HomeMy WebLinkAbout14970 Jurupa Avenue_SWIP Addendum 11-13-25ADDENDUM TO THE SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK (SWIP)
SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2009091089)
14970 JURUPA AVENUE PROJECT
MASTER CASE NO. 24-037
Design Review No. 24-0013
APNs: 0237-121-03 and 0237-122-07
Prepared For:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Prepared By:
EPD Solutions, Inc.
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
November 2025
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
SWIP Specific Plan Update i 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Purpose of the Addendum ..................................................................................................................... 1
2 Description of Proposed Project ............................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Project Setting and Location ....................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Project Approvals ........................................................................................................................ 7
3 SWIP Specific Plan Update Environmental Impact Analysis Summary ................................................ 31
4 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project Environmental Impact Analysis and Project Approvals ....................... 33
4.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................. 34
4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ......................................................................................... 39
4.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 41
4.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 55
4.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 62
4.6 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................... 69
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Climate Change) .......................................................................... 75
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 81
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 90
4.10 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................................. 96
4.11 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................... 98
4.12 Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 99
4.13 Population and Housing .......................................................................................................... 108
4.14 Public Services ......................................................................................................................... 110
4.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 113
4.16 Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 115
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................. 122
4.18 Wildfire.................................................................................................................................... 128
4.19 Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 130
4.20 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 135
5 Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation ....................................................................... 138
6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 141
7 References .......................................................................................................................................... 142
Table of Contents
SWIP Specific Plan Update ii 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location ........................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2: Local Vicinity ................................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 3: Aerial View ................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4a: Site Photos ................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 4b: Site Photos ................................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 5: General Plan Land Use Designation ............................................................................................. 19
Figure 6: Zoning Designation ...................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 7: SWIP Land Use Designation ......................................................................................................... 23
Figure 8: Conceptual Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 9: Elevations ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 10: Conceptual Landscape Plan ....................................................................................................... 29
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations ............................................................... 4
Table 2: Parking Breakdown ......................................................................................................................... 5
Table AES-1: Development Standard Consistency ...................................................................................... 36
Table AQ-1: Project Regional Construction Emissions ................................................................................ 45
Table AQ-2: Project Regional Operational Emissions ................................................................................. 46
Table AQ-3: Project Localized Construction Emissions ............................................................................... 50
Table AQ-4: Project Localized Operational Emissions ................................................................................ 50
Table AQ-5 Summary of Proposed Project Construction Health Risk......................................................... 51
Table AQ-6 Summary of Proposed Project Operational Health Risk .......................................................... 52
Table AQ-7 Summary of Combined Project Construction Operational Health Risk ................................... 53
Table GHG-1: Proposed Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................. 76
Table NOI-1: Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Nearest Receptors .............................................. 100
Table NOI-2: Daytime Exterior Noise Level Impacts ................................................................................. 101
Table NOI-3: Nighttime Exterior Noise Level Impacts .............................................................................. 102
Table NOI-4: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance Impacts at Nearest Receptor ....................... 105
Table NOI-5: Potential Construction Vibration Damage Impacts at Nearest Receptor ............................ 105
Table TRA-1: Proposed Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................... 116
Table TRA-2: LOS Threshold of Significance .............................................................................................. 118
Table E-1: Construction Equipment Fuel Usage ........................................................................................ 141
Table of Contents
SWIP Specific Plan Update iii 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table E-2: Proposed Project Construction Energy Consumption Estimates ............................................. 142
Table E-3: Proposed Project Operational Energy Consumption ............................................................... 143
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. SWIP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B. Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
C. Health Risk Asessment
D. Biological Due Diligence Investigation
E. Cultural Resources Records Search
F. Historic Resources Assessment
G. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
H. Paleontological Resources Assessment
I. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
J. Preliminary Hydrology Report
K. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
L. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
M. Traffic Impact Analysis
Purpose of the Addendum
SWIP Specific Plan Update 1 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
1 PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM
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, California 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.
The Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan (Approved Project) was originally created by the City
on December 6, 1983, and was intended to develop the City’s industrial uses south of Interstate 10 (I-10).
The SWIP Specific Plan originally encompassed approximately 1,800 acres. Since the adoption of the SWIP
Specific Plan, changes have occurred within the general SWIP Specific Plan area based on market
conditions. Therefore, the City determined that the SWIP Specific Plan should be revised to update land
Purpose of the Addendum
SWIP Specific Plan Update 2 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
uses, regulations, and development standards (SWIP Specific Plan Update). In addition, the SWIP Specific
Plan Update would promote orderly and compatible growth in newly annexed areas as well as older
portions within the SWIP Specific Plan area.1
In 2005, the City of Fontana proposed the annexation of approximately 2,920.9 acres (4.6+/- square miles)
of unincorporated land within its sphere of influence. This annexation action concluded in 2007 and
included 32 separately identified unincorporated “islands.” Of these, seven were located within the
proposed boundaries of the SWIP Specific Plan. On May 8, 2012, the City adopted Resolution No. 2012-
035, certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the SWIP Specific Plan Update
and Annexation (Approved Project), State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2009091089, in compliance with CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines.
The SWIP Specific Plan Update is a comprehensive policy and regulatory guidance document for the
private use and development of all properties within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. By providing the
necessary regulatory and design guidance, the SWIP Specific Plan Update ensured that future
developments implement the goals and policies of the City of Fontana General Plan (General Plan). The
SWIP Specific Plan Update area, which is comprised of approximately 3,111 acres in the southwestern
portion of the City within San Bernardino County (County), includes nine land use districts. The Proposed
Project is within the Jurupa North Research and Development District (JND). Within the 515-acre JND 2,
the Approved Project FEIR analyzed a buildout that included 2,033,109 square feet (SF) of new commercial
uses, 1,219,865 SF of new office uses, and 4,879,460 SF of new industrial development with 392,934 SF
of existing development to remain in place.
The City has received an application for the 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project (Proposed Project) for the
development of approximately 24.75 acres of land located within the JND at 14970 Jurupa Avenue,
between Live Oak Avenue and Hemlock Avenue. Within the SWIP EIR, a total of 4,879,460 SF of new
industrial development was analyzed within the JND. The JND allows for a maximum floor area ratio (FAR)
of 0.55 for industrial uses. As such, consistent with the overall square footage of new industrial
development assumed in the JND by the Program FEIR and with the 0.55 allowable FAR, the existing
baseline condition for this Addendum is assumed to include 532,587 SF of industrial uses and is compared
against the proposed 492,240 SF logistics and distribution facility, inclusive of a 10,000 SF ground floor
office and a 10,000 SF mezzanine, on the Proposed Project site. Development of the Proposed Project
would be within the 4,879,460 SF of industrial development within the JND of the SWIP.
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
1 City of Fontana. (2011). Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan Update and Annexation Public Review Draft Program Environmental
Impact Report.
2 City of Fontana. (2021). Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan – Land Use Map.
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29671/SWIP-Land-Use-Plan-Map-Updated-March-2021 (accessed May 28, 2024).
Purpose of the Addendum
SWIP Specific Plan Update 3 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
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.3 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 Guidelines4, 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.
3 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301.
4 CEQA. (accessed December 2024).
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 4 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 Project Setting and Location
The Project site is located within the southwest portion of the City of Fontana at 14970 Jurupa Avenue,
between Live Oak Avenue and Hemlock Avenue. Regional access to the Project site is provided via
Interstate 10 (I-10), located approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project site, and Interstate 15 (I-15),
located approximately 4.5 miles east of the Project site. Local access to the Project site is provided by
Jurupa Avenue. The Project site and surrounding area are shown in Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure
2, Local Vicinity.
Existing Project Site
The Project site consists of one parcel encompassing approximately 24.75 gross acres (22.26 net acres).
The site is identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 0237-121-03 and 0237-122-07. The Project site
is relatively flat, partially paved, and used as an industrial steel yard with two existing buildings totaling
27,169 square feet (SF). The Project site includes abandoned railroad tracks that form the western
boundary of the Project site. The Project site is currently accessed from one driveway along Jurupa
Avenue. The Project site’s existing conditions are shown in Figure 3, Aerial View, and Figures 4a and 4b,
Site Photos.
Existing Land Use and Zoning Designation of the Project Site
The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial (I-L) and a zoning designation
of Specific Plan (SP), as shown in Figure 5, General Plan Land Use Designation, and Figure 6, Zoning
Designation. The Project is within the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan (SWIP). Within the SWIP, the
Project site is designated as Jurupa North Research and Development District (JND), as shown in Figure 7,
SWIP Land Use Designation. As it relates to the proposed project, JND is intended to encourage small
business development by allowing a mixture of development uses including light industrial, warehousing,
logistics-based distribution, office, flex tech, research and development, and service commercial. Logistics
and distribution facilities are permitted by right within this zone district. The SWIP analyzed buildout of
4,879,460 SF of industrial and included 392,934 SF of existing development to remain in place within the
515.1 acres of JND. Based on the maximum FAR of 0.55, the site was analyzed in the SWIP for up to
532,587 SF of light industrial development.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Designations
The surrounding land uses are described in Table 1 along with the General Plan land use and zoning
designations.
Table 1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations
Existing Land Use City General Plan Land
Use Designation
City Zoning
Designation SWIP Designation
North Steel Fabrication and
Outdoor Storage Yard General Industrial (I-G)
Southwest
Industrial Park –
Specific Plan (SP)
Slover Central
Manufacturing/Industrial
District (SCD)
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 5 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Existing Land Use City General Plan Land
Use Designation
City Zoning
Designation SWIP Designation
East
Hemlock Avenue
followed by
distribution warehouse
Light Industrial (I-L)
Southwest
Industrial Park –
Specific Plan (SP)
Jurupa North Research and
Development District (JND)
South
Jurupa Avenue
followed by single
family residences
Residential Planned
Community (R-PC)
Southridge Village
– Specific Plan (SP) -
West
Live Oak Avenue
followed by a
wholesale furniture
warehouse
Light Industrial (I-L)
Southwest
Industrial Park –
Specific Plan (SP)
Jurupa North Research and
Development District (JND)
2.2 Project Description
The applicant for the Proposed Project is requesting approval from the City of Fontana to remove the
existing structures and hardscape from the site and to construct a new 492,240 SF logistics and
distribution facility with parking, landscaping, and on-site improvements. The conceptual site plan is
provided as Figure 8, Conceptual Site Plan.
Building Summary and Architecture
The proposed building would be single-story and have a maximum height of 60 feet. The proposed
logistics and distribution building would total 492,240 SF, inclusive of a 10,000 SF ground floor office and
a 10,000 SF mezzanine. The proposed building would result in an FAR of 0.51. The Project also includes
the construction of associated parking, landscaping, utility connections, and frontage improvements to
serve the site.
The building would be setback 206 feet from the north property line, 30 feet from Jurupa Avenue, and 96
feet from both Hemlock Avenue and Live Oak Avenue.
As shown in Figure 9, Elevations, the Proposed Project would establish an architectural presence through
emphasis on building finish materials and consistent material usage and color scheme. The proposed
concrete tilt-up building would be grey and white with dark green accents. Cutouts and decorative
window façades would be installed to create variety in scale and texture.
Parking and Loading Dock Summary
A total of 234 passenger vehicle stalls, including standard stalls, accessible stalls, and electric vehicle (EV)
charging stations and EV capable stalls, would be provided in surface lots along the east and west sites of
the proposed building. A breakdown of the type and number of parking stalls provided by the Project is
described in Table 2.
Table 2: Parking Breakdown
Parking Space Type Number of Spaces
Provided
Standard Stalls 110
Standard Accessible Stalls 5
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 6 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Van Accessible Stalls 2
EV Capable Stall (without EVSE) 106
EVCS (EV Capable with EVSE) 1
Standard Accessible EVCS (EV Capable with EVSE) 4
Van Accessible EVCS (EV Capable with EVSE) 2
Ambulatory Accessible EVCS (EV Capable with EVSE) 4
Total 234
Note: EVSE = Electric vehicle supply equipment; EVCS = Electric vehicle charging station
The Project also includes 60 dock doors along the northern side of the building. The Project includes 128
trailer stalls located along the northern Project boundary, opposite the truck court.
Landscaping and Fencing
Site landscaping would include installation of trees, shrubs, and groundcover throughout the passenger
vehicle parking areas, as well as long the perimeter of the Project site and east, west, and south sides of
the proposed building. Proposed landscaping encompasses approximately 22.6 percent (109,990 SF) of
the Project site. Figure 10, Conceptual Landscape Plan, illustrates the Project’s proposed landscaping plan.
The truck court to the north of the building would include concrete tilt-up screen walls of varying heights
ranging from 10.6 feet to 14 feet from the grade level. The truck court would be secured with two 8-foot-
tall steel rolling gates, one on the east entrance and one on the west entrance. Additionally, an 8-foot-tall
concrete tilt-up screen wall would be located along the northern property boundary.
Access and Circulation
The Project would be accessible via four proposed driveways: two driveways on Hemlock Avenue and two
driveways on Live Oak Avenue. The northernmost driveways on Hemlock Avenue and Live Oak Avenue
would each be 50-feet-wide and allow both truck and passenger vehicle access. The southernmost
driveways on Hemlock Avenue and Live Oak Avenue would each be 35-feet-wide and limited to passenger
vehicles. Internal circulation would be via 30 to 50-feet-wide drive aisles, which double as fire lanes.
Access to trailer stalls and loading dock areas would be controlled through the use of gates equipped with
knox pad locks for fire department access.
Infrastructure Improvements
Water and Sewer Improvements
The Project would install new on-site domestic water lines to connect to the existing 15-inch diameter
water line in Live Oak Avenue and the existing 12-inch diameter water line in Hemlock Avenue. The Project
would install new on-site sewer lines to connect to the existing 10-inch diameter sewer line in Live Oak
Avenue and the existing 10-inch diameter sewer line in Hemlock Avenue.
Drainage Improvements
The Project site’s runoff would be collected into catch basins located throughout the site and then would
be piped underground to three proposed storage/infiltration systems in the northwest, southwest, and
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 7 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
southeast corners of the site. The proposed system is comprised of plastic arch pipes sections and gravel
bedding. The system has been designed to capture and infiltrate the required design capture volume
(DCV) of 74,099 cubic feet (ft3) per the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) calculations.
Street Improvements
Street improvements would include right-of-way (ROW) dedication on the Project side and installation of
sidewalk, curb and gutter along all fronting streets. The Project also proposes a bus turn out along Jurupa
Avenue and a raised median. The Project would also improve curb returns at the intersections of Jurupa
Avenue and Hemlock Avenue, and Jurupa Avenue and Live Oak Avenue.
Other Infrastructure
The Proposed Project would connect to existing dry utility infrastructure in the ROW of Jurupa Avenue,
Hemlock Avenue and Live Oak Avenue, including telephone, electrical, and cable. Dry utilities would be
installed underground.
Construction and Phasing
Construction activities for the Project would occur over one phase and include demolition, site
preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. Demolition of the existing
structures and hardscape is anticipated to result in 38,056 tons of debris. Grading work of soils is expected
to result in cut of 150,577 cubic yards (CY) and fill of 158,484 CY of soils for a net soil import of 7,907 CY.
Construction is expected to begin in October 2025 and occur over 22 months. Construction would occur
within the hours allowable by the Fontana Municipal Code Section 18.63, which states that construction
shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no construction taking place on Sundays and holidays.
Operational Characteristics
The Project would maintain and operate a logistics and distribution facility and is analyzed to operate
24/7. This addendum assumes 25 percent of the proposed building’s floor space would be dedicated to
cold storage. Typical operational characteristics include employees traveling to and from the site, delivery
of materials and supplies to the site, truck loading and unloading, and distribution.
2.3 Project Approvals
The City is the Lead Agency as set forth in CEQA Section 21067 and is responsible for reviewing and
approving the Addendum to the SWIP Specific Plan FEIR. 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.
• Site Plan Approval
• Lot Line Adjustment
• Approvals and permits necessary to execute the Proposed Project, including but not limited to,
demolition permit, grading permit, building permit, etc.
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 8 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure 114970 Jurupa Avenue
City of Fontana
Regional Location
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 10 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Local Vicinity
Figure 214970 Jurupa Avenue
City of Fontana
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 12 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Aerial View
Figure 314970 Jurupa Avenue
City of Fontana
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 14 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Site Photos
Figure 4a14970 Jurupa Avenue
City of Fontana
Southwest corner of site on Jurupa Ave and Live Oak Ave facing northeast.
Facing northwest on the corner of Jurupa Ave and Hemlock Ave.
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 16 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Site Photos
Figure 4b14970 Jurupa Avenue
City of Fontana
Existing driveway on Jurupa Ave on the south end of the site.
Northeast corner of site looking westward from Hemlock Ave.
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 18 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
E E E
E E E
E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E E E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
#1
#5#8#9
#5
#2 #16#12#17 #27 #3#18#1 9
#24
#2 0#17 #1 5#5 #22
#11
#17 #6 #25#29 #13#21 #23#30 #5#3 1 #26#2 8
#24
I S 1 0 F W Y SIERRA AVE CA210 FWY CITRUS AVE
J UR UPA AV E
S LO VE R AVE VAL LEY BLV D ME RR ILL AV E R AND AL L AV E
SANTA ANA AVE
MIL LE R AV E ALDER AVE B AS ELINE AV E F OOT HIL L BLV D CHERRY AVE S AN B ER NA RD IN O AV E S UMM IT AV E ETIWANDA AVE BEECH AVE LOCUST AVE JUNIPER AVE MANGO AVE ELM AVE ARROW BLVD WH ITTRAM AVE SOUTH HIG HLAND AVE F O N T A N A A V E MAPLE AVE KNOX AVE
P
OP
LAR AVE
MARLAY AVE
S IE RR A L AK ES PK WY
CYPRESS AVE
MULB
ER
RY AVE
L Y T L E C R E E K R D PALMETTO AVE EAST AVE REDWOOD AVE TOKAY AVE ILEX ST ALMERIA AVE HEMLOCK AVE
BANAN
A AVE
OR AN GE WAY LIVE OAK AVE SULTANA AVE
ALMOND AVE C ASA GR AN DE D R CATAWBA AVE
PHILADELPHIA AVE
D UNC AN CA NY ON R D VICTORIA ST LIME AVE C URTIS AV E
TA
MA
RIND
AVE C ERE S AV E WA LN UT ST SAN SEVAINE RD AUGUSTA DR WA LN UT AVE CALABASH AVE
VOLANTE DR
E LIBERTY PKWY C O Y O T E C A N Y O N R DW LIBERTY PKWY MA RYG OL D AVE
V I L L A G E D R
H ILTO N DR B OY LE AV E WA SH IN GTON DR OLEANDER AVE COTTONWOOD AVE KAISER WAY
BUSINESS DR
DAHLIA ST
N FRONTAGE RD
ARMSTRONG RD
BAR HARBOR RDS BRIDLEPATH DR
COMM
ERCE WAY
P
RODUCTION AVE A LI S O DR VAL E NCIA AVE
VIA LARGA
VILLAGE PKWY MA NIL A S T HICKORY AVE
UNDERWOOD DR
HUNT ER ST JASMINE ST RIVERSIDE AVES HERITAGE CIR CLUBHOUSE DRN TRANSPORTATION WAY
SHADOW DR
PLUMARIA DR MCGUIRE AVE L OZ AN O ST
TO RR EY PI NE ST
RESENDA AVE C HAS E R D ANDE L D R H IGHLAN D AVE LIBRARY DR TO SC AN A L NN BRIDLEPATH DR MALLORY DR S EG OVI A LN ROANOKE RD
V IL L AGE DR
ROADRUNNER RD RANC HO FO NTAN A V LG PKWY ORLANDO DR MEYER CANYON DR
MA
HO
GA
NY
DR
HEALTHCARE PKWY FONTLEE L N T EC HN OL OG Y S T WALN UT VILLA GE PKW Y
R
O
S
E A
V
E
EAGLES NEST WAY E L M O L I N O S T CASTELLO LN S N A P D R A G O N D R FAL CO N RI D GE L N AUTO CENTER DR MANZANITA D R LER NER LN T ER RA VIS TA DR HAWTHORNE AVE MUIRFIELD LN VESTA WAY CIV IC C EN TE R DR VIA DEL SOL DAY CANYON DR HEATHER AVE GELATO C T TURNBERRY WAY CAN NO LI C T NATHAN SIMON DR LARKSTONE ST
Sou rces : Esri, HERE, Ga rmin, Inte rmap, inc re men t P Co rp ., GE BCO, USGS, FA O, NP S, N RCAN, GeoBase , IGN, K adaster N L, Ordn an ce Sur vey, Esri Japan, METI , E sri Ch in a (Hong Ko ng ), (c) OpenS tre et Map contrib u tor s, and the GI S
User Co mmun ity
GENERA L P L AN L A N D US E M A PCity o f Fonta na , Sta te o f Ca li for ni a ´1 i nc h = 1,742 feet1:20 ,89 9Scale01,750 3,5 00Feet7/25/202 3 Specifi c Pl an Le gen d#1 Sou th ridg e Vil lag e#2 Ran ch o Fo nt ana#3 Wal nu t Vill age#4 Res cin ded#5 Sou th wes t I ndu st rial Park#6 Northga te#7 Res cin ded#8 West En d#9 Fontan a Ga te wa y#10 R escinde d#11 S out h P ar k#12 H unter's R i dge#13 E mp ire C ent er#14 R escinde d#15 C al ifornia Lan di ngs #16 S ier ra La kes#17 We stgate#18 S um mi t Hei gh ts#19 C oyot e C anyo n#20 C itr us H eig hts Nor t h#21 C itr us H eig hts Sou th#22 S um mi t at R ose na#23 Ve ntana a t D unca n Ca nyon#24 Val le y Trails#25 P ro me nad e#26 P ro vid ence P oi nt#27 Arb oret um#28 Fo ntana S tar#29 M ornings ide#30 B ell eg ro ve II#31 C ent er st one a t t he L anding sGENERAL PLAN LAND USE LEGENDRESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONSR-E Residential Estates (2 du/ac)R-PC Residential Planned Community (3.0-6.4 du/ac)R-SF Single Family Residential (2.1-5 du/ac)R-M Medium Density Residential (5.1-12 du/ac)R-MF Multi Family Residential (12.1-24 du/ac)R-MFMH Multi Family Medium/High Residential (24.1-39 du/ac)R-MFH Multi Family High Residential (39.1-50 du/ac)R-T Residential Trucking (2 du/ac)WALKABLE MIXED USE DESIGNATIONSWMXU-1 Walkable Mixed Use Corridor & Downtown (0.2-2 FAR, 3-39 du/ac)WMXU-2 Walkable Mixed Use Urban Village (0.2-1 FAR, 2.1-24 du/ac)WMXU-3 Downtown Core ProjectCOMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONSC-C Community Commercial (0.1-1.0 FAR)C-G General Commercial (0.1-1.0 FAR)RMU Regional Mixed Use (0.1-1 FAR 12-24 du/ac)INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATIONSI-L Light Industrial (0.1-0.6 FAR)I-G General Industrial (0.1-0.6 FAR)PUBLIC DESIGNATIONSP-PF Public Facilities P-R Recreational FacilitiesP-UC Public UtilityPUBLIC DESIGNATIONSOS Open Space Auto Center OverlayEmergency S helter O verlayEEEEEEFire H azard OverlayMedical Center Over layR-4 Over layValley Bus iness Park OverlayWarehousing D istribution Logistics O v er lay D istrictSpecific PlanGeneral Plan Land Use Designation
Figure 5
Project Site
I-L Light Industrial
I-G General Industrial
R-PC Residential Planned Community
P-PF Public Facilities
P-UC Public Utility
Specific Plan
14970 Jurupa Avenue
City of Fontana
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 20 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
REDWOOD AVE LIVE OAK AVE HEMLOCK AVE D U N C A N C A N Y O N RD C E R ES AV E
O
LE
ANDER AVE
#1
#5
#8
#9
#5
#2 #16#12#17 #27 #3#18#19
#24
#20#17 #15#5 #22
#11
#17 #6 #25#29 #13#21 #23#30 #5#31 #26#28
#24
ROADRUNNER RD
R
O
S
E A
V
E
RANCH O FONTANA VL G PKW Y ORLANDO DR NATHAN SIMON DR MUIRFIELD LN MEYER CANYON DR
M
A
Y
B
E
R
R
Y
S
T
MANZANITA DR
MAH
OG
ANY D
R
LERNE R LN L ARKSTONE ST HEATHER AVE HEALTHCARE PKWY HAWTHORNE AV E GELATO CT FONTLE E L N FAL CON R IDGE LN E L M O L I N O S T EAGLES NEST WAY DAY CANYON DR CASTELLO LN I S 1 0 F W Y IS15 FWY SIERRA AVE CA210 FWY CITRUS AVE
J U R UPA AVE
SL OVER AV E VAL LEY BLV D M ERRIL L AV E RAND A LL AVE
SANTA ANA AVE
M IL LER AVE ALDER AVE BAS ELI NE AVE FOO T HILL BLV D CHERRY AVE SAN BERN A RDIN O AVE SUM M IT AVE ETIWANDA AVE BEECH AVE LOCUST AVE JUNIPER AVE MANGO AVE ELM AVE ARROW BLVD WH ITT RAM AVE SOUT H HIGHL AND AV E F O N T A N A A V E MAPLE AVE KNOX AVE
POPL
AR AV
E
MARLAY AVE
SI ERRA LAK ES PK WY
CYP
RESS AVE
MULB
ERRY AVE
L Y T L E C R E E K R D PALMETTO AVE EAST AVE REDWOOD AVE TOKAY AVE ILEX ST ALMERIA AVE HEMLOCK AVE
BAN
ANA AV
E
O R ANG E WAY
L
IVE OAK AVE SULTANA AVE
ALMOND AVE CAS A GRAN DE DR CATAWBA AVE
PHILADELPHIA AVE
DUN CA N C ANYO N RD VICTORIA ST LIME AVE CURTIS AVE
TA
MA
RIND AVE
CERE S AVE WAL NUT ST SAN SEVAINE RD AUGUSTA DR WAL NUT AVE CALABASH AVE
VOLANTE
DR
E LIBERTY PKWY C O Y O T E C A N Y O N R DW LIBERTY PKWY M ARY GO LD AV E
V I L L A G E D R
HILTON DR BOYL E AV E WAS HING TON DR OLEANDER AVE COTTONWOOD AVE KAISER WAY
BUS
INESS DR
DAHLIA ST
N FRONTAGE RD
ARMSTRONG RD
BAR HARBOR RDS BRIDLEPATH DR
COMMERCE WAY
PR
O
DU
CTION AVE AL ISO DR VAL ENCIA AVE
VIA LARGA
VILLAGE PKWY
M ANIL A ST
HICKORY AVE
UNDERWOOD DR
HUNT ER ST
J
ASMINE ST RIVERSIDE AVES HERITAGE CIR CLUBHOUSE DRN TRANSPORTATION WAY
SHADOW DR
PLUMARIA DR MCGUIRE AVE L OZ ANO S T
TORREY PINE ST
RESENDA AVE CHAS E RD ANDE L D R HIGHL AND AV E LIBRARY DR TO S CANA LNN BRIDLEPATH DR MALLORY DR SEG OV IA L N ROANOKE RD
VI LL A G E D R
S N A P D R A G O N D R
Sourc es : Esri , HER E, Ga rm in, In termap, in creme nt P Corp., GE BCO, U SGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase , IGN, Ka dast er NL, Ordnance Su rvey, Es ri Ja pa n, METI , Es ri Chi na (Ho ng Ko ng ), (c) Ope nSt reetMap con tributors , and the GIS
User Co mmu nity
ZONIN G DI STRIC T MAPCity of Fon tana, State o f C a lifornia ´1 inch = 1,833 feet1:22 ,00 0Scale01,80 0 3,60 0Fe et1/9/2024 Over la ysAuto C enter Overla yEmergency She lter O ver layEEEEEEFire Hazar d O ve rlayMedical C enter Over la yR-4 Ov erla yValley Busines s Park O ve rlayWarehousing D istrib utio n Logistic s Ov erla y Distr ictSpecific Pla n Le g en d#1 S outhridge Village#2 R ancho F ontana#3 Wa lnu t Village#4 R escin ded#5 S outhwes t Industrial Park#6 N orth gate#7 R escin ded#8 We st E nd#9 Fontana G a te w ay#10 R e scinded#11 S o uth P ark#12 H u nter's R idge#13 E m pire C e n ter#14 R e scinded#15 C a lifornia Land ings#16 S ierra L akes #17 Westgate#18 Sum mit H eig h ts#19 C oyote C anyon#20 C itrus H eights N orth#21 C itrus H eights South#22 Sum mit a t Ros e na#23 Ven ta n a a t D unc a n C anyon#24 Valle y Trails#25 Prom enade#26 Provid en ce P o int#27 Arboretum#28 Fon ta na Star#29 M o rn ing side#30 Bellegrove II#31 C enterstone at th e Lan d ingsZone Chan gesZC No. Ordinance No. Adoption Date21-006 1914 07/11/202321-007 1916 07/25/202 322-010 19 23 09 /12/2023ZONING DISTRICT MAP LEGENDR-E Residential Estate (2 du/ac)R-PC Residential Planned Community (3.0-6.4 du/ac)R-1 Single Family (2.1-5 du/ac)R-2 Medium Density (5.1-12 du/ac)(up to 7.6 du/ac for single-family detatched product type7.7-12 du/ac for single-family attached or multiple product type)R-3 Multiple Family (12.1-24 du/ac)R-4 Multi Family Medium/High Density Residential (24.1-39 du/ac)R-5 Multi Family High Density Residential (39.-50 du/ac)FORM-BASED CODE DESIGNATIONSFBC Form-Based Code (0.2-2 FAR, 2.1-70 du/ac)C-1 Community Commercial (0.1-1.0 FAR)C-2 General Commercial (0.1-1.0 FAR)R-MU Regional Mixed Use (0.1-1 FAR du/ac)M-1 Light Industrial (0.1-0.6 FAR)M-2 General Industrial (0.1-0.6 FAR)PUBLIC DESIGNATIONSP-PF Public FacilityP-UC Public Utility CorridorOPEN SPACE DESIGNATIONSOS-N Open Space - NaturalOS-R Open Space - Resource Zoning Designation
Figure 6
Project Site #5
Fire Hazard Overlay
Specific Plan #5 -
Southwest Industrial Park
14970 Jurupa Avenue
City of Fontana
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 22 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
14970 Jurupa Avenue
City of Fontana
Figure 7
So
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
1-6
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
1
-3 – La
n
d
U
s
e
M
a
p
Project Site
SWIP Land Use Designation
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 24 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
14970 Jurupa Avenue
City of Fontana
Figure 8
Conceptual Site Plan
LANDSCAPE AREA
CONCRETE PAVING WHEN OCCURS@ PARKING AREAS, DRIVE AISLES,
& OR TRUCK COURT. SEE CIVILDRAWINGS FOR PAVING SECTIONS
FIRE HYDRANT. PROVIDE PIPE BOLLARD PROTECTION POSTS AS REQUIRED BY THE FIRE AUTHORITY. SEE 3/AD1.1
STREET LIGHT
INDICATES AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE.MUST COMPLY w/ SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTE #6
PROPERTY LINE
NORTH
PROJECTLOCATION
JURUPA AVE
LI
V
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
HE
M
L
O
C
K
A
V
E
CH
E
R
R
R
Y
A
V
E
BE
E
C
H
A
V
E
EL
M
A
V
E
FWY 10
SLOVER AVE
SANTA ANA AVE
1. THE SITE PLAN SHALL MEET ALL ENGINEERING & NPDES
REQUIREMENTS.2. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW THE SOILS REPORT AND ALL AMMENDMENTS LISTED ON THE TITLE SHEETAND FOLLOW ALL RECOMMENDATIONS.3. U.O.N., ALL DIMENSIONS TO CONCRETE WALLS AND
CURBS ARE EITHER TO THE CENTER (SHOWN WITH A
CENTERLINE) OR FACE OF THE WALL OR CURB. ALLDIMESIONS TO FRAMED WALLS ARE EITHER TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE WALL FRAMING (SHOWN WITH ACENTERLINE) OR THE FACE OF THE WALL FINISH.
