season, implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4-1 would address the potential for Proposed Project construction to impact nesting birds, including migratory species. With implementation of MM 4.4-1, impacts to nesting or migratory birds would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. (EIR p. 4.4-9.) The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site. As such, the same mitigation, MM 4.4-1, would apply and the impact determination would be identical. MM 4.4-1 In order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, the initial clearing, grubbing, and grading of land shall occur outside of the nesting season (i.e., outside of the period February 1 through September 15) if feasible. If Prior to any ground-disturbing activities must occur during the nesting season, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified Dedicated Biologist 3 days prior to the ground-disturbing activities. If birds are found to be nesting inside or within 250 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the impact area, construction shall be postponed at the discretion of a qualified biologist, until it is determined that the nest is no longer active. a. The applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-15 success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures. b. Surveys shall be conducted by the Designated Biologist at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. If a nest is suspected, but not confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall establish a disturbance-free buffer until additional surveys can be completed, or until the location can be inferred based on observations. If a nest is observed, but thought to be inactive, the Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest for one hour (four hours for raptors during the non-breeding season) prior to approaching the nest to determine status. The Designated Biologist shall use their best professional judgement regarding the monitoring period and whether approaching the nest is appropriate. c. When an active nest is confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall immediately establish a conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest based on their best professional judgement and experience. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. If the Designated Biologist determines that such project activities may be causing an adverse reaction, the Designated Biologist shall adjust the buffer accordingly or implement alternative avoidance and minimization measures, such as redirecting or rescheduling construction or erecting sound barriers. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (EIR pp. 4.4-9 – 4.4-10.) Impacts were determined to be less than significant upon compliance with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance. No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site and would also be subject to the same compliance with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Accordingly, the Proposed Project has no reasonable potential of conflicting with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and less-than-significant impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts would not be substantially more severe as a result of the Proposed Project than as a result of the Approved Project. 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? Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-16 The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project Site was not located within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan, and no impacts would occur. (EIR p. 4.4-10.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site. Accordingly, the Proposed Project has no reasonable potential of conflicting with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur. Therefore, impacts would not be substantially more severe as a result of the Proposed Project than as a result of the Approved Project. 2.5 Cultural Resources Would the Project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section15064.5? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have less-than-significant impacts to historical resources. (EIR p. 4.5-10.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground- disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site. No structures are located on the eastern portion of the Project Site where is Proposed Project would be located. As such, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact to historical resources. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section15064.5? The certified EIR determined that, with implementation of mitigation, the Approved Project would have less-than- significant impacts to archaeological resources (EIR pp. 4.5-10 – 4.5-11). Although no prehistoric resources have been recorded on the Project Site or within a half-mile radius of the Project Site, and none were observed on the Project Site during the intensive field survey, implementation of mitigation measures, MM 4.5-1, MM 4.5-2, and MM 4.5-3, set forth procedures to be followed should subsurface resources be discovered. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site. As such, the Proposed Project, with implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.5-1, MM 4.5-2, and MM 4.5-3, will not result in a new or more severe impact to archaeological resources. MM 4.5-1 Upon discovery of any cultural, tribal cultural, or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All cultural, tribal and archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-17 MM 4.5-2 Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. MM 4.5-3 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. c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have less-than-significant impacts to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (EIR pp. 4.5-11 – 4.5-12.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site. As such, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact to human remains. 2.6 Energy Would the Project: a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have less-than-significant impacts to energy resources. (EIR pp. 4.6-5 – 4.6-7.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project entails the construction and operation of a building with reduced industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated for Building 3 in the certified EIR, resulting in fewer vehicle trips and less fuel consumption, and lesser energy demand for operation of the Project (Refer to Appendix E, Traffic Assessment). Additionally, the construction- related energy consumption would be the same or slightly less due to the reduction of total building space. As such, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact to energy resources. b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-18 The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (EIR pp. 4.6-7 – 4.6-9.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project entails the construction and operation of a building with reduced industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated for Building 3 in the certified EIR, resulting in fewer vehicle trips and less fuel consumption and lesser energy demand for operation of the Project (Refer to Appendix E, Traffic Assessment). Additionally, the construction-related energy consumption would be the same or slightly less due to the reduction of total building space. As such, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact to a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. 2.7 Geology and Soils Would the Project: a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? The certified EIR determined that, although the Approved Project would be subject to seismic ground shaking associated with earthquakes, mandatory compliance with local and State regulatory requirements and building codes would ensure that the Approved Project minimized potential hazards related to seismic ground shaking to less-than-significant levels. (EIR pp. 4.7-10 – 4.7-11.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same industrial land use type, as a commerce center building, as was analyzed in the certified EIR, resulting in the same potential for seismic ground impacts or landslides. Also, the Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site, resulting in the same or less potential for construction-related and operational-related effects. As such, the same regulatory requirements would apply and the impact determination would remain the same. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have less-than-significant impacts related to soil erosion. (EIR pp. 4.7-12 – 4.7-13.) No mitigation was required; however, the Approved Project was required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities, adhere to a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and prepare an erosion control plan to minimize water and wind erosion. Additionally, following completion of development, the Approved Project’s owner or operator was required by law to implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) during operation, which would Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-19 preclude substantial erosion impacts in the long-term. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground- disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site, resulting in the same or less potential for construction-related and operational-related effects. As such, the same regulatory requirements would apply and the impact determination would be identical. Accordingly, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact from soil erosion. 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? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have less-than-significant impacts related to unstable soil with mandatory adherence to the recommendations contained in the Project’s site-specific geotechnical reports added as a condition of approval of the Project. (EIR p. 4.7-13.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site. The recommendations presented the Project’s geotechnical report would apply to the Proposed Project as a condition of approval for the Project. As such, the impact determination would be identical. Accordingly, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact related to unstable soil. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (since renamed as the California Building Code), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with the presence of expansive soils, because the Project Site contains soils with no susceptibility to expansion. (EIR p. 4.7-13.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site. As such, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact related to expansive soils. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The certified EIR determined that no impact would occur because the Approved Project would connect to the municipal wastewater conveyance system and would not utilize septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems on the Project Site. (EIR p. 4.7-14.) No mitigation was required. Similarly, the Proposed Project would connect to the municipal wastewater conveyance system and does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems. As such, no impact would occur and the impact determination would be the same. f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The certified EIR determined that with implementation of mitigation, the Approved Project would have less-than- significant impacts to paleontological resources. Although no known paleontological resources have been identified on the Project Site, the Site is underlain by to middle Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits which are Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-20 accorded a “High” sensitivity for containing paleontological resources. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.7-1, MM 4.7-2, MM 4.7-3, and MM 4.7-4 address the Approved Project’s potential to result in impacts to previously-undiscovered paleontological resources that may be present beneath the Project Site’s surface. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site. As such, with the implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.7-1, MM 4.7-2, MM 4.7-3, and MM 4.7-4, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact to paleontological resources. MM 4.7-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Fontana that a qualified paleontologist (“paleontologist”) has been retained by the Project Applicant or contractor to conduct monitoring of excavation activities and has the authority to halt and redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected paleontological resources are unearthed. MM 4.7-2 The paleontologist shall conduct full-time monitoring during grading and excavation operations in undisturbed late Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits starting at a depth of 5 feet below the existing ground surface. The paleontologist shall be equipped to salvage fossils if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant and large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by the paleontologist to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources. MM 4.7-3 Recovered specimens shall be properly prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary. Identification and curation of specimens into the collections of the Division of Geological Sciences, San Bernardino County Museum, shall be required for discoveries of significance as determined by the paleontological monitor. MM 4.7-4 A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the City of Fontana prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit. 2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the Project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The certified EIR for the Approved Project determined that even after the application of feasible mitigation measures, the Approved Project would result in a significant unavoidable cumulatively considerable impacts Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-21 because the Project would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. (EIR pp. 4.8-21 – 4.8-22.) To support the certified EIR for the Approved Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. (UXR) prepared detailed air quality impact analysis, greenhouse gas analysis, and health risk assessment technical reports. To evaluate the Proposed Project and compare the Project’s impacts against the impacts of the Approved Project, UXR conducted additional technical analysis which is attached hereto as Technical Appendix A. Construction-Related GHG Emissions The construction of the Proposed Project would result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions similar to those disclosed in the certified EIR, but slightly less due the smaller size of Building 3. Table 2-7, Approved v. Proposed Project Construction GHG Emission, compares the construction-related GHG emissions for the Approved Project compared to the emissions generated by the Proposed Project. As shown, the Proposed Project construction emissions would be less than for the Approved Project. GHG impacts relate to the global climate. Refer to Section 2.3.c., above, for a discussion of construction-related air quality health risk impacts to the residences adjacent to the Project Site. Table 2-7 Approved v. Proposed Project Construction GHG Emissions Source Emission (metric tons per year) Total CO2e Approved Project 17.98 Proposed Project 11.04 Net Change -6.94 (Urban Crossroads, 2025a, Table 9) Operational Emissions Table 2-8, Approved v. Proposed Operational GHG Emissions, compares the maximum operational GHG emissions resulting from the Approved Project as compared to the Proposed Project, considering the reduced size of Building 3. As shown, GHG emissions would be less than would have occurred under the Approved Project due to Building 3 being smaller, having fewer loading dock doors, and generating less truck traffic than the Approved Project. Detailed model outputs are presented in Technical Appendix A. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR. Total GHG emissions would be reduced by 989.11 MTCO2e per year, but emissions from the Approved Project, as modified by the Proposed Project, would still remain above the 3,000 MTCO2e per year significance threshold and the impact conclusion would remain significant and unavoidable even after application of the mitigation measures MM 4.8-1 and MM 4.8-2 presented in the certified EIR. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-22 Table 2-8 Approved v. Proposed Operational GHG Emissions Source Emission (metric tons per year) Total CO2e Approved Project Emissions 4,935.41 Approved Project Emissions Attributable to the Building 3 Site 1,760.23 Proposed Project Emissions 771.11 Net Change Attributable to the Building 3 Site -989.11 (Urban Crossroads, 2025a, Tables 12, 15, and 18) As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would be required to implement design measures to maximize energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions as required by State law (for example, the use of energy efficient appliances as required by the CBSC) and by local regulations (for example, the installation of electric vehicle charging stations, the use of zero-emission yard equipment, and limitations on diesel vehicle idling, as required by Ordinance No. 1891). Although mandatory compliance with applicable State and local regulations would reduce Approved and Proposed Project-related GHG emissions, these requirements would not substantially reduce Approved or Proposed Project mobile source GHG emissions (i.e., emissions from construction equipment, passenger cars, and heavy-duty trucks). Mobile source GHG emissions are regulated by State and federal fuel standards and tailpipe emissions standards and are outside of the control and authority of the City, the Project Applicant, and future Project occupants. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides that mitigation measures must be within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Lead Agency (i.e., City) in order to be implemented. Two mitigation measures were required by the certified FEIR that are feasible for the City to enforce. MM 4.8-1: No portion of the buildings shall include cold storage space. MM 4.8-2: Building roofs shall be solar-ready and shall be outfitted with a solar photovoltaic system that either supplies 100 percent of the building user’s anticipated electricity demand or is the maximum size feasible given applicable Building Code requirements, clearance requirements around roof-mounted equipment, Southern California Edison interconnection regulations, transformer capacity, and other code compliance constraints. Prior to issuance of a shell building permit, the City of Fontana shall verify that all or part of the roof structure is designed to support the installation of solar panels. The roof-mounted solar photovoltaic systems shall be installed within 12 months of issuance of the first occupancy permit. b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would be consistent with or otherwise would not conflict with, applicable regulations, policies, plans, and policy goals that would further reduce GHG emissions. (EIR pp. 4.8-22 – 4.8-23.) Impacts were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required. The Project entails a reduction of industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated in the certified EIR, resulting in fewer vehicle trips and a concomitant reduction in mobile source, energy source, and area source GHG emissions. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-23 2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the Project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The certified EIR determined that, with compliance to federal, State, and local regulations, the Approved Project would have less-than-significant impacts to the environment due to routine transport, use, disposal, or upset of hazardous materials. (EIR pp. 4.9-10 – 4.9-12.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same industrial land use type resulting in the same potential for operational hazards. Also, the Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site, resulting the same or less potential for construction- related hazards. As such, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact due to routine transport, use, disposal, or upset of hazardous materials. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? As identified in the certified EIR, the Approved Project Site is located within one-quarter mile of Jurupa Hills High School, Fontana Adult School, and Citrus High School; however, the certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations related to the handling, storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials to ensure that students and staff at Jurupa Hills High School, Fontana Adult School, and Citrus High School would not be exposed to substantial hazardous emissions or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. (EIR pp. 4.9-12 – 4.9-13.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same industrial land use type resulting in the same potential for operational hazards. Also, the Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site, resulting the same or less potential for construction-related hazards. Similarly, the Proposed Project would comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations related to the handling, storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials. As such, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact due to routine transport, use, disposal, or upset of hazardous materials. 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? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project Site was not listed on any list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5. (EIR p. 4.9-13.) No impacts were identified and no mitigation was required. (EIR p. 4.9-13.) The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site . As such, the Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-24 Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact related to hazards to the public or the environment. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project was consistent with the restrictions and requirements of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and would not result in an airport safety hazard for people residing or working in the area. Impacts were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required. (EIR pp. 4.9-13 – 4.9-14.) The Proposed Project would be the same industrial land use type and the building would be the same height as Building 3 evaluated in the certified EIR. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the restrictions and requirements of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. As such, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact related to an airport land use plan. f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have a less-than-significant impact on emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans. (EIR p. 4.9-14.) No mitigation was required. The type and character of development that would occur on the Project Site is similar to what was anticipated by the certified EIR. (EIR p. 3-15.) The Proposed Project would maintain adequate emergency vehicle access during construction, and provide adequate emergency ingress and egress to the Project Site to ensure public safety. As such, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact to emergency response or evacuation plans. g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? The certified EIR determined that there would be no impacts related to wildfires as the Project Site is not located in close proximity to wildlands or areas with high fire hazards. (EIR p. 4.9-14.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same industrial land use type and the same building characteristics as was disclosed in the certified EIR. As such, the impact determination would remain the same. 2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the Project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have less-than-significant impacts related to water quality. (EIR pp. 4.10-12 – 4.10-14.) No mitigation was required; however, adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) was required. By developing the Proposed Project Site with a building with reduced industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-25 space evaluated for Building 3 in the certified EIR, the Project Site would be covered with less impervious surface area and have a lesser potential to release water pollutants during construction and operation. During construction, the same requirements would apply - adherence to a SWPPP and SWQMP as part of the Proposed Project’s implementation to address construction- and operational-related water quality. A SWQMP was prepared for the Project and is attached as Technical Appendix C (Thienes Engineering, 2025b). The SWQMP explains the BMPs for water quality treatment, which would consist of a hydrodynamic separator used as pretreatment, and underground infiltration chambers. With mandatory compliance to the SWQMP, the Project would result in no new or more severe water quality impacts as compared to the information disclosed in the certified EIR. b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have less-than-significant impacts on groundwater supplies. (EIR p. 4.10-14.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same industrial land use type resulting in the same potential for hydrology and water quality effects. Also, the Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site, resulting in the same or less potential for construction-related effects. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would connect to the City of Fontana’s municipal water system and no water wells would be constructed as part of the Project. Additionally, the Proposed Project would include design features that would maximize the percolation of on‐site storm water runoff into the groundwater basin, such as the proposed underground infiltration chambers and permeable landscape areas. The same regulatory requirements would apply and the impact determination would remain the same. The recommendations presented in the Proposed Project’s preliminary hydrology report and SWQMP would apply to address drainage requirements. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The certified EIR determined that the construction and operational activities associated with the Approved Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation. (EIR pp. 4.10-15 and 4.10-19.) Impacts were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground- disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with a SWPPP and the site‐specific SWQMP. As such, the Proposed Project will not result in a new or more severe impact related to erosion of siltation. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run off in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not have a negative impact on the rate or amount of surface runoff, and would result in a reduction the amount of stormwater runoff from the Project Site due to the underground infiltration/detention basins. (EIR p. 4.10-19.) No mitigation was required. The Preliminary Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-26 Hydrology report prepared for the Proposed Project concluded that the Proposed Project would increase the flow rate by 0.9 cubic feet per second (cfs), which is negligible to the overall flow rate through the 90-inch RCP Master Plan storm drain facility constructed in Santa Ana Avenue. Therefore, the storm drain facility can accommodate the 100-year discharge from the Project Site without negative downstream hydraulic impacts (Thienes Engineering, 2025a). As such, the no impact determination would be the same. 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? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have less-than-significant impacts related to stormwater drainage and polluted runoff. (EIR p. 4.10-20.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project entails the construction and operation of a building with reduced industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated for Building 3 in the certified EIR. Similar to the Approved Project, the construction of the Proposed Project would substantially reduce the amount of runoff discharged into the existing municipal storm drain system during peak storm events relative to existing conditions. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with a SWPPP and the site‐specific SWQMP, which identifies BMPs that are required to ensure that near‐term construction activities and long‐term post‐development activities would not result in substantial amounts of polluted runoff. Furthermore, as discussed in the preceding response, the Project would not generate stormwater runoff that exceeds the capacity of master planned storm drain facilities. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to existing or planned stormwater drainage systems than previously disclosed in the certified EIR. iv. Impede or redirect flood flow? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have no impact on flood flows because the Project Site is not located in a special flood hazard area. (EIR p. 4.10-20.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site. As such, the no impact determination would be the same. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project Site could not be affected by a tsunami, seiche, or dam inundation, and there was no potential for such hazards to inundate the Project Site and cause a release of waterborne pollutants. (EIR p. 4.10-20.) The Proposed Project is within the Approved Project Site evaluated by the certified EIR and would have similar construction and operating characteristics as assumed by the certified EIR; therefore, the Proposed Project has no reasonable potential to result in new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR. As such, the no impact determination would be the same. e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (EIR pp. 4.10-20 – 4.10-21.) Impacts Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-27 were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required. (EIR pp. 4.10-20 – 4.10-21.) The Proposed Project falls within the same physical disturbance area as evaluated in the certified EIR and proposes similar, but reduced, construction and operating characteristics as assumed by the certified EIR. Accordingly, there is no reasonable potential for new impacts or additional impacts to occur. The Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR. 2.11 Land Use and Planning Would the Project: a. Physically divide an established community? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not physically divide an established community and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR pp. 4.11-6 – 4.11-7.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project entails a Design Review application to allow for the development of one commerce center building with up to 83,632 square feet (s.f.) of building space, located on a 4.65 -acre parcel north of Santa Ana Avenue and east of Oleander Avenue. Between the Proposed Project Site and Oleander Avenue, non-conforming residential uses would remain until that property is developed in the future in accordance with its General Industrial (I-G) General Plan designation and zoning classification of Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan (SP), Slover East Industrial District. These residential uses to the west of the Proposed Project Site are not part of an established residential community and are planned for long-term industrial development. Furthermore, it is anticipated that because the residences are non-conforming, located on industrially zoned land, that they would eventually convert to industrial in the future. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would continue the pattern of development that has already occurred along Santa Ana Avenue, with existing and planned commerce center development to the south and west, and would not divide an established community. The Proposed Project thus would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR. 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? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and would have a less-than-significant impact. (EIR pp. 4.11-7 – 4.11-16.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project is similarly consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning for the Project Site, and therefore, would not conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation, resulting in the same less-than- significant impacts. The Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR. 2.12 Mineral Resources Would the Project: 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? Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-28 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? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have no impact on mineral resources because the Project Site does not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or residents of the State. (EIR p. 4.12-2.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground- disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site; therefore, there is no reasonable potential for additional impacts to occur. The Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR. 2.13 Noise Would the Project result in: a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The certified EIR for the Approved Project considered the development of three warehouse buildings and the future development of one additional parcel, together totaling 672,313 s.f. of building space on four parcels. Refer to the site plan for the Approved Project in Figure 2-1. The certified EIR assumed that the existing uses on these properties, including non-conforming residential uses located west of the Proposed Project Site, would be demolished to accommodate future development of the Approved Project. The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would generate short-term construction and long-term operational noise but would not generate noise levels that exceed the standards established by the Fontana General Plan or Municipal Code. (EIR pp. 4.13-15 – 4.13-21.) Impacts were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required. The Proposed Project entails the entitlement of one 83,632 s.f. commerce center building located on a 4.65-acre parcel on a portion of the site where the Approved Project assumed Building 3. The other portion of the Building 3 site is not currently proposed for development, so the analysis herein assumes that the existing uses on the remaining portion of the Building 3 site, west of the Proposed Project Site, would remain. The existing uses include non-conforming residential uses that are considered sensitive receivers for noise. A Noise Assessment (dated July 31, 2025) was prepared for the Proposed Project by Urban Crossroads (UXR) to evaluate Project‐related long‐term operational and short‐term construction noise impacts (UXR, 2025b), which is included as Technical Appendix D. Newly evaluated receivers referenced below are R1, R2, and R3, which represent non-conforming residential uses located west of the Proposed Project Site on the portion of the Building 3 site that is not currently planned for development. These residential uses are located further from the Project Site than the nearest