4. REFER TO CIVIL, AND MEP PLANS TO CONFIRM UTILITYINFORMATION SHOWN ON THE ARCHITECT'S SITE PLAN AND FOR ADDITIONAL UTILITY INFORMATION.GENERALCONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ALL POINTS OFCONNECTION.5. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ALL FINISHED GRADES AND SLOPES. ALL FINISHED GRADES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. GENERALCONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY.6. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INDENTIFIED ON THE SITE PLAN DRAWINGS SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING:a)SLOPES IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVELDO NOT EXCEED 5%. CROSS SLOPES DO NOT EXCEED 2%.
6.b)THE CLEAR WIDTH OF ALL WALKWAYS IS 4'-0" MIN.
c)CHANGES IN LEVEL UP TO 1/2" COMPLY w/ 11/A0.2.1.CHANGES IN LEVEL GREATER THAN 1/2" IF THEY OCCUR ARE RAMPED. SEE PLANS.d)THE VERTICAL CLEARANCE ALONG THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS 80" MIN.
7.ALL PAVED AND LANDSCAPED AREAS TO BE BOUND BY A MIN. 6"HIGH, 6" WIDE CONCRETE CURB U.O.N.8.A CONCRETE MOW STRIP EXTENDING 12" BEYOND EA END OFTHE OPENING SHALL BE PROVIDED @ ALL EXTERIOR GLAZING WHERE THE SILL IS WITHIN 3' VERICAL OF THE FINISHED GRADE.
SEE 2/AD1.19.PROVIDE PIPE BOLLARD PROTECTION POSTS AS REQUIRED BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND OR FIRE AUTHORITIES AT ALL EXTERIORELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND FIRE PREVENTION DEVICES. IF PIPE BOLLARD PROTECTION POST DETAILS ARE NOT PROVIDED BY
UTILITY COMPANIES AND OR FIRE AUTHORITY SEE DETAIL 3/AD1.110.ALL EXPOSED BIORETENSION DEVICE COVERINGS SHALL BE PAINTED FORREST GREEN.11.WHERE OCCURS, GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE FLUID APPLIED DAMP PROOFING AT ALL RETAINING AND PLANTER
WALLS WHERE THE SIDE OF THE WALL OPPOSITE THE SOILSIDE IS EXPOSED TO VIEW AND ALL EXTERIOR WALLS WHERETHE ADJACENT FLOOR SLAB IS BELOW GRADE. SEE 6/AD1.212.PROVIDE A HOSE BIB NEAR THE MAIN BUILDING ENTRANCE THE .SEE PLAN FOR LOCATION.
PR
O
J
E
C
T
4/16/2024 3:09:44 PM
FI
R
S
T
E
N
T
I
T
L
E
M
E
N
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
A24-2007
14
9
7
0
J
U
R
U
P
A
A
V
E
.
FO
N
T
A
N
A
,
C
A
04.16.2024
A1
SITE PLAN
MT
N
V
I
E
W
I
N
D
P
A
R
K
1
3
KEYNOTES
AREA % LANDSCAPINGREQUIRED AREA LANDSCAPINGPROVIDED % LANDSCAPINGPROVIDED
48 SF 15%149160 SF 15.4%
SQUARE FOOTAGE ACRES
SS
1077837 SF 24.74
968504 SF 22.23
SPACE TYPE SPACES REQUIRED
DARD STALLS 74
DARD ACCESSIBLE STALLS 4
ACCESSIBLE STALLS 2
APABLE STALL (w/o EVSE)71
(EV CAPABLE STALL w/)1
DARD ACCESSIBLE EVCSAPABLE STALL w/ EVSE)
3
ACCESSIBLE EVCS (EVBLE STALL w/ EVSE)
1
ULATORY ACCESSIBLE EVCSAPABLE STALL w/ EVSE)
3
L 159
SPACE TYPE SPACES PROVIDED
DARD STALLS 74
DARD ACCESSIBLE STALLS 4
ACCESSIBLE STALLS 2
APABLE STALL (w/o EVSE)71
(EV CAPABLE STALL w/)1
DARD ACCESSIBLE EVCSAPABLE STALL w/ EVSE)
3
ACCESSIBLE EVCS (EVBLE STALL w/ EVSE)
1
ULATORY ACCESSIBLE EVCSAPABLE STALL w/ EVSE)
3
L 159
99 146
E AREA
L 01
EHOUSE 472130 SF
CE 5000 SF
CE 5000 SF
482130 SF
ANINE
CE 5000 SF
CE 5000 SF
10000 SF
UND LEVEL + MEZZANINE
EHOUSE 472130 SF
CE 20000 SF
L BUILDING AREA 492130 SF
SITE LEGENDSITE PLAN GENERAL NOTESSCOPE OF WORK
CONSTRUCT NEW ONE STORY + MEZZANINE CONCRETE TILT-
UP WAREHOUSE/DISTRIBUTION FACILITY WITH ELECTRICALAND PLUMBING SERVICES, EXTERIOR LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING & IRRIGATION, TRASH ENCLOSURES, CONCRETE SCREEN WALLS, AND SLIDING/SWINGING METAL GATES. FIRE
SPRINKLER AND GRADING PLANS TO BE A SEPARATESUBMITTAL AND PERMIT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION & ZONING
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: 0237-121-03 & 0237-122-07
A1 SITE PLANA1_1 ENLARGED SITE PLANS A1_2 GATE & FENCE ELEVATIONS
A1_3 SCREEN WALL PLAN & ELEVATIONS
A1_4 SCREEN WALL PLAN & ELEVATIONSA2_1 GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLANSA2_2 MEZZANINE LEVEL FLOOR PLANS
A3 ROOF PLAN
A4_1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA4_2 COLOR ELEVATIONSA5COLOR BOARD
C1 CONCEPT GRADING PLAN
C2 CONCEPT GRADING SECTIONSC3CONCEPT UTILITY PLAN
L1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
SHEET INDEX
PROLOGIS
3546 CONCOURSE ST., SUITE 100ONTARIO CA 91764CONTACT: D.J. ARELLANOPHONE: 562.376.92333EMAIL: DARELLANO@PROLOGIS.COM
DEVELOPER/OWNER
HERDMAN ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN, INC.
3800 E. COAST HIGHWAY STE 6CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625CONTACT: BRIDGET HERDMANPHONE: 714.389.2800
EMAIL: PROJECTADMIN@HERDMAN-AD.COM
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE/ARCHITECT
VICINITY MAP
TAL PARKING REQUIRED
QUIRED PARKING BREAKDOWN
RKING PROVIDED
TRAILER PARKINGPROVIDEDILER PARKINGQUIRED1/5000
DSCAPE AREA SUMMARY
LDING AREA SUMMARY
OR AREA RATIO
T AREA
DING AREA SITE AREA FAR ALLOWABLE FAR PROVIDED
92130 SF 969948 SF 55%50.7%
135 CONCRETE TILT-UP SCREEN WALL. MIN HEIGHT 8'ABOVEHIGHEST ADJACENT FINISHED GRADE. PAINT BOTH SIDESAND TOP OF WALL. SEE PLANS FOR COLOR SCHEDULE.
146 2 POSITION BIKE RACK.
156 FUTURE GUARD SHACK.
159 MONUMENT SIGN.
174 12"h x 6"w CONCRETE CURB TYP @ ALL CURBS IN TRUCKCOURT AREA.
DING USE BUILDING AREA PARKING RATIO 1/X REQ. PARKING
CE 20000 SF 5000 4
EHOUSE 20000 SF 1000 20
EHOUSE 20000 SF 2000 10
EHOUSE 432130 SF 5000 87
L 492130 SF 121
BUILDING ADDRESS:14970 JURUPA AVE.
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:III-BOCCUPANCY:B / S-1FIRE SPRINKLER:YES (ESFR NFPA 72, NFPA 13 & NFPA 24)CLEAR HEIGHT:42' @ 6" INSIDE FIRST COLUMN LINE
ZONING:GENERAL PLAN:IL (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
SPECIFIC PLAN:JURUPA NORTH RESERACH & DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (JND)-SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK S.P.FEMA FLOOD ZONE: NO FLOOD ZONE
BUILDING SETBACKS:FRONT SETBACK:30'
SIDE SETBACK:20'
REAR SETBACK:-MAX. HEIGHT:60'
ALLOWABLE AREA:
UNLIMITED AREA PER CBC 507 OR X SF PER TABLE 506.2
PROJECT INFORMATION & AREA ANALYSIS
T
5,000 SFOFFICE5,000 SFMEZZ.
60 DOCK DOORS PROPOSED
PROPOSED BUILDING
42' CLEAR
SLAB IS FLAT PER CIVIL
5,000 SF
OFFICE
5,000 SF
MEZZ.
5,000 SF
OFFICE
5,000 SF
MEZZ.
8' - 0"
48' - 0"
TYP.
58' - 0"
19' - 0" 30' - 0" 19' - 0"
50
'
-
0
"
6
0
'
-
0
"
6
0
'
-
0
"
60
'
-
0
"
TYP.
58' - 0" 48' - 0"
8' - 0"
19' - 0" 30' - 0" 19' - 0" 20' - 5" +/-
70
'
-
0
"
55
'
-
0
"
5
5
'
-
0
"
JURUPA AVE.
LI
V
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
.
HE
M
L
O
C
K
A
V
E
.
48
0
'
-
0
"
1140' - 0"
106' - 0" 928' - 0" 106' - 0"
146
ELEC.
ROOM
ROOF
ACCESS
BA
T
T
E
R
Y
CH
A
R
G
I
N
G
PUMP
ROOM
1
A1_1
4
A1_1
3
A1_1
A1_2 2
A1_31
3
A1_2
3
A1_2
159
159
15 11
14
14
9
13
1412
1414
14
9
9
5
A1_1
FUTURE
OFFICE
30
'
F
I
R
E
L
A
N
E
30' FIRE LANE
30
'
F
I
R
E
L
A
N
E
FUTURE
OFFICE
128
12' - 0"
A1_2 1
A1_32
19' - 10" +/-115' - 5" +/-
2
A1_1
1
A1_4
2
A1_4
3
A1_4
PROPOSED BUS TURN-OUT
48
0
'
-
0
"
3
A1_4
SIM
SE
T
B
A
C
K
30
'
B
L
D
G
1
A1_5
2
A1_5
14
9
5
10
143
114
114
114
114
20' - 0"178
20' - 0"
70
'
-
0
"
19
'
-
0
"
2
6
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
19
'
-
0
"
2
6
'
-
0
"
2
7
'
-
0
"
20
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
20
'
-
0
"
22
'
-
0
"
22
'
-
0
"
178
9
10
8
6
DR
I
V
E
35
'
-
0
"
1
4
8
'
-
1
1
3
/
4
"
+
/
-
1
1
0
'
-
1
1
1
/
8
"
+
/
-
DR
I
V
E
50
'
-
0
"
135135 135135
156
156
107
10
'
-
1
1
"
50
'
-
0
"
20
'
-
0
"
20
'
-
0
"
27
6
'
-
0
"
40' - 0" +/-96' - 5" +/-
29
6
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
+
/
-
96' - 3" +/-34' - 5" +/-
174174
16
6
'
-
0
"
109
TY
P
.
9'
-
0
"
11
'
-
8
"
+
/
-
3'
-
0
"
12
'
-
1
1
"
19' - 0"
19' - 0"
10' - 0"
9' - 6"
10' - 0"
26' - 0" 19' - 0"
8' - 6"
5' - 0"
19' - 0"
TY
P
.
9'
-
0
"
13
'
-
0
"
14
4
'
-
0
"
+
/
-
14
1
'
-
8
"
+
/
-
119
96' - 7" +/-34' - 5" +/-
18
'
-
0
"
179179
112
112
111
112
112
111
111
112
111
111
111
112
111
112
111
111 112
112
112
112
111
111
DR
I
V
E
50
'
-
0
"
R 19' - 0"
R
1
9' - 0"
R
4
8
'
-
0
"
R 4 8' - 0 "
R 4 8 ' - 0 "
R 48' - 0"
R 19' - 0"
R
1
9
'
-
0
"
30
1
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
+
/
-
DR
I
V
E
35
'
-
0
"
20' - 0"19' - 0" 30' - 0" 19' - 0"
60
'
-
4
"
+
/
-
18
'
-
4
"
+
/
-
21
0
'
-
0
"
+
/
-
22
1
'
-
4
"
+
/
-
R
4
0'
-
0
"
R 40' - 0"
R 18' - 0"
R
2
0
'
-
0
"
27' - 0"
27' - 0"
5' - 0"
8' - 6"
180180
5'
-
7
"
+
/
-
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 26 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
14970 Jurupa Avenue
City of Fontana
Figure 9
Elevations
NOTES:
1. ALL IMPERFECTIONS ON THE SURFACE OF THE CONCRETEWALL PANELS SHALL BE PATCHED / SACKED / SANDED
SMOOTH PRIOR TO PAINTING.2. ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR FABRICATED STEEL SHALL BE SHOP PRIMED WITH A GRAY, RUST INHIBITIVE PRIMERPRIOR TO DELIVERY TO THE JOB SITE. ANY AND ALLDAMAGE TO THE PRIMER COAT SHALL BE TOUCHED UPPRIOR TO ADDITIONAL FINAL COLOR PAINTING ORCOMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.
3. PAINT MAN DOORS, STAIR & RAMP GUARD WALLS, GUARDRAILS, DOWN SPOUTS, LOUVERS, & ROOF LEVEL WALLPANEL RETURNS TO MATCH ADJACENT BUILDING WALLCOLOR, U.O.N.4. U.O.N., EXTERIOR SIDE OF TRUCK DOORS TO BE "A"INTERIOR SIDE TO BE PRE-FINISHED WITH
MANUFACTURER'S LIGHT GRAY.5. POWER WASH EXTERIOR CONCRETE WALLS PRIOR TOPAINTING TO REMOVE ALL CHEMICALS AND DIRT THAT WILLIMPEDE THE PRIMER COAT FROM ADHERING TO THE WALLS.6. PAINT EXTERIOR WALLS w/ 1- COAT SPRAYED AND BACK
ROLLED ACRYLIC FLAT PRIMER AND 2-COATS SPRAYED-ON FLAT FINISH IN THE FINAL WALL COLOR. FINISHED JOBSHALL BE SMOOTH AND FREE OF LAPPING AND OR STREAKING, REGARDLESS OF THE COLOR.7. EXCEPT WHERE NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE PLANS ALLPANEL JOINTS SHALL BE CAULKED PER DETAIL 1/AD4.1.
8. PAINT CONCRETE BEHIND ANY OPEN TRELLIS WORK THE COLOR OF THE TRELLIS.9. @ SOLID BROWS WITH GLAZING DIRECTLY ABOVE OR BELOW, PAINT THE EXPOSED WALL CHAMFER JUST ABOVE OR BELOW THE BROW TO MATCH THE BROW COLOR.10. PAINT ALL WALL REVEALS THE COLOR OF THE ADJACENT
WALL. WHEN THERE IS A COLOR CHANGE AT THE REVEAL,SEE 2/AD4.111. U.O.N., PAINT THE SIDE OPPOSITE THE SIDE SHOWN OF SCREEN WALLS THE SAME COLOR AS THE SIDE SHOWN. IF THERE ARE TWO COLORS SHOWN, USE THE BASE COLOR.12. ALL PAINTS USED SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER FOR THE PROPOSED USE
WHITE EXTERIOR PAINT COLOR:PLD-9 PURE WHITE
LIGHT GRAY EXTERIOR PAINT COLOR:PLD-6 STABLE
LIGHT GRAY EXTERIOR PAINT COLOR:PLD-10 FIRST STAR
MEDIUM GRAY EXTERIOR PAINT COLOR:PLD-7 LIQUORICE TINT
CHARCOAL EXTERIOR PAINT COLOR:PLD-8 DRAKE
ACCENT EXTERIOR PAINT COLOR:PLD-5 NEW DARK GREEN
ACM PANEL COLOR:CHARCOAL ANODIZEDMATCH STOREFRONT FRAMING.
PAINT COLOR FOR EXPOSED STEEL BROW& CANOPY FRAMING, WALL BEHIND OPENTRELLIS (KEY NOTE 428, OR 429) WHEN
OCCURS & TRASH ENCLOSURE METALROOF, ROOF BEAMS, & SUPPORT COLUMNS.
ACM PANEL COLOR:GREEN ANODIZED
EXTERIOR STOREFRONT FRAMING COLOR:CLEAR ANODIZED MULLION
EXTERIOR GLASS COLOR FOR SINGLEGLAZING & EXTERIOR LAYER OFINSULATED GLASS: GREEN.
EXTERIOR GLASS COLOR FOR THE INNERLAYER OF INSULATED GLASS: CLEARGLASS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
NOTES:1. FOR GLASS AND MULLION COLORS, SEE EXTERIOR COLORS, LEGEND & NOTES, THIS SHEET.2. PROVIDE TEMPERED GLASS @ THE FOLLOWING:A. ALL SPANDREL SYSTEM GLAZING IN FRONT OFCONCRETE WALL PANELS
B. ALL GLAZING WITHIN 18" OF AN ADJACENT WALKINGSURFACE.C. ALL GLAZING WITH 24" OF ANY PORTION OF A DOOR.3. @ SPANDREL SYSTEM GLAZING IN FRONT OF CONCRETEWALL PANELS, PROVIDE 1" DIA. VENTILLATION HOLES INTHE CONCRETE A MAX OF 5'-0" O.C. CONTRACTOR TO
PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISH ON THE GLASS FACINGCONCRETE SURFACES AND TO PAINT THEM & ALLSTOREFRONT FRAMES AND CLIPS BEHIND THE GLASS BLACK.4. @ SPANDREL SYSTEM GLAZING NOT IN FRONT OF A CONCRETE WALL PANEL, PROVIDE TENCATE MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC SHADE CLOTH.
SPANDREL SYSTEM GLAZING:FOR EXTERIOR SPANDREL GLAZING USE 1/4" VISTACOOL. BACK PAINTING OF GLASS
NOT REQUIRED.
VISION SYSTEM GLAZING:FOR EXTERIOR VISION GLAZING USE 1" INSULATEDGLASS CONSISTING OF AN OUTER LAYER OF 1/4"
VISTACOOL AND AN INNER LAYER OF 1/4"SOLARBAN 60. FOR INTERIOR GLAZING USE 1/2"CLEAR GLASS
STOREFRONT FRAMING:
U.O.N @ VISION SYSTEM, MIN 2"x4 1/2" OFFSETSYSTEM. U.O.N. @ SPANDREL SYSTEM, 2"x1 3/4"OFFSET SYSTEM. STOREFRONT SYSTEM TO BE DESIGN BUILD BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR .DESIGN SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL RELEVANT CODE & WIND LOADING REQUIREMENTS.
PR
O
J
E
C
T
4/16/2024 3:01:21 PM
FI
R
S
T
E
N
T
I
T
L
E
M
E
N
T
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
A24-2007
14
9
7
0
J
U
R
U
P
A
A
V
E
.
FO
N
T
A
N
A
,
C
A
04.16.2024
A4_2
COLOR
ELEVATIONS
MT
N
V
I
E
W
I
N
D
P
A
R
K
1
3
KEYNOTES
GLAZING LEGEND & NOTES
EXTERIOR WALL COLOR LEGEND & NOTES
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 28 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
14970 Jurupa Avenue
City of Fontana
Figure 10
Conceptual Landscape Plan
0 10' 20' 40'
Fontana, California24-000
02.20.24
Jurupa Ave and Hemlock Ave H UNTER ANDSCAPEL
711 FEE ANA STREET
714.986.2400 FAX 714.986.2408
PLACENTIA, CA 92870
04.02.24
Description of Proposed Project
SWIP Specific Plan Update 30 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
SWIP Specific Plan Update 31 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
3 SWIP SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
The environmental impact findings of the Approved Project FEIR are summarized below.
No Impact: The Approved Project FEIR determined that no impact would occur with respect to the
following environmental topic areas below. These impacts were included in the Approved Project FEIR’s
“Effects Found Not To Be Significant (EFNTBS)” section (Section 8.0).
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources (EFNTBS items 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e);
• Geology and Soils (EFNTBS items 3a-4 and 3e);
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (EFNTBS items 4b and 4c);
• Hydrology and Water Quality (EFNTBS items 5g and 5j);
• Mineral Resources (EFNTBS items 6a and 6b);
• Noise (EFNTBS item 7a); and
• Traffic and Circulation (EFNTBS items 9a and 9b).
Less-Than-Significant Impact: The Approved Project FEIR identified less-than-significant impacts in the
following environmental topic areas:
• Aesthetics, Light and Glare (Impacts 4.1-2, 4.1-4, and 4.1-5);
• Air Quality and Climate Change (Impact 4.2-3);
• Cultural Resources (Impact 4.4-4);
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (EFNTBS item 4a);
• Hydrology and Water Quality (EFNTBS items 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5h, and 5i);
• Land Use and Planning (Impacts 4.6-1 and 4.6-2);
• Population and Housing (EFNTBS item 8a and 8b);
• Public Services, Utilities and Infrastructure (Impact 4.8-10); and
• Traffic and Circulation (Impacts 4.9-2 and 4.9-3).
Less-Than-Significant Impact with Incorporation of Mitigation: The Approved Project FEIR identified
impacts that could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures in
the following environmental topic areas:
• Aesthetics, Light and Glare (Impact 4.1-3);
• Air Quality and Climate Change (Impact 4.2-5);
• Biological Resources (Impacts 4.3-1, 4.3-2, 4.3-3 and 4.3-5);
• Cultural Resources (Impacts 4.4-1, 4.4-2 and 4.4-3);
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Impacts 4.5-1, 4.5-2, 4.5-3, 4.5-4, 4.5-5 and 4.5-6);
• Noise (Impacts 4.7-1 and 4.7-2); and
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
SWIP Specific Plan Update 32 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• Public Services, Utilities and Infrastructure (Impacts 4.8-1, 4.8-2, 4.8-3, 4.8-4, 4.8-6, 4.8-7, 4.8-8, and
4.8-9).
Significant and Unavoidable Impact: The Approved Project FEIR identified significant and unavoidable
impacts in the following environmental topic areas:
• Aesthetics, Light and Glare (Impact 4.1-1)
• Air Quality and Climate Change (Impacts 4.2-1, 4.2-2 and 4.2-4);
• Noise (Impact 4.7-3);
• Public Services, Utilities and Infrastructure (Impact 4.8-5); and
• Traffic and Circulation (Impact 4.9-1).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 33 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4 14970 JURUPA AVENUE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND
PROJECT APPROVALS
The scope of the City’s review of the Proposed Project is set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. This
review is limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated with the Proposed Project when
compared to the Approved Project as set forth in the FEIR. This Addendum also reviews new information,
if any, of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable due diligence at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified. This evaluation includes a
determination as to whether the changes proposed for the Project would result in any new significant
impacts or more severe significant impacts.
Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 does not stipulate the format or content of an Addendum, the
topical areas identified in the City of Fontana Environmental Information Form 5 were used as guidance
for this Addendum. In addition, Section 15164(e) of the CEQA Guidelines states that: “A brief explanation
of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an
addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the Project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation
must be supported by substantial evidence.” This comparative analysis provides the City with the factual
basis for determining whether any changes in the Proposed Project, any changes in circumstances, or any
new information since the Approved Project FEIR was certified would require additional environmental
review or preparation of an SEIR.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the City has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence
in the light of the whole record, that implementation of the Proposed Project does not result in
substantial changes to the Approved Project, no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred
which would require major revisions to the Approved Project FEIR, and no new information of substantial
importance has been revealed since the certification of Approved Project FEIR that would result in either
new significant effects or an increase in the severity of previously analyzed significant effects.
An MMRP was adopted as a part of the Approved Project FEIR to mitigate impacts associated with
implementation of the Approved Project. The previously adopted mitigation measures applicable to the
Approved Project will be imposed as conditions of the Proposed Project, and the MMRP, as applicable to
the Approved Project, is contained in Appendix A.
5 City of Fontana. (n.d.). Environmental Information Form. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2177/Environmental-Information-
Form-PDF (accessed May 28, 2024).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 34 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.1 Aesthetics
4.1.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that although the Approved Project includes various design features
to minimize impacts to scenic vistas and would comply with existing local requirements, impacts related
to the buildout of future development associated with the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would remain
significant and unavoidable. The long-term buildout of industrial, commercial, and office uses throughout
the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would result in a significant alteration in views of the Jurupa
Mountains to the south and the San Gabriel/San Bernardino Mountains to the northwest. For this reason,
the Approved Project FEIR concluded that impacts to scenic vistas would remain significant and
unavoidable.
The Approved Project’s impacts associated with light/glare, scenic resources, and long-term visual
character were determined to be less than significant. Impacts associated with the short-term visual
character of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area were determined to be less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3a.
4.1.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista. The dominant scenic views from the Proposed Project site and the surrounding area include
the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest, the San Bernardino National Forest to the northeast, the San
Jacinto Mountains to the southeast, and the Jurupa Mountains to the south. The Proposed Project site is
located in the JND, which is described in the Approved Project FEIR as intended to provide opportunities
for a mixture of development types and uses, including light industrial, warehousing, office development,
flex-tech, home-based industrial businesses, research and development, and service commercial.
According to the SWIP, the design intent of the JND is to provide for high-quality, large scale industrial
development that transitions to interface with the surrounding neighborhoods through smaller scale
commercial uses. This area can generally be characterized as having a range of warehousing, distribution,
industrial, residential, and undeveloped (former agricultural) parcels. The Proposed Project site is
immediately surrounded by residential uses to the south and by industrial and commercial uses to the
north, east, and west.
According to requirements within the SWIP Specific Plan Update, the maximum allowable structure height
within the JND is 60 feet. The two existing buildings on-site are about 16 feet and 28 feet tall. The proposed
building would be within the allowed height, at 60 feet in height; refer to Figure 9, Elevations. The Project
would be set back from the adjacent streets and would not encroach into the existing public long-distance
views. The building would be setback approximately 276 feet from the north property line, approximately
30 feet from Jurupa Avenue, and approximately 96 feet from both Hemlock Avenue and Live Oak Avenue.
All setbacks would be greater than what is required for industrial buildings within JND. Thus, the proposed
building would not encroach into long range views of the distant foothills from public vantage points on
surrounding streets.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 35 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
In addition, similar scale industrial uses are established or approved within the immediate vicinity of the
Proposed Project site. Therefore, the change in views of the Proposed Project site from the surrounding
area would not cause a significant impact on a scenic vista. Thus, impacts to scenic vistas are less than
significant.
Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects on a scenic vista or a substantial increase in the
severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved FEIR would occur.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding
of no significant impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts on a scenic vista. A significant and
unavoidable impact was identified in the Approved Project FEIR with respect to scenic vistas. The
Proposed Project would be designed consistent with the guidelines and standards within the SWIP Specific
Plan Update. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to
aesthetics.
Threshold (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR determined that future development that is
consistent with the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not result in any adverse scenic resource impacts.
Therefore, no adverse impacts on scenic resources, including resources within a State scenic highway,
would result from the Proposed Project’s implementation.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, there is no State- or County-designated scenic highway within
the vicinity of the Project site.6 Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in no
impact related to scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a State
scenic highway. No new impacts relative to adverse aesthetic impacts or a substantial increase in the
severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding
of no significant impact.
6 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2019). Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-
and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed May 28, 2024).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 36 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on scenic resource(s) within a State
scenic highway. The Proposed Project would be designed consistent with the guidelines and standards
within the SWIP Specific Plan Update, as well as in compliance with the General Plan goals and policies
and the Fontana Municipal Code regulations. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are
required for issues related to aesthetics.
Threshold (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project would redevelop the site from an industrial steel
yard to a logistics and distribution facility. The Proposed Project site is surrounded by residential uses to
the south and by industrial and commercial uses to the north, east, and west. As shown in Table AES-1,
the Project design would be consistent with the SWIP development standards for the SWIP JND
designation. The SWIP Specific Plan Update includes architectural design guidelines for proposed
development within the JND. Building facades shall incorporate architectural elements such as windows,
pillars, wall plane breaks to minimize blank walls and to create visual interest. Colors and materials for all
structures onsite should consist of earth tones and the use of at least two to three different colors,
materials or textures is encouraged. Consistent with the architectural design guidelines for the SWIP JND
designation, the Proposed Project would establish an architectural presence through emphasis on
building finish materials and consistent material usage and color scheme. The proposed concrete tilt-up
building would be grey and white with dark green accents. Cutouts and decorative window façades would
be installed in the building to create variety in scale and texture. Accordingly, no new impacts relative to
adverse aesthetic impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant
impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur.
Table AES-1: Development Standard Consistency
SWIP JND Development Standards for Industrial Buildings Project
Consistency
Maximum FAR 0.55 0.51
Minimum Lot Size 45,000 SF 969,431 SF
Front Setback from Major Highway (Jurupa
Avenue) 30 feet 30 feet
Front Setback from Secondary Highway/Collector
Street (Hemlock Avenue and Live Oak Avenue) 20 feet 96 feet
Maximum Building Height 60 feet 60 feet
Minimum Landscaped Area 15% 22.6%
Vehicle Parking 121 234
Truck Trailer Parking 99 128
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 37 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project.
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
4.1-3a For future development associated with the project located in or immediately adjacent
to residentially zoned property, the following General Condition of Approval shall be
imposed: Construction documents shall include language that requires all construction
contractors to strictly control the staging of construction equipment and the cleanliness
of construction equipment stored or driven beyond the limits of the construction work
area. Construction equipment shall be parked and staged within the project site to the
extent practical. Staging areas shall be screened from view from residential properties
with solid wood fencing or green fence. Construction worker parking may be located off-
site with approval of the City; however, on-street parking of construction worker vehicles
on residential streets shall be prohibited. Vehicles shall be kept clean and free of mud and
dust before leaving the project site. Surrounding streets shall be swept daily and
maintained free of dirt and debris.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts on visual character or quality. Similar
to the Approved Project FEIR’s findings, implementation of the Proposed Project would have a less-than-
significant impact on visual character with implementation of Approved Project FEIR Mitigation Measures
4.1-3a. The Proposed Project would be designed consistent with the guidelines and standards within the
SWIP Specific Plan Update. No new or more severe impact from previously identified significant impacts
evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Furthermore, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR
was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less-than-significant impact with mitigation
under this threshold.
Threshold (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the land use and development regulations provided in the
SWIP Specific Plan Update, all future development would be required to comply with the lighting
requirements of the Municipal Code (Chapter 30), to reduce the potential for light and/or glare effects to
occur. In addition, outdoor lighting will not exceed 20 feet in height unless it has a light cutoff of 90
degrees or less, in which case a maximum height of 30 feet may be allowed.
Consistent with the Municipal Code and the Specific Plan Update development regulations, and as
applicable, all exterior lighting shall be adequately controlled and shielded to prevent glare and
undesirable illumination to adjacent properties or streets. Adequate lighting levels shall be provided to
ensure a safe environment, while not creating areas of intense light or glare. Light fixtures and poles shall
also be designed and placed in a manner consistent and compatible with overall site and building design,
and high-intensity security lighting fixtures shall not be substituted for site or landscape lighting or general
building exterior illumination but shall be limited to loading and storage locations or other similar service
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 38 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
areas. In addition, all lighting provided to illuminate parking areas or buildings shall be positioned so as to
direct light away from adjoining properties.
These regulations are considered to be either design measures or existing regulations pursuant to CEQA
standards. Incorporation of such features into the Proposed Project would ensure proper design,
installation, and operation of all exterior lighting, thereby reducing the potential for glare effects or light
spillover onto adjacent properties. As such, consistency with the Municipal Code and lighting
requirements of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would ensure that potential impacts associated with light
and glare would be less than significant. Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, no mitigation
measures are required.
Accordingly, no new or more severe impacts relative to the significant and unavoidable light and glare
aesthetic impacts previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would
occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have
been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior
finding of significant and unavoidable impacts.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact from light or glare. No significant
impacts associated with light and glare are identified in the Approved Project FEIR. The Proposed Project
would be designed consistent with the guidelines and standards within the Specific Plan Update.
Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to aesthetics.
Overall Aesthetics Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Proposed Project
would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to aesthetics. Therefore, the preparation
of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 39 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
4.2.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR identified that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not
impact or conflict with Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, a
Williamson Act contract, or with the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use. As such, the Approved Project FEIR found that no impacts would occur, and
no mitigation measures were required.
4.2.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (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;
Threshold (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; and
Threshold (c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
No New Impact: According to the Approved Project FEIR, there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance within SWIP Specific Plan Update boundaries. The only area where
these types of farmland occur are located within the northwestern portion of the City. The Proposed
Project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land.7 Thus, no impacts would occur related to Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
Lands within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area are designated as, Freeway Industrial/Commercial (FID),
Speedway Industrial District (), Slover West Industrial District (SWD), Slover Central Manufacturing District
(SCD), Slover East Industrial District (SED), Jurupa North Research and Development District (JND), Jurupa
South Industrial District (JSD), Residential Trucking District (RTD) and Public Facilities District (RTD). There
are currently no Williamson Act contracts for any parcels within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area.
Therefore, no impacts to existing agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contracts are expected.
The Project site does not contain any forest land and is not surrounded by forest land. In addition, the
Project site is developed with industrial uses. Thus, development of the Proposed Project would not result
in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Due to the location of the Proposed Project site and the lack of natural resources, including farmland, the
Proposed Project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural land. As such, no impacts related to the
loss of farmland would occur. Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR’s findings, no significant impacts
to agricultural resources would occur from Project implementation. No mitigation measures are
necessary.
7 California Department of Conservation. 2024. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed
May 29, 2024)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 40 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Overall Agricultural and Forestry Resources Impact Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact to agricultural or forestry resources.
No significant impacts to agricultural resources are identified in the Approved Project FEIR. The Proposed
Project is located within the boundaries of the SWIP Specific Plan Update; therefore, no new and/or
considerably different mitigation measures are required for issues related to agricultural or forestry
resources.
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to agricultural
resources. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 41 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.3 Air Quality
4.3.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts relative to air quality for both short and long-term air quality as well
as consistency with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The Approved Project FEIR
concluded a less-than-significant impact related to carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots.
4.3.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Construction and operational air quality impacts associated with the Proposed Project relative to impacts
identified in the Approved Project FEIR were analyzed in Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact
Analysis, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. on January 17, 2025 (Appendix B) and Health Risk Assessment,
prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. on January 21, 2025 (Appendix C).
Threshold (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin)
which includes parts of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside Counties and all of Orange County. The
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
monitor air quality within the Basin.
Air quality plans describe air pollution control strategies and measures to be implemented by a city,
county, region, and/or air district. The primary purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area that does
not attain federal and State air quality standards into compliance with the requirements of the federal
Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. In addition, air quality plans are developed to ensure that an
area maintains a healthy level of air quality based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The AQMP is prepared by SCAQMD and the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The AQMP provides policies and control
measures that reduce emissions to attain both State and federal ambient air quality standards.
According to the SCAQMD, a project is consistent with the AQMP if the project is consistent with
anticipated growth and would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or
the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook, identifies two
key indicators of consistency with the AQMP:
1. Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of project buildout
and phase.
2. Whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality
standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to the SCAG’s growth forecasts, and associated assumptions included
in the AQMP. The future air quality levels projected in the AQMP are based on SCAG’s growth projections,
which are based, in part, on the general plans of cities located within the SCAG region. The Project site
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 42 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
has a General Plan Land Use designation of Light Industrial (I-L) and a zoning designation of Specific Plan
(SP). As described in Section 4.13, Population and Housing, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate
approximately 412 employees based on the SCAG’s employment generation rate of one employee for
every 1,195 SF of industrial space. According to the SCAG, employment in the City is expected to increase
by 15,500 jobs between 2019 and 2050.8 Based on these growth projections, buildout of the Proposed
Project would represent approximately 2.6 percent of the projected employment growth within the City.
It is anticipated that the employment base for both the construction and operational phases of the
Proposed Project would come from the existing population in the region. Thus, the Proposed Project
would not induce population growth or growth in the area. The Proposed Project is consistent with the
land use designation and development density presented in the SWIP. The site is within the JND which
permits logistics and distribution facilities. The maximum buildout of the site based on the JND FAR of
0.55, would result in up to 532,587 SF of industrial development. The Proposed Project would develop a
492,240 SF logistics and distribution facility, inclusive of a 10,000 SF ground floor office and a 10,000 SF
mezzanine; therefore, the Proposed Project would not exceed the anticipated buildout evaluated in the
SWIP Specific Plan Final EIR, and would not exceed the anticipated job growth projections used by the
SCAQMD to develop the AQMP. Thus, no new impact would occur.
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 2 refers are related to the CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown
in Table AQ-1 and Table AQ-2, below, and discussed further in Appendix B, the Proposed Project would
not exceed the short-term construction standards or long-term operational standards and would
therefore not violate any air quality standards. Thus, the Proposed Project would be consistent with
Criterion No. 2, and no new impact would occur.
The Approved Project FEIR identified impacts during construction as a significant and unavoidable impact
on air quality. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f were identified in the FEIR to reduce air
emissions from implementation/development of the Approved Project.
The Approved Project FEIR identified air quality operational impacts associated with the buildout of the
SWIP Specific Plan as significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a to 4.2-2k were identified as
measures that would reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible. The Proposed Project would be
required to implement the following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR and would not
result in any new or greater impact than disclosed in the Approved Project FEIR. With implementation of
the following mitigation measures, Proposed Project impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Project. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR
are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
4.2-1a All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operation condition so as to
reduce emissions. The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction
8 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024. Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/23-2987-tr-demographics-growth-forecast-final-040424.pdf?1712261839 (accessed February 10, 2025)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 43 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per the manufacturer’s
specification. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City
verification.
4.2-1b Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, all applicants shall submit construction plans
to the City of Fontana denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use.
Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction
equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible
for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by
the SCAQMD as well as City Planning Staff.
4.2-1c All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD
Rule 1113.
4.2-1d Projects that result in the construction of more than 19 single-family residential units, 40
multifamily residential units, or 45,000 square feet of retail/commercial/industrial space
shall be required to apply paints either by hand or high-volume low pressure (HVLP) spray.
These measures may reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) associated with the
application of paints and coatings by an estimated 60 to 75 percent. Alternatively, the
contractor may specify the use of low volatility paints and coatings. Several of currently
available primers have VOC contents of less than 0.85 pounds per gallon (e.g., Dulux
professional exterior primer 100 percent acrylic). Top coats can be less than 0.07 pounds
per gallon (8 grams per liter) (e.g., Lifemaster 2000-series). This latter measure would
reduce these VOC emissions by more than 70 percent. Larger projects should incorporate
both the use of HVLP or hand application and the requirement for low volatility coatings.
4.2-1e All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108.
4.2-1f Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans for future
development projects within the project area, future developments shall include a dust
control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications. The dust control
plan shall include measures to meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403.
Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts.
• Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts.
• All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting
the surrounding areas.
• Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to
surrounding areas.
• Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut.
• Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions, and as often as
needed on windy days or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust
and minimize the release of visible emissions from the construction site.
• Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to
stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation.
• Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 44 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt
dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by
trucks departing project sites.
• Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight-fitting tarp.
• Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
• Provide for permanent sealing of all graded areas, as applicable, at the earliest
practicable time after soil disturbance.
• Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment.
• Use electric equipment whenever practicable.
• Shut off engines when not in use.
4.2-2a All “large-scale” (e.g., over 10 acres per day) project Applicants shall provide incentives to
use mass transit including the placement of bus stop shelters along major thoroughfares
if not so equipped. (City Staff shall determine what denotes a “large-scale” project.)
4.2-2b All “large-scale” (e.g., over 10 acres per day) project Applicants shall incorporate a
bike/walking path between these shelters, the proposed residential areas, and the
proposed commercial areas. These paths shall be lit and configured so as to avoid
potential conflict with roadways and railroad activities.
4.2-2c All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be
left idling for prolonged periods pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations,
Section 2485, which limits idle times to not more than five minutes.
4.2-2d The City shall require that both industrial and commercial uses designate preferential
parking for vanpools.
4.2-2e The proposed commercial and industrial areas shall incorporate food service.
4.2-2f All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to
post both bus and MetroLink schedules in conspicuous areas.
4.2-2g All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be requested
to configure their operating schedules around the MetroLink schedule to the extent
reasonably feasible.
4.2-2h All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate high
efficiency/low polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because the Proposed Project is not a residential
or commercial project.]
4.2-2i All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane
windows and weather-stripping.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because the Proposed Project is not a residential
or commercial project.]
4.2-2j All residential, commercial, and industrial structures shall be required to incorporate light
colored roofing materials.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 45 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.2-2k Prior to approval of future development projects within the project area, the City of
Fontana shall conduct project-level environmental review to determine potential vehicle
emission impacts associated with the project(s). Mitigation measures shall be developed
for each project as it is considered to mitigate potentially significant impacts to the extent
feasible. Potential mitigation measures may require that facilities with over 250
employees (full or part-time employees at a worksite for a consecutive six-month period
calculated as a monthly average), as required by the Air Quality Management Plan,
implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact pertaining to conflict with or
obstructing implementation of the AQMP. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f, 4.2-2a through 4.2-
2g, 4.2-2j, and 4.2-2k would reduce construction and operational emissions and the Proposed Project’s
impacts would be less than significant. However, impacts from the Approved Project would remain
significant and unavoidable. The Proposed Project’s impacts would be consistent with development in the
area and would be in compliance with applicable AQMP measures. Therefore, no new or more severe
impact relative to air quality emissions from the previously identified significant and unavoidable impact
evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur with implementation of the Project. Additionally, no
new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the
time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would change the significance determination
in the Approved Project FEIR.
Threshold (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
Construction Emissions
No New or More Severe Impact: Emissions from the construction phase were estimated based on
information from the Applicant for construction equipment requirements and schedule. It is assumed
construction of the Proposed Project would occur over a period of approximately 22 months. Construction
activities were assumed to occur for eight hours per day for five days per week. Project construction
activities would include demolition of existing on-site structures, site preparation, grading, building,
paving, and architectural coating activities. CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 was used to calculate expected
pollutant emissions generated from the construction of the Proposed Project. Table AQ-1 below displays
the maximum daily emissions in pounds per day that are expected to be generated from the construction
of the Proposed Project in comparison to the daily thresholds established by the SCAQMD.
Table AQ-1: Project Regional Construction Emissions
Construction Activity Maximum Daily Regional Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2025
Demolition 2.9 49.7 35.7 0.2 25.0 5.5
Site Preparation 4.1 37.5 33.5 0.1 7.8 4.5
Grading 3.7 36.1 32.5 0.1 5.2 2.7
Building Construction 2.2 15.2 27.8 <0.1 3.9 1.3
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 46 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Construction Activity Maximum Daily Regional Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions
2025 4.1 49.7 35.7 0.2 25.0 5.5
2026
Building Construction 2.1 14.3 30.4 0.1 3.8 1.2
Maximum Daily Emissions
2026 2.1 14.3 30.4 0.1 3.8 1.2
2027
Building Construction 2.0 13.7 29.3 <0.1 3.8 1.2
Paving 1.9 6.9 10.0 <0.1 0.3 0.3
Architectural Coating 67.0 1.3 4.3 <0.1 0.6 0.2
Maximum Daily Emissions
2027 67.0 13.7 29.3 <0.1 3.8 1.2
Maximum Daily Emissions
2025-2027 67.0 49.7 35.7 0.2 25.0 5.5
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: lbs/day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur
oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size; SCAQMD
= South Coast Air Quality Management District
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix B).
As shown in Table AQ-1, construction emissions associated with the Proposed Project would not exceed
the SCAQMD thresholds for reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), CO, sulfur oxides (Sox),
particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), or particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
(PM2.5) emissions. In addition, the Proposed Project would be required to implement SWIP EIR Mitigation
Measures 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f, which would further reduce construction-related emissions. Therefore,
no new impacts related to regional construction air quality emissions would occur from implementation
of the Proposed Project.
Operational Emissions
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project’s operational emissions would be generated from mobile
sources, area sources, energy sources, off-road equipment, and stationary sources. Mobile sources from
the daily vehicle and truck trips constitute the largest source of operational emissions. Area source
emissions are associated with landscape maintenance activities and periodic architectural coatings, while
energy-source emissions are associated with natural gas and electricity consumption. Off-road equipment
emissions are associated with forklifts, cranes, loaders, pumps, and pressure washers, while stationary
source emissions are associated with emergency generators, fire pumps, and process boilers. CalEEMod
estimated emissions from the operation of the Proposed Project and SWIP Buildout of the Project site are
shown in Table AQ-2 below.
Table AQ-2: Project Regional Operational Emissions
Operational Activity Maximum Daily Regional Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 3.5 25.5 47.6 0.3 14.8 4.1
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 47 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Operational Activity Maximum Daily Regional Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area 15.4 0.2 21.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy 0.2 2.8 2.3 <0.1 0.2 0.2
Off-Road <0.1 23.8 237.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Stationary 0.8 2.2 2.0 <0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Project
Operational Emissions 19.8 54.4 311.1 0.3 15.2 4.5
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Approved Project
Emissions 25.9 48.9 142.4 0.6 33.2 9.4
Emissions Comparison
(Proposed Project –
Approved Project)
-6.1 5.5 168.8 -0.26 -18 -4.9
Notes: lbs/day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur
oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size; SCAQMD
= South Coast Air Quality Management District
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix B).
As shown in Table AQ-2, the Proposed Project would result in higher emissions of NOx and CO pollutants
than would occur under maximum development of the site as allowed by JND. However, the Project-
related operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or
PM2.5 emissions; thus, the Proposed Project would not have a significant effect on regional air quality. In
addition, the Proposed Project would be required to implement SWIP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.2-2c
through 4.2-2g, 4.2-2j, and 4.2-2k, which would further reduce operational emissions. Therefore, no new
impacts related to regional operational air quality emissions would occur from implementation of the
Proposed Project.
Cumulative Emissions
No New or More Severe Impact: The regional analysis of construction and operational emissions
conducted for the Approved Project FEIR indicates that without mitigation, the SWIP Specific Plan Project
would exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Mitigation
Measures 4.2-1a through 4.2-1f and 4.2-2a to 4.2-2k were identified within the Approved Project FEIR
that would reduce cumulative emissions to the extent feasible. However, the Approved Project FEIR
concluded that even with implementation of these mitigation measures, cumulative impacts would be
significant and unavoidable.
The Proposed Project’s emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during both construction and
operations. Thus, the Proposed Project would not result in a new or greater impact than identified in the
Approved Project FEIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 48 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a to 4.2-1f are applicable for construction and 4.2-2c through 4.2-2g, 4.2-2j, and
4.2-2k are applicable for operations.
Conclusion
No new or more severe impacts from previously identified significant impacts evaluated in the Approved
Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known
and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would
impact the prior finding of no significant and unavoidable impact under this issue area.
Threshold (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No New or More Severe Impact: The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a potentially significant impact could
occur if a project exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The criteria used in
the Approved Project FEIR to address this impact included the preparation of a localized impact traffic
analysis and a CO hot spot analysis. CO concentrations would be well below the State and federal
standards according to the Approved Project FEIR. In addition, the Approved Project FEIR concluded a
less-than-significant impact from CO hotspots. Therefore, the Proposed Project construction and
operation emissions were analyzed to assess localized significance thresholds (LSTs). The Basin is currently
considered a nonattainment area for the NAAQS for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Although the Los Angeles
County portion of the Basin is designated a nonattainment area for the NAAQS for lead, all other portions
of the Basin (including San Bernardino County) is designated as in attainment. The Basin is considered a
nonattainment area for CAAQS for NO2, ozone, and PM10, and PM2.5. Levels of PM10 and PM2.5 are locally
high enough that contributions from new sources may add to the concentrations of those pollutants and
contribute to a projected air quality violation. Two criteria are used to assess the significance of this
impact: (1) the localized significance analysis; and (2) the CO hot spots analysis.
The localized significance analysis in the FEIR demonstrated that the Approved Project would exceed the
localized thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
Localized Mobile Source Impacts - CO Hot Spot Analysis
The Proposed Project would generate a total of 1,505 daily passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips, 82 AM,
and 88 PM peak hour PCE trips (Appendix M). Based on the analysis presented below, a CO “hot spots”
analysis is not needed to determine whether the change in the level of service (LOS) at an intersection
would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. An adverse CO concentration,
known as a “hot spot,” would occur if an exceedance of the State one-hour standard of 20 parts per million
(ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. At the time of the 1993 Handbook 9, the SCAG
was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. It has long been recognized that CO
hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. However,
vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the
allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there
9 SCAQMD is in the process of developing an “Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook” to replace the 1993 Handbook. Refer to
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook for updated sections.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 49 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles,
introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions
control technologies, CO concentration in the Basin is now designated as attainment. Also, CO
concentrations in the Proposed Project vicinity have steadily declined.
Similar considerations are also employed by other air districts when evaluating potential CO concentration
impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District concludes that under existing
and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single
intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or
horizontal air does not mix to generate a significant CO impact. A Trip Generation Analysis was prepared
for the Proposed Project, and the Proposed Project would generate 82 AM peak hour trips and 88 PM
peak hour PCE trips (Appendix M). This would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a
CO “hot spot”. Therefore, CO “hot spots” are not an environmental impact of concern for the Proposed
Project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would therefore be less than
significant.
Localized Significance Threshold
The SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology (2008) was used to analyze the
neighborhood scale impacts of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with Project-specific mass emissions.
Introduced in 2003, the LST methodology was revised in 2008 to include the PM2.5 significance threshold
methodology and update the LST mass rate lookup tables for the new 1-hour NO2 standard.
For determining localized air quality impacts from small projects in a defined geographic Source Receptor
Area (SRA), the LST methodology provides mass emission rate lookup tables for 1-acre, 2-acre, and 5-acre
parcels by SRA. The Proposed Project site is in SRA Zone 34, the Central San Bernardino Valley. During
construction, the maximum disturbed area serves to determine the LST’s project size value for
construction. The maximum daily area disturbed during construction of the Proposed Project would be 4
acres during the site grading activity. Therefore, the analysis set the maximum daily disturbed area during
construction as 4 acres for the localized assessment of construction impacts.
Distance to the nearest sensitive receptor also determines the emission thresholds. The sensitive
receptors closest to the Project site include residential homes about 55.8 meters (183 feet) south of the
Project’s southern boundary; therefore, the construction and operational emission thresholds for 50
meters were used, to provide a conservative analysis.
In summary, Project construction emissions were compared to the LST screening tables in SRA 34 based
on a 50-meter source-receptor distance and a disturbed acreage of 4 acres.
The LSTs for operation are determined by the size of the project site and the distance to the nearest
sensitive receptor as well as the maximum trip length possible within the project site. As the Project site
is 22.26 acres, the threshold for 5 acres was utilized to yield a conservative analysis. Project operational
emissions were compared to the LST screening tables in SRA 34, based on a 50-meter source-receptor
distance and an acreage of 5 acres.
As shown in Table AQ-3 below, the Proposed Project’s localized construction emissions would not exceed
the SCAQMD thresholds. As shown in Table AQ-4, the Proposed Project would result in higher localized
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 50 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
emissions of NOx and CO pollutants in comparison to the approved SWIP Buildout of the Project site.
However, the Project’s localized operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for
ROG, NOx, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. Thus, impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial
criteria pollutants would be less than significant, and no new impacts would occur.
Table AQ-3: Project Localized Construction Emissions
Construction Activity Maximum Daily Localized Emissions (lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2025
Demolition 22.2 19.9 18.6 3.5
Site Preparation 37.5 32.4 7.6 4.5
Grading 32.6 29.4 4.2 2.4
Building Construction 11.3 14.1 0.5 0.4
Maximum Daily Emissions 2025 37.5 32.4 18.6 4.5
2026
Building Construction 10.7 14.1 0.4 0.4
Maximum Daily Emissions 2026 10.7 14.1 0.4 0.4
2027
Building Construction 10.2 14.0 0.4 0.3
Paving 6.9 10.0 0.3 0.3
Architectural Coating 1.1 1.5 <0.1 <0.1
Maximum Daily Emissions 2027 10.2 14.0 0.4 0.3
Maximum Daily Emissions 2025-
2027 37.5 32.4 18.6 4.5
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 268 2,085 44 10
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Notes: lbs/day = pounds per day; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter
less than 10 microns in size; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size; SCAQMD = South
Coast Air Quality Management District
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix B).
Table AQ-4: Project Localized Operational Emissions
Operational Activity Maximum Daily Localized Emissions (lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 3.1 5.9 0.2 <0.1
Area 0.2 21.4 <0.1 <0.1
Energy 2.8 2.3 0.2 0.2
Off-Road 23.8 237.8 <0.1 <0.1
Stationary 2.2 2.0 0.1 0.1
Total Project Emissions 32.0 269.4 0.5 0.4
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 302 2,396 11 3
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Approved Project Emissions 12.1 47.5 1.1 0.7
Emissions Comparison
(Proposed Project – Approved
Project)
19.9 221.9 -0.5 -0.3
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 51 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Notes: lbs/day = pounds per day; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter
less than 10 microns in size; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size; SCAQMD = South
Coast Air Quality Management District
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix B).
Construction and Operational-Related Diesel Particulate Matter
CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) in 1998. Mobile sources
(including trucks, buses, automobiles, trains, ships, and farm equipment) are by far the largest source of
diesel emissions. The exhaust from diesel engines includes hundreds of different gaseous and particulate
components, many of which are toxic. Diesel exhaust is composed of two phases, either gas or particulate
– both contribute to the risk. The gas phase is composed of many of the urban TACs, such as acetaldehyde,
acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The particulate
phase has many different types that can be classified by size or composition. The sizes of diesel
particulates of greatest health concern are fine and ultrafine particles. These particles may be composed
of elemental carbon with adsorbed compounds such as organics, sulfates, nitrates, metals, and other trace
elements. Diesel exhaust is emitted from a broad range of on- and off-road diesel engines.
A health risk assessment (HRA) was conducted for the Proposed Project (Appendix C). For purposes of the
HRA sensitive receptors were placed within the air dispersion model at the location of existing residences
and locations along the off-site Project vehicle travel routes. The sensitive receptors closest to the Project
site includes residential homes about 55.8 meters (183 feet) south of the Project site’s southern boundary,
while the nearest worker receptor is located at a warehouse 43.6 meters (143 feet) to the west of the
Project site’s boundary.
Construction: A construction HRA, which evaluates construction-period health risk to off-site receptors,
was performed for the Proposed Project. Table AQ-5 presents a summary of the cancer risks and chronic
non-cancer hazards resulting from the Project's construction DPM emissions along with the SCAQMD
health risk significance thresholds.
Table AQ-5 Summary of Proposed Project Construction Health Risk
Receptor
Cancer Risk (per million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk Significance Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Infant to Adult (30 years) 2.35 10 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Child 2.35 10 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Adult 0.04 10 No
Maximum Impacted Worker
Receptor 0.13 10 No
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 52 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Receptor
Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard Index
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk Significance Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Infant to Adult (30 years) <0.01 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Adult <0.01 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Worker
Receptor 0.01 1.0 No
Source: Health Risk Assessment (Appendix C).
As shown in Table AQ-5, the estimated maximum cancer risk during construction is 2.35 in one million for
sensitive/residential receptors, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one
million. The estimated maximum cancer risk for worker receptors during construction is 0.13 in one million
and would also not exceed the threshold. In addition, the Project’s maximum estimated construction for
non-cancer health risk is 0.01 (for the maximum impacted sensitive receptor), which would also not
exceed the significance threshold of 1.0. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not
exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. No new impact would occur.
Operation: To determine the potential health risk to people living and working near the Proposed Project
associated with the exhaust of diesel-powered trucks and equipment, an operational HRA was conducted.
The residential risk incorporates both the risk for a child living in a nearby residence for 9 years (the
standard period of time for child risk) and an adult living in a nearby residence for 30 years (considered a
conservative period of time for an individual to live in any one residence).
Table AQ-6 Summary of Proposed Project Operational Health Risk
Receptor
Cancer Risk (per million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk Significance Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Infant to Adult (30 years) 3.86 10 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Child 2.41 10 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Adult 0.49 10 No
Maximum Impacted Worker
Receptor 0.51 10 No
Receptor
Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard Index
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk
Significance
Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Infant to Adult (30 years) <0.01 1.0 No
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 53 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor - Child <0.01 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Adult <0.01 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Worker
Receptor 0.10 1.0 No
Source: Health Risk Assessment (Appendix C).
As shown in Table AQ-6, the estimated maximum cancer risk during operation is 3.86 in one million for
sensitive/residential receptors, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one
million. The estimated maximum cancer risks for worker receptors during operations is 0.51 in one million
and would also not exceed the threshold. In addition, the Project’s maximum estimated construction for
non-cancer health risk is 0.1 (for the maximum impacted sensitive receptor), which would also not exceed
the significance threshold of 1.0. As these results show, all health risk levels to nearby residents from
operation-related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, operation
of the Proposed Project would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. No new impact would occur.
Combined Construction and Operation: Table AQ-7 presents the combined construction and operational
cancer risk for the Project.
Table AQ-7 Summary of Combined Project Construction Operational Health Risk
Receptor
Cancer Risk (per million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk Significance Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Infant to Adult (30 years) 6.31 10 No
Maximum Impacted Worker
Receptor (25 years) 0.49 10 No
Source: Health Risk Assessment (Appendix C).
As shown in Table AQ-7, the Project would result in a maximum cancer risk impact of 6.31 in one million
at the nearest sensitive/residential receptor and a maximum cancer risk impact of 0.49 in one million for
the nearest worker receptor. The combined construction and operational cancer risk impacts would not
exceed the SCAQMD cancer health risk significance threshold of 10 in one million. Therefore, no new
impacts would occur from implementation of the Project.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.2-1b, 4.2-2c through 4.2-2g, 4.4-2j and 4.4-2k, discussed above, are applicable.
Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a to 4.2-1f are applicable for construction and 4.2-2c through 4.2-2g, 4.2-2j, and
4.2-2k are applicable for operations.
Conclusion
Air quality impacts related to the Proposed Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the
Approved Project FEIR, as supplemented by additional technical analysis. No new or more severe impacts
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 54 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
relative to air quality from previously identified significant impacts evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR
would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could
not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would alter the
Approved Project FEIR’s significance finding.
Threshold (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of people)?
No New or More Severe Impact: The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as
sources of odors. These land uses include the following: agriculture, wastewater treatment plant, food
processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The
Proposed Project is a warehouse facility and does not propose to include any odor-inducing uses on the
Project site. As the Proposed Project would not be a source of objectionable odors, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact from odors. There are no new
potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or
considerably different mitigation measures are required for issues related to air quality.
Overall Air Quality Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to air quality.
Therefore, preparation of an SEIR analysis is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 55 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
4.4.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that future development occurring within the SWIP Specific Plan
Update area would not adversely affect, either directly or through habitat modification, any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species, any riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural
community upon the implementation of the following mitigation measures: 4.3-1a through 4.3-1h.
Similarly, the Approved Project FEIR determined that future development would not affect any wetlands
and drainages with implementation of mitigation measure 4.3-3a, or habitat conservation plans upon the
implementation of the following mitigation measures: 4.3-1a through 4.3-1f.
4.4.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A Biological Due Diligence Investigation (BDDI) was conducted by ELMT Consulting in April 2024 to
document baseline conditions and to determine the potential for special-status plant and wildlife species
to occur on the project site. The BDDI is included in Appendix D. The BDDI presents the results of the field
survey conducted on March 29, 2024, and literature review.