sensitive noise receivers evaluated in the certified EIR, which were mobile classrooms for the Fontana Adult School located north of the Proposed Project Site. The analysis below summarizes the potential for Proposed Project‐related activities to generate or expose sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of applicable standards during construction activities and/or Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-29 operation. As documented in the analysis below, the Proposed Project’s construction and operation would not result in any new significant noise impacts, or increase the severity of previously identified significant noise impacts, as compared to the analysis presented in the certified EIR. Refer to the Noise Assessment (Technical Appendix D) for a detailed discussion of the methodologies and assumptions used to calculate the Proposed Project’s construction and operational noise. To summarize, the Proposed Project’s operational-related noise sources are expected to include loading dock activities, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements, which are the same noise sources analyzed in the certified EIR for the Approved Project. To analyze construction activity noise, because construction activities frequently shift from one location to another (for example, during site preparation and grading, activities include equipment moving back and forth in a predictable pattern throughout the site; building construction and foundation work generally concentrate near the building footprint, while paving generally involves a predictable pattern of movement throughout the site), the construction noise analysis evaluates the noise source activities as multiple moving point sources, or construction crews, within the Proposed Project Site’s limits of construction activity. This was the same methodology used to evaluate the Approved Project in the certified EIR. Construction Activities Noise Assessment As shown in Table 2-9, Construction Level Noise Compliance, the Proposed Project’s construction noise levels are expected to range from 55.7 to 74.4 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will not exceed the daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities taken from the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations, which is the same conclusion reached by the certified EIR (refer to Technical Appendix D, Noise Assessment). Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-30 Table 2-9 Construction Level Noise Compliance Receiver Location1 Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Highest Construction Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4 R1 69.3 80 No R2 68.6 80 No R3 67.3 80 No R4 74.4 80 No R5 64.1 80 No R6 55.7 80 No R7 56.3 80 No R8 64.6 80 No 1 Receiver locations as shown on Exhibit 3 of the Noise Assessment (Technical Appendix D). 2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations. 3 Construction noise level thresholds. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? (Urban Crossroads, 2025b, Table 5) While the analysis shows that the construction noise levels would not exceed the construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq, additional noise abatement should be considered for the Fontana Adult School relocatable classrooms (receiver location R4). The provision of a temporary 8-foot-high noise barrier separating the Proposed Project Site and the Fontana Adult School relocatable classrooms will reduce the construction noise levels by approximately 5.7 dBA Leq. With the temporary 8-foot-high noise barrier, the construction noise level will be further reduced to 70.2 dBA Leq. Though construction noise is temporary and intermittent, and will not present any long-term impacts, the following mitigation measures are set forth. MM 4.13-1 As a condition of the Building 2 grading permit and building permit, to reduce construction noise, the contractor shall be required to install a minimum 8-foot-high temporary construction perimeter noise barrier for the duration of construction activities at the property boundary that adjoins the Fontana Adult School. The noise control barrier shall include the following: a) The noise control barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom. b) The noise barrier shall be constructed using one of the following materials with no decorative cutouts or line-of-sight openings between shielded areas and the noise source: ▪ An acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains, quilted blankets, or equivalent) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts. ▪ Any combination of these construction materials satisfying a weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot of face area. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-31 c) The noise barrier shall be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired. d) During all construction activities, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project Site. Operational Activities – On-Site Stationary Noise Assessment The Proposed Project-related noise sources are expected to be the same as those evaluated in the certified EIR for the Approved Project and include loading dock activities, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements and truck movements because the Approved Project would operate as a similar commerce center building use as the Approved Project. Using the reference noise levels presented in Table 1 of the Noise Assessment (Technical Appendix D) to represent the Proposed Project operations, Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the operational source noise levels and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at representative sensitive receiver locations. Table 2-10, Operational Noise Compliance Level, shows that the Project operational noise levels are expected to range from 39.8 to 63.6 dBA Leq during daytime hours and 39.6 to 63.6 dBA Leq during nighttime hours at nearby sensitive receiver locations (refer to Appendix D, Noise Assessment). To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Fontana’s Municipal Code exterior noise level standards at nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. The City of Fontana noise control guidelines for determining and mitigating non-transportation or stationary noise source impacts from operations in neighboring residential areas are found in the Zoning and Development Code [Section 30-543]. For industrial zoning districts, Section 30-543 indicates that no person shall create or cause to be created any sound which exceeds the noise levels in this section as measured at the property line of any residentially zoned property. The performance standards found in Section 30-543 limit the exterior noise level to 70 dBA Leq during daytime hours, and 65 dBA Leq during nighttime hours at sensitive receiver locations. Table 2-10 shows that the operational noise levels associated with the Project would not exceed the City of Fontana 70 dBA Leq daytime and 65 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards consistent with the conclusion disclosed in the certified EIR for the Approved Project. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations (refer to Appendix D, Noise Assessment). Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-32 Table 2-10 Operational Noise Compliance Level Receiver Location1 Land Use Project Operational Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2 Noise Level Standards (dBA Leq)3 Noise Level Standards Exceeded?4 Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime R1 Residential 63.6 63.6 70 65 No No R2 Residential 56.9 56.9 70 65 No No R3 Residential 54.3 54.3 70 65 No No R4 School 44.1 44.1 70 -5 No No R5 School 39.8 39.6 70 -5 No No R6 Residential 42.3 42.3 70 65 No No R7 Residential 45.6 45.6 70 65 No No R8 Residential 58.7 58.7 70 65 No No 1 See Exhibit 3 of the Noise Assessment (Technical Appendix D) for the receiver locations. 2 Proposed Project operational noise calculations are included in Appendix A of the Noise Assessment (Technical Appendix D). 3 Exterior noise level standards. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? 5 Receiver locations do not include any noise sensitive nighttime use. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. (Urban Crossroads, 2025b, Table 2) Noise levels that would be experienced at receiver locations when Project-source noise is added to the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions are presented on Table 2-11, Daytime Project Operational Noise Increases, and Table 2-12, Nighttime Project Operational Noise Increases, respectively. As indicated on Table 2-11, the Project would generate daytime operational noise increases ranging from 0.0 to 4.4 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Table 2-12 shows that the Project would generate nighttime operational noise increases ranging from 0.0 to 4.5 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Project-related operational noise level increases would not exceed the operational noise level increase significance criteria applied in the certified EIR for the Approved Project, and, therefore, the noise level increases at the sensitive receiver locations would be less than significant. Operational Activities – Off-Site Traffic Noise The Traffic Assessment for the Project prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. dated July 29, 2025(Technical Appendix E), shows that the Proposed Project trip generation is 186 fewer trips per day for the proposed Building 3 compared to the previously approved Building 3. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in the certified EIR for the Approved Project, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less-than-significant noise level impacts due to the Approved Project-related traffic noise levels. Because less traffic would be generated under the Proposed Project, vehicular-related noise levels would be less, which would result in the same less than significant impact conclusion presented in the certified EIR for the Approved Project (Urban Crossroads, 2025b, p. 2). Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-33 Table 2-11 Daytime Project Operational Noise Increases Receiver Location1 Land Use Total Project Operational Noise Level2 Measurement Location3 Reference Ambient Noise Levels4 Combined Project and Ambient5 Project Increase6 Increase Criteria7 Increase Criteria Exceeded? R1 Residential 63.6 L1 61.1 65.5 4.4 5.0 No R2 Residential 56.9 L1 61.1 62.5 1.4 5.0 No R3 Residential 54.3 L1 61.1 61.9 0.8 5.0 No R4 School 44.1 L1 61.1 61.2 0.1 5.0 No R5 School 39.8 L1 61.1 61.1 0.0 5.0 No R6 Residential 42.3 L1 61.1 61.2 0.1 5.0 No R7 Residential 45.6 L1 61.1 61.2 0.1 5.0 No R8 Residential 58.7 L2 61.5 63.3 1.8 5.0 No 1 See Exhibit 3 of the Noise Assessment (Technical Appendix D) for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 2-10. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A of the Approved Project’s Noise Study. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1 of the Approved Project’s Noise Study. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the Proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1 of the Approved Project’s Noise Study. (Urban Crossroads, 2025b, Table 3) Table 2-12 Nighttime Project Operational Noise Increases Receiver Location1 Land Use Total Project Operational Noise Level2 Measurement Location3 Reference Ambient Noise Levels4 Combined Project and Ambient5 Project Increase6 Increase Criteria7 Increase Criteria Exceeded? R1 Residential 63.6 L3 61.0 65.5 4.5 5.0 No R2 Residential 56.9 L3 61.0 62.4 1.4 5.0 No R3 Residential 54.3 L1 60.2 61.2 1.0 5.0 No R4 School 44.1 L1 60.2 60.3 0.1 5.0 No R5 School 39.6 L1 60.2 60.2 0.0 5.0 No R6 Residential 42.3 L1 60.2 60.3 0.1 5.0 No R7 Residential 45.6 L1 60.2 60.3 0.1 5.0 No R8 Residential 58.7 L1 60.2 62.5 2.3 5.0 No 1 See Exhibit 3 of the Noise Assessment (Technical Appendix D) for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 2-10. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A of the 2022 Noise Study. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1 of the 2022 Noise Study. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the Proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1 of the 2022 Noise Study. (Urban Crossroads, 2025b, Table 4) Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-34 b. Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Construction activities on the Proposed Project Site would utilize the same types of construction equipment that were assumed to be used by the certified EIR, which have the potential to generate vibration. Vibration levels at sensitive receptors near the Proposed Project Site during Project construction activities were concluded by the certified EIR to exceed the applicable building damage significance threshold of 0.5 PPV in/sec. (EIR p. 4.13-15.) The analysis presented in the certified EIR determined that even after the application of feasible mitigation measures, the Approved Project’s construction activities would result in a significant direct short-term impact by exceeding the Fontana Adult School relocatable classrooms damage threshold at the building façade. (EIR, pp. 4.13-21 – 4.13-22.) Mitigation measures MM 4.13-2 and MM 4.13-3 would be implemented to address the significant direct construction-related vibration impacts. Although the Proposed Project entails a smaller construction footprint than the Approved Project, the construction activities would be similar, yielding the same significant construction-related vibration impact to the Fontana Adult School relocatable classrooms that are positioned near the Proposed Project Site’s northern boundary. The impact determination would be the same and the same mitigation measures, MM 4.13-2 and MM 4.13-3, would apply. The Project entails a reduction of industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated in the certified EIR, resulting in 186 fewer vehicle trips and less potential for operational and vehicular vibration noise. Operational-related vibration impacts would be less than significant as concluded by the certified EIR. (EIR p. 4.13-22.) MM 4.13-2 As a condition of the Building 2 grading permit and building permit, during construction activities, when the Fontana Adult School relocatable classrooms are occupied, a 20-foot buffer setback will be required for the operation of large pieces of construction equipment. No large, loaded trucks, heavy mobile equipment greater than 80,000 pounds, jack hammers or vibratory roller shall occur within 20-feet of occupied structures. Instead, small rubber-tired or alternative equipment, as well as soil compaction equipment shall be used during Project construction to reduce vibration effects on nearby Fontana Adult School structures and their occupants. This requirement also shall be noted on all grading plans, building plans, and shall be specified in construction bid documents and construction contracts. ‘ MM 4.13-3 Prior to the commencement of construction activities on the Building 2 site, the Project Applicant/Developer or construction contractor shall be required to supply its construction schedule to Fontana Adult School. Best efforts shall be made by the Project Applicant/Developer to work with Fontana Adult School and schedule construction activities that are least disruptive to school activities occurring in the relocatable classrooms located within 20 feet of the Building 2 construction site. The Project Applicant/Developer also shall work with Fontana Adult School on the feasibility of temporarily relocating the classrooms to another portion of the school campus while Project construction activity is occurring. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-35 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? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would be compatible with noise levels from the Ontario International Airport and operation of the Approved Project would not expose future employees on the Project Site to excessive noise levels. (EIR, p. 4.13-22.) Impacts were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required. (EIR, p. 4.13-22.) The Proposed Project entails the same industrial land use and would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR. 2.14 Population and Housing Would the Project: a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth and that impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.14-4 – 4.14-6.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project entails the construction and operation of a building with reduced industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated for Building 3 in the certified EIR; therefore, the Proposed Project has no reasonable potential to cause unplanned population growth beyond the less-than-significant impact concluded by the certified EIR. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not displace substantial numbers of people or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (EIR, p. 4.14-6.) Impacts were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site, resulting in the removal of fewer existing residential structures. Accordingly, the Proposed Project has no reasonable potential to result in new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR. 2.15 Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire Protection? Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-36 b. Police Protection? c. Schools? d. Parks? e. Other Public Facilities? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project’s impacts to public service facilities, including but not limited to fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries, and public health services would be less than significant because the Approved Project would not cause or contribute to the need to build new facilities or physically alter existing facilities to service the Project. (EIR, pp. 4.15-5 – 4.15-8.) No mitigation was required. The Project entails the same industrial land use with a reduction of industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated in the certified EIR. The Proposed Project does not include any residential use or other land use that may generate a population that would schools, parks, or other public facilities, and would result in lower demand for public services than evaluated in the certified EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project has no reasonable potential to adversely impact public services beyond what was assumed in the certified EIR. The Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR. 2.16 Recreation Would the Project: a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The certified EIR determined that no impacts to recreation would occur. (EIR, pp. 4.16-3 – 4.16-4.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project entails the same industrial land use as was disclosed in the certified EIR, which is a land use that does not generate a resident population affecting recreational resources. Additionally, no on- site recreational uses are proposed. As such, the no impact determination would be the same. 2.17 Transportation Would the Project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? The certified EIR determined that even after the application of feasible mitigation measures, the Approved Project would result in a significant direct and cumulatively considerable impact due to a conflict with Fontana General Plan, Active Transportation Plan, Objective 1.A because the Project would generate VMT that is above the regional baseline. (EIR, pp. 4.17-5 – 4.17-11.) Mitigation measure MM 4.17-1 is imposed to address VMT impacts. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-37 The Proposed Project entails a reduction of industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated in the certified EIR, resulting in 186 fewer vehicle trips and a concomitant reduction in total VMT, but not a reduction in trip length per vehicle. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would make frontage improvements to Santa Ana Avenue consistent with City plans and policies for public roadways. Although fewer vehicle trips would occur, the impact determination would remain the same (refer to Appendix E, Traffic Assessment). No new or updated mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measure MM 4.17-1, identified in the certified EIR to reduce transportation impacts, continue to apply to the Proposed Project. MM 4.17-1 Building users shall be required to prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDMP), which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Fontana prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. The TDMP shall include feasible strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled by employees, such as carpooling or vanpooling programs, public transportation use incentives, and walking and biking to work incentives. b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 or will conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The certified EIR determined that even after the application of feasible mitigation measures, the Approved Project would result in a significant direct and cumulatively considerable impact due to Project-related VMT. (EIR, pp. 4.17-11 – 4.17-12.) The Proposed Project entails a reduction of industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated in the certified EIR, resulting in fewer vehicle trips and a concomitant reduction in total VMT, but not a reduction in trip length per vehicle. Although fewer vehicle trips would occur, the impact determination would remain the same. Refer to Appendix E, Traffic Assessment. c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not introduce any significant transportation safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use and that impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.17- 12.) No mitigation was required. As with the Approved Project, all improvements planned as part of the Proposed Project would be in conformance with applicable City of Fontana engineering/design standards and would not result in any hazards due to a design feature. Additionally, the types of traffic generated during operation of the Proposed Project would be compatible with the type of traffic observed along adjacent roadways under existing conditions. As such, the Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the conclusion reached by the certified EIR. Although transportation safety impacts would be less than significant, mitigation measures MM 4.17-2 and MM 4.17-3 are recommended to assure that design features will be implemented as part of the Project’s implementation pertaining to bicycle and pedestrian safety. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-38 MM 4.17-2 Signs shall be installed at the truck exit driveways on Oleander Avenue directing trucks to turn southbound only. Trucks shall be prohibited from turning northbound on Oleander Avenue upon exiting the Project Site. MM 4.17-3 The Project Developer/Applicant and all successors in interest shall install and maintain signs at the Project driveway exits connecting with Citrus Avenue and Oleander Avenue at heights visible to truck drivers that state, “CAUTION, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CROSSINGS AHEAD.” The City shall verify installation of the signs prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit and require as a condition of the occupancy permit that the signs be maintained in legible condition. d. Result in inadequate emergency access? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not result in inadequate emergency access to the Project Site or surrounding properties and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.17-12.) No mitigation was required. As with the Approved Project, the City of Fontana would review the Proposed Project’s design to ensure that adequate access to‐and‐from the Project Site would be provided for emergency vehicles. Also as with the Approved Project, the City of Fontana also would require the Proposed Project to provide adequate paved access to‐and‐from the site and would review all future Project construction drawings to ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained along abutting public streets during temporary construction activities. As such, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe impacts related to inadequate emergency access than previously disclosed in the certified EIR. 2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. The certified EIR determined that with mitigation, the Approved Project would have less than significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. (EIR, pp. 4.18-4 – 4.18-5.) Mitigation measures MM 4.5-1, MM 4.5-2, and MM 4.5-3 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Approved Project development. The Proposed Project would result in the same ground-disturbing impact to the same land area evaluated in the certified EIR, but for a smaller disturbance area on the Building 3 site. As such, mitigation measures MM 4.5-1, MM 4.5-2, and MM 4.5-3 would apply and the impact determination would be identical. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-39 MM 4.5-1 Upon discovery of any cultural, tribal cultural, or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All cultural, tribal and archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place. MM 4.5-2 Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. MM 4.5-3 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. 2.19 Utilities and Service Systems Would the Project: a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have less-than-significant impacts specific to the provision of utilities services. (EIR, pp. 4.19-9 – 4.19-12.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project falls within the same physical disturbance area as evaluated in the certified EIR, including for the installation of utility infrastructure. Any physical environmental impacts from the installation of utilities for the Proposed Project have already been disclosed in the analysis of construction related effects presented throughout the certified EIR (EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis) and were determined to be within the scope of the analysis for the certified EIR. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not have new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the those disclosed in the certified EIR. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-40 b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not exceed the Fontana Water Company’s available supply of water during normal years, single-dry years, or multiple-dry years and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.19-12 – 4.19-13.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project entails the same industrial land use with a reduction of industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated in the certified EIR. As such, the City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Proposed Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. In conclusion, the Proposed Project would not result in new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to those disclosed in the certified EIR. 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? The certified EIR determined that the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) facilities would have adequate capacity to service the Approved Project and no new or expanded facilities would be needed. Impacts were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required. (EIR, p. 4.19-13.) The Proposed Project entails the same industrial land use with a reduction of industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated in the certified EIR. Therefore, the IEUA would have adequate capacity to service the Proposed Project and no new or expanded facilities would be needed. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to those disclosed in the certified EIR. 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 wastes reduction goals? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure to handle the waste. (EIR, pp. 4.19-13 – 4.19-14.) Impacts were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation was required. The Proposed Project entails the same industrial land use with a reduction of industrial floor space as compared to the amount of building space evaluated in the certified EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not exceed the available capacity of area landfills and no new or expanded facilities would be needed. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to those disclosed in the certified EIR. e. Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid wastes? The certified EIR determined the Approved Project’s impacts related to solid waste statutes and regulations would be less-than-significant. (EIR, pp. 4.19-14 – 4.19-15.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project would also be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to those disclosed in the certified EIR. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-41 2.20 Wildfire If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones would the project: a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.20-5 – 4.20-6.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project falls within the same physical disturbance area as evaluated in the certified EIR and proposes similar, but reduced, construction and operating characteristics as assumed by the certified EIR. Accordingly, there is no reasonable potential for new impacts or additional impacts to occur. The Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to those disclosed in the certified EIR. 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? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not expose occupants of the Project Site to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.20-6.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project is the same industrial land use type and would remove the same amount of fire fuel from the Project Site as was disclosed in the certified EIR for the Approved Project. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the those disclosed in the certified EIR. 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 ongoing impact to the environment? The certified EIR determined that no components of the Approved Project would trigger the installation or maintenance of wildfire management features that could result in exacerbated fire risks and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.20-7.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project is the same industrial land use type and would remove the same amount of fire fuel from the Project Site as was disclosed in the certified EIR for the Approved Project. As such, he Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to the those disclosed in the certified EIR. 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? The certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would have less-than-significant impacts related to exposing people or structures to significant risks from flooding, landslides, runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. (EIR, p. 4.20-7.) No mitigation was required. The Proposed Project falls within the same physical disturbance area as evaluated in the certified EIR, and proposes similar, but reduced, construction and operating characteristics as assumed by the certified EIR. Additionally, the Proposed Project removes the same amount of Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-42 fire fuel from the Project Site as was disclosed in the certified EIR. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increased impacts as compared to those disclosed in the certified EIR. 2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance Does the Project: a. 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? The certified EIR concluded that, following mitigation, the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to sensitive plant and animal species as well as habitats. (EIR, pp. 4.4-7 – 4.4-10.) Additionally, the certified EIR concluded that, with mitigation, the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources, and, therefore, would not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. (EIR, pp. 4.5-10 – 4.5-12 and 4.7-14.) b. 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)? The certified EIR addressed cumulative impacts for each of the environmental topics evaluated. (EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis) The certified EIR concluded the Approved Project would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts regarding the following issues: • Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and, • Transportation/Traffic. As described throughout this analysis, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in new environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed in the certified EIR and would not increase the severity of environmental impacts disclosed in the certified EIR. Therefore, there is no potential for the Proposed Project to result in cumulatively considerable effects to the environment beyond those previously disclosed in the certified EIR (and already disclosed throughout this analysis). The certified EIR concluded that cumulative effects would be significant and unavoidable for the topics of greenhouse gas emissions and transportation and traffic. (EIR, pp. 4.8-23 and 4.17-12 – 4.17-13.) c. Have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The certified EIR concluded that while changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would be possible in all of the designated CEQA issue areas, those changes to the environment that the Approved Project would cause that could directly affect human beings include: Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR Environmental Analysis MCN23-0100-R1 2-43 • Greenhouse Gas Emissions; • Noise (groundborne vibration during construction); and, • Transportation (vehicle miles traveled (VMT)). Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, beyond those disclosed in the certified EIR. Addendum to the Citrus & Oleander Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue Project EIR References MCN23-0100-R1 3-1 3.0 REFERENCES This Addendum was prepared by: City of Fontana Assistant Planner ......................................................................................................................... Salvador Quintanilla T&B Planning, Inc. Principal-in-Charge ............................................................................................................................. Tracy Zinn, AICP Senior Planner .......................................................................................................................... Kristen Goddard, AICP The following information sources were used during the preparation of this Addendum: Cited As Reference Thienes Engineering, 2025a Thienes Engineering, 2025a. Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for 89K Santa Ana Center, Santa Ana Avenue, Fontana, CA 92337. June 20, 2025. Thienes Engineering, 2025b Thienes Engineering, 2025b. Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for Santa Ana Center, Santa Ana Ave. and Oleander Ave., Fontana, CA 92337. June 20, 2025. Urban Crossroads, 2025a Urban Crossroads, 2025a. Oleander & Santa Ana (Acacia) AQ, GHG, HRA Assessment. July 8, 2025. Urban Crossroads, 2025b Urban Crossroads, 2025b. Oleander & Santa Ana (Acacia) Noise Assessment. July 29, 2025. Urban Crossroads, 2025c Urban Crossroads, 2025c. Oleander & Santa Ana Warehouse Trip Generation Assessment. July 29, 2025.