Threshold (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
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the BDDI (Appendix D), the Project site is developed,
completely disturbed, and no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were
observed on-site during field survey. Due to the disturbed status of the site, it does not provide habitat
that could be utilized by species listed or candidates for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or California Native Plant Society (CNPS).
Therefore, no new impacts relative to a substantial adverse effect to candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species would occur due to implementation of the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
There are no new or more severe significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required for issues related to biological resources. The FEIR includes measures to
reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the Approved Project.
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR were intended to protect biological
resources within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area.
4.3-1a The City of Fontana Planning Division shall require that all future project applicants
prepare a Biological Assessment prior to the issuance of grading permits. The Biological
Assessment shall include a vegetation map of the proposed project area, analysis of the
impacts associated with plant and animal species and habitats, and conduct habitat
evaluations for burrowing owl, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, San Diego pocket mouse,
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 56 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
western mastiff bat, western yellow bat, and San Diego desert woodrat. If any of these
species are determined to be present, then coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and/or California Department of Fish and Game shall be conducted to determine
what, if any, permits or clearances are required prior to development.
4.3-1b Any future land disturbance for site-specific developments within the Project site shall be
conducted outside of the State-identified bird nesting season (February 15 through
September 1). If construction during the nesting season must occur, the site shall be
evaluated by a City-approved biologist prior to ground disturbance to determine if nesting
birds exist on site. If any nests are discovered, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate
buffer zone around the nest, depending on the species and type of construction activity.
Only construction activities approved by the biologist shall take place within the buffer
zone until the nest is vacated.
4.3-1c: Prior to any ground disturbance, trees scheduled for removal shall be evaluated by a City-
approved biologist for roosting bats. If a roost is present the biologist will develop a plan
to minimize impacts to the bats to the greatest extent feasible.
4.3-1d The City shall encourage the preservation of natural habitat in conjunction with private
or public development projects.
4.3-1e Mitigation shall be provided for removal of any natural habitat, including restoration of
degraded habitat of the same type, creation of new or extension of existing habitat of the
same type, financial contribution to a habitat conservation fund administered by a
Federal, State, or local government agency, or by a non-profit agency conservancy.
[This mitigation measure does not apply to the Proposed Project because no habitat or
USFWS-designated Critical habitat occurs on-site.]
4.3-1f Local CEQA procedures shall be applied to identify potential impacts to rare, threatened
and endangered species.
4.3-1g Evidence of satisfactory compliance shall be provided by Project Applicant with any
required State and/or Federal permits, prior to issuance of grading permits for individual
projects.
4.3-1h Any development that results in the potential take or substantial loss of occupied habitat
for any threatened or endangered species shall conduct formal consultation with the
appropriate regulatory agency, and shall implement required mitigation pursuant to
applicable protocols. Consultation shall be on a project-by-project basis and measures
shall be negotiated independently for each development project.
[This mitigation measure does not apply to the Proposed Project because no federally-
and/or State-listed threatened or endangered species exist in the vicinity of the Project
site.]
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 57 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on a status or listed species. Similar
to the Approved Project FEIR findings, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to cause any impacts to
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by the CDFW or USFWS. The Proposed
Project would redevelop an existing developed and heavily disturbed area. No new or more severe
impacts from a previously identified significant and unavoidable impact evaluated in the Approved FEIR
would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could
not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact
the prior finding of significant and unavoidable impacts under this issue area.
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR found that future development within the
SWIP Specific Plan Update area would not adversely affect any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community upon the implementation of recommended mitigation measures. The Project site is currently
utilized as an industrial steel yard and does not contain jurisdictional waters, i.e., Waters of the U.S. as
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), and/or streambed and associated riparian habitat as regulated by the CDFW. No CDFW
jurisdictional stream or associated riparian habitat occurs on the site, as the Project site has been fully
developed. In addition, no waters of the U.S. or wetlands occur on the Project site. Further, no vernal
pools are located on the site (Appendix D).
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR findings, no drainages are located on-site, and no aspect of the
Proposed Project site presents evidence of jurisdictional waters. Therefore, no new impacts relative to
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would be caused due to the Proposed Project
implementation and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project.
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a to 4.3-1h, discussed above under Threshold 4.4.2 (a), do not apply to the
Proposed Project because no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community occurs on-site.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on a riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed
Project. No riparian habitat exists on-site; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation
measures are required. No new or more severe impact would occur from the Proposed Project
implementation.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 58 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR found that the SWIP Specific Plan Update
area has the potential for streambeds, wetlands, and/or riparian areas to occur on-site, especially in
undeveloped or unpaved areas throughout the Specific Plan Update area. The Approved Project FEIR
suggested that as development proposals within the Specific Plan Update area are received, properties,
where a potential for wetlands and/or drainages exists, will require the preparation of a jurisdictional
delineation (Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a). The jurisdictional delineation would be utilized to determine the
acreage of impact, regulating agencies, jurisdictional limits, and mitigation requirements. Upon
implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, impacts related to wetlands and drainages
would be less than significant.
As discussed in the previous response, no CDFW jurisdictional streams or riparian habitat occur on the
Proposed Project site. Thus, a jurisdictional delineation is not required for the Proposed Project. In
addition, no waters of the United States or wetlands occur on the site. Further, no vernal pools are located
on the site. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not
have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would change the
finding of less-than-significant impact under this threshold.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project.
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
The following mitigation measure from the Approved Project FEIR was intended to protect biological
resources within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area.
4.3-3a For future development proposals that could potentially affect jurisdictional drainages or
wetlands (to be determined by the City of Fontana Planning Division), the project
applicant shall prepare a jurisdictional delineation to determine the extent of
jurisdictional area, if any, as part of the regulatory permitting process.
[This mitigation measure does not apply to the Proposed Project because no jurisdictional
wetlands or drainages exist on-site.]
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on wetlands. The Proposed Project
would be consistent with the Approved Project FEIR in that it would not result in a significant impact to
wetlands including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc. No jurisdictional drainages and/or
wetlands exist on site. No new or more severe impact would occur from the Proposed Project
implementation.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 59 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No New or More Severe Impact: Refer above to thresholds 4.4.2(a) and (b). The Approved Project FEIR
concluded that the SWIP Specific Plan Update area does not function as a wildlife movement corridor,
since the area is mostly developed, with most of the land converted to industrial, commercial, and
residential uses. It is noted that the Jurupa Mountains, located south of the SWIP Specific Plan Update
area, provide habitat for many species of plants and animals. However, the mountains function as an
ecological island and do not provide for significant movement to the urbanized north.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR findings, the Proposed Project site is surrounded by urban
development (paved roads, industrial development, commercial development, and residential
development), which have eliminated connection to nearby wildlife movement corridors. Based on the
Proposed Project site’s location, and due to the urbanized nature of the area, no migratory corridors,
migratory fish, or established native resident species would be affected.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR findings, the BDDI (Appendix D) determined that the
ornamental trees on the perimeter of the project site have the potential to provide nesting opportunities
for avian species. Therefore, the Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b from
the Approved Project FEIR. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b, Proposed Project impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project.
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Refer to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b, discussed above under Threshold 4.4.2 (a).
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on fish and wildlife and their habitat.
The Proposed Project would not conflict with the movement of wildlife habitat, including migratory birds,
with the implementation of Approved Project FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b). Therefore, there are no
new or more severe impacts from the Proposed Project associated with interference of movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or foraging/nesting birds.
Threshold (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances related to protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the Approved Project FEIR, the SWIP Specific Plan Update
developments would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 60 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan, or local
policies/ordinances upon implementation of recommended mitigation. Additionally, the Approved
Project FEIR concluded that development in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area could involve the removal
of heritage, significant, or specimen trees; the Approved Project FEIR concluded that for protection and
preservation of heritage trees, significant trees, and specimen trees on public and private property, the
Proposed Project should comply with Chapter 28 Article III of the Municipal Code, in particular, Code
Section 28-64, Permit Required for Removal of Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees, which specifies
no person shall remove or cause the removal of any heritage, significant, or specimen tree unless a Tree
Removal Permit is first obtained. Impacts in this regard are considered less than significant following
compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Code.
Moreover, the Approved Project FEIR concluded that neither the City nor the County has adopted a
federal or State habitat conservation plan that provides any requirements or guidance for the SWIP
Specific Plan Update area. Buildout of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would not conflict with an
adopted habitat conservation plan. Although a recovery plan was released in 1997 for Delhi sands flower-
loving fly (DSF) that includes the SWIP Specific Plan Update area, an assessment of the recovery of DSF in
2008 indicated that much of the Jurupa Recovery Unit may no longer provide conservation value for DSF.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a through 4.3-1f would provide the necessary
analysis to formally determine whether areas within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area provide viable
habitat for DSF. Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR findings, impacts in this regard are considered
less than significant with the implementation of Approved FEIR mitigation measures.
As discussed above under Thresholds 4.4.2 (a)-4.4.2(d), the Project site does not contain suitable habitat
for special-status plants, wildlife, and plant communities. In addition, the City’s Municipal Code (Section
28-61) does not apply to the Project because the on-site trees do not qualify for “heritage tree,”
“significant tree,” “specimen tree,” and/or windrow status. Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR
findings, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would change the finding of
less-than-significant impact under this threshold.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project.
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Refer to Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a through 4.3-1d, 4.3-1f and 4.3-1g discussed above under Threshold
4.4.2 (a). Additionally, the Mitigation Measures 4.3-1e and 4.3-1h, discussed above under Threshold 4.4.2
(a), do not apply to the Project because no habitat or USFWS-designated Critical habitat occurs on-site
and no federally- and/or State-listed threatened or endangered species exist in the immediate vicinity of
the Project site.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 61 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to conflict with plans,
policies, and ordinances. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed
Project; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Overall Biological Resources Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified
impacts, with respect to biological resources. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 62 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.5 Cultural Resources
4.5.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR determined that although adverse impacts to historical and archaeological
resources within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area are not likely to occur, in order to mitigate any
potential unforeseeable impacts to a less-than-significant level, the following Mitigation Measures were
recommended: Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a, 4.4-1b, 4.4-2a through 4.4-2c, and 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b. In
addition, the Approved Project FEIR complied with Senate Bill 18, which involved consultation with a total
of eight tribes, from whom two responses were received (Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and the
Morongo Band of Mission Indians).
4.5.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
According to the Approved Project FEIR, the Historical/Archaeological Records Search prepared for the
SWIP Specific Plan Update concluded that the likelihood of encountering potentially significant historic-
period resources within boundaries is low. Although a total of nine historic-period resources were
documented as part of the Historical/Archaeological Records Search, it was determined that all nine were
either unlikely to be impacted by the Approved Project or did not merit listing in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The Approved Project FEIR
determined that the SWIP Specific Plan Update area was highly disturbed due to industrial, residential
and agricultural land uses and that the site has had more than 19 previous cultural resources studies that
have taken place, resulting in the recording of 36 cultural resources within a one-mile radius of the
Approved Project site. As a result of these studies, no archaeological resources or Native American sites
were found within the boundaries. Thus, the Approved Project FEIR determined that the likelihood of
encountering potentially significant prehistoric archaeological remains within SWIP Specific Plan Update
area is low; however, the following Mitigation Measures were recommended: 4.4-1a, 4.4-1b, 4.4-2a, 4.4-
2b, and 4.4-2c.
A Project site-specific Cultural Resources Records Search was prepared by BFSA Environmental Services
on April 17, 2024 (see Appendix E) which is summarized below.
As part of the Cultural Resources Records Search, an archaeological records search was conducted at the
South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). This included a review of all recorded historic and
prehistoric cultural resources, as well as a review of known cultural resources, and survey and excavation
reports generated from projects completed within a one-half mile radius of the Proposed Project site. In
addition, a review was conducted of the NRHP, the CRHR, and documents and inventories from the
California Office of Historic Preservation, including the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California
Points of Historical Interest, Listing of National Register Properties, and the Inventory of Historic
Structures.
The records search at SCCIC identified one previously recorded resource within the Project site, Site SBR-
7426H, the historic Declezville Branch Line of the Southern Pacific Railroad. An additional five resources
are recorded within one-half mile of the Project, including Declez Ranch, two historic transmission lines,
a historic sewage treatment plant, and historic concrete footings with an associated trash scatter. The
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 63 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
records search results also indicate that 18 previous studies were conducted within one-half mile of the
Project, none of which cross the Project site.
A Project-site specific Historic Resources Assessment was prepared by JM Research and Consulting on
May 3, 2024, and is included as Appendix F. The Historic Resources Assessment determined that none of
the on-site structures are eligible for listing in the NRHP or CHRP.
Threshold (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant
Section 15064.5?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project site is completely disturbed and consists of a warehouse,
office, and railroad spur track. The existing on-site structures were evaluated to determine eligibility under
Section 15064.5. The Historic Resources Assessment (Appendix F) stated that the remnant segment of the
Southern Pacific Declez Spur Line within the Project site is not strongly associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national or state history or with significant
persons in the past (NRHP/CRHR Criteria A,B/1,2). The warehouse is of common design and construction
with extensive modifications, and the added office is not of historic age. The assessment found that there
is very little in the historical records regarding the warehouse and office, suggesting they were not of
historical significance. Therefore, the Project site does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value (NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3). The
results of research under this focused study show that extant buildings and structures of the previously
disturbed Proposed Project site have not yielded and are not likely to yield information important in
history or prehistory (NRHP/CRHP Criteria D/4) beyond that which has already been identified by the
current study.
On the local level, the Project site is subject to Chapter 5, Article XIII of the Fontana Municipal Code. As
demonstrated above, the Project site has not been found to possess special historical, archaeological,
cultural, architectural, community or aesthetic value (Criterion 1); be associated with significant persons,
a business use, or events (Criterion 2); embody distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method
of construction, or be a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship (Criterion
3); or have a unique location or singular physical characteristic that represents an established and familiar
visible feature of a neighborhood or community or the city (Criterion 4).
Based on the results of the Historic Resources Assessment, the Project site does not appear to be eligible
for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, or for local designation under the Fontana Municipal Code. As the
Proposed Project site has been found ineligible for designation, it is not considered a historical resource
under CEQA. Therefore, no historical resources would be impacted from implementation of the Proposed
Project, and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
4.4-1a A qualified archaeologist shall perform the following tasks, prior to construction activities
within project boundaries:
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 64 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for historic
resources, a field survey for historical resources within portions of the project site not
previously surveyed for cultural resources shall be conducted.
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for historic
resources, the San Bernardino County Archives shall be contacted for information on
historical property records.
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for sacred
land resources, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted for
information regarding sacred lands.
• All historical resources within the project site, including archaeological and historic
resources older than 50 years, shall be inventoried using appropriate State record
forms and guidelines followed according to the California Office of Historic
Preservation’s handbook “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.” The
archaeologist shall then submit two (2) copies of the completed forms to the San
Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for the assignment of
trinomials.
• The significance and integrity of all historical resources within the project site shall be
evaluated, using criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines for important
archaeological resources and/or 36 CFR 60.4 for eligibility for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places.
• Mitigation measures shall be proposed and conditions of approval (if a local
government action) recommended to eliminate adverse project effects on significant,
important, and unique historical resources, following appropriate CEQA and/or
National Historic Preservation Act’s Section 106 guidelines.
• A technical resources management report shall be prepared, documenting the
inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project site,
following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by
the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a),
December 1989. One copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, shall
be submitted to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for
permanent archiving.
[This mitigation measure has been satisfied through preparation of this Addendum and
related cultural studies.]
4.4-1b If any historical resources and/or human resources are encountered before or during
grading, the developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction
activities and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts on historical resources. Similar to
the Approved Project FEIR’s conclusion, implementation of the Proposed Project would have a less-than-
significant impact to historical resources with implementation of FEIR Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a and
4.4-1b. No new or more severe impact from previously identified significant impacts evaluated in the
Approved Project FEIR would occur. Furthermore, no new information of substantial importance that was
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 65 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available
that would impact the prior finding of less-than-significant impact with mitigation under this threshold.
Threshold (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project site is disturbed and consists of a warehouse, office, and
railroad spur track. As discussed previously, an archaeological records search was conducted at the SCCIC.
The results of the records search at SCCIC identified one previously recorded resource within the Project
site, the historic Declezville Branch Line of the Southern Pacific Railroad (Appendix E). A Historic Resources
Assessment was prepared to evaluate eligibility of existing on-site structures under Section 15064.5.
Based on the results of the Historic Resources Assessment, the Project site is not considered a historical
resource under CEQA (Appendix F). Thus, no historic resources would be impacted from implementation
of the Proposed Project.
The Project site has been previously disturbed; therefore, there is reduced potential for the Project to
impact archaeological resources. However, if previously undocumented cultural resources are identified
during earthmoving activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the nature and
significance of the find and divert earthmoving activities, if necessary, in accordance with Mitigation
Measures 4.4-2a, 4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c.
No new or more severe impact to historical or archaeological resources, relative to the impacts evaluated
in the Approved Project FEIR, would occur. In addition, the Proposed Project would be subject to the City’s
Cultural Resources standard conditions of approval. Furthermore, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR
was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less-than-significant impact with mitigation
under this threshold.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
4.4-2a A qualified archaeologist shall perform the following tasks, prior to construction activities
within project boundaries:
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for
prehistoric resources, a field survey for prehistoric resources within portions of the
project site not previously surveyed for cultural resources shall be conducted.
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for sacred
land resources, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted for
information regarding sacred lands.
• All prehistoric resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms
and two (2) copies of the completed forms shall be submitted to the San Bernardino
County Archaeological Information Center.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 66 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• The significance and integrity of all prehistoric resources within the project site shall
be evaluated using criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines for important
archaeological resources.
• If human remains are encountered on the project site, the San Bernardino County
Coroner’s Office shall be contacted within 24 hours of the find, and all work shall be
halted until a clearance is given by that office and any other involved agencies.
• All resources and data collected within the project site shall be permanently curated
at an appropriate repository within the County.
[This mitigation measure has been satisfied through preparation of this Addendum and
related cultural studies.]
4.4-2b If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the
developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to
take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of
the archaeologist, the City of Fontana shall:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant
modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites
within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the area’s archaeological heritage.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval (if a local
government action) to eliminate adverse Project effects on significant, important, and
unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory,
evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the Project area. Submit one
copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County
Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving.
4.4-2c Where consistent with applicable local, State and federal law and deemed appropriate by
the City, future site-specific development projects shall consider the following requests
by the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians and/or other
tribes as appropriate:
• In the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction
for future development, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and
a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to
assess the find. Work on the overall Project may continue during this period;
• Initiate consultation between the appropriate Native American tribal entity (as
determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards) and
the City/Project Applicant;
• Transfer cultural resources investigations to the appropriate Native American entity
(as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards)
as soon as possible;
• Utilize a Native American Monitor from the appropriate Native American entity (as
determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 67 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
where deemed appropriate or required by the City, during initial ground-disturbing
activities, cultural resource surveys, and/or cultural resource excavations.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The Proposed Project would be subject to comply with the City’s Cultural and Tribal Standard Conditions
of Approval as listed below.
• Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in
the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and
archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the
qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in
origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the
landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request
preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of
the project while evaluation takes place.
• Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to
remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural
Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native
American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in
the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in
the area for educational purposes.
• Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall
be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary
disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary
objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for
archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with
Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologists shall
ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts on an archaeological resource.
Similar to the Approved Project FEIR’s conclusion, implementation of the Proposed Project would have a
less-than-significant impact to archaeological resources with implementation of FEIR Mitigation Measures
4.4-2a, 4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c along with Standard Conditions of Approval. No new or more severe impact
from previously identified significant impacts evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur.
Furthermore, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding
of less-than-significant impact with mitigation under this threshold.
Threshold (c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outsides of formal cemeteries?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the Approved Project FEIR, the Proposed Project site is not
located within a known or suspected cemetery and there are no known human remains within the
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 68 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Proposed Project site. No conditions exist that suggest human remains are likely to be found within the
boundaries of the Proposed Project site. Due to the level of past disturbance in the SWIP Specific Plan
Update area, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or ground-disturbing activities.
The Proposed Project site-specific Cultural Resources Records Search (Appendix E) confirmed that the
Proposed Project site is not likely to contain human remains. However, consistent with the Approved
Project FEIR, if human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance
with applicable laws. California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Sections 7050.5-7055 describe the general
provisions for human remains. Specifically, HSC Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human
remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements
and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the PRC would be implemented, including notification of
the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and consultation
with the individual identified by the NAHC to be the “most likely descendant.”
If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any
area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been called
out, and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the
treatment and disposition of the remains. Furthermore, the Project would adhere to the Standard
Conditions of Approval described above to further reduce impacts to any potential human remains.
Following compliance with State regulations, including Standard Conditions of Approval, impacts to
human remains would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact pertaining to the disturbance of human remains
with adherence to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and the Standard Conditions of Approval. The
Cultural Resources Records Search did not find new potentially significant impacts associated with the
Proposed Project regarding historical, archaeological, or human remains; therefore, no new and/or
considerably different mitigation measures are required, but the Proposed Project must comply with any
applicable State regulation pertaining to human remains, including Standard Conditions of Approval.
Overall Cultural Resources Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to cultural resources.
Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 69 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not
result in significant impacts relative to geology and soils, and no mitigation was identified as necessary to
reduce potential impacts.
4.6.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation was conducted by Moore Twining Associates, Inc.
on August 19, 2015 (Appendix G). Additionally, a Paleontological Resources Assessment was prepared by
BFSA Environmental Services on April 18, 2024 (Appendix H).
Threshold (a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk 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?
Faulting and Seismicity
No New or More Severe Impact: The Alquist-Priolo Zones Special Studies Act defines active faults as those
that have experienced surface displacement or movement during the last 11,000 years. According to the
General Plan EIR, although several earthquake faults exist within and in proximity to the City, none exist
beneath the SWIP Specific Plan Update area boundaries, including the Proposed Project site. The nearest
known active fault is the San Jacinto Fault Zone, located approximately 12.8 miles north of the Proposed
Project site (Appendix G). Consistent with the General Plan EIR, the Project-specific geotechnical study
concluded that the Proposed Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
Therefore, the potential for fault rupture at the site is considered low (Appendix G).
The intensity of ground shaking would depend upon the magnitude of the earthquake, distance to the
epicenter, and the geology of the area between the epicenter and the Proposed Project site. The Proposed
Project would be subject to adherence to standard engineering practices and design criteria relative to
seismic and geologic hazards, in accordance with the most recent California Building Code (CBC). The CBC
includes detailed design requirements related to structural design, soils and foundations, and grading to
ensure that public safety risks due to seismic shaking are minimized to levels below significant.
Liquefaction and Landslides
No New or More Severe Impact: The California Geological Survey (CGS) has not yet conducted detailed
seismic hazards mapping in the area of the Proposed Project site. The general liquefaction susceptibility
of the site was determined by research of the San Bernardino County Official Land Use Plan, General Plan,
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 70 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
and Geologic Hazard Overlay Map FH29C 10 for the Fontana USGS quadrangle which indicates that the
Proposed Project site is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility. According to the
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, groundwater was not encountered in the test borings
drilled to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet (Appendix G). Based on the depth of groundwater in the Project
site vicinity, liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for the Proposed Project (Appendix G).
Because the SWIP Specific Plan Update area and surrounding area are characterized by relatively flat
topography, there are no land features in the vicinity capable of producing landslides. Therefore, the
Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to landslides and no new impacts would result
from the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe new impact on geologic and soil resources.
The Proposed Project is consistent with the Approved Project FEIR. Implementation of the Proposed
Project would not expose people or structures to abnormal seismic ground shaking, ground failure or
liquefaction, or landslides; therefore, no impact would occur from Proposed Project implementation.
Threshold (b) Result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR concluded that the construction associated
with future development in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would produce loose soils, which would
be subject to erosion during on-site grading and excavation. Grading and trenching for construction may
expose soils to short-term wind and water erosion. The Proposed Project would be required to comply
with all requirements set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for
construction activities (e.g., implementation of Best Management Practices [BMPs] through preparation
of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan [SWPPP]), reducing potential impacts to less-than-significant
levels. Compliance with the NPDES is a condition of approval which would be verified through the building
plan check process.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts as it pertains to erosion or loss of
topsoil. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project. Consistent
with the Approved Project FEIR, the Project would comply with the NPDES requirements through
preparation of a SWPPP. Compliance with the NPDES is a condition of approval which would be verified
as part of the City’s grading and building plan check process. A less-than-significant impact to erosion or
10 San Bernardino County. 2007. Geologic Hazard Maps. http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH29C.pdf (accessed June 3,
2024).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 71 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
loss of topsoil would occur with adherence to recommendations in the Project-specific geotechnical
report.
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: Refer to the Threshold (a) (i-iv) discussion, above. Consistent with the
Approved Project FEIR findings, the Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the Proposed Project site
would not become unstable as a result of the Proposed Project, or potentially result in an on-site or off-
site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. No mitigation measures were
recommended. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new impacts would result from
the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact on geologic and soil resources. There
are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required for issues related to on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
Threshold (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code,
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR concluded that impacts associated with
expansive soils were less than significant. Construction associated with development within the Specific
Plan Update area could produce finer-grained soils that are moderately to highly expansive which may be
present in the southern portions of the City. The Approved Project FEIR concluded that although the
potential for expansive soils exists, future developments in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would be
subject to site-specific geotechnical investigations and would comply with the most recent (CBC)
standards to minimize any potential for hazards due to expansive soils.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR and the most recent CBC requirements, a Project site-specific
Geotechnical Investigation was prepared. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded that near-surface
soils at the Proposed Project site generally consist of medium dense to very dense silty sands with varying
amounts of gravel (Appendix G). These materials are considered to be non-expansive. Therefore, no
design considerations related to expansive soils are considered warranted for this site. Consequently,
impacts in this regard are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 72 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to expansive soil. There
are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required for issues related to expansive soils.
Threshold (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewer are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
No New or More Severe Impact: Consistent with the SWIP Specific Plan Update, development within the
SWIP Specific Plan Update area would be served by sewer facilities. No septic tanks would be used as part
of the Proposed Project. As a result, no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks would occur as
part of the Proposed Project’s implementation.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. There are no
new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project regarding septic tanks or
wastewater disposal systems; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are
required.
Threshold (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR concluded that future developments within
SWIP Specific Plan Update area boundaries would not directly or indirectly result in significant impacts on
a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. However, Mitigation Measures 4.4-
3a and 4.4-3b were incorporated into the Approved Project FEIR and require an analysis of potential
impacts to paleontological resources on a site-specific basis.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR requirements, a Paleontological Assessment (Appendix H) was
conducted and included a locality records search and literature review. The closest fossil locality to the
Proposed Project site was identified as a saber-tooth cat specimen, located within one mile of the
Proposed Project site. In addition, seven localities consisting of large and small Pleistocene-age mammals
as well as terrestrial snails and freshwater clams were recovered approximately one-and-a-half miles west
of the Proposed Project site.
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that the southern portions of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area
may be underlain with the older Pleistocene fan deposits that have moderate potential to produce
Pleistocene vertebrate fossils. Therefore, excavation activity associated with the development of the
Proposed Project site could have the potential to impact the paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene
alluvial units.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 73 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Based on the presence of nearby fossil localities at shallow depths and City of Fontana guidelines regarding
the preservation of paleontological resources, the Paleontological Assessment recommended that
paleontological monitoring be conducted for the Proposed Project.
Consistent with the Paleontological Assessment recommendations, the Approved Project FEIR Mitigation
Measures 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b are applicable. With implementation of the mitigation measures, a less-than-
significant impact on paleontological resources would occur.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the Approved Project. The following measures from the FEIR are applicable to the
Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
4.4-3a: A qualified paleontologist shall conduct a pre-construction field survey of any Project site
within the Specific Plan Update area that is underlain by older alluvium. The
paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that provides specific recommendations
regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be
appropriate.
4.4-3b Should mitigation monitoring be recommended for a specific project within the Project
site (Specific Plan Update), the Mitigation Program shall include, but not be limited to,
the following measures:
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of
fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of
earth-disturbing activities.
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, earth-disturbing
activities shall be diverted elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If
construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor shall immediately
divert construction and notify the monitor of the find.
• All recovered fossils shall be prepared, identified, and curated for documentation in
the summary report and transferred to an appropriate depository (i.e., San
Bernardino County Museum).
• A summary report shall be submitted to City of Fontana. Collected specimens shall be
transferred with copy of report to San Bernardino County Museum.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact to paleontological resources. There
are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures required for issues related to paleontological resources. However, the Approved
Project FEIR Mitigation Measures 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b are applicable.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 74 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Overall Geology and Soils Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to geology and soils. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 75 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Climate Change)
4.7.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan would result in less-
than-significant impacts with mitigation relative to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
4.7.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
This analysis evaluates construction and operational impacts associated with the Proposed Project relative
to thresholds provided in the Approved Project FEIR, as well as the updated Environmental Checklist Form.
A Proposed Project-specific Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis was prepared by
EPD Solutions, Inc. on January 17, 2025. It is incorporated as Appendix B of this document.
Background
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including
temperature, wind patterns and precipitation. Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring
atmospheric gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O),
as well as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These GHGs
allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth’s atmosphere but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus
warming the Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities.
Concentrations of GHG have increased in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Human activities
that generate GHG emissions include combustion of fossil fuels (CO2 and N2O); natural gas generated from
landfills, fermentation of manure and cattle farming (CH4); and industrial processes such as nylon and
nitric acid production (N2O).
GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap
heat in the atmosphere; it is the “cumulative radiative forcing effect of a gas over a specified time horizon
resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to a reference gas.” The reference gas for GWP
is CO2; therefore, CO2 has a GWP factor of 1. The other main GHGs that have been attributed to human
activity include CH4, which has a GWP factor of 28, and N2O, which has a GWP factor of 265. When
accounting for GHGs, all types of GHG emissions are expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) and are
typically quantified in metric tons (MT) or million metric tons (MMT).
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established a State goal of
reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, which would require a reduction of
approximately 173 MMT net CO2e below “business as usual” emission levels. Senate Bill (SB) 97, a
companion bill, directed the California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency) to certify and adopt
guidelines for the mitigation of GHGs or the effects of GHG emissions. SB 97 was the State Legislature’s
directive to the Resources Agency to specifically establish that GHG emissions and their impacts are
appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was enacted in June 2005 and calls
for an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 was signed into law in 2016 and establishes
an interim GHG emission reduction goal for the State to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990
levels by the year 2030.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 76 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR concluded that, due to implementation of
federal, State, and local programs to reduce GHGs and the reliance of the SWIP Specific Plan on these
programs to reduce GHG emissions, impacts to GHG emissions would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
The SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions.
However, lead agencies are required to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during
construction. The SCAQMD then requires the construction GHG emissions to be amortized over the life of
the project, defined by the SCAQMD as 30 years, added to the operational emissions, and compared to
the applicable interim GHG significance threshold tier.
Construction Emissions
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would produce combustion emissions from
various sources. During demolition and construction, temporary sources of GHG emissions include
construction equipment and workers’ commutes to and from the site. The combustion of fossil-based
fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy
equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity
levels change.
Construction related GHG emissions estimated to be generated by the Proposed Project were calculated
using CalEEMod (Appendix B). The Proposed Project would generate approximately 1,778 MTCO2e during
construction of the Project. When amortized over the 30-year life of the Project, annual emissions would
be 59 MTCO2e.
Operational Emissions
Long-term (operational) GHG emissions are typically generated from mobile sources (e.g., vehicle and
truck trips), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), stationary sources (e.g., fire pump
and diesel generator), off-road equipment (e.g., forklifts), indirect emissions from sources associated with
energy consumption, waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and
conveyance, treatment, and distribution). Following guidance from the SCAQMD, GHG emissions were
estimated for the operational year of 2028 using CalEEMod. Table GHG-1 shows the operational GHG
emissions for the Proposed Project and SWIP Buildout of the Project site.
Table GHG-1: Proposed Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Mobile 4,945
Area 10
Energy 1,349
Water 279
Waste 144
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 77 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Refrigerant 543
Off-Road 622
Stationary 9
Total Project Operational Emissions 7,270
Project Construction Emissions 59
Total Project Emissions 7,330
Approved Project 11,673
Net Difference (Proposed Project – Approved Project) -4,343
Reduction? Yes
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix B)
Table GHG-1 shows that the Proposed Project’s amortized construction and operational GHG emissions
would total 7,330 MTCO2e per year, which represents a net decrease of 4,343 MT CO2e per year from the
approved SWIP land use. Since the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions are below the emissions of the
Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant
impacts associated with GHG emissions. Construction and operation emissions would therefore have a
less than cumulatively contribution to global climate change impacts. In addition, the Proposed Project
would be required to implement SWIP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a, which would further reduce GHG
emissions associated with the Proposed Project. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation
Measure 4.2-5a, the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact, and no new impacts
would result from the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not lead to new or
substantially more severe significant impacts associated with GHG emissions.
Mitigation Program
According to the Approved Project FEIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a would reduce
impacts to a less-than-significant impact.
4.2-5a Prior to the issuance of building permits, future development projects shall demonstrate the
incorporation of project design features that achieve a minimum of 28.5 percent reduction in
GHG emissions from business as usual conditions. Future project shall include:
Energy Efficiency
• Design buildings to be energy efficient and exceed Title 24 requirements by at least 5
percent.
• Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Site and design building to take
advantage of daylight.
• Use trees, landscaping and sun screens on west and south exterior building walls to
reduce energy use.
• Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements.
• Provide information on energy management services for large energy users.
• Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and
control systems (e.g., minimum of Energy Star rated equipment).
• Implement design features to increase the efficiency of the building envelope (i.e., the
barrier between conditioned and unconditioned spaces).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 78 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street, and other outdoor lighting.
• Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
Renewable Energy
• Install solar panels on carports and over parking areas. Ensure buildings are designed to
have “solar ready” roofs.
• Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
• Create water-efficient landscapes with a preference for a xeriscape landscape palette.
• Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based
irrigation controls.
• Design buildings to be water efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances (e.g.,
EPA WaterSense labeled products).
• Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated
surfaces) and control runoff.
• Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles.
• Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic
character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining
storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive imported
water at the site).
• Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and
location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other
innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project.
• Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives.
Solid Waste Measures
• Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil,
vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard).
• Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate
recycling containers located in public areas.
• Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
• Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles.
• Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking
spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading
and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a website or message board for
coordinating rides).
• Create local “light vehicle” networks, such as neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV)
systems.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 79 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero-
emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located
alternative fueling stations).
• Promote “least polluting” ways to connect people and goods to their destinations.
• Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large
developments.
• Incorporate bicycle-friendly intersections into street design.
• For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to
promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide facilities
that encourage bicycle commuting (e.g., locked bicycle storage or covered or indoor
bicycle parking).
• Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and other
destination points.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would comply with all applicable mitigation measures and would not result in new
impacts to GHG emissions. As shown in the table above, GHG emissions are less than the emissions
disclosed in the Approved Project FEIR. No new impact or increase in the severity of an identified impact
would therefore occur with implementation of the Proposed Project.
Threshold (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. As described in the
previous response, the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions would be lesser compared to emissions of the
maximum buildout of the Project site pursuant to the SWIP. The Project would also be within the overall
development intensity assumed for the JND the Approved Project FEIR. In addition, the Project would
comply with regulations imposed by the State and the SCAQMD that reduce GHG emissions, as described
below:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) is applicable to the Project because many of the
GHG reduction measures outlined in AB 32 (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, advanced clean car
standards, and cap-and-trade) have been adopted over the last 5 years and implementation
activities are ongoing. The proposed building would not conflict with fuel and car standards or
cap-and-trade.
• Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493) establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new (model year
2009-2016) passenger cars and light trucks. The Project would develop a new warehouse facility
that would not conflict with fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.
• Title 24 California Code of Regulations (Title 24) establishes energy efficiency requirements for
new construction that address the energy efficiency of new (and altered) buildings. The Project is
required to comply with Title 24, which would be verified by the City during the plan check and
permitting process.
• Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard [LCFS]) requires carbon content
of fuel sold in California to be 10 percent less by 2020. Because the LCFS applies to any
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 80 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
transportation fuel that is sold or supplied in California, all vehicle trips generated by the Project
would comply with LCFS.
• California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) provides requirements to
ensure water efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing
landscapes. The Project is required to comply with AB 1881 landscaping requirements, which
would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting process.
• Emissions from vehicles, which are a main source of operational GHG emissions, would be
reduced through implementation of federal and State fuel and air quality emissions requirements
that are implemented by CARB. In addition, as described in the previous response, the Project
would not result in an exceedance of an air quality standard.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a above would be implemented and would reduce emissions of
GHGs generated by the Proposed Project. Thus, the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts
related to an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. GHG emissions are less
than the emissions disclosed in the Approved Project FEIR. Therefore, no new impacts related to GHG
emissions would occur.
Mitigation Program
Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
As previously identified, Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the
Proposed Project.
Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Overall Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified
impacts, with respect to GHG. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 81 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not
result in significant impacts relative to hazards and hazardous materials with implementation of the below
referenced mitigation measures.
4.8.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A Proposed Project site-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Partner
Engineering and Science, Inc. on January 8, 2015 (Appendix I).
Threshold (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No New or More Severe Impact: The proposed construction activities would involve the transport, use,
and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking, which are typical
with construction sites, including the construction of warehouse facilities. In addition, hazardous materials
would be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site. These types of materials
are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by
federal and State requirements, which the Proposed Project construction activities are required to strictly
adhere to. These regulations include: the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act and Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act; Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CalOSHA); and the State Unified
Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program. As a result, impacts related
to routine transport and use of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.
Proposed Project operations would not involve acutely hazardous materials. The routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials would be limited to materials and solvents used for maintenance and
operation of the facility, including the upkeeping of landscaping and cleaning products. The Proposed
Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations, as permitted
by the Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino County Fire Department to ensure proper use,
storage, and disposal of any hazardous substances. Overall, operation of the Proposed Project would
result in a less than significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials. No new impact or increase in the severity of an identified impact would
therefore occur with implementation of the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project. The following measures from the FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.5-1a through 4.5-1d were included in the Approved Project FEIR to mitigate
impacts associated with hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 82 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.5-1a The City shall require that new proposed facilities involved in the production, use, storage,
transport or disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from land uses
that may be adversely impacted by such activities. Conversely, new sensitive facilities,
such as schools, child-care centers, and senior enters, shall not to be located near existing
sites that use, store, or generate hazardous materials.
[This mitigation measure has been satisfied because the Proposed Project is located a safe
distance from surrounding sensitive receptors, which would not be impacted by the
Project’s transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.]
4.5-1b The City shall assure the continued response and capability of the San Bernardino County
Fire Department/Fontana Fire Protection District to handle hazardous materials incidents
in the City and along the sections of freeways that extend across the City.
4.5-1c The City shall require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable
quantity to submit an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the San
Bernardino County Fire Department – Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with
the Fontana Fire Protection District.
4.5-1d The City shall identify roadways along which hazardous materials are routinely
transported. If essential facilities, such as schools, hospitals, childcare centers or other
facilities with special evacuation needs are located along these routes, identify
emergency response plans that these facilities can implement in the event of an
unauthorized release of hazardous materials in their area.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact(s) as it pertains to routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with
the Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
No New or More Severe Impact: As described above, the risks related to upset or accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be adequately addressed
through compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations. The Proposed Project involves a
warehouse that would use and store common hazardous materials such as oils, paints, solvents, and
cleaning products. Also, building mechanical systems and landscape maintenance could also use a variety
of products formulated with hazardous materials, including fuels, cleaners, lubricants, adhesives, sealers,
and pesticides/herbicides.
The environmental and health effects of different chemicals are unique to each chemical and depend on
the extent to which an individual is exposed. The extent and exposure of individuals to hazardous
materials would be limited by the relatively small quantities of these materials that would be stored, used,
and handled. Additionally, any business or facility which uses, generates, processes, produces, packages,
treats, stores, emits, discharges, or disposes of hazardous material (or waste) would require a hazardous
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 83 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
materials handler permit from the Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino County Fire
Department, as described previously.
Through existing City and County Health Hazardous Materials Division permitting and occupancy
procedures, hazardous materials would be used and stored in accordance with applicable regulations and
such uses would be required to comply with federal and State laws to reduce the potential consequences
of hazardous materials accidents. In addition, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required to
be implemented for the Proposed Project (as further discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality). The BMPs that would be implemented as part of the WQMP would infiltrate and treat
stormwater to reduce pollutant loads to acceptable levels per the applicable NPDES permit, thus
protecting human health and the environment should any accidental spills or releases of hazardous
materials occur during operation of the Proposed Project.
As a result, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in 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, and operational impacts would be less than significant.
The Approved Project FEIR recommended mitigation measures to address hazardous materials, when
developing portions of the Specific Plan Update area. The Proposed Project would adhere to Mitigation
Measures 4.5-2a through 4.5-2c, and 4.5-2e to minimize impacts related to hazardous materials during
construction.
In accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b, and in case of accidental release of hazardous materials
into the environment, the City shall assure that the continued response and capability of the Fontana Fire
Protection District and San Bernardino County Fire Department to handle all hazardous materials
incidents in the City and along I-10. Short-term and long-term construction activities within the SWIP
Specific Plan Update area will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. No new impact
or increase in the severity of an identified impact would therefore occur with implementation of the
Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required for issues related to hazardous materials.
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
The Proposed Project will adhere to Mitigation Measures 4.5-1a through 4.5-1d, 4.5-2a, 4.5-2b, 4.5-2c,
and 4.5-2e for both short-term and long-term accidental releases, according to the Approved Project FEIR.
Additionally, a Phase I Assessment was conducted by Partner Engineering and Science in compliance with
Mitigation Measures 4.5-2(a).
4.5-2a A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared in accordance with American
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards and Standards and Practices for All
Appropriate Inquiries prior to issuance of a Grading Permit for future development within
the Project site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall investigate the potential
for site contamination, and will identify Specific Recognized Environmental Conditions
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 84 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
(i.e., asbestos-containing materials [ACMs], lead-based paints [LBPs], polychlorinated
biphenyls [PCBs], etc.) that may require remedial activities prior to land acquisition or
construction.
[This mitigation measure has been satisfied through preparation of this Addendum and
related hazardous materials studies.]
4.5-2b Prior to potential remedial excavation and grading activities within the site (if remediation
is required), impacted areas shall be cleared of all maintenance equipment and materials
(e.g., solvents, grease, waste oil), construction materials, miscellaneous stockpiled debris
(e.g., scrap metal, pallets, storage bins, construction parts), above-ground storage tanks,
surface trash, piping, excess vegetation and other deleterious materials. These materials
shall be removed off-site and properly disposed of at an approved disposal facility. Once
removed, a visual inspection of the areas beneath the removed materials shall be
performed. Any stained soils observed underneath the removed materials shall be
sampled. In the event concentrations of materials are detected above regulatory cleanup
levels during demolition or construction activities, the Project Applicant shall comply with
the following measures in accordance with Federal, State, and local requirements:
• Excavation and disposal at a permitted, off-site facility;
• On-site remediation, if necessary; or
• Other measures as deemed appropriate by the County.
4.5-2c Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, a Certified Environmental
Professional shall confirm the presence or absence of ACMs and LBPs prior to structural
demolition/renovation activities. Should ACMs or LBPs be present, demolition materials
containing ACMs and/or LBPs shall be removed and disposed of at an appropriate
permitted facility.
4.5-2d In the event any electrical transformers require relocation as a result of future
development associated with the project, the relocation shall be conducted under the
purview of the local electricity purveyor to identify property-handling procedures
regarding potential polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
[This mitigation measure does not apply to the Proposed Project because relocation of
electric transformers would not be required.]
4.5-2e Due to the railroad alignment within project boundaries, any construction in which the
soil around the railroad is to be disturbed shall be conducted under the purview of the
Fontana Fire Protection District to identify proper handling procedures. Once the soil
around the railroad has been removed, a visual inspection of the areas beneath and
around the removed area shall be performed. Any stained soils observed underneath the
area shall be sampled. Results of the sampling (if necessary) shall indicate the level of
remediation efforts that may be required (if necessary).
4.5-2f Areas of exposed soils within Caltrans right-of-way that would be disturbed during
excavation/grading activities shall be sampled and tested for lead prior to ground
disturbance activities on a project-by-project basis, so that any special handling,
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 85 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
treatment, or disposal provisions associated with aerially deposited lead may be included
in construction documents (if aerially deposited lead is above regulatory criteria).
[This mitigation measure does not apply to the Proposed Project because Caltrans right-
of-way would not be disturbed as part of the Project.]
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts pertaining to upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. There are no new potentially significant impacts
associated with the Proposed Project. The Phase I Assessment concluded that there is no evidence of
recognized environmental conditions connected with the property (refer to Appendix I); therefore, no
new mitigation measures are required for issues related to hazardous materials.
Threshold (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No New or More Severe Impact. There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the Proposed
Project site. The nearest schools are Henry J. Kaiser High School, located approximately 0.5 miles west of
the Project site, and Michael D'Arcy Elementary School, located approximately 0.74 miles southeast of
the Project site. As discussed in Thresholds (a) and (b), no significant impacts related to the use of
hazardous materials or substances are anticipated. Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally,
no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the
time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would change the impact finding.
Mitigation Program
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new
mitigation measures are required for issues related to hazardous materials.
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.5-1a through 4.5-1d were included in the Approved Project FEIR to mitigate
impacts associated with hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile from a school. However, these
mitigation measures are not applicable to this impact, as the Proposed Project site is not located within
one-quarter mile of a school.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts pertaining to emission or hazardous
materials release near a school. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the
Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 86 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (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 create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the Approved Project FEIR, there are various hazardous
material sites recorded within federal, State, and local records databases. Potential hazards to
construction workers and the public may occur as a result of construction activities on existing sites that
could be contaminated. Future development of any of these documented hazardous materials sites would
require prior remediation and cleanup under the supervision of the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) in order to meet federal, State, and local standards. Since the Specific Plan Update does
not include any specific development projects, future development would be evaluated on a project-by-
project basis (e.g., through preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to document the
presence and extent of hazardous materials contamination) to determine if such sites are listed on a
current regulatory hazardous materials site list. Mitigation Measures 4.5-2a to 4.5-2f would reduce
potential impacts in this regard to less-than-significant levels.
The Phase I Assessment conducted for the Project site included a review of federal, State, and local
regulatory databases to evaluate the Project site and known or suspected sites of environmental
contamination pursuant to ASTM Standard E 1527-13. The Phase I Assessment found that the Project site
is not listed on the Cortese List. However, the Project site is listed on the Facility Index System (FINDS),
Facility Inventory Database (FID), Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS),
Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS) databases. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
concluded that none of the listings constituted a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) in connection
with the Proposed Project site. No new impacts are anticipated as part of the Proposed Project and no
new mitigation measures are recommended. The Approved Project FEIR recommended measures are
applicable to the Proposed Project and would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Program
Refer to Mitigation Measures 4.5-2a through 4.5-2c, and 4.5-2e, discussed above.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. There are no new potentially significant
impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation
measures are required.
Threshold (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, result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the project area; and
No New or More Severe Impact: Ontario International Airport is located approximately 3 miles west of
the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. According to the City of Ontario General Plan (Ontario Plan) Figure
LU-6, Airport Environs, the southwestern portion of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is located within
the “Airport Influence Area” of the Los Angeles/Ontario Airport (City of Fontana, 2011). However, the
SWIP Specific Plan Update area is not located within a Runway Protection Zone, No Build Zone, or
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 87 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Approach Zone. Development associated with the Approved Project FEIR would consist of industrial,
commercial, and office development and would not result in a safety hazard for people working or residing
in the SWIP Specific Plan Update area.
Ontario International Airport is located approximately 8 miles west of the Proposed Project site. The
Proposed Project site is not within the noise contours identified in the Ontario International Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan (City of Fontana, 2011). Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard
for people working on the site and impacts from the Project would be less than significant.
Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in
the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that
was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is
available that would change the impact finding.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new impact related to an airport land use plan or public airport
within. There are no new anticipated potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project;
therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New or More Severe Impact: The City’s Emergency Operations Plan anticipates that all major streets
within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would serve as evacuation routes. Construction activities
associated with the Proposed Project could temporarily impact street traffic adjacent to the Proposed
Project site during the construction phase due to roadway improvements and potential extension of
construction activities into the right-of-way. This could reduce the number of lanes or temporarily close
certain street segments. Any such impacts would be limited to the construction period and would affect
only adjacent streets or intersections. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures
identified in the Approved Project FEIR, temporary street closures would not affect emergency access in
the vicinity of the Proposed Project site, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard. This
would be accomplished through compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.5-6a and 4.5-6b, which include
preparation of an Emergency Evacuation Plan, including a Traffic Control Plan, and consultation with the
City Police Department to disclose temporary closures and alternative travel routes.
All future developments would be required to provide sufficient emergency access, as required by the
Municipal Code. Additionally, the City’s Emergency Operations Plan complies with and relies on the City’s
Hazardous Materials Response Plan. Project features to ensure sufficient emergency access include a
proposed 43-feet-wide northernmost driveway on Hemlock Avenue, a proposed 46-feet-wide
northernmost driveway on Live Oak Avenue and 30 to 50 feet wide drive aisles, which would allow for
fire/emergency response vehicles to maneuver throughout the Proposed Project site.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 88 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
As such, future development within the Proposed Project boundaries would not interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan and/or the emergency evacuation plan and less-than-significant impacts would
occur. Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact
evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR
was certified is available that would change the impact finding.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
4.5-6a Prior to the issuance of grading permits, future developers shall prepare a Traffic Control
Plan for implementation during the construction phase. The Plan may include the
following provisions, among others:
• At least one unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions on surrounding
roadways.
• At any time that only a single lane is available, the developer shall provide a
temporary traffic signal, signal carriers (i.e., flagpersons), or other appropriate traffic
controls to allow travel in both directions.
• If construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway segment, the
developer shall provide appropriate signage indicating detours/alternative routes.
4.5-6b Prior to construction, the City of Fontana Engineering Department shall consult with the
City of Fontana Police Department to disclose temporary closures and alternative travel
routes, in order to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction of
future projects would result in temporary lane or roadway closures.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new impacts pertaining to an adopted emergency response plan
and/or emergency evacuation plan. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the
Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Threshold (g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands. The Proposed Project site is located within an urbanized area and is surrounded
by development on all sides. The Proposed Project site is not located within or adjacent to land designated
as a very high fire hazard severity zone.11 Impacts related to wildland fires would not be significant.
Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in
the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that
was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is
available that would change the impact finding.
11 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/ (accessed June 5, 2024).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 89 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new impact from wildland fires. There are no new anticipated
potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or
considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Overall Hazards-Related Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 90 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan Update would not result
in significant impacts relative to hydrology and water quality, and no mitigation is necessary to reduce
potential impacts.
4.9.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A Preliminary Hydrology Report was prepared by PBLA Engineering, Inc. in April 2024 (Appendix J).
Additionally, a Proposed Project-specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan was prepared by
PBLA Engineering, Inc. in December 2024 (Appendix K).
Threshold (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Threshold (b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
No New or More Severe Impact: As stated in the Approved Project FEIR, development on the SWIP
Specific Plan Update area would be subject to NPDES requirements during both construction and
operations. The NPDES program would require that future development projects within the SWIP Specific
Plan Update area implement BMPs that adequately minimize potential off-site water quality impacts.
Construction-related BMPs would be identified based on site-specific conditions during preparation of a
SWPPP for each future development project. Long term operational BMPs would be identified through
issuance of an NPDES permit through the RWQCB and would include water quality features to ensure that
runoff is treated prior to discharge into the storm drain or regional conveyance facilities. Moreover, the
Approved Project FEIR concluded that because the majority of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is
developed and urbanized, development of the area would not cause a significant increase in impervious
surfaces and therefore would not substantially impact groundwater supplies or interfere with
groundwater recharge. Additionally, the Approved Project FEIR identifies that the majority of the SWIP
Specific Plan Update area is developed and urbanized and implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan
Update would result in a less-than-significant impact on groundwater supplies. The FEIR found that the
Approved Project would not cause a significant increase in impervious surfaces and therefore would not
substantially impact groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. No groundwater
extraction would occur as part of the Approved Project.
The Proposed Project site is located within the service area of the Fontana Water Company (FWC).12 The
use of groundwater for the Approved Project is discussed later in this Addendum under Section 4.17,
Utilities and Service Systems. As discussed in that section, there are sufficient water supplies (groundwater
is one of the sources) available to serve the Proposed Project. Additionally, the FEIR planned for the
Approved Project area (including the Proposed Project site) to be developed predominantly with industrial
12 Fontana Water Company. ND. Fontana Water Company Service Area Map. https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/Service_Area_FONTANA.pdf (accessed June 10, 2024)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 91 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
uses. The Proposed Project is a is smaller in square footage compared to the Approved Project and thus
would result in lower water consumption than the Approved SWIP buildout. To further minimize any
potential groundwater depletion, the Proposed Project would include landscaped areas and underground
infiltration systems in the northwest, southeast, and southwest corners of the site. Site runoff would be
collected by inlets in a drainage area that would drain into four subsurface infiltration systems which
would capture and infiltrate the runoff. The FWC’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan13 (UWMP) also
found that there would be sufficient water supplies to meet demands, with approximately 50 percent of
water supply provided by groundwater in the FWC service area through the year 2045. See Table 4-4,
Retail: Total Water Use and Table 6-1, Historical and Projected Water Supplies in Normal Years, AFY of the
FWC’s UWMP for detailed information. Per Table 6-1, the historical percentage of groundwater of the
total water supply varied between 52.8 percent and 93.5 percent, between 1995 and 2020. Projected
percent groundwater of the total supply is reduced and varies between 47.2 percent and 49.8 percent
from 2025 to 2045 (FWC, 2021).
The Proposed Project would consume water at a rate of approximately 8.2 acre-foot per year, based on
FWC water consumption rates (0.33 acre-foot, per acre, per year for industrial use 14). As summarized in
the Approved Project’s Water Supply Assessment (WSA), the water supplies (including groundwater)
available to the FWC will be sufficient to meet all present and future water supply requirements in the
FWC’s services area with the Approved Project for at least the next 20 years (City of Fontana 2009).
Therefore, the supply would meet the demand of the Proposed Project.
Based on the above discussion, the Approved Project FEIR finding of a less-than-significant impact, and
the type of development for this Proposed Project (distribution facility), it is anticipated that the Proposed
Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality, nor would it substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Proposed Project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basins. Lastly, the FWC is considering a future groundwater
recharge project, but its projected volume has not been quantified (FWC, 2021). The Proposed Project
would not interfere with future groundwater recharge efforts. No new impact or increase in the severity
of an identified impact would therefore occur with implementation of the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to groundwater.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would change the impact
13 Fontana Water Company. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FWC-
2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf (accessed June 10, 2024).
14 Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.ieua.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/09/Compressed-Urban-Water-Management-Plan.pdf (accessed June 10, 2024).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 92 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
determination. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not significantly impact local groundwater
recharge. Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR found erosion and siltation impacts to be less
than significant. The Proposed Project is located in an already urbanized area where drainage is directed
to a network of City and County-operated stormwater drainage facilities. Development of the site would
increase the amount of impervious surfaces from 54 percent to approximately 89 percent (Appendix K).
However, the Proposed Project would provide pervious landscaped areas and would also implement three
underground infiltration systems designed to collect and infiltrate post-development surface runoff in
order to maintain existing water infiltration rates. The Proposed Project would require placement of new
drainage structures. This would ensure that the drainage infrastructure is adequate to serve future
development and minimize impacts related to erosion or siltation. The Proposed Project site is currently
fully developed and development of the Proposed Project would include additional areas of pervious
surfaces with the addition of landscaping. In addition, as stated in the Approved Project FEIR,
development on the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would be subject to NPDES requirements during both
construction and operations. The NPDES program would require that future development projects within
the SWIP Specific Plan Update area implement BMPs that adequately minimize substantial erosion or
siltation on or off-site. In addition, the Proposed Project does not contain any water features including a
stream or river; therefore, substantial erosion and siltation on- or off-site would not occur. Impacts would
be less than significant in this regard.
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site;
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project site is not located within a FEMA designated 100-
year floodplain, but in FEMA Zone X (Appendix J). Zone X are areas determined to be outside the 0.2
percent annual chance floodplain. As stated previously, the Proposed Project would increase the amount
of impervious surfaces from 54 percent to 89 percent. Additionally, the Proposed Project would include
pervious landscaped areas and would introduce a new drainage system. The Proposed Project would
introduce landscaped pervious surfaces as well as on-site inlets that would convey surface runoff to the
on-site underground infiltration basins. The underground infiltration systems would be designed to
accommodate surface flow and catch and absorb surface water. The basin would capture, and the
infiltration system overflow would direct flows off the site to the existing Jurupa Avenue ditch. With
implementation of the Proposed Project and associated drainage improvement/features, on-site and off-
site flooding impacts would be reduced, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provided substantial additional
resources of polluted runoff; or
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 93 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
No New or More Severe Impact: Refer to Responses 4.9.2 (c)(i) and (c)(ii). Impacts to the stormwater
system would be less than significant.
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
No New or More Severe Impact: As previously noted, the Proposed Project site is not located within a
FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be constructed within
a 100-year floodplain. The Proposed Project would increase impervious surfaces compared to existing
conditions. However, the Proposed Project includes landscaped pervious surfaces and on-site inlets (catch
basins) that would convey surface runoff to the on-site underground infiltration and drainage system. See
Responses 4.9.2(c)(i) and (c)(ii). Impacts from impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact from alteration of the existing
drainage pattern. Based on the Approved Project FEIR findings, the Proposed Project site is not located in
an area prone to the previously mentioned natural or manmade disasters. Thus, the Proposed Project
would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would create the above-mentioned disasters. A less-than-significant impact is anticipated from the
Proposed Project implementation.
Threshold (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR determined that the SWIP Specific Plan
Update area is not located in the immediate vicinity of a body of water. In addition, the SWIP Specific Plan
Update area is generally void of land features capable of producing mudflow. Therefore, the Project would
not risk the release of pollutants in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone and impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts as it pertains to flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zones, or risk the release of pollutants due to Proposed Project site inundation. Based
on the Approved Project FEIR findings, the Proposed Project site is not located in an area prone to the
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 94 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
previously mentioned natural or manmade disasters. Thus, no pollutants would be released due to
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Threshold (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project is underlain by the Upper Santa Ana Valley
Groundwater Basin – Chino Subbasin. The basin is not subject to a Sustainable Groundwater Management
Plan because it is adjudicated and exempted from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
The City, and therefore Proposed Project site, are subject to the Santa Ana Watershed Authority’s
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Santa Ana River Watershed called the One Water
One Watershed Plan (OWOW) Update 2018. The OWOW Plan describes how collaborative watershed
planning, water and land management, and project implementation supports improved sustainability,
resilience, and quality of life throughout the Santa Ana River Watershed through 2040.15 The Proposed
Project is also subject to the FWC’s UWMP, prepared in accordance with the Urban Water Management
Planning Act. The purpose of the UWMP is to provide a planning tool for FWC for developing and delivering
municipal water supplies to FWC’s water service area.
The Approved Project FEIR identified the FWC as the main water provider in the SWIP Specific Plan Update
area. As shown in Table 4.8-1, Fontana Water Company Historical Water Usage and Production (1988-
2008) of the Approved Project FEIR, the FWC’s historical production of water has met usage demands for
the SWIP Specific Plan Update area and surrounding service area. According to the FWC’s 2020 UWMP,
water supply met water demand for the FWC coverage area through 2020 and is forecasted to continue
to do so through 2045. See Table 4-3, Demands for Potable and Non-Potable Water-Projected and Table
6-1, Historical and Projected Water Supplies in Normal Years, AFY of the FWC’s UWMP for detailed
information. Piping for the distribution of potable water is available within the local roadways surrounding
and within the Specific Plan Update area and is sufficient to meet current water supply needs. In addition,
the Proposed Project includes the replacement of some existing water lines and placement of new water
lines.
The Proposed Project would meet applicable local and regional water consumption and water quality
goals of the FWC, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority,
and the City.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts pertaining to any conflicts with
water quality and groundwater plans. No new or more severe impact from a previously identified
significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Although projections indicated in
15 Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. 2018. One Water One Watershed Plan Update 2018. https://www.sawpa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/OWOW-Plan-Update-2018-1.pdf (accessed June 18, 2024).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 95 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the Approved Project FEIR that FWC would need to seek additional sources of water to serve its service
area, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan and there are sufficient supplies according to the 2020 UWMP. The
Proposed Project site is proposing a less water-intensive use compared to the industrial uses planned in
the Approved Project FEIR. Additionally, an on-site water quality detention basin would help recharge
groundwater in the basin. A less-than-significant impact is anticipated.
Overall Hydrology-Related Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 96 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
According to the Approved Project FEIR, development within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would
not divide an established community. The SWIP Specific Plan Update proposes to implement a range of
industrial, commercial, public, and residential uses, similar to what exists within the Specific Plan Update
boundaries today. The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan
Update would not result in significant impacts related to land use and planning, and no mitigation is
necessary to reduce potential impacts.
4.10.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Physically divide an established community?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project site consists of a partially paved lot with two
existing buildings and is utilized as an industrial steel yard. The Project would develop the site with a
logistics and distribution facility and associated improvements. No residential uses currently occur on the
site that would be impacted or divided by development of the Project. The Proposed Project site is
surrounded by residential uses to the south and by industrial and commercial uses to the north, east, and
west. The Project would be compatible with the adjacent uses. Therefore, the Project would not divide or
disrupt the physical arrangement of the existing adjacent uses and would serve as an extension of the
existing commercial/industrial area along Jurupa Avenue. Furthermore, access to the site would be
provided by proposed driveways off existing roadways (Hemlock Avenue and Live Oak Avenue). Thus,
impacts related to physically dividing an established community would not occur from the Project.
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, the Proposed Project would not divide an established
community. The Proposed Project includes a distribution facility that is similar and consistent with
surrounding uses. Existing development within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is already divided by
the existing local roadway network, including I-10, and the Proposed Project is not anticipated to create
additional physical barriers between these uses. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe
impacts.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to physically dividing a
community. No new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in
the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that
was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is
available that would change the impact determination.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 97 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: No potentially significant impacts related to land use and planning are
identified in the Approved Project FEIR. The Proposed Project is located within the boundaries of the JND.
The Proposed Project would not require an amendment to the SWIP Specific Plan Update, because the
JND is intended to provide opportunities for a mixture of uses, including light industrial, warehousing,
logistics-based distribution, office, flex tech, research and development, and service commercial uses.
According to the SWIP, logistics and distribution facilities are permitted by right within the JND. The
Project would develop a distribution facility, consistent with the intended uses within the JND. As such,
the Proposed Project would be consistent with applicable land use plans, including the General Plan and
SWIP. The Proposed Project would not 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.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Overall Land Use Impacts Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts as it pertains to conflict with land
use plans, policies, and regulations. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the SWIP Specific Plan
Update and General Plan, and the Proposed Project would not 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.
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts, with respect to land use and planning. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 98 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.11 Mineral Resources
4.11.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that according to the General Plan, it is not anticipated that the
SWIP Specific Plan Update area would contain deposits of precious gemstones, ores, or unique or rare
minerals, and development projects would not result in significant impacts relative to mineral resources.
Accordingly, no mitigation measures were required.
4.11.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (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; and
Threshold (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No New or More Severe Impact: Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR conclusions, the Proposed
Project site is not located in an area known to contain mineral resources that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state.16 Additionally, implementation of the Proposed Project would not
result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovery site delineated on the
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No new or more severe impact relative to mineral
resources not already evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur with implementation of the
Proposed Project. Therefore, impacts to mineral resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Overall Mineral Resources Impacts Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact to mineral resources. Therefore, no
new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required for issues related to mineral
resources. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
proposed by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts, with respect to mineral resources. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
16 California Department of Conservation. 2024. Mineral Land Classification.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc (accessed May 31, 2024).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 99 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.12 Noise
4.12.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR considered noise from construction activities as well as noise from operations,
including vehicle traffic and the exposure of employees to noise in the Approved Project area, as well as
potential exposure of nearby residents and other sensitive receptors to noise. With implementation of
mitigation measures, all noise impacts were determined to be less than significant with the exception of
long-term mobile noise and cumulative noise impacts, which would remain significant and unavoidable.
4.12.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A Project-specific Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis was prepared by LSA in February 2025 (Appendix
L).
Threshold (a) Generation of noise levels in excess standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
No New or More Severe Impact: Noise levels associated with the Proposed Project site would increase
over existing noise levels. This increase was identified in the Approved Project FEIR as a significant and
unavoidable impact associated with the SWIP Specific Plan Update. According to the Approved Project
FEIR, SWIP Specific Plan Update implementation may result in a long-term increase in ambient noise levels
associated with traffic noise and new stationary sources. However, impacts associated with
implementation of the Proposed Project would be consistent with the impacts disclosed in the Approved
Project FEIR. The Proposed Project would be required to implement the following mitigation measures
from the Approved Project FEIR, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Construction
Construction-related activities would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the Proposed Project
vicinity. Construction-related noise levels at and near the Proposed Project site would fluctuate depending
on the level and type of construction activity on a given day. The analysis performed in the Approved
Project FEIR used conservative assumptions to calculate worst-case construction noise levels. Noise from
the Proposed Project construction activities could be audible at nearby residential uses. Construction
noise would be intermittent and last for several days or a few weeks. As discussed in the Approved Project
FEIR, short-term noise impacts associated with excavation, earthmoving, and construction activities would
be considered less than significant if: (1) construction activities are limited to daytime hours; (2)
construction equipment is equipped with noise control filters, as appropriate; and (3) construction activity
is monitored to ensure that noise reduction specifications and guidelines are met. Proposed Project
construction would be implemented in accordance with these conditions. Table NOI-1 shows the nearest
sensitive uses to the Project site, their distance from the center of construction activities, and composite
noise levels expected during construction.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 100 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table NOI-1: Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Nearest Receptors
Receptor (Location) Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq) at 50 feet1 Distance (feet)2 Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Residential (South)
88
500 68
Commercial (North) 600 66
Industrial (West) 760 64
Industrial (East) 840 63
Notes:
1 The composite construction noise level represents the site preparation and paving phases which are expected to result in the
greatest noise level as compared to other phases.
2 The reference distance is associated with the average condition, identified by the distance from the center of construction
activities to surrounding uses.
dBA Leq = average A-weighted hourly noise level
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix L)
As shown in Table NOI-1, the composite noise levels during construction at the nearest residential uses to
the south would approach 68 average A-weighted hourly noise level (dBA Leq) and composite noise levels
at the nearest commercial uses to the north would approach 66 dBA Leq. Therefore, construction-related
noise generated by the Proposed Project would be below the 80 dBA Leq, 85 dBA Leq, and 90 dBA Leq
construction noise level criteria as established by the FTA for residential, commercial, and industrial land
uses, respectively. In addition, the Proposed Project would comply with the construction hours specified
in the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states that the construction activities are allowed between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
Additionally, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 4.7-1a and 4.7-
1b of the Approved Project FEIR and the City’s Noise Ordinance. Therefore, it is not anticipated that
construction of the Proposed Project would result in new short-term noise impacts or increase the severity
of impacts previously analyzed in the Approved Project FEIR.
Operation
An increase in ambient noise levels in the Proposed Project vicinity during long-term operations of the
Proposed Project would occur due to the following: Project-generated traffic; heating, ventilation, and air
condition (HVAC) equipment; trash bin emptying activities; cold storage fan units; and truck operations.
Traffic Noise
The Proposed Project would generate traffic-related noise along street segments in the Project vicinity.
As presented in the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, an increase of up to 0.5 dBA community noise
equivalent level (CNEL) is expected along the road segments in the vicinity of the Project (Appendix L). A
noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear; therefore, the traffic
noise increase in the vicinity of the Project site resulting from the Proposed Project would be less than
significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 101 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
HVAC Equipment
Rooftop HVAC units would be installed on the proposed buildings. A conservative assumption of 12
rooftop HVAC units operating for 24 hours a day was utilized. The HVAC units would generate a sound
power level (Lw) of up to 87 dBA Lw or 72 dBA Leq at 5 feet (Appendix L).
Trash Bin Emptying Activities
The Proposed Project is assumed to have two trash dumpsters that would be located near the center of
the Project site between the two proposed buildings. The trash emptying activities would take place for a
period of less than 1 minute and would generate a sound power level of up to 118.6 dBA Lw or a sound
pressure level of 84 dBA Leq at 50 feet (Appendix L).
Cold Storage Fan Units
It is assumed that approximately 25 percent of the Proposed Project would be cold storage. Noise levels
generated by cold storage fan units are estimated to be 57.5 dBA Leq at 60 feet (Appendix L).
Truck Noise
Noise levels generated by delivery trucks would include arriving on site and maneuvering the trailers to
park within the loading docks. During this process, noise levels are associated with the truck engine, air
brakes, and back-up alarms while the truck is backing into the dock. These noise levels would occur for a
short period of time, typically less than 5 minutes. A conservative analysis was used and assumed truck
arrivals and departure activities could occur at 12 docks for a period of less than 5 minutes each and
loading and unloading activities could occur at 30 docks simultaneously for a period of 30 minutes in a
given hour (Appendix L).
Tables NOI-2 and NOI-3, below, show the combined hourly noise levels generated by traffic, HVAC
equipment, trash bin emptying activities, cold storage fans, and truck delivery activities at the closest
sensitive receptors during the daytime and nighttime, respectively.
Table NOI-2: Daytime Exterior Noise Level Impacts
Receptor Direction
Existing Quietist
Daytime Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Project
Generated
Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)
Potential
Operational
Noise Impact?1
Residence South 72.2 41.7 No
Notes:
1 A potential operational noise impact would occur if (1) the quietest daytime ambient hour is less than 70 dBA Leq and
project noise impacts are greater than 70 dBA Leq, OR (2) the quietest daytime ambient hour is greater than 70 dBA Leq and
project noise impacts are 3 dBA greater than the quietest daytime ambient hour.
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent noise level
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix L)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 102 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table NOI-3: Nighttime Exterior Noise Level Impacts
Receptor Direction
Existing Quietist
Daytime Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Project
Generated
Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)
Potential
Operational
Noise Impact?1
Residence South 65.1 41.7 No
Notes:
1 A potential operational noise impact would occur if (1) the quietest nighttime ambient hour is less than 65 dBA Leq and
project noise impacts are greater than 65 dBA Leq, OR (2) the quietest nighttime ambient hour is greater than 65 dBA Leq and
project noise impacts are 3 dBA greater than the quietest nighttime ambient hour.
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent noise level
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix L)
As shown in Tables NOI-2 and NOI-3, the cumulative noise levels of the Proposed Project would not exceed
the 70 dBA Leq daytime or 65 dBA Leq nighttime noise standards established by the City. Thus, impacts
related to operational noise would be less than significant.
The Approved Project FEIR analyzed the noise impacts for the entire SWIP Specific Plan Update area, which
includes the Proposed Project. The noise analysis included in the Approved Project FEIR was based on the
regulatory requirements and noise generation factors resulting from the proposed land uses. The
Proposed Project includes uses which are consistent with development assumed in the Approved Project
FEIR and would not generate abnormal noise levels. Noise associated with the Proposed Project is
anticipated to primarily be from vehicle-related noise and HVAC. As presented above, the noise generated
by the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed thresholds or the noise levels identified in the
Approved Project FEIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new noise-related stationary
or vehicular impacts not considered in the Approved Project FEIR. The Proposed Project would be required
to comply with Mitigation Measures 4.7-1a, 4.7-1b, and 4.7-3b of the Approved Project FEIR.
Accordingly, no new or more severe noise impact would occur, relative to the Approved Project. Although
the Approved Project FEIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact, the Proposed Project would
have a less-than-significant impact after implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-1a and 4.7-1b, and
4.7-3b. The Proposed Project would be required to implement the following mitigation measures from
the Approved Project FEIR, but the impact from full buildout of the SWIP would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update. The following measures from the Approved Project
FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project Final EIR
4.7-1a The following measures shall be implemented when construction is to be conducted
within 500 feet of any sensitive structures or has the potential to disrupt classroom
activities or religious functions.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 103 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• The City shall restrict noise intensive construction activities to the days and hours
specified under Section 18-63 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code. These days and
hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to
or from the site.
• All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control
devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided
on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust.
• The City shall require that the contractor maintain and tune-up all construction
equipment to minimize noise emissions.
• Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance
to the sensitive use structures.
• All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible
distance to the sensitive use structures.
• If construction noise does prove to be detrimental to the learning environment, the
City shall allow for a temporary waiver thereby allowing construction on Weekends
and/or holidays in those areas where this construction is to be performed in excess
of 500 feet from any residential structures.
• The construction contractor shall provide an on-site name and telephone number of
a contact person. Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of
the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow
for surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the City
or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate,
take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party.
In the event that construction noise is intrusive to an educational process, the
construction liaison will revise the construction schedule to preserve the learning
environment.
4.7-1b Should potential future development facilitated by the proposed project require off-site
import/export of fill material during construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least
disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways (Interstate 10, Interstate 15,
State Route 60, Sierra Avenue, Beech Avenue, Jurupa Avenue, and Slover Avenue).
Construction trucks should, to the extent practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m.
and p.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.).
4.7-2a No new industrial facilities shall be constructed within 160 feet of any existing sensitive
land use property line without the preparation of a dedicated noise analysis. This analysis
shall document the nature of the industrial facility as well as “noise producing” operations
associated with that facility. Furthermore, the analysis shall document the placement of
any existing or proposed noise-sensitive land uses situated within the 160-foot distance.
The analysis shall determine the potential noise levels that could be received at these
sensitive land uses and specify very specific measures to be employed by the industrial
facility to ensure that these levels do not exceed those City noise requirements of 65 dBA
CNEL. Such measures could include, but are not limited to, the use of enclosures for noisy
pieces of equipment, the use of noise walls and/or berms for exterior equipment and/or
on-site truck operations, and/or restrictions on hours of operations. No development
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 104 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
permits or approval of land use applications shall be issued until the noted acoustic
analysis is received and approved by the City Staff.
[This Mitigation Measure has been satisfied through the preparation of the Noise and
Vibration Impact Analysis included as Appendix L.]
4.7-3b Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a developer shall contract for a site-specific noise
study for the parcel. The noise study shall be performed by an acoustic consultant
experienced in such studies and the consultant’s qualifications and methodology to be
used in the study must be presented to City staff for consideration. The site-specific
acoustic study shall specifically identify potential noise impacts upon any proposed
sensitive uses (addressing General Plan buildout conditions), as well as potential project
impacts upon off-site sensitive uses due to construction, stationary and mobile noise
sources. Mitigation for mobile noise impacts, where identified as significant, shall
consider facility siting and truck routes such that project-related truck traffic utilizes
existing established truck routes. Mitigation shall be required if noise levels exceed 65
dBA, as identified in Section 30-182 of the City’s Municipal Code.
[This Mitigation Measure has been satisfied through the preparation of the Noise and
Vibration Impact Analysis included as Appendix L.]
Conclusion
Mitigation Measures 4.7-1a, 4.7-1b, and 4.7-2a would reduce construction and operational noise levels.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would change the significant
and unavoidable determination in the Approved Project FEIR. Mitigation Measures 4.7-3a and 4.7-3b has
been satisfied through the preparation of a Noise Impact Analysis included as Appendix L.
Threshold (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No New or More Severe Impact:
Construction
Construction of the Proposed Project could generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration depending
on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Construction vibration impacts are
discussed in terms of the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in root mean square, which is
vibration velocity decibels (VdB), and in terms of potential for building damage using vibration levels in
peak particle velocity (PPV), which is measured in inches per second (in/sec).
The Project site is surrounded by residential uses to the south, commercial uses to the north, and
industrial uses to west and east. The threshold at which vibration levels would result in annoyance would
be 84 VdB for office uses and 78 VdB for daytime residential uses. Table NOI-4 below shows the potential
construction vibration annoyance impacts at the nearest receptors.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 105 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table NOI-4: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance Impacts at Nearest Receptor
Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (VdB) at 25 feet1 Distance (feet)2 Vibration Level (VdB)
Residential (South)
87
500 48
Commercial (North) 600 46
Industrial (West) 760 43
Industrial (East) 840 41
Notes:
1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment
used during construction.
2 The reference distance is associated with the average condition, identified by the distance from the center of construction
activities to surrounding uses.
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix L)
As shown in Table NOI-4, vibration levels are expected to approach 48 VdB at the closest residence to the
south and 46 VdB at the closest commercial use to the north and would not exceed the annoyance
thresholds of 84 VdB for office type uses and 78 VdB for daytime residential uses.
According to the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, the construction vibration damage criterion for non-
engineered timber and masonry buildings is 0.2 in/sec in PPV.
Table NOI-5: Potential Construction Vibration Damage Impacts at Nearest Receptor
Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (PPV) at 25 feet1 Distance (feet)2 Vibration Level (PPV)
Residential (South)
0.089
145 0.006
Commercial (North) 175 0.005
Industrial (West) 100 0.011
Industrial (East) 190 0.004
Notes:
1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy
equipment used during construction.
2 The reference distance is associated with the peak condition, identified by the distance from the perimeter of construction
activities to surrounding structures.
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix L)
As shown in Table NOI-5, vibration levels are expected to approach 0.011 in/sec PPV at the nearest
surrounding structures to the west and would not exceed the threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV for building
damage potential. Vibration levels at all other buildings would be lower.
Therefore, construction would not result in any vibration damage, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 106 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Operation
The Proposed Project would not generate vibration levels related to on-site operations. In addition,
vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways are unusual for on-road
vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation.
Based on a reference vibration level of 0.076 in/sec PPV, structures greater than 20 feet from the
roadways that contain Project trips would experience vibration levels below the most conservative
standard of 0.12 in/sec PPV (Appendix L). Therefore, vibration levels generated from Project-related traffic
on the adjacent roadways would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.7-1a and 4.7-1b listed above would further reduce groundborne vibration and
noise levels.
Conclusion
No new or more severe impacts from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved
Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known
and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would
impact the prior finding of no significant impact under this issue area.
Threshold 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?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Ontario International Airport (ONT) is located approximately 6 miles
west of the Proposed Project site. The majority of the SWIP Specific Plan area, including the Proposed
Project site, is located within the Airport Influence Area of the Ontario International Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).17 According to Map 2-1, Compatibility Policy Map: Airport Influence Area, of
the ALUCP, the Proposed Project site is within the ONT Airport Influence Area. According to Exhibit 1-9,
Compatibility Factors: Noise, of the ALUCP, the Proposed Project site is within the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise
impact zone. According to Table 2-3 of the ALUCP, industrial land uses within the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise
level contours of ONT, such as the Proposed Project, are considered a normally compatible land use. In
addition, the Proposed Project does not propose or require facilities or actions that would contribute to
or exacerbate noise generated by ONT facilities and activities. Additionally, the Proposed Project site is
not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a
previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally,
no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the
time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would change the impact finding.
17 City of Ontario. (2018). Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.ont-
iac.com/airport-land-use-compatibility-plan/ (accessed February 12, 2025)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 107 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
There are no new or more severe potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project;
therefore, no new and/or considerably different mitigation measures are required.
Overall Acoustical Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to noise. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 108 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.13 Population and Housing
4.13.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
According to the Approved Project FEIR, development of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would not
result in any impacts to existing residential units on-site. Should future development proposals result in
the potential for displacement of residential uses, each development application would be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis for impacts. In addition, any potential impacts to existing on-site housing within the
SWIP Specific Plan Update area is anticipated to occur over a long period of time, and the construction of
replacement housing would not be required. As such, the Approved Project FEIR concluded that impacts
in this regard would be less than significant and no mitigation measures were recommended.
4.13.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly;
and
Threshold (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New or More Severe Impact: Population and housing stock within Fontana grew from approximately
196,069 residents to 204,900 residents between 2010 and 2020 and from 51,857 households to 53,510
households between 2010 and 2018.18 This is an increase of approximately 1.1 percent per year for both
household units and population.
According to the SCAG, the generation rate for employees required for operation of an industrial project
is one employee for every 1,195 SF of industrial space.19 As the Proposed Project would construct and
operate a 492,240 SF logistics and distribution facility, operation of the Project would generate
approximately 412 employees, compared to the 446 employees that would be generated by the 532,587
SF facility, consistent with the maximum development of the site pursuant to the SWIP. As such, the
Proposed Project would generate 85 fewer employees than what was assumed in the Approved Project
FEIR. The employees that would fill these roles are anticipated to come from the region; therefore,
implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in unplanned population growth.
Further, the Proposed Project is consistent with the maximum allowable density in the SWIP for the JND,
as well as with the maximum intensity of new industrial square footage assumed for the JND in the
Approved Project EIR. Thus, consistent with the findings of the Approved Project EIR, impacts related to
employment growth and population growth would be less than significant.
The Proposed Project would not induce population growth through the introduction of housing because
no housing is associated with the development. Additionally, the construction of replacement housing
would not be necessary as no housing currently exists within the Project boundaries. In some cases, direct
population growth can be created through the introduction of new businesses; however, direct
18 City of Fontana. (2022). 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/37230/Fontana-Housing-
Element_January-2022_Clean (accessed June 18, 2024)
19 SCAG. (2001). Employment Density Study. https://www.mwcog.org/file.aspx?A=QTTlTR24POOOUIw5mPNzK8F4d8djdJe4LF9Exj6lXOU%3D
(accessed June 18, 2024)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 109 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
population growth associated with the Proposed Project is not anticipated because the community has a
need for employment and the Proposed Project’s workforce would consist of local residents. Additionally,
the Proposed Project would not involve any infrastructure improvements that would induce growth.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially induce population growth.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Overall Population and Housing Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts pertaining to population and
housing. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes
proposed by the Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously
identified impacts, with respect to population and housing. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not
warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 110 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.14 Public Services
4.14.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that there is potential for service needs to increase relative to fire
protection, police protection, and schools with the development/redevelopment of the SWIP Specific Plan
Update area. However, to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant impact, the Approved Project
FEIR incorporated Mitigation Measures 4.8-1a through 4.8-1i, 4.8-2a through 4.8-2c, 4.8-3a through 4.8-
3f, and 4.8-4a, referenced below. The Approved Project FEIR also concluded that development of the SWIP
Specific Plan Update area would not significantly increase the demand for library services that would
require construction of additional library facilities. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure 4.8-4a was
incorporated to maintain this impact at less than significant.
4.14.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for:
Fire protection, police protection, schools, and other public facilities?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project does not include or require construction of any
new or physically altered fire protection, police protection, school, or other public facilities. Prior to
commencement of construction activities, the Proposed Project plans would be reviewed by applicable
local agencies to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code as well as all applicable regulations to ensure
adequate site signage, lighting, and other crime safety preventative measures. The Fontana Police
Department is located approximately 7 miles northeast of the Proposed Project site at 17005 Upland
Avenue, Fontana. The closest fire station is San Bernardino County Fire Station 74 at 11500 Live Oak Ave,
Fontana, located approximately 0.5 miles south of the Proposed Project site. Since the Proposed Project
site is already served by the existing fire station, and the Proposed Project would be constructed pursuant
to existing California Fire Code regulations, the Proposed Project would not result in the need for new or
physically altered fire department facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts.
Additionally, since the Proposed Project site is already served by the existing police station, and the
Proposed Project would include security lighting and other security measures, the Proposed Project would
not result in the need for new or physically altered police facilities that could cause significant
environmental impacts.
The Proposed Project site is located within the limits of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area and is
consistent with the SWIP. Accordingly, no new or more severe impacts related to public services or a
substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved
Project FEIR would occur. The Proposed Project does not have a residential component, and therefore
would not directly introduce new residents to the City that would require public services, such as school
or other public facility services.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 111 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Construction of the Proposed Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of or need for new or physically altered public facilities, and would not adversely affect service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Compliance with applicable local regulations
would ensure that Proposed Project construction would result in a less-than-significant impact to public
services.
No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the
time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available. Although impacts to public facilities and services
is anticipated to be low, with implementation of the Approved Project FEIR mitigation measures,
referenced below, the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to fire protection,
police protection, schools, and other public facilities. Lastly, development impact fees would aid in
offsetting any potential impacts.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the Approved Project. The following measures from the FEIR are applicable to the
Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The mitigation measures below are listed in the Approved Project FEIR; however, these are goals/policies
to be implemented by the City, not the Proposed Project.
4.8-1a The City shall continue to work towards a ratio of 1.4 sworn officers per 1,000 residents.
4.8-1b The Fontana Police Department shall continue to expand its Area Commander Program
to more effectively serve specific areas of the City.
4.8-1c The Fontana Police Department shall expand its Contact Stations to more effectively serve
outlying areas.
4.8-1d The Fontana Police Department shall continue its School Resource Officer Program on all
current and future middle school campuses.
4.8-1e The Fontana Police Department shall continue its extensive volunteer crime prevention
programs, including Citizen Volunteers, Explorers, Citizens on Patrol, Neighborhood
Watch, Police Reserves, and Community Emergency.
4.8-1f The Fontana Police Department shall continue its bilingual incentive program to more
effectively serve the Latino community.
4.8-1g The City shall maintain an average police and fire response time of four to five minutes.
4.8-1h The City shall continue to promote the establishment of Neighborhood Watch programs
in residential neighborhoods, aimed at encouraging neighborhoods to form associations
to patrol or watch for any suspicious activity.
4.8-1i The City shall incorporate appropriate staffing levels in the annual budget process keyed
to City growth in population and employment.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 112 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.8-2a The City shall maintain an average fire response time of four to five minutes.
4.8-2b The City shall continue to maintain an Insurance Service office (ISO) fire rating of Class 3.
4.8-2c The City shall ensure that new fire stations are built in areas of new development so that
response times are not eroded.
4.8-3a Planning and development in the City shall continue to be integrated with the needs of
school districts for new facilities.
4.8-3b The City shall continue to support local school districts in their efforts to obtain additional
funding sources, including special assessment districts and supplementary state and
federal funding.
4.8-3c The City shall establish and maintain effective joint use agreements with school districts
serving the community to achieve optimum, cost-effective use of school facilities.
4.8-3d The City shall continue to withhold building permits until verification that applicable
school fees have been collected by the appropriate school district.
4.8-3e The City shall collaborate with school districts in designing adjacent school/recreation
facilities to achieve maximum usability and cost-effectiveness for both the City and the
school districts.
4.8-3f The City shall collaborate with school districts in expanding educational opportunities and
programs that benefit from City facilities.
4.8-4a As part of future development and infrastructure projects within the Specific Plan Update
area, the City shall continue to explore options to provide additional library service,
through the Fontana Unified School district (FUSD) joint use agreements and/or City-
sponsored facilities using General Fund or other revenue sources.
Overall Public Services Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to public services. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 113 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.15 Recreation
4.15.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that future development associated with the SWIP Specific Plan
Update could result in a significant and unavoidable impact to parks and recreation due to future
industrial, commercial, and office development. The Proposed Project could create employment
opportunities within the SWIP Specific Plan Update area. In turn, this employment growth could lead to a
population increase within the City and an associated increase in demand for parks and recreational
facilities. To reduce potential impacts, the Approved Project FEIR incorporated Mitigation Measures 4.8-
5a through 4.8-5g.
4.15.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (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; or
Threshold (b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR determined that impacts to parks and
recreational uses would be significant and unavoidable. Because the Proposed Project is a permitted by
right in the JND, the Approved Project FEIR has previously analyzed and accounted for this type of
development on the site and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated to reduce any
impact caused to recreational facilities. As previously noted in Section 4.13, Population and Housing, it is
anticipated that the labor force would come mostly from within the City or immediate surrounding
communities. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially 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, nor would it include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment. A less-than-significant impact would occur. The Proposed Project would be required
to implement the following mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR, but the impact from full
buildout of the SWIP would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the Proposed
Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The below mitigation measures are listed in the Approved Project FEIR; however, these are goals/policies
to be implemented by the City, not the Proposed Project.
4.8-5a A wide variety of parks and recreation facilities, including regional, community,
neighborhood and sub-neighborhood parks, shall be provided throughout the City.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 114 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.8-5b The design of all parks shall meet the particular needs of the specialized populations they
serve, such as seniors, young adults, families, and children.
4.8-5c Barrier-free access to all parks shall be provided.
4.8-5d The park standards for the City shall be two-acres per thousand residents for community
parks and three-acres per thousand for neighborhood parks.
4.8-5e Each park within the City shall provide a variety of activity options for users, including
active and passive uses.
4.8-5f The City shall reevaluate the design of each of its parks as part of the periodic update of
its Parks, Recreation, and Trails Master Plan.
4.8-5g Each park within the City shall be evaluated for safety on a periodic basis.
Overall Public Services Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to parks and recreation. Therefore, preparation of an
SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 115 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.16 Transportation
4.16.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Although
not addressed as a separate threshold, the Approved Project FEIR analyzed VMT as part of air quality and
GHG modeling and the Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan
would result in less-than-significant impacts with the incorporation of mitigation relative to GHG
emissions but significant and unavoidable impacts from cumulative GHG emissions. The Approved Project
FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable
impacts relative to air quality for both short and long-term air quality as well as consistency with the
AQMP.
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that the implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would
lead to less-than-significant impacts in relation to roadway hazards and emergency access. Common
construction practices such as public access restrictions, construction signage, and flagmen would be
implemented to minimize hazard risks. A Traffic Management Plan is required for all projects that propose
construction activities in a public right-of-way (Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1nn). The Traffic
Management Plan is reviewed by the City’s Engineering department and must include provisions for
construction safety and emergency access. Implementation of a Traffic Management Plan was found to
be sufficient to minimize impacts to both hazards and emergency access.
The Approved Project FEIR also concluded that the implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update
would cause an increase in traffic that exceeded the load capacity of surrounding streets. A deficiency was
identified in 10 roadway segments and 19 intersections within the Specific Plan Update area. These
potential impacts were anticipated to be reduced to less-than-significant levels following the roadway
upgrades included in the proposed mitigation measures. However, the majority of the improvements
identified as mitigation measures were unfunded or partially funded, therefore, their implementation
remained unassured. As a result, it was determined that these mitigation measures were infeasible, and
impacts related to increased roadway traffic were considered to be significant and unavoidable
4.16.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. on November 13, 2025. It is
incorporated as Appendix M of this document and forms the basis of this analysis.
Threshold (a) Conflict with program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
No New or More Severe Impact:
The Proposed Project involves the construction of a 492,240 SF logistics and distribution facility. The
primary patrons of the proposed development would be warehouse employees. Vehicular traffic to and
from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve
the Project area.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 116 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
A Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix M) was prepared to determine the estimated change in site trip
generation resulting from the Proposed Project compared to the Approved Project FEIR. Table TRA-1
presents the trip generation estimate for the Proposed Project and Approved Project.
Table TRA-1: Proposed Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
General Light Industrial1 TSF 4.87 0.65 0.09 0.74 0.09 0.56 0.65
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse2 TSF 2.12 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.09 0.12
Approved Trip Generation
Approved SWIP Project1 532.587 TSF 2594 347 47 394 49 297 346
Vehicle Mix3 Percent
Passenger Vehicles 78.60% 2039 273 37 310 39 234 273
2-Axle Trucks 8.00% 208 28 4 32 4 24 28
3-Axle Trucks 3.90% 101 14 2 16 2 11 13
4+-Axle Trucks 9.50% 246 32 4 36 4 28 32
100% 2594 347 47 394 49 297 346
PCE Trip Generation4 PCE
Factor
Passenger Vehicles 1.0 2039 273 37 310 39 234 273
2-Axle Trucks 2.0 416 56 8 64 8 48 56
3-Axle Trucks 2.5 253 35 5 40 5 28 33
4+-Axle Trucks 3.0 738 96 12 108 12 84 96
3446 460 62 522 64 394 458
Total Approved SWIP Trip Generation 2594 347 47 394 49 297 346
Total Approved SWIP PCE Trip Generation 3446 460 62 522 64 394 458
Proposed Project Trip Generation
Proposed High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse2 492.240 TSF 1044 41 13 54 17 43 60
1) Cold Storage Warehouse (25%) 123.060 TSF 261 10 3 13 4 11 15
Vehicle Mix5 Percent
Passenger Vehicles 55.30% 145 6 2 8 2 6 8
2-Axle Trucks 15.50% 40 2 0 2 1 2 3
3-Axle Trucks 4.90% 13 1 0 1 0 0 0
4+-Axle Trucks 24.30% 63 2 1 3 1 3 4
100% 261 11 3 14 4 11 15
PCE Trip Generation4
PCE
Factor
Passenger Vehicles 1.0 145 6 2 8 2 6 8
2-Axle Trucks 2.0 80 4 0 4 2 4 6
3-Axle Trucks 2.5 33 3 0 3 0 0 0
4+-Axle Trucks 3.0 189 6 3 9 3 9 12
Total PCE Trip Generation 447 19 5 24 7 19 26
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 117 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total
2) Heavy Warehouse (75%) 369.180 TSF 783 31 10 41 13 32 45
Vehicle Mix6 Percent
Passenger Vehicles 79.57% 623 25 7 32 10 25 35
2-Axle Trucks 3.46% 27 1 0 1 0 2 2
3-Axle Trucks 4.64% 36 1 1 2 1 1 2
4+-Axle Trucks 12.33% 97 4 2 6 2 4 6
100% 783 1 10 41 13 32 45
PCE Trip Generation4 PCE
Factor
Passenger Vehicles 1.0 623 25 7 32 10 25 35
2-Axle Trucks 2.0 54 2 0 2 0 4 4
3-Axle Trucks 2.5 90 3 3 6 3 2 5
4+-Axle Trucks 3.0 291 12 6 18 6 12 18
Total PCE Trip Generation 1058 42 16 58 19 43 62
Total New Trip Generation 1044 41 13 54 17 43 60
Total New PCE Trip Generation 1505 61 21 82 26 62 88
Net New Trip Generation -1550 -306 -34 -340 -32 -254 -286
Net New PCE Trip Generation -1941 -399 -41 -440 -38 -332 -370
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual,11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 110 - General Light Industrial.
2 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 157 - High-Cube Cold Storage
Warehouse, incorporating inbound and outbound rates from Code 154.
3 Vehicle Mix from the City of Fontana, Truck Trip Generation Study, August 2003. Classification: Light Industrial.
4 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factors from City of Fontana's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, October 2020.
5 Vehicle Mix from the Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage, July 17, 2014. With Cold Storage.
6 Vehicle Mix from the City of Fontana, Truck Trip Generation Study, August 2003. Classification: Heavy Warehouse.
As shown in Table TRA-1, the Proposed Project would result in 1,505 PCE trips and the approved SWIP use
would result in 3,446 PCE trips. Thus, the Proposed Project would result in 1,941 fewer PCE trips in
comparison to the maximum intensity allowed in the SWIP. Vehicular access to the Project site would be
provided via two driveways on Hemlock Avenue and two driveways on Live Oak Avenue. Vehicular traffic
to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that
currently serve the Project area. The Project would construct internal roadways that would provide access
to the warehouse building, trailer stalls, and loading docks. In addition, final design plans would be subject
to review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
The City’s General Plan recommends a LOS standard of LOS C. Therefore, any intersection operating at
LOS D, E, or F is considered unsatisfactory for the purposes of this analysis (Appendix M). An intersection
effect occurs if project traffic increases the average delay at an intersection by more than the thresholds
of significant impact identified below in Table TRA-2.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 118 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table TRA-2: LOS Threshold of Significance
With Project LOS Significant Impact Threshold
A/B 10.0 seconds
C 8.0 seconds
D 5.0 seconds
E 3.0 seconds
F 1.0 seconds
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the Project to assess the potential traffic-related impacts
of the proposed Project. The TIA (Appendix M) included the analysis of the following two-way stop
controlled (TWSC) and signalized intersections:
1. Cherry Ave/I-10 Ramps WB (Signalized)
2. Cherry Ave/I-10 Ramps EB (Signalized)
3. Cherry Ave/Slover Ave (Signalized)
4. Live Oak Ave/Slover Ave (Signalized)
5. Project Dwy 1/Live Oak Ave (TWSC)
6. Project Dwy 2/Live Oak Ave (TWSC)
7. Jurupa Ave/Live Oak Ave (Signalized)
8. Hemlock Ave/Slover Ave (TWSC)
9. Project Dwy 3/Hemlock Ave (TWSC)
10. Project Dwy 4/Hemlock Ave (TWSC)
11. Jurupa Ave/Hemlock Ave (TWSC)
As presented in Appendix M, all intersections operate with a satisfactory LOS during the AM and PM peak
hours under Project Opening Year (2027) without Project Conditions except for the following five
intersections:
• Intersection #3. Cherry Ave/Slover Ave (LOS D during AM and PM peak hour)
• Intersection #4. Live Oak Ave/Slover Ave (LOS D during AM and PM peak hour)
• Intersection #7. Jurupa Ave/Live Oak Ave (LOS D during AM and PM peak hour)
• Intersection #8. Hemlock Ave/Slover Ave (LOS D during AM and LOS F during PM peak hour)
• Intersection #11. Jurupa Ave/Hemlock Ave (LOS D during PM peak hour)
Additionally, as presented in Appendix M, all intersections operate with a satisfactory LOS during the AM
and PM peak hours under the Opening Year (2027) Plus Project Conditions except for the following five
intersections:
• Intersection #3. Cherry Ave/Slover Ave (LOS D during AM and PM peak hour)
• Intersection #4. Live Oak Ave/Slover Ave (LOS D during AM and PM peak hour)
• Intersection #7. Jurupa Ave/Live Oak Ave (LOS D during AM and PM peak hour)
• Intersection #8. Hemlock Ave/Slover Ave (LOS E during AM and LOS F during PM peak hour)
• Intersection #11. Jurupa Ave/Hemlock Ave (LOS D during PM peak hour)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 119 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Under the Opening Year (2027) Plus Project Conditions, the delay at Intersections #3, #4, #7, and #11
during the AM and PM peak hours is either not increased or increased by less than the thresholds of
significant impact. However, the delay at the following intersection during the PM peak hours increases
the average delay at the intersection by more than the thresholds of significant impact (Appendix M):
• Intersection #8. Hemlock Ave/Slover Ave (Increase of 0.9s during AM and 47.7s during PM peak
hour)
The Approved Project FEIR identified LOS impacts as a significant and unavoidable impact on
transportation and included Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1nn to achieve acceptable
operations at the deficient roadway segments for forecast existing with the FEIR Approved Project
conditions. However, these FEIR Mitigation Measures do not apply because the Project would generate
fewer trips in both AM and PM Peak hours than what the Approved Project previously estimated for the
Project site (see Table TRA-1). This indicates that the LOS at applicable intersections in the FEIR would be
improved with Project implementation when compared to the Approved Project and therefore, no further
mitigation measures are applicable or required. Nevertheless, the Applicant would be required pay
Development Impact Fees that the City shall utilize to fund transportation improvements identified in the
Approved Project’s FEIR.
Alternative Transportation
Sidewalks currently exist along the Project site’s Jurupa Avenue frontage. The Proposed Project includes
installation of sidewalks along Hemlock Avenue and Live Oak Avenue. No bicycle facilities currently exist
within the vicinity of the Project site. According to Fontana General Plan Exhibit 9.6, Bicycle Facilities in
Fontana, Class I bike lanes are proposed along Jurupa Avenue. Fontana is served by Omnitrans, with 10
bus routes, and the Victor Valley Transit Authority, which provides commuter bus service to Barstow and
Victorville. The Omnitrans Bus Route 82 stop is located at the intersection of Jurupa Avenue and Live Oak
Avenue, which is adjacent to the Project site. Additionally, Metrolink provides passenger rail service to
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura counties from downtown. The
Fontana Metrolink station is located approximately 5.7 roadway miles northeast of the Project site. The
Project would not disrupt service of the Omnitrans Bus Route or the Metrolink line. Additionally, the
Project proposes a bus turn out along Jurupa Avenue. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with
alternative transportation and Project impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Program
The Approved Project FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the Approved Project.
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Forecast Existing with Project Conditions
FEIR Mitigation Measures (4.9-1a through 4.9-h) were intended to achieve acceptable operations at the
deficient roadway segments for forecast existing with the FEIR Approved Project conditions. However,
these FEIR Mitigation Measures do not apply because the Project’s trip generation (Table TRA-1)
determined that the Project would generate fewer trips in both AM and PM Peak hours than what the
Approved Project previously estimated for the Project site. This indicates that the LOS at applicable
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 120 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
intersections would be improved with Project implementation when compared to the Approved Project
and therefore, no mitigation measures are applicable. Nevertheless, the Applicant shall pay Development
Impact Fees that the City shall utilize to fund transportation improvements identified in the Approved
Project’s FEIR.
FEIR Mitigation Measures (4.9-1i through 4.9-1cc) were intended to achieve acceptable operations at the
deficient intersections for forecast existing with Approved Project conditions. However, these FEIR
Mitigation Measures do not apply because the Project’s trip generation (Table TRA-1) determined that
the Project would generate fewer trips in both AM and PM peak hours than what the Approved Project
previously estimated for the Project site. This indicates that the LOS at applicable intersections would be
improved with Project implementation when compared to the Approved Project therefore, no mitigation
measures are applicable. Nevertheless, the Applicant shall pay Development Impact Fees that the City
shall utilize to fund transportation improvements identified in the Approved Project’s FEIR.
4.9-1a Mulberry Avenue – Consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, construct
Mulberry Avenue connection from Slover Avenue to Valley Boulevard over I-10 freeway.
This improvement is identified to provide additional north-south capacity, reducing
forecast traffic on Etiwanda Avenue and Cherry Avenue.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Mulberry Avenue from Slover Avenue to Valley Boulevard
(Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1b Beech Avenue – Consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, construct Beech
Avenue from Slover Avenue to Valley Boulevard including an interchange with I-10. This
improvement is consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan. This
improvement is identified to provide additional north-south capacity and freeway access,
reducing forecast traffic on Cherry Avenue and Citrus Avenue.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Beech Avenue from Slover Avenue to Valley Boulevard (Traffic
Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1c Jurupa Street between Etiwanda Avenue and Mulberry Avenue – Consistent with the City
of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 4-lane
divided roadway segment to a 6-lane divided roadway segment. This improvement is
included in the City of Fontana 7-Year Capital Improvement Program, but is not yet fully
funded.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Jurupa Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and Mulberry
Avenue (Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1d Mulberry Avenue between Slover Avenue and Jurupa Avenue – Consistent with the City
of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-lane
undivided roadway segment to a 4-lane undivided roadway segment.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 121 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Mulberry Avenue between Slover Avenue and Jurupa Avenue
(Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1e Jurupa Street between Mulberry Avenue and Cherry Avenue – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 4-lane divided
roadway to a 6-lane divided roadway. This improvement is included in the City of Fontana
7-Year Capital Improvement Program, but is not yet fully funded.
[This mitigation measure does not apply to the Project. Project fees to the City’s DIF
Program would assist in implementing these types of planned roadway improvements].
4.9-1f Beech Avenue between Slover Avenue and Jurupa Street – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-lane divided
roadway to a 4-lane divided roadway.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Beech Avenue between Slover Avenue and Jurupa Street
(Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1g Citrus Avenue between I-10 Eastbound Ramps and Santa Ana Avenue – Consistent with
the City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-
lane undivided roadway segment to a 4-lane undivided roadway segment.
[This mitigation measure is does not apply to because vehicle and truck trips from the
Project are not anticipated to use Citrus Avenue between I-10 Eastbound Ramps and Santa
Ana Avenue (Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1h Citrus Avenue between Santa Ana Avenue and Jurupa Street – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-lane
undivided roadway segment to a 4-lane undivided roadway segment.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Citrus Avenue between Santa Ana Avenue and Jurupa Street
(Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1i Etiwanda Avenue/San Bernardino Avenue – Widen the northbound Etiwanda Avenue
approach from two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound
San Bernardino Avenue approach from two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and
one right-turn lane. Additionally, modify the westbound San Bernardino Avenue signal
phasing to include a westbound right-turn overlap, which will preclude U-turn movement
from southbound to northbound Etiwanda Avenue.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Etiwanda Avenue (Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 122 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.9-1j Etiwanda Avenue/East Airport Drive-Slover Avenue – Widen the northbound Etiwanda
Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared
through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Etiwanda Avenue approach from
one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of
two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the
westbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
two right-turn lanes.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Etiwanda Avenue (Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1k Etiwanda Avenue/Jurupa Street – Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street approach from two
left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Street
approach from two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Etiwanda Avenue (Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1l Mulberry Avenue/Slover Avenue – In concert with construction of the extension of
Mulberry Avenue north of Slover Avenue, widen the northbound Mulberry Avenue
approach from one left-turn lane and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane,
two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Construct and stripe the southbound
Mulberry Avenue approach to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one
right-turn lane. Widen the eastbound Slover Avenue approach from two through lanes
and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through
lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Slover Avenue
approach from one left-turn lane and two through lanes to consist of one left-turn lane,
two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Additionally, modify the signal phasing to
consist of protected left-turn phasing.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Mulberry Avenue north of Slover Avenue (Traffic Impact
Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1m Mulberry Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue – Widen the northbound Mulberry Avenue approach
from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-
turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Re-stripe the eastbound Santa Ana
Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane to
consist of one left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the
westbound Santa Ana Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/ through/right-turn
lane to consist of one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn
lane. Additionally, modify the east-west signal phasing from permitted left-turns to
protected left-turns.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 123 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Mulberry Avenue (Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1n Mulberry Avenue/Jurupa Street – Modify the northbound Mulberry Avenue signal
phasing to include a northbound right-turn overlap, which will preclude U-turn movement
from westbound to eastbound Jurupa Street. Widen the southbound Mulberry Avenue
approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Additionally, modify
the southbound Mulberry Avenue signal phasing to include a southbound right-turn
overlap, which will preclude U-turn movement from eastbound to westbound Jurupa
Avenue. Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street approach from one left-turn lane, two
through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through
lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Avenue approach from one
left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Mulberry Avenue (Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1o Banana Avenue/Valley Boulevard – Signalize the Banana Avenue/Valley Boulevard
intersection. According to the City of Fontana, the Banana Avenue/Valley Boulevard
satisfies traffic signal warrants and is in the pre-construction phase.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Banana Avenue/Valley Boulevard intersection (Traffic Impact
Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1p Cherry Avenue/Valley Boulevard – Widen the northbound Cherry Avenue approach from
one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one defacto right-turn lane to consist of one
left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Cherry
Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to
consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the
westbound Valley Boulevard approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn
lane.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Cherry Avenue/Valley Boulevard intersection (Traffic Impact
Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1q Cherry Avenue/Slover Avenue – Widen the northbound Cherry Avenue approach from
one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn
lane, four through lanes and one right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Cherry Avenue
approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn
lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Widen
the eastbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
one defacto right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one
right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane,
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 124 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through
lanes, and two right-turn lanes.
[This mitigation measure does not apply to the Project. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1q is a
future City improvement to this intersection. Project fees to the City’s DIF Program would
assist in implementing this future planned roadway improvement].
4.9-1r Cherry Avenue/Jurupa Street – Widen the northbound Cherry Avenue approach from two
left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Cherry Avenue
approach from two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Widen the
eastbound Jurupa Avenue approach from two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one
shared through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and
one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Street approach from two left-turn
lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three
through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Cherry Valley/Jurupa Avenue intersection (Traffic Impact
Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1s Beech Avenue/Valley Boulevard – Signalize the Beech Avenue/Valley Boulevard
intersection. Widen the northbound Beech Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/
through lane and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, one through lane,
and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Beech Avenue approach
from one shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn
lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Beech Avenue/Valley Boulevard intersection (Traffic Impact
Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1t Beech Avenue/Slover Avenue – Signalize the Beech Avenue/Slover Avenue intersection.
Widen the northbound Beech Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/through/right-
turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
Widen the southbound Beech Avenue approach from one shared left-turn/through/right-
turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
Widen the eastbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane,
and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through
lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Slover Avenue approach from one
left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one
left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Beech Avenue/Valley Boulevard intersection (Traffic Impact
Analysis, Appendix M). Project fees to the City’s DIF Program would assist in implementing
these types of planned roadway improvements].
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 125 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.9-1u Beech Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue – Signalize the Beech Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue
intersection.
[This mitigation measure does not apply to the Project. Project fees to the City’s DIF
Program would assist in implementing these types of planned roadway improvements].
4.9-1v Beech Avenue/Jurupa Street – Signalize the Beech Avenue/Jurupa Street intersection.
Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street approach from one shared left-turn/through lane and
one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes,
and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Street approach from one shared
left-turn/through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
one right-turn lane.
[This mitigation measure does not apply to the Project. Project fees to the City’s DIF
Program would assist in implementing these types of planned roadway improvements].
4.9-1w Citrus Avenue/Valley Boulevard – Widen the northbound Citrus Avenue approach from
one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of
two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane. Widen the
southbound Citrus Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one
shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and
one right-turn lane. Widen the eastbound Valley Boulevard approach from two left-turn
lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-
turn lanes, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Cherry Avenue/Valley Boulevard intersection (Traffic Impact
Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1x Citrus Avenue/Slover Avenue – Widen the northbound Citrus Avenue approach from one
left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, two
through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Citrus Avenue approach
from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-
turn lane, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Widen the eastbound Slover
Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one defacto right-turn
lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen
the westbound Slover Avenue approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and
one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes,
and one right-turn lane.
[The northbound Citrus Avenue approach improvement has been completed by the City of
Fontana. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1x is not applicable to the proposed Project (Traffic
Impact Analysis, Appendix M). Project fees to the City’s DIF Program would assist in
implementing these types of planned roadway improvements].
4.9-1y Citrus Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue – Signalize the Citrus Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue
intersection. Widen the northbound Citrus Avenue approach from one shared left-
turn/through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane. Widen the southbound Citrus Avenue approach from one shared
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 126 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
left-turn/through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane. Widen the eastbound Santa Ana Avenue approach from one
shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane. Re-stripe the westbound Santa Ana Avenue approach from one
shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and
one shared through/right-turn lane.
[Installation of a signal at this intersection and two approaches have been completed by
the City of Fontana. Project fees to the City’s DIF Program would assist in implementing
these types of planned roadway improvements].
4.9-1z Citrus Avenue/Jurupa Street – Signalize the Citrus Avenue/Jurupa Street intersection.
Widen the southbound Citrus Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared
through/right-turn lane. Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street approach from one left-turn
lane, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of one left-
turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa
Street approach from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-
turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
[Most of these improvements have been completed by the City of Fontana. Mitigation
Measure 4.9-1z is not applicable to the proposed Project (Traffic Impact Analysis,
Appendix M). Project fees to the City’s DIF Program would assist in implementing the
remainder of these types of planned roadway improvements].
4.9-1aa Sierra Avenue/Slover Avenue – Widen the eastbound Slover Avenue approach from two
left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes,
three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Sierra Avenue/Slover Avenue intersection (Traffic Impact
Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1bb Sierra Avenue/Jurupa Street – Widen the southbound Sierra Avenue approach from two
left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lane,
two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. Widen the eastbound Jurupa Street
approach from one left-turn lane, one shared left-turn/through lane, one through lane,
and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-
turn lane. Widen the westbound Jurupa Street approach from one left-turn lane, one
through lane, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes,
and one right-turn lane. Improvements have recently been constructed at this
intersection satisfying the lane configuration recommended.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Sierra Avenue/Jurupa Street intersection (Traffic Impact
Analysis, Appendix M)].
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 127 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.9-1cc Armstrong Road/SR-60 Eastbound Ramps – Contribute towards preparation of a Project
Study Report to improve operations, circulation, and access at the Armstrong Road/SR-
60 interchange.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Armstrong Road/SR-60 Eastbound Ramps (Traffic Impact
Analysis, Appendix M)].
Forecast Year 2030 with Approved Project Conditions
FEIR Mitigation Measures (4.9-1dd through 4.9-hh) were intended to achieve acceptable operations at
the deficient roadway segments for the forecast year 2030 with Approved Project conditions. However,
these FEIR Mitigation Measures do not apply because the Project’s trip generation (Table TRA-1)
determined that the Project would generate fewer trips in both AM and PM Peak hours than what the
Approved Project previously estimated for the Project site. This indicates that the LOS at applicable
intersections would be improved with Project implementation when compared to the Approved Project
and therefore, no mitigation measures are applicable. Nevertheless, the Applicant shall pay Development
Impact Fees that the City shall utilize to fund transportation improvements identified in the Approved
Project’s FEIR.
FEIR Mitigation Measures (4.9-1ii through 4.9-1nn) were intended to achieve acceptable operations at the
deficient intersection for the forecast year 2030 with Approved Project conditions. However, these FEIR
Mitigation Measures do not apply because the Project’s trip generation (Table TRA-1) determined that
the Project would generate fewer trips in both AM and PM peak hours than what the Approved Project
previously estimated for the Project site. This indicates that the LOS at applicable intersections would be
improved with Project implementation when compared to the Approved Project therefore, no mitigation
measures are applicable. Nevertheless, the Applicant shall pay Development Impact Fees that the City
shall utilize to fund transportation improvements identified in the Approved Project’s FEIR.
4.9-1dd Cypress Avenue – Consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, construct
Cypress Avenue from Slover Avenue to Valley Boulevard over I-10 freeway. This
improvement is consistent with City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan. This
improvement is identified to provide additional north-south capacity, reducing forecast
traffic on Cherry Avenue and Citrus Avenue.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Cypress Avenue (Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1ee Country Village Road between Philadelphia Avenue and SR-60 Westbound Ramps –
Consistent with the County of Riverside Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway
segment from a 4-lane undivided roadway segment to a 6-lane divided roadway segment.
Since this improvement is within the jurisdiction of the recently incorporated City of
Jurupa Valley, implementation by the City of Fontana cannot be assured. Therefore, this
improvement shall be included in the planning and collection of fees and coordination
with the appropriate lead agency shall occur to administer the improvement.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 128 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Country Village Road between Philadelphia Avenue and SR-
60 Westbound Ramps (Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1ff San Bernardino Avenue between Cherry Avenue and Fontana Avenue – Consistent with
the City of Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 2-
lane divided roadway to a 4-lane divided roadway. Since this improvement is within the
jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino, implementation by the City of Fontana
cannot be assured. Therefore, this improvement shall be included in the planning and
collection of fees and coordination with the appropriate lead agency shall occur to
administer the improvement.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize San Bernardino Avenue between Cherry Avenue and Fontana
Avenue (Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1gg Jurupa Street between Cherry Avenue and Citrus Avenue – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 5-lane divided
roadway to a 6-lane divided roadway. A portion of this improvement has recently been
implemented by the City of Fontana providing the capacity for a 6-lane roadway between
Poplar Avenue and Citrus Avenue.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Jurupa Street between Cherry Avenue and Citrus Avenue
(Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1hh Jurupa Street between Citrus Avenue and Sierra Avenue – Consistent with the City of
Fontana Circulation Master Plan, widen the study roadway segment from a 5-lane divided
roadway to a 6-lane divided roadway. This improvement has recently been implemented
by the City of Fontana providing the capacity for a 6-lane roadway between Citrus Avenue
and Sierra Avenue.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize Jurupa Street between Citrus Avenue and Sierra Avenue
(Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1ii I-15 Southbound Ramps/Jurupa Street – Widen the southbound I-15 Southbound Off-
Ramp from one left-turn lane, one shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane, and one
right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Jurupa Street (Traffic Impact
Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1jj Commerce Way/Ontario Mills Parkway – Widen the northbound Commerce Way
approach from two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 129 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize the Commerce Way/Ontario Mills Parkway intersection
(Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1kk Cherry Avenue/San Bernardino Avenue – Widen the eastbound San Bernardino Avenue
approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist
of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize the Cherry Avenue/San Bernardino Avenue intersection
(Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1ll Cherry Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue – Widen the southbound Cherry Avenue approach
from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane to
consist of one left-turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
[This mitigation measure does not apply because vehicle and truck trips from the Project
are not anticipated to utilize the Cherry Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue intersection (Traffic
Impact Analysis, Appendix M)].
4.9-1mm Prior to issuance of a grading permit, applicants for future development associated with
the proposed project shall prepare site-specific traffic studies, to the satisfaction of the
City’s Engineering Department. As determined by these subsequent traffic studies, traffic
improvements identified as mitigation measures in this Program EIR shall be implemented
as a condition of the approved future development project, either through direct
construction by the project applicant and/or through development impact fees.
[Mitigation Measure 4.9-1mm is applicable to the proposed Project. A site-specific traffic
study has been prepared as part of this Addendum (included as Appendix M) and the
required measures will be implemented as a Condition of Approval.
4.9-1nn The City of Fontana shall perform monitoring of traffic generation and phasing of
development within the project area to defer or eliminate identified improvements due
to potential circulation impact changes or reduced land use intensities. This monitoring
shall be achieved through project-specific traffic studies tied to future development
within the Specific Plan Update area with land use in excess of 100,000 square feet of
non-residential land use.
[Mitigation Measure 4.9-1nn is applicable to the proposed Project. A site-specific traffic
study has been prepared as part of this Addendum (included as Appendix M) and includes
traffic counts to identify the existing vehicular trips near the Project site.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to conflict with a
program, plan, ordinance, policy, or guideline addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. No new or more severe impacts from a previously identified
significant and unavoidable impact evaluated in the Approved FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 130 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior findings under this issue
area.
Threshold (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
No New or More Severe Impact:
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(c) is clear that “[t]he provisions of [Section 15064.3] shall apply
prospectively as described in [CEQA Guidelines] Section 15007.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15007(c)
specifically states: “[i]f a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent
out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content
requirements in Guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved.” The CEQA
Guidelines changes with respect to VMT took effect on July 1, 2020, whereas the Approved Project FEIR
was certified in 2012. As such, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3(c) and 15007(c),
revisions to the Approved Project FEIR are not required under CEQA in order to conform to the new
requirements established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3.
Once a project is approved, CEQA does not require that it be analyzed anew every time another
discretionary action is required to implement the project. Quite the opposite, where an EIR or MND has
previously been prepared for a project, CEQA expressly prohibits agencies from requiring a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or MND, except in specified circumstances (PRC Section 21166). Under CEQA, “Section
21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging
the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired, and the question is whether circumstances have
changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process” (Citizens Against Airport
Pollution v. City of San Jose (“CAAP”) (2014), 227 Cal.App.4th at 796). There was no CEQA requirement to
analyze VMT at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified; thus, there is no need to analyze VMT
impacts in connection with this EIR Addendum.
Furthermore, the new VMT requirements set forth by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 do not relate to
a different type of impact, but merely a different way of analyzing transportation impacts. The Approved
Project FEIR included a detailed assessment of potential impacts, including potential impacts to air quality
as a result of projected VMT. As this information was disclosed as part of the Approved Project FEIR, VMT
associated with buildout of the SWIP do not comprise “new information” that was not known or could
not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified. Because VMT impacts were
known, the adoption of the requirement to analyze VMT therefore does not constitute significant new
information requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR (Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City
of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320).
In the case of the Project, there are no changed circumstances that would warrant additional analysis
under Public Resources Code Section 21166. Even if an analysis was conducted, the results of such an
analysis would show that VMT from the Project is less than what would occur under the development
assumptions utilized in the Approved Project FEIR, based on the Project’s substantial reduction in
passenger vehicle and heavy truck traffic relative to the calculations utilized in the Approved Project FEIR.
As shown in the preceding response, the Project is calculated to eliminate 1,550 daily vehicle traffic trips
within the Specific Plan Update area based on the original traffic generation factors that were assumed in
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 131 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the Approved Project FEIR. Therefore, there is substantial evidence that the Project as proposed would
result in reduced VMT as compared to the project evaluated by the Approved Project FEIR.
Therefore, and based on the above analysis, the Project would not result in any new impacts not already
analyzed in the Approved Project FEIR, and the Project would not increase the severity of a significant
impact as previously identified and analyzed in the Approved Project FEIR.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to VMT. No new impacts
or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the
Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was
not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available
that would impact the prior findings under this issue area.
Threshold (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
No New or More Severe Impact: Proposed Project construction activities could require the restriction of
public access during construction. Standard construction safety measures would be applied which would
include appropriate signage and flagmen visible to approaching motorists and pedestrians indicating
access options and warnings. Because the Proposed Project would impact a public right-of-way, a Traffic
Management Plan would be created and include further provisions to minimize risks during Proposed
Project construction.
Proposed Project geometric design features, including the four entrances and internal driveway system,
have been designed to meet the standards for the turning radii of large truck with trailers. This is also
beneficial for the access of emergency response equipment, including a ladder fire truck. The Proposed
Project area is currently used as an industrial steel yard and no agricultural activities occur in the Proposed
Project area; therefore, there would be no incompatible use with farm equipment.
Four driveways would be incorporated into the Proposed Project design, including two driveways on
Hemlock Avenue and two driveways on Live Oak Avenue. These driveways would allow traffic to safely
enter and exit the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project would therefore generate a less than
significant traffic hazard impact, and no mitigation would be required.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 132 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to geometric design
features or incompatible uses. No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously
identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time
the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant
impact under this issue area.
Threshold (d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No New or More Severe Impact: Proposed Project features to ensure sufficient emergency access include
access via two 50-foot-wide driveways and two 35-foot-wide driveways, metal access gates with fire
department padlocks, and 30 to 50 feet internal drive aisles to allow for fire/emergency response vehicles
to maneuver throughout the Proposed Project site.
The Approved Project FEIR stipulates that the Traffic Management Plan would be created via the City’s
requirements for any projects that include construction activities within the public right-of-way. The
Proposed Project would therefore be required to create a Traffic Management Plan which would include
practices such as directional signage, flagmen, and emergency access creation. Further, the Municipal
Code Section 30-529(A) requires developments to incorporate access for emergency vehicles to project
designs. The driveways along Hemlock Avenue and Live Oak Avenue would be of sufficient size to allow
emergency vehicles to traverse onto the Proposed Project site. By complying with the City’s Traffic
Management Plan and other traffic management regulations, the Proposed Project would maintain
adequate emergency access and result in a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
None identified in the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to emergency access.
No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact
evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR
was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact under this issue area.
Overall Transportation Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts, with respect to transportation. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 133 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
4.17.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved Project FEIR concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not
result in significant impacts relative to utilities and service systems. However, the implementation of the
below referenced Mitigation Measures was recommended.
4.17.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Require or result in the construction of new water, wastewater treatment facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Proposed Project is a permitted use, allowed by right in the SWIP’s
JND. As such, the proposed use has been previously accounted for in the Approved Project FEIR, including
the potential water and wastewater required for the site. Domestic water services would be provided to
the Project by the FWC. Wastewater treatment services are provided to the area by the Inland Empire
Utilities Agency (IEUA). As discussed previously, the Project would install new on-site water lines to
connect to the existing 15-inch diameter water line in Live Oak Avenue and the existing 12-inch diameter
water line in Hemlock Avenue. The Project would also install new on-site sewer lines to connect to the
existing 10-inch diameter sewer line in Live Oak Avenue and the existing 10-inch diameter sewer line in
Hemlock Avenue. Therefore, the Project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities.
Additionally, the Approved Project FEIR determined that impacts to storm water drainage facilities would
be less than significant. The Proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of
polluted runoff.
Furthermore, as previously addressed, the Proposed Project will be required to prepare a SWPPP that
details construction and post-construction measures to control surface runoff in a manner that is
consistent with master planning efforts. Therefore, associated impacts are considered less than
significant. Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact
evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project. The following measures from the FEIR are applicable to the Proposed Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The mitigation measures listed below are included in the Approved Project FEIR; however, these are
goals/policies to be implemented by the City and are not applicable to the Proposed Project.
4.8-8a The City shall maintain its current Master Plan of Sewers as the basis for development of
a sewer system to serve the community.
4.8-8b The City shall design and operate its local and trunk sewer system in close collaboration
with the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 134 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.8-8c The City shall establish and maintain an aggressive water recycling program.
4.8-8d The City shall devote sufficient financial support for wastewater system maintenance so
that current levels of service, health, and safety are sustained or improved.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to placement of utilities
and sewer systems. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and
could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would
impact the prior finding of no significant impact.
Threshold (b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR determined that implementation of the SWIP
Specific Plan Update would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to water supplies. No potable
groundwater wells are proposed as part of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would be served
with potable water by the FWC. The FWC prepared a WSA for the SWIP Specific Plan Update as part of the
Approved Project FEIR process. Based on the results of the WSA, existing and future water entitlements
from groundwater, surface, and imported sources in addition to recycling and conservation were
determined to be sufficient to meet the Approved Project’s demand at buildout, in addition to forecast
demand for the FWC’s entire service area.20 Development of the Proposed Project site, which is located
in the JND, was calculated in the WSA, and the Proposed Project is consistent with the type of
development and square footage maximum anticipated for the site in the JND. Lastly, according to the
FWC’s latest 2020 UWMP, the FWC has sufficient water supply through year 2045.21
The Proposed Project would consume water at a rate of approximately 8.2 acre-foot per year, based on
FWC water consumption rates (0.33 acre-foot, per acre, per year for industrial use).22 According to the
Approved Project FEIR, the estimated buildout of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area would consume
water at a rate of 1,690 acre-feet per year (includes industrial, commercial, and residential uses). The
Proposed Project would thus consume less than one-half of a percent of the estimated water demand for
the SWIP Specific Plan Update area.
Domestic water supplies from this service provider are reliant on groundwater from the Chino
Groundwater Basin, Rialto-Colton Basin, and No Man’s Land Basin. The FWC also relies on surface water
sourced from Lytle Creek and imported surface water from IEUA and San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District. All municipal water entities that exceed their safe yield incur a groundwater replenishment
obligation, which is used to recharge the groundwater basin. Thus, the Proposed Project’s demand for
domestic water service would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level.
Additionally, according to the 2020 UWMP, FWC is projected to have sufficient water supplies available
to serve its service area during normal, dry, and multiple dry years through 2045. Therefore, the Project
20 City of Fontana. 2009. Water Supply Assessment for the Southwest Industrial Park Project.
21 San Gabriel Valley Water Company Fontana Water Company Division. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf (accessed June 10, 2024).
22 Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.ieua.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/09/Compressed-Urban-Water-Management-Plan.pdf (accessed June 10, 2024).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 135 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
would have sufficient water supplies during the foreseeable future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years.
Accordingly, no new or more severe impact relative to water supply from a previously identified significant
impact evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of
substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved
Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact related
to the provision of water.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the Proposed
Project:
Mitigation Measures from the FEIR
The mitigation measures listed below are goals/policies to be implemented by the City and are not
applicable to the Proposed Project.
4.8-7a The City shall work closely with water supply agencies to assure the continued supply of
water.
4.8-7b The City shall act to conserve water in whatever cost-effective ways are reasonably
available.
4.8-7c The City shall manage urban runoff to minimize water supply contamination.
4.8-7d The City shall collaborate with water management authorities to devise and implement
creative and cost-effective water management strategies.
4.8-7e The City shall provide educational material to its residents and businesses regarding the
critical necessity for careful use of water and management of water systems.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to water supplies.
Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been
known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding
of no significant impact to utilities and service systems.
Threshold (c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No New or More Severe Impact: See discussion for Threshold 4.17.2(a) above. The SWIP Specific Plan
Update area is within the sewer service area of the City and the IEUA. The City is a member agency of the
IEUA, which provides the City contracting privileges with the IEUA for off-site collection, treatment,
disposal and reuse.
A Water and Sewer Infrastructure Study (Study) was conducted for the SWIP Specific Plan Update in 2009.
The Study calculated existing sewer flow for the JND at 76,953 gallons per day (gpd) and 948,230 gpd for
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 136 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
ultimate buildout. Existing peak flow is 32 gallons per minute (gpm) and ultimate buildout is 236 gpm. The
Study found that existing sewerage collection capacity would be sufficient for ultimate Approved Project
land uses of the areas currently within the City limits, which includes the JND. However, the Study
recommended that because much of the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is under-utilized, estimated flows
for each trunk sewer system should be revised as these activities occur, in order to optimize sewer sizing.
In addition, potential trunk system alignment modifications may be in order to efficiently serve new parcel
construction.
The Proposed Project would produce 266.31 gpd of wastewater based on the wastewater generation
factor of 10.76 gallons per acre per day provided in the City’s General Plan.23 Thus, the Proposed Project
would generate the same amount of wastewater per year compared to the maximum buildout of the
Project site pursuant to the SWIP. As such, no change would occur, and no significant impacts are
anticipated with respect to providing adequate wastewater facilities to serve the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures 4.8-8a through 4.8-8d are listed in the Approved Project FEIR; however, these are
goals/policies to be implemented by the City, not the Proposed Project.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to wastewater
treatment capacity. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and
could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available that would
impact the prior finding of no significant impact to wastewater treatment systems.
Threshold (d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
Threshold (e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
No New or More Severe Impact: The Approved Project FEIR determined that the SWIP Specific Plan
Update would not result in significant impacts relative to solid waste with the implementation of
mitigation measures. Implementation of the Proposed Project would be expected to generate additional
waste during the temporary, short-term construction phase, as well as the long-term operational phase.
Solid waste service for the City is provided by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill located east of the City.
According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the landfill has
a maximum throughput of 7,500 tons per day. Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has a maximum permitted
capacity of approximately 101.3 million cubic yards and a remaining capacity of approximately 61 million
cubic yards. The landfill has an expected operational life through 2045.24 The Fontana General Plan EIR
notes that while the 2011 projected capacity of the landfill was thought to be met by 2033, more recent
23 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035. https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035
(accessed June 18, 2024).
24 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2024. Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662 (accessed June 18, 2024).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 137 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
projections indicate the same landfill may have capacity to accept waste for another 30 to 40 years.25 As
described previously, demolition of the existing structures and hardscape is anticipated to result in 38,056
tons of debris. Thus, construction of the Proposed Project would generate a total of 38,056 tons of solid
waste. The CalEEMod solid waste generation rate for general light industrial land use is 1.24 tons per year
per 1,000 square feet. Thus, the proposed 492,240 SF distribution facility would generate approximately
610 tons of solid waste per year compared to the estimated 735 tons of solid waste per year generated
by the 592,960 SF Approved Project. As such, the Proposed Project would generate 125 fewer tons of solid
waste than the Approved Project. For these reasons, the Proposed Project’s solid waste disposal needs
during construction and operations can be met by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill and would not result in
a new impact. Additionally, the Proposed Project, similar to all other development projects in the City,
would be required to adhere to City ordinances with respect to waste reduction and recycling. As a result,
no impacts related to State and local statutes governing solid waste are anticipated and no mitigation is
required. Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, with implementation of the below-referenced
mitigation measures, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Program
The FEIR includes measures to reduce potential impacts associated with the implementation of the
Approved Project. The following measures from the Approved Project FEIR are applicable to the Proposed
Project:
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
The below mitigation measures are listed in the Approved Project FEIR; however, these are goals/policies
to be implemented by the City, not the Proposed Project.
4.8-9a The City shall continue to maintain a contractual arrangement that achieves maximum
recycling rates at a reasonable price.
4.8-9b Where joint programs offer improvement efficiency or reduced cost, the City shall
collaborate with other entities in recycling efforts.
4.8-9c The City shall continue to provide services to resident and business citizens that facilitate
community cleanup, curbside collections and diversion of oil and other hazardous waste
materials.
4.8-9d The City should maintain an aggressive public information program to stimulate waste
reduction by its resident and business citizens.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to conflict with solid
waste standards and regulations. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not
known and could not have been known at the time the Approved Project FEIR was certified is available
that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact to solid waste generation.
25 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report.
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed June
18, 2024).
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 138 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Overall Utility and Service Systems Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified
impacts with respect to utilities and service systems. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 139 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.18 Wildfire
4.18.1 Analysis of Proposed Project
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for Wildfire hazards. Although not
addressed as a separate threshold, the Approved Project FEIR noted in the Air Quality and Climate Change
chapter that climate change could result in increased occurrences and duration of wildfire events.
However, the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is located within an urbanized area and is surrounded by
development on all sides; it is not located adjacent to wildlands that may increase the risk of wildland
fires. Because the SWIP Specific Plan Update area is not considered susceptible to wildland fires, wildfire
risks as a result of global climate change are anticipated to be less than significant in the Approved Project
FEIR. Hazards related to wildfire are also discuss under Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
Threshold (a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Threshold (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?
Threshold (c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Threshold (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?
No New or More Severe Impact: According to the CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project
site is not within an area identified as a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Fire Hazard Severity Zone that
may contain a substantial fire risk (CAL FIRE, 2024). Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, the
Proposed Project site is located in a flat/leveled area, which does not include wildland habitat and is not
located near hillsides. The Proposed Project site is surrounded by residential uses to the south and by
industrial and commercial uses to the north, east, and west. Because the Proposed Project site would not
be exposed to wildfires, wind, slope, or other factors would not exacerbate wildfire risks. Additionally, the
Proposed Project site would not require the installation of additional roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, or other features that could result in fire risks. Finally, the Proposed Project site is not exposed
to flooding, landslides, runoff conditions. No impact is anticipated to occur from Proposed Project
implementation.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 140 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
Consistent with the Approved Project FEIR, the Proposed Project is located within an urbanized area and
is not located near hillsides. No new impact from wildfires would occur.
Overall Wildfire Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to Wildfire. Therefore,
preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 141 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.19 Energy
4.19.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for energy. Although not addressed as a
separate threshold in the Approved Project FEIR, the Approved Project FEIR analyzed energy conservation
as part of the Other CEQA Considerations and concluded that implementation of the SWIP Specific Plan
Update would result in a less-than-significant impact on energy resources. Additionally, the SWIP Specific
Plan had planned the Proposed Project site to be developed with light industrial uses. With this, the SWIP
Specific Plan Update planned and accounted for the use of energy from the permitted use.
4.19.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A Proposed Project-specific Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis was prepared by
EPD Solutions, Inc. on January 17, 2025. It is incorporated as Appendix B of this document.
Threshold (a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation, and
No New or More Severe Impact.
Construction
Proposed Project construction would require energy for activities such as the manufacture and
transportation of building materials, grading activities, and building construction. Construction of the
Proposed Project would require electricity to power construction-related equipment, however, Project
construction would not involve the consumption of natural gas. Transportation energy represents the
largest energy use during construction and would occur from the transport and use of construction
equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles that would use petroleum
fuels (diesel fuel and/or gasoline). Table E-1 indicates the construction equipment fuel usage and Table E-
2 presents the Proposed Project’s energy consumption estimates during construction.
Table E-1: Construction Equipment Fuel Usage
Activity Equipment Number Hours
per Day
Horse-
power
Load
Factor
Days of
Construction
Total
Horsepower
-hours
Fuel Rate
(gal/hp-hr)
Fuel Use
(gallons)
Demolition Concrete/
Industrial Saws
1 8 33 0.73 30 5,782 0.04172372 241
Excavators 3 8 36 0.38 30 9,850 0.05110175 503
Rubber Tired
Dozers
2 8 367 0.4 30 70,464 0.04695772 3,309
Site
Preparation
Rubber Tired
Dozers
3 8 367 0.4 10 35,232 0.04695772 1,654
Crawler Tractor 4 8 84 0.37 10 9,946 0.05036589 501
Grading Excavators 2 8 36 0.38 25 5,472 0.05110175 280
Graders 1 8 148 0.41 25 12,136 0.05205489 632
Rubber Tired
Dozers
1 8 367 0.4 25 29,360 0.04695772 1,379
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 142 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48 25 81,216 0.05036589 4,091
Crawler Tractors 2 8 87 0.43 25 14,964 0.08050323 1,205
Building
Construction
Cranes 1 8 367 0.29 350 298,004 0.05349335 15,941
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 350 137,760 0.03211507 4,424
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 350 29,008 0.08050323 2,335
Tractors/
Loaders/
Backhoes
3 8 84 0.37 350 261,072 0.05163856 13,481
Welders 1 8 46 0.45 350 57,960 0.05129285 2,973
Paving Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 20 10,886 0.05360434 584
Paving
Equipment
2 8 89 0.36 20 10,253 0.05349335 548
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 20 4,378 0.03016796 132
Architectural
Coating
Air Compressors 1 8 37 0.48 35 4,973 0.03016796 150
Total 54,363
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix B)
Table E-2: Proposed Project Construction Energy Consumption Estimates
Construction Source Gallons of Diesel Fuel Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
Construction Vehicles 136,490 93,292
Off-Road Construction Equipment 54,363 0
Total 190,853 93,292
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Ga Impact Analysis (Appendix B)
As shown in Table E-2, the Project would consume approximately 190,853 gallons of diesel fuel and
approximately 93,292 gallons of gasoline during construction. Based on fuel consumption obtained from
EMFAC2021, approximately 281 million gallons of diesel and approximately 829 million gallons of gasoline
will be consumed from vehicle trips in San Bernardino County in 2025.26 Therefore, construction of the
Proposed Project would increase the annual construction generated fuel use in San Bernardino County by
approximately 0.07 percent for diesel fuel usage and by approximately 0.01 percent for gasoline fuel
usage. As such, Project construction would have a negligible effect on local and regional energy supplies.
Further, construction-related fuel use would be similar or less than with the Approved Project. No unusual
project characteristics would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy
efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the State. The Project would not cause or
result in the need for additional energy facilities or an additional or expanded delivery system. Therefore,
fuel consumption during construction would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
Operation
Operational energy use for the Proposed Project would be associated with natural gas use, electricity
consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips. Energy consumption was estimated for the Proposed Project
using default energy intensities by land use type in CalEEMod while fuel use associated with vehicle and
truck trips generated by the Proposed Project was calculated using the Project's Trip Generation Analysis
26 California Air Resources Board. ND. EMFAC 2021 Emissions Inventory. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-
inventory (accessed January 28, 2025)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 143 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
(Appendix B). Table E-3 shows electricity, natural gas, and fuel usage estimates associated with the
Proposed Project and SWIP Buildout of the Project site.
Table E-3: Proposed Project Operational Energy Consumption
Electricity (kWh)
Proposed Project 5,309,604
Approved Project 5,079,667
Natural Gas (kBTU)
Proposed Project 10,302,013
Approved Project 22,840,586
Gasoline Consumption
Annual VMT Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
Proposed Project 3,827,728 128,145
Approved Project 10,194,393 341,290
Diesel Consumption
Annual VMT Gallons of Diesel Fuel
Proposed Project 2,960,417 384,657
Approved Project 5,266,109 681,828
Net Energy Use
Net Electricity (kWh) 229,937
Net Natural Gas (kBTU) -12,538,574
Net Gasoline Consumption (Gallons) -213,144
Net Diesel Consumption (Gallons) -297,170
Notes: kWh = kilowatt-hours, kBTU = thousands British thermal unit, VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix B)
As shown in Table E-3, the estimated electricity demand associated with the operation of the Proposed
Project is 5,309,604 kWh/year and the estimated natural gas demand is 10,302,013 kBTU/year. As shown
in Table E-2, the Proposed Project would result in higher electricity and lower natural gas usage than the
Approved SWIP buildout. In 2022, total electricity consumption in San Bernardino County was
16,629,614,195 kWh27, while natural gas consumption was 562,123,065 therms 28 (or 56,212,306,500
kBTU). Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would increase the electricity consumption in the
County by 0.03 percent and increase the annual natural gas consumption by 0.02 percent.
Electrical and natural gas demand associated with Project operations would not be considered inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. Additionally, the
Project would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency,
including the Title 24 standards. Title 24 building energy efficiency standards establish minimum efficiency
standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling
equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting, which would reduce energy usage.
27 California Energy Commission. (2025). Electricity Consumption by County.
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed January 29, 2025)
28 California Energy Commission. (2025). Natural Gas Consumption by County.
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed January 29, 2025)
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 144 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
As shown in Table E-3, fuel use associated with the vehicle trips generated by the Proposed Project is
estimated at 128,145 gallons of gasoline and 384,657 gallons of diesel fuel per year. This analysis
conservatively assumes that all vehicle trips generated as a result of Project operation would be new to
San Bernardino County. As shown in Table E-2, the Proposed Project would result in lower gasoline and
diesel fuel usage than the Approved SWIP buildout. Additionally, based on fuel consumption obtained
from EMFAC2021, approximately 281 million gallons of diesel and approximately 829 million gallons of
gasoline will be consumed from vehicle trips in San Bernardino County in 2025. Therefore, vehicle and
truck trips associated with the Proposed Project would increase the annual fuel use in San Bernardino
County by approximately 0.01 percent for gasoline fuel usage and approximately 0.1 percent for diesel
fuel usage. Therefore, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by Project operations
would be consistent with current State and federal fuel economy standards and would not be considered
inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project’s energy consumption for construction activities related to redevelopment of the
site for new logistics and distribution uses would be permitted to require compliance with existing fuel
standards, machinery efficiency standards, and CARB requirements that limit idling of trucks. Through
compliance with existing standards the Proposed Project would not result in demand for fuel greater on
a per-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. There are no unusual
Project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy
efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the State. Additionally, operation
of the Proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources. In addition, the Proposed Project would comply with current Title 24 requirements as well as
all applicable City business and energy codes and ordinances. Therefore, the Proposed Project would
result in a less-than-significant impact on energy consumption, and no new impacts would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
No new or severity of impact from energy consumption would occur.
Threshold (b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No New or More Severe Impact. The California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are designed
to ensure new and existing buildings achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor
environmental quality. These measures (Title 24, Part 6) are listed in the California Code of Regulations.
The California Energy Commission is responsible for adopting, implementing and updating building energy
efficiency. Local city and county enforcement agencies have the authority to verify compliance with
applicable building codes, including energy efficiency. All development is required to comply with the
adopted California Energy Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 6), which is ensured through the City’s
development permitting process.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 145 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
As previously stated, the Project would be consistent with Title 24 standards. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency,
and no new impacts would occur.
Conclusion
The Proposed Project would comply with current Title 24 requirements as well as all applicable City
business and energy codes and ordinances. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-
significant impact on energy consumption, and no new impacts would occur.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
There are no mitigation measures from the Approved Project FEIR.
Conclusion
No new or severity of impact from energy consumption would occur.
Overall Energy Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to energy. Therefore,
preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 146 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4.20 Tribal Cultural Resources
4.20.1 Analysis of Proposed Project
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for tribal cultural resources (TCRs). This
section briefly examines potential impacts related to TCRs that could result from implementation of the
Proposed Project. The analysis is based primarily on confidential cultural resource studies conducted for
the Approved Project FEIR and the Proposed Project. PRC language relevant to the TCR thresholds is
below:
PRC Section 21074 defines a TRC as follows:
(a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical
Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section
5020.1.
(2) 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 Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this
paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
(b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the
extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape.
(c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in
subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in
subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the
criteria of subdivision (a).
Subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5020.1 is as follows:
(k) “Local register of historical resources” means a list of properties officially designated or
recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or
resolution.
Subdivisions (a) and (c) of PRC Section 5024.1 are as follows:
(c) A resource may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if it meets any of the
following National Register of Historic Places criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 147 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction,
or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
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:
Threshold (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), or
Threshold (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 Project site is completely disturbed and consists of a warehouse, office, and railroad spur track. In
April 2024, a Cultural Resources Records Search was conducted, which included a cultural resources
records search. The records search at SCCIC identified one previously recorded resource within the Project
site, which is the historic Declezville Branch Line of the Southern Pacific Railroad (Appendix E). The Historic
Resources Assessment (Appendix F) found that the remnant segment of the Southern Pacific Declez Spur
Line within the Project site is not strongly associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to the broad patterns of national or state history or with significant persons in the past. Due to the
disturbed nature of the site and absence of traditional lands or cultural places within the Project site, it is
unlikely that implementation of the Proposed Project would impact TCRs. Although no prehistoric sites
have been locally recorded, in general, the Proposed Project site is situated at an ethnographic nexus
peripherally occupied by the Gabrielino and Serrano.
The Notice of Preparation for the Approved Project was filed in 2009; therefore, AB 52, which was enacted
in July 1, 2015, did not apply to the Approved Project FEIR. Likewise, the provisions of AB 52 are
inapplicable to this Addendum. The Proposed Project would be subject to comply with the TCR standard
conditions of approval listed below.
Based on the above, a less-than-significant impact would occur on TCRs from Proposed Project
implementation; however, if previously undocumented cultural resources are identified during
earthmoving activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the nature and significance
of the find and divert earthmoving activities, if necessary, in accordance with Mitigation Measures 4.4-1b,
4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c.
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Approved Project FEIR
Mitigation Measures 4.4-1b, 4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c apply, as discussed above.
Environmental Impact Analysis
SWIP Specific Plan Update 148 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Standard Conditions of Approval
The Proposed Project would be subject to comply with the City’s Cultural and Tribal Standard Conditions
of Approval as listed below.
• Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in
the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and
archaeological and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin,
interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the
landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request
preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of
the project while evaluation takes place.
• Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to
remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural
Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native
American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in
the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in
the area for educational purposes.
• Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall
be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary
disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary
objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for
archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with
Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologists shall
ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.
Conclusion
No new impact related to TCRs would occur.
Overall Tribal Cultural Resources Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the
Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to TCRs. Therefore,
preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
SWIP Specific Plan Update 149 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION
The following discussion lists the appropriate subsections of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA
Guidelines and provides justification for the City to make a determination of the appropriate CEQA
document for the Proposed Project, based on the environmental analysis provided above.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 ‒ Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent
EIR shall be prepared for that Project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of
substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(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.
The City proposes to implement the Proposed Project within the context of the SWIP Specific Plan Update,
as described in this Addendum. As discussed in the Environmental Impact Analysis section of this
Addendum, the Proposed Project is entirely consistent with the SWIP Specific Plan Update, and no new
or more severe significant environmental effects beyond what was evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR
would occur.
(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.
As documented herein, the circumstances associated with the location, type, setting, or operations of the
Proposed Project have not substantively changed from what was evaluated in the Approved Project FEIR;
and none of the Proposed Project elements would result in new or more severe significant environmental
effects than previously identified. No major revisions to the Approved Project FEIR are required.
(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 environmental effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
No new significant environmental effects beyond those addressed in the Approved Project FEIR were
identified.
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
Significant effects previously examined would not be more severe than were disclosed in the Approved
Project FEIR as a result of the Proposed Project. Impacts associated with all environmental resource areas
would be the same as or less than disclosed in the Approved Project FEIR. Implementation of the Proposed
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
SWIP Specific Plan Update 150 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Project within the context of the SWIP Specific Plan Update would not substantially increase the severity
of previously identified impacts.
(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
Based on the discussion above, no mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
are now feasible.
(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.
No other mitigation measures or feasible alternatives have been identified that would be considerably
different than those incorporated in the Approved Project FEIR.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after
adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required
under subsection (a). Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a
subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
Subsequent to certification of the Approved Project FEIR in May 2012, additional technical analyses were
performed for the Proposed Project and are the subject of this Addendum. Based on the analysis in this
document, the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects nor would
it increase the severity of significant effects previously identified in the Approved Project FEIR. None of
the conditions listed under subsection (a) would occur that would require preparation of a subsequent
EIR.
(c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless
further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval
does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions
described in subsection (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared
by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this
situation, no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the
subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.
None of the conditions listed in subsection (a) would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. No SEIR is
required.
Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation
SWIP Specific Plan Update 151 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 ‒ Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration
(a) The lead agency or 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.
As described above, none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the
preparation of an SEIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling
for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of an SEIR would occur as a
result of the Proposed Project. Therefore, an Addendum to the certified Approved Project FEIR is the
appropriate CEQA document for the Proposed Project.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the
FEIR or adopted negative declaration.
This Addendum will be attached to the Approved Project FEIR and maintained in the administrative record
files at the City.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the FEIR or adopted negative
declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
The City will consider this Addendum with the Approved Project FEIR prior to making a decision on the
Proposed Project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162
should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the Project,
or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
This document provides substantial evidence for City records to support the preparation of this
Addendum for the Proposed Project.
Conclusion
SWIP Specific Plan Update 152 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
6 CONCLUSION
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines
to document the finding that none of the conditions or circumstances that would require preparation of
an SEIR, pursuant to Section 15162 and Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines exist in connection with the
Proposed Project. No major revisions to the Approved Project FEIR prepared for the SWIP Specific Plan
Update are required as a result of the Proposed Project. No new significant environmental impacts have
been identified. Since the certification of the Approved Project FEIR, there has been no new information
showing that mitigation measures or alternatives once considered infeasible are now feasible or showing
that there are feasible new mitigation measures or alternatives substantially different from those
analyzed in the Approved Project FEIR that the City declined to adopt. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR
is not required and the appropriate CEQA document for the Proposed Project is this Addendum to the
Approved Project FEIR. This document will be maintained in the administrative record files at the City.
References
SWIP Specific Plan Update 153 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
7 REFERENCES
BFSA Environmental Services. (2024a). Cultural Resources Records Search (Available in Appendix E).
BFSA Environmental Services . (2024b). Paleontological Resources Assessment (Available in Appendix H).
California Air Resources Board. (n.d.). EMFAC 2021 Emissions Inventory.
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory (accessed January 28, 2025)
California Department of Conservation. (2024a). California Important Farmland Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed May 29, 2024).
California Department of Conservation. (2024b). Mineral Land Classification.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc (accessed
May 31, 2024).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). (2024). Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Viewer. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/
(accessed June 5, 2024).
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). (2024). Mid-Valley Sanitary
Landfill. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662
(accessed June 18, 2024).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2019). Scenic Highways.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-
liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed May 28, 2024).
California Energy Commission. (2025a). Electricity Consumption by County.
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed January 29, 2025)
California Energy Commission. (2025b). Natural Gas Consumption by County.
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed January 29, 2025)
City of Fontana. (2009). Water Supply Assessment for the Southwest Industrial Park Project.
City of Fontana. (2011). Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan Update and Annexation Program Public
Review Draft Environmental Impact Report.
City of Fontana. (2012). SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation FPEIR Mitigation and Monitoring
Program (Available in Appendix A).
City of Fontana. (2018a). Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035.
https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035 (accessed June 18, 2024).
City of Fontana. (2018b). Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report. https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-
Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed June 18, 2024).
References
SWIP Specific Plan Update 154 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Fontana. (2021). Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan – Land Use Map.
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29671/SWIP-Land-Use-Plan-Map-Updated-
March-2021 (accessed May 28, 2024).
City of Fontana. (2022). 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/37230/Fontana-Housing-Element_January-
2022_Clean (accessed June 18, 2024)
City of Fontana. (n.d.). Environmental Information Form.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2177/Environmental-Information-Form-PDF
(accessed May 28, 2024).
City of Ontario. (2018). Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.ont-
iac.com/airport-land-use-compatibility-plan/ (accessed February 12, 2025)
ELMT Consulting. (2024). Biological Due Diligence Investigation. (Available in Appendix D).
EPD Solutions, Inc. (2025a). Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis. (Available in
Appendix B).
EPD Solutions, Inc. (2025b). Health Risk Assessment. (Available in Appendix C).
EPD Solutions, Inc. (2025c). Traffic Impact Analysis. (Available in Appendix M).
Fontana Water Company. (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-
Final.pdf (accessed June 10, 2024).
Fontana Water Company. (n.d.). Fontana Water Company Service Area Map.
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Service_Area_FONTANA.pdf
(accessed June 10, 2024)
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.ieua.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Compressed-Urban-Water-Management-
Plan.pdf (accessed June 10, 2024).
LSA. (2025). Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Available in Appendix L).
Moore Twining Associates, Inc. (2015). Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Available in
Appendix G).
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (2015). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (Available in
Appendix I)
PBLA Engineering, Inc. (2024a). Preliminary Hydrology Study (Available in Appendix J).
PBLA Engineering, Inc. (2024b). Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Available in Appendix K).
San Bernardino County. (2007). Geologic Hazard Maps.
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH29C.pdf (accessed June 3, 2024).
References
SWIP Specific Plan Update 155 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. (2018). One Water One Watershed Plan Update 2018.
https://www.sawpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/OWOW-Plan-Update-2018-1.pdf
(accessed June 18, 2024).
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). (2001). Employment Density Study.
https://www.mwcog.org/file.aspx?A=QTTlTR24POOOUIw5mPNzK8F4d8djdJe4LF9Exj6lXOU%3D
(accessed June 18, 2024)
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). (2024). Demographics and Growth Forecast.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-tr-demographics-growth-
forecast-final-040424.pdf?1712261839 (accessed February 10, 2025)
References
SWIP Specific Plan Update 156 14970 Jurupa Avenue Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
APPENDIX B
AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX C
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D
BIOLOGICAL DUE DILLIGENCE INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX E
CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH
APPENDIX F
HISTORIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX G
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX H
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX I
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX J
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
APPENDIX K
PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX L
NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX M
TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS