Agenda packet — Fontana City Council, May 9, 2023 (part 3 of 7)

on April 6, 2022, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Shea Project and, additional comments were received; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Shea Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use planning, and transportation; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on November 9, 2022; and
WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City provided Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public at the same time that the City sent Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research, on November 9, 2022; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City Hall, on the City’s website, and at the Lewis Library and Technology Center public libraries; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for at least a 45-day public review and comment period from November 10, 2022 to January 3, 2023; and
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, the City received four (4) written comment letters on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR on April 28, 2023; and 351
Findings

Page 3 of 151 ends

WHEREAS, on April 18, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing to consider the Draft EIR and approvals of a General Plan Amendment No. 21- 004, Zone Change No. 21-006, Design Review Project No. 21-034, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018), Development Agreement No. 22-006 to permit the development and operation of a one-building commerce center, and action pursuant to the City of Fontana’s No Net Loss Density Bonus/Replacement Program to ensure compliance with California’s Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), for the Shea Project and solicited comments on the document. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City’s consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR for the Project; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2023, the City released the Final EIR (“Final EIR”), which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, and errata to the Draft EIR and technical appendices; and
WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Shea Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Shea Project sufficiently analyzes the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts and the EIR analyzes a range of feasible alternatives capable of reducing these effects to an even lesser level of significance; and
WHEREAS, the City has made certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Shea Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and 352
Findings

Page 4 of 151 ends

WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2.2 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures are described in Section 2.3 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are significant and unavoidable are described in Section 2.4 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the potential significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed Shea Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 2.5 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Shea Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section

2.6 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Shea Project that might further reduce the already less than significant environmental impacts are described in Section 2.7 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, a statement of overriding considerations is set forth in Section 3.0 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Shea Project to a level of less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Shea Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Shea Project 353
Findings

Page 5 of 151 ends

under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2023, the City conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Shea Project was fully considered; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.

SECTION 5. Based upon the entire record before it, including the EIR, Findings of Fact, and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council hereby approves the proposed Shea Industrial Commerce Project.

SECTION 6. The documents and materials that constitute the record of 354
Findings

Page 6 of 151 ends

proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City of Fontana Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. The custodian for these records is Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

SECTION 7. City staff shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of May, 2023.

READ AND APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
_______________________
City Attorney
ATTEST:

I, Germaine Key, City Clerk of the City of Fontana and Ex-Officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the actual resolution duly and regularly adopted by the City of Fontana at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 9th day of May, 2023, by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Fontana
________________________________
Mayor of the City of Fontana
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
355
7 EXHIBIT A

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
356
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Approval of the:

Sierra Business Center
Shea Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2022030544
Lead Agency
City of Fontana
Community Development Department
18353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Project Applicants
Shea Properties
130 Vantis Street, Suite 200
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
March 20, 2023
357
i
Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Summary..................................................................................................... 1

1.2 City of Fontana Actions Covered By the EIR ........................................................ 2

1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation .................................................... 3

2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings .......................................................................... 5

2.1 General Findings..................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Impacts Identified in the Initial Study (IS) or EIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Not Requiring Mitigation ..................................................................... 6

2.3 Impacts Identified in the EIR as Potentially Significant that Have been Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant ....................................................................... 55

2.4 Impacts Identified in the EIR as being Significant and Unavoidable ................... 68

2.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Caused by the Proposed Project Should It Be Implemented ........................................................ 74

2.6 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project............................................... 75

2.7 Project Alternatives............................................................................................... 77

3.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations................................................................... 81

4.0 Additional Facts on Record ....................................................................................... 82

4.1 Adoption of a Monitoring Plan for Mitigation Measures..................................... 82

4.2 Custodian of Record ............................................................................................. 82 358
1 1.0 Introduction
The City Council of the City of Fontana (the “City Council”) in approving the Shea Project (also called Sierra Business Center) (the “Project”), makes the Findings presented herein. The Findings are based upon the entire record before the City Council, as described in Subsection 1.3 below, including the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Shea Project on behalf of the City of Fontana (the “City”) acting as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Hereinafter, the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Studies, Final EIR (containing responses to public comments on the Draft EIR and textual revisions to the Draft EIR), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be referred to collectively herein as the “EIR” unless otherwise specified.

1.1 Project Summary
The project evaluated herein is the Sierra Industrial Facility (the “Shea Project”).

The City of Fontana opted to evaluate the Shea Project and the adjacent North Fontana Industrial Complex (the “Acacia Project”) in a single EIR because the projects are adjacent, propose the same commerce center land use type, and are proposed to be implemented on a similar schedule. (DEIR, p. 3-1)

1.1.1 Site Location
The ±11.5 gross-acre Shea Project site is located in the City of Fontana, in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County, California. The City of Fontana is located east of the cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga, west of the City of Rialto and the unincorporated community of Bloomington, and north of the City of Jurupa Valley, which is located in the northwestern portion of Riverside County. At the local scale, the Project site is located on the east side of Sierra Avenue approximately 700 feet north of Casa Grande Avenue, approximately 1.6 miles south of Interstate 15 (I-15) and 1.7 miles north of Interstate 210 (I-210). The Project site includes two parcels:

Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 0239-151-09 and -38.

1.1.2 Project Description
The Shea Project includes the development of one 199,999 square foot (s.f.) commercial center building, which would include up to 188,000 s.f. of commerce center storage area and up to 19,900 s.f. of office space. A detention basin is proposed to be located in the southwest corner of the Project site. The Project would dedicate 36 feet of street right-of-way to the City of Fontana for improvements to Sierra Avenue including pavement removal and adjustments, along with pavement infill, curb and gutter, two new driveway aprons, sidewalk, lane striping, and landscaping/irrigation (including approximately 11 new street trees), decorative streetlights, fire hydrants, and signage. The ultimate design section for this street includes a future 20-foot-wide raised median.
359
2 The legislative actions for the Shea Project entail a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 21-004) and a Zone Change (ZC No. 21-006) from a residential to light industrial designation. The Shea Project Site-specific actions entail a proposed Design Review Project (DRP No. 21-034) and a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM No. 21-018) to permit the development and operation of a onebuilding commerce center, and action pursuant to the City of Fontana’s No Net Loss Density Bonus/Replacement Program to ensure compliance with California’s Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330).

1.1.3 Project Objectives
The fundamental purpose and goal of the Shea Project is the following:

A. Expand economic development and facilitate job creation in the City of Fontana by establishing new commerce center development along an existing truck route.

B. To attract employment-generating businesses to the City of Fontana to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.

C. To develop a commerce center building in north Fontana that has building heights, floor area ratios, and architectural characteristics that are similar to and compatible with other commerce center buildings that were recently built or recently approved for construction in north Fontana.

D. To develop a commerce center building along or in close proximity to a designated truck route and the State highway system to avoid or shorten heavy truck-trip lengths on City and regional roads.

E. To attract businesses that can expedite the delivery of goods to consumers and businesses in the City of Fontana and beyond.

1.2 City of Fontana Actions Covered By the EIR
The City of Fontana has primary approval responsibility for the proposed Project. As such, the City serves as the Lead Agency for the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. The City’s Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the Final EIR. For the Shea Project, the Planning Commission will consider the GPA No. 21-004, ZC No. 21-006, DRP No. 21-034 and TPM No. 21-018. The Planning Commission will make advisory recommendations to the City Council. A public hearing will then be held before the City Council regarding certification of the Final EIR and approval of GPA No. 21-004, ZC No. 21-006, DRP No. 21-034, and TPM No. 21-018 for the Shea Project. The City Council is the approval authority for certification of the GPAs, ZCs, DRPs, and TPMs for the Shea Project. Other agencies also may use the EIR as part of their decision-making processes concerning the proposed Project. 360
3 1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation
The City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Shea Project individually and the Shea Project and adjacent Acacia Project collectively to ensure that the City’s decision makers and the public are fully informed about potential significant environmental effects of the Shea Project and the collective Shea and Acacia Projects; to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in the Project through the use of mitigation measures and project design requirements which have been found to be feasible; and to disclose to the public the reasons why the City has initiated the Project in the manner chosen in light of the significant environmental effects which have been identified in the EIR. In order to do this, the City, acting as lead agency under CEQA, undertook the following:
o Prepared a Notice of Preparation, which was used as the basis for the determination that an EIR should be prepared for the Shea and Acacia Projects. The Notice of Preparation identified the environmental issues to be analyzed in detail in the Project’s EIR as:

Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology & Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, Land Use & Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities & Service Systems, and Wildfire; o The Notice of Preparation was sent to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (the “State Clearinghouse”), Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on March 22, 2022, for a 30-day review period;
o Held a publicly noticed EIR Scoping Meeting on April 6, 2022 using an internet-based virtual platform (Zoom);
o Submitted a Notice of Completion, Notice of Availability, and Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse on November 9, 2022;
o Mailed a Notice of Availability to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, County Clerk, other interested parties, and organizations and individuals who had previously requested the Notice on November 9, 2022 to inform recipients that the Draft EIR was available for a 45-day review period beginning on November 10, 2022, and ending on January 3, 2023;
o Mailed the Notice of Availability to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the Shea and Acacia Projects Sites on November 9, 2022;
o Provided copies of the Draft EIR to 38 public agencies, organizations, and individuals on November 9, 2022;
o Made the Notice of Availability and Draft EIR available to the public on the City’s website; o Published the Notice of Availability in the Fontana Herald News, which is the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Shea and Acacia Projects, on November 10, 2022;
361
4 o Prepared responses to comments on the Draft EIR received during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR, which have been included in the Final EIR; o Published a notice on April 7, 2023, in the Fontana Herald News, the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Shea and Acacia Projects, that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on April18, 2023, to consider the Shea and Acacia Projects and EIR for recommendation to the City Council; o Sent notice of the Planning Commission’s hearing to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested notification of anything having to do with the Shea and Acacia Projects on March 30, 2023;
o Sent written responses to comments to all public agencies, organizations, and individuals who submitted comments the Draft EIR on March 30, 2023 (four comment letters were received);
o Sent notice of the City Council’s hearing to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested notification of anything having to do with the Shea and Acacia Projects on April 6, 2023.
o Published a notice on May 12, 2023, in the Fontana Herald News, the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Shea and Acacia Projects, that the City Council would hold a public hearing on May 23, 2023, to consider approval of the Shea and Acacia Projects and certification of the EIR;
o Held a public hearing of the City Council on May 23, 2023, and, after full consideration of all comments, written and oral, certified that the Final EIR had been completed in compliance with CEQA and approved the Shea and Acacia Projects.

All of the documents identified above and all of the documents which are required to be part of the administrative record pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) are on file with the City of Fontana Community Development Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335.
362
5 2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings

2.1 General Findings

2.1.1 Independent Judgment Finding
Finding: The EIR for the Project reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The EIR was prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., an independent, professional consulting firm hired by the City and working under the supervision and direction of the City’s Planning Department staff. The City Council, as the City’s final decisionmaking body for the Shea and Acacia Projects, received and reviewed the EIR and the comments, written and oral, provided by public agencies and members of the public prior to certifying that the EIR complied with CEQA. The professional qualifications and reputation of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR Consultant by City staff and its consultants, the thorough and independent review of the Draft EIR and Final EIR, including comments and responses, by City staff, and the review and careful consideration of the Final EIR by the City Council, including comments and responses, all conclusively show that the Final EIR is the product of and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as the Lead Agency, and of the City Council as the decision-making body for the Project.

2.1.2 Finding of the Absence of any Need to Recirculate the EIR Finding: The Final EIR does not add significant new information to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The City Council recognizes that the Final EIR incorporates information obtained and produced after the Draft EIR was completed and that the Final EIR contains additions, clarifications, and minor modifications to the Draft EIR. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of the information contained in it and has determined that the new information added to the Final EIR does not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, nor a feasible mitigation measure or an alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed that the Shea Project Applicant declined to adopt and that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Shea Project. No information provided to the City Council indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR.

2.1.3 General Finding on Mitigation Measures
It is the City’s intent to adopt and implement all mitigation measures identified in the EIR which are applicable to the Shea Project, which the City finds to consist of all feasible measures that reduce the Shea Project’s significant impacts. If a measure has, through error, been omitted from the Conditions of Approval or from these Findings, and that measure is not specifically reflected in these Findings, that measure shall be deemed to be adopted pursuant to this paragraph. In addition, unless specifically stated to the contrary in these Findings, all Conditions of Approval repeating or rewording mitigation measures recommended in the EIR are intended to be 363
6 substantially similar to the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified environmental impact. In each instance, the Conditions of Approval contain the final wording for the mitigation measures.

2.2 Impacts Identified in the Initial Study (IS) or EIR as No Impact or Less than Significant Not Requiring Mitigation
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 and Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. Nevertheless, the City Council hereby finds that the Shea Project would have either no impact or a less than significant impact under the following resource areas:

2.2.1 Aesthetics
A. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Threshold “a”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Shea Project Site nor the Acacia Project Site are considered to be part of a scenic vista. Neither Project Site contains any special or unique scenic attributes, like rock outcroppings, native vegetation, or a substantial number of mature trees. The City of Fontana General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas or scenic corridors on the Shea Project Site or the Acacia Project Site or in the vicinity of either Project Site. Scenic resources within and surrounding the City of Fontana include the San Gabriel Mountains, which are located approximately 1.7 miles north of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites and the Jurupa Hills, which are located approximately 8.1 miles south of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites. Under existing conditions, views of the Jurupa Hills are visible from the Shea and Acacia Project Sites and their vicinity on clear days; however, these distant landforms are not prominently visible from the Shea and Acacia Project Sites and their vicinity on days with high levels of atmospheric haze (which is common throughout the year). (DEIR, p. 4.1-7)
Shea Project: The San Gabriel Mountains are visible from Sierra Avenue which abuts the western side of the Shea Project Site. The proposed commerce center building would not obscure views of the San Gabriel Mountains from Sierra Avenue but could obscure the views of the mountains from the residential community in the City of Rialto that is located to the east of the Shea Project Site. The proposed Shea Project building would have a maximum height of 46.0 feet and other vertical features (walls, fences, landscaping, etc.) would be shorter and have substantially less mass than the building. Views of the San Bernardino Mountains would continue to be available above the building. Because public views of the San Gabriel Mountains would still be available from public viewing areas surrounding the Shea Project Site and development on the site would be very low in stature compared to the approximate 10,000-foot peak height of the mountain range, the Shea Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the mountain view and would have a less-than-significant impact on the San Gabriel Mountains scenic vista. (DEIR, p. 4.1-7) 364
7 The Shea Project also would have a less-than-significant impact on public views of the Jurupa Hills. Due to the 8.1-mile distance and existing intervening development, views are obscured from the Shea Project Site and abutting public viewing areas under existing conditions.

The obscured views of the Jurupa Hills that are available from public viewing areas that abut the Shea Project Site under existing conditions (i.e., from the Shea Project Site’s western boundary with Sierra Avenue) would not be obstructed by future development on the Shea Project Site because a viewer would need to look due south – within the Sierra Avenue public right-of-way – to have a view of the Hills and not southeast across the Shea Project Site; therefore, there is no potential for future development on the site to encroach within the Sierra Avenue public right-ofway view corridor and obstruct views of the Jurupa Hills. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-7 to 4.1-8) Acacia Project: The San Gabriel Mountains are visible from the Sierra Avenue segment that abuts the western side of the Acacia Project Site and from Duncan Canyon Road that abuts the northern side of the Acacia Project Site. The proposed commerce center buildings would not obscure views of the San Gabriel Mountains from Sierra Avenue but could obscure the views of the mountains from the residential community in the City of Rialto that is located to the east of the Acacia Project Site. The proposed Acacia Project buildings would have a maximum height of 45 feet 6 inches and other vertical features (walls, fences, landscaping, etc.) would be shorter and have substantially less mass than the building. Views of the San Bernardino Mountains would continue to be available above the buildings. Because public views of the San Gabriel Mountains would still be available from public viewing areas surrounding the Acacia Project Site and development on the site would be very low in stature compared to the approximate 10,000-foot peak height of the mountain range, the Acacia Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the mountain view and would have a less-than-significant impact on the San Gabriel Mountains scenic vista. (DEIR, p. 4.1-8)
The Acacia Project also would have a less-than-significant impact on public views of the Jurupa Hills. Due to the 8.1-mile distance and existing intervening development, views are obscured from the Acacia Project Site and abutting public viewing areas under existing conditions.

The obscured views of the Jurupa Hills that are available from Sierra Avenue (which abuts the Acacia Project’s western boundary) would not be obstructed by future development on the Acacia Project Site because a viewer would need to look due south – within the Sierra Avenue public right-of-way – to have a view of the hills and not southeast across the Acacia Project Site. The view of the Jurupa Hills from Duncan Canyon Road would be obscured by the Acacia Project buildings because a viewer would be looking due south from Duncan Canyon Road, across the Acacia Project Site, to view the Jurupa Hills. Due to the distance to the Jurupa Hills from the Acacia Project Site, the existing intervening development and frequent atmospheric haze obscuring the view, the impact of the Acacia Project to encroach on public right-of-way views of the Jurupa Hills is less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-8) Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: Development of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites would not result in a substantial adverse effect to an on-site scenic vista. Development of the three Shea and Acacia Project buildings would not obscure views of the San Gabriel Mountains from either the Sierra Avenue or Duncan Canyon Road public viewing areas, and view obstruction from 365
8 the residential community to the east in the City of Rialto towards the San Gabriel Mountains would be less than significant because views of the mountains would still be available above the rooflines of the proposed commerce center buildings and development on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites would be very low in stature compared to the approximate 10,000-foot peak height of the mountain range. Distant views of the Jurupa Hills are obscured by existing intervening development and frequent atmospheric haze, and therefore, impacts from the Shea and Acacia Projects to encroach on the public right-of way views of the Jurupa Hills are less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-8)
B. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Shea nor Acacia Project Sites are located near any designated State scenic highway. The closest State-Eligible scenic highway is a segment of I-138 that is located approximately 9.5 miles northeast of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites. Due to distance and intervening topography and development, neither the Shea nor Acacia Project Sites are visible from this State-Eligible segment of I-138. Accordingly, implementation of the Shea Project and Acacia Project would not adversely impact the viewshed within a scenic highway corridor. (DEIR, p. 4.1-9)
C. In non-urbanized areas, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Threshold “c”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea and Acacia Project Sites are located in an area that meets the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of an “urbanized area” and both properties are planned for urban uses by the City’s General Plan; therefore, for purposes of evaluation herein both the Shea and Acacia Projects are considered to be located in an urbanized area. (DEIR, p. 4.1-9) Shea Project: The proposed Shea Project commerce center building would be constructed to an approximate height of 46.0 feet and would feature a contemporary architecture design and color palette with articulated building features (such as a varied roofline, horizontal reveals and other elements) that would minimize the perceived height and size of the building. The Shea Project also would feature landscaping – with plant materials massed along public street frontages, at Project entries, and at building entrances – to soften the proposed building frontages. (DEIR, p.

4.1-9)
366
9 The Shea Project Applicant applied for Zone Change (ZC) No. 21-006 to amend the City’s Zoning District Map to change the zoning classification of the Shea Project Site from Multi-Family High Density Residential (R-5) to Light Industrial (M-1). The City of Fontana reviewed the Shea Project design in detail and did not identify the need for any variances from M-1 zoning standards contained in the City’s Municipal Code, Article VII. There are no other regulations governing scenic quality applicable to the Shea Project Site; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-9 to 4.1-10)
Acacia Project: The proposed Acacia Project commerce center buildings would be constructed to an approximate height of 45 feet 6 inches and would feature a contemporary architecture design and color palette with articulated building features (such as a varied roofline, horizontal reveals and other elements) that would minimize the perceived height and size of the buildings. The Acacia Project also would feature landscaping – with plant materials massed along public street frontages, at Project entries, and at building entrances – to soften the proposed building frontages. (DEIR, p. 4.1-10)
The Acacia Project Applicant applied for ZC No. 21-007 to amend the City’s Zoning District Map to change the zoning classifications of the Acacia Project Site from R-5 and General Commercial (C-2) to M-1. The City of Fontana reviewed the Acacia Project design in detail and did not identify the need for any variances from M-1 zoning standards contained in the City’s Municipal Code, Article VII. There are no other regulations governing scenic quality applicable to the Acacia Project Site; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-10) Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: The three Shea and Acacia Project commerce center buildings would feature a contemporary architecture design and color palette with articulated building features that would minimize the perceived height and size of the buildings. Both Project Applicants submitted Zone Change applications to the City of Fontana to change the zoning classifications of both Project Sites to M-1. The City of Fontana reviewed both Projects’ designs in detail and did not identify the need for any variances from M-1 zoning standards contained in the City’s Municipal Code, Article VII. There are no other regulations governing scenic quality applicable to the She or Acacia Project Sites; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-10)
D. Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Threshold “d”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding:

Shea Project: The Shea Project would be required to adhere to the lighting performance requirements as set forth in the City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-544, which requires that all lights be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties. All lighting would be LED, in a combination of wall and pole-mounted fixture placement. On the east side of the building facing the Southern California Edison (SCE) easement 367
10 beyond which is a block wall and behind which is a single-family home community in the City of Rialto, there will be three (3) wall-mounted light fixtures placed at height of 30 feet on the building façade. Light intensity at the eastern properly line abutting the SCE easement will range from 0.4 to 0.8 footcandles, which complies with the lighting requirements of the City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-544. The eastern portion of the Shea Project Site is designed to be used for passenger vehicle parking, and no pole mounted lighting fixtures are proposed in this area. The nearest pole mounted fixture to the eastern properly line would be located near the office entry at the southwest corner of the building, at a height of 30 feet. The City would confirm compliance with applicable lighting requirements during future review of building permit applications/plans.

Mandatory compliance with Municipal Code Sections 30-265 and 30-266 would ensure that the Shea Project would not introduce any permanent design features that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (DEIR, p. 4.1-11)
With respect to glare, a majority of Shea Project building materials would consist of tiltup concrete panels which are low reflective. Although the building would incorporate some glass elements, the glass would result in minimal glare effects because proposed window glazing would be low reflective, would be set back from Sierra Avenue at a distance and would be buffered from Sierra Avenue by landscaping. Thus, glare impacts from the Project would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-11)
Acacia Project: The Acacia Project would be required to adhere to the lighting performance requirements as set forth in the City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-544, which requires that all lights be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties. All lighting would be LED, in a combination of wall and polemounted fixture placement. On the east side of Building 1 and Building 2 facing the Southern California Edison (SCE) easement beyond which is a block wall and behind which is a singlefamily home community in the City of Rialto, there will be approximately seven wall-mounted light fixtures on the proposed buildings. Light intensity at the eastern properly line abutting the SCE easement will range from 1.1 to 3.4 footcandles, which complies with the lighting requirements of the City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-544. On the north side of Building 2 facing the Duncan Canyon Road, beyond which is a residential community, there will be approximately three wall-mounted light fixtures on the building. Light intensity at the northern boundary of the onsite parking areas nearest Duncan Canyon Road will range from 1.0 to 1.3 footcandles, which complies with the lighting requirements of the City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-544. (DEIR, p. 4.1-11)
The City would confirm compliance with applicable lighting requirements during future review of building permit applications/plans. Mandatory compliance with Municipal Code Section 30-544 would ensure that the Acacia Project would not introduce any permanent design features that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-11 to 4.1-12) With respect to glare, a majority of Acacia Project building materials would consist of tiltup concrete panels which are low reflective. Although the buildings would incorporate some glass elements, the glass would result in minimal glare effects because proposed window glazing would be low reflective, would be set back from Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road at a distance 368
11 and would be buffered from Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road by landscaping. Thus, glare impacts from the Acacia Project would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-12) Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: Both the Shea Project and Acacia Project would comply with the lighting requirements as set forth in the City of Fontana Municipal Code Sections 30-265 and 30-266. Along the eastern property boundary abutting the SCE easement, artificial light introduced by the combined projects would range from 0.4 to 3.4 footcandles, which complies with the lighting requirements of the City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-544 and thus lighting impacts would be less than significant. Both Projects would use building materials consisting of tilt-up concrete panels which are low reflective. Although the buildings from the combined Shea and Acacia Projects would incorporate some glass elements, the glass would result in minimal glare effects because proposed window glazing would be low reflective, would be set back from public roadways and would be buffered by landscaping. Thus, glare impacts from the combined Shea and Acacia Projects would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-12)

2.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
A. Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) mapping information, neither the Shea or Acacia Project Sites contain any soils classified as “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance.” The Shea and Acacia Project Sites are designated “Grazing Land”. As such, the Shea and Acacia Projects would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use and no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.2-6) B. Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract (Threshold “b”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea and Acacia Project Sites are not zoned for agricultural use, nor are they surrounded by land zoned for an agricultural use. Therefore, implementation of the Shea and Acacia Projects have no potential to conflict with existing zoning for an agricultural use.

According to information from the California Department of Conservation, neither the Shea or Acacia Project Sites, nor any land in the vicinity of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites are under a Williamson Act contract. As such, no impact would occur to property under a Williamson Act contract. (DEIR, p. 4.2-6)
369
12 C. Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? (Threshold “c”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Shea Project Site or Acacia Project Site are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production, nor are they surrounded by forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production land. Therefore, neither the Shea Project nor Acacia Project has the potential to conflict with any areas currently zoned as forest, timberland, or Timberland Production and would not result in the rezoning of any such lands. (DEIR, p. 4.2-7) D. Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (Threshold “d”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea and Acacia Project Sites do not contain a forest and are not designated as forest land; thus, the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As such, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.2-7)
E. Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (Threshold “e”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Shea or Acacia Project Sites contain any Farmland; therefore, neither the Shea Project nor the Acacia Project would convert Farmland to nonagricultural use. Additionally, the Shea and Acacia Project Sites do not contain forest land and are not zoned for forest land and neither the Shea Project nor Acacia Project would convert forest land resources to non-forest use. (DEIR, p. 4.2-7)

2.2.3 Air Quality
A. Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Regarding construction emissions for the Shea and Acacia Projects, the combined maximum daily construction-related emissions of NOX, CO, SOX, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional 370
13 thresholds. Maximum daily construction-related emissions of VOCs would exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. Accordingly, the combined Shea and Acacia Project’s construction activities would emit substantial concentrations VOCs and would contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation on a cumulatively-considerable basis. Combined Shea and Acacia Project construction impacts related to emissions of VOCs would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.3-29)
Regarding operational emissions for the Shea and Acacia Projects, the combined Shea and Acacia Project‐related operational emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria thresholds. Accordingly, the combined Shea and Acacia Projects would not emit substantial concentrations of these pollutants during long‐term operation and would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The combined Shea and Acacia Project’s long‐term emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-31 to 4.3-32)
B. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Threshold “c”)
Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding:

Shea Project: Localized emissions from Shea Project construction and operations would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-33)
As part of Project construction, diesel-fueled equipment would operate on-site. Dieselfueled trucks would travel to/from the Shea and Acacia Project Sites to make deliveries of construction materials and equipment and to haul debris from the Shea and Acacia Project Sites.

Diesel-fueled trucks produce DPM emissions. The receptor location with the greatest potential exposure to Shea Project construction-related DPM emissions is an existing residence located at 2891 W. Sunrise Drive, approximately 340 feet east of the Shea Project Site. At this receiver location, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the Project is 1.36 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. Also, the noncancer risk health index would be 0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-cancer health risk index threshold of 1.0. Shea Project construction would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively-considerable manner to the exposure of receptors near the Shea Project Site to substantial DPM emissions. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-35 to 4.3-36) At the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), which is a residence located at 2891 W. Sunrise Drive approximately 340 feet east of the Shea Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Shea Project-related DPM emissions is calculated to be 0.22 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The non-cancer health risk index at the MEIR is estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-cancer health risk index threshold of 1.0. All other residential locations in the 371
14 general vicinity of the Shea Project Site would be exposed to lower concentrations of Shea Projectrelated DPM emissions than the MEIR due to their increased distance from Shea Project-related truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk than the MEIR identified above. The Shea Project would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively-considerable manner to the exposure of residential receptors near the Shea Project Site to substantial DPM emissions. Impacts to residential receptors would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-36 to 4.3-37) At the maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW), the industrial facility located approximately 839 feet south of the Shea Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the DPM emissions from trucks traveling to/from the Shea Project Site is calculated to be 0.01 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The non-cancer health risk index at the MEIW is estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-cancer health risk index threshold of 1.0. All other places of business in the general vicinity of the Shea Project Site would be exposed to lower concentrations of Shea Project-related DPM emissions than the MEIW due to their increased distance from Shea Project-related truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk than the MEIW identified above. Impacts to worker receptors would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-36) There are no schools located within a quarter mile of the Shea Project Site. At the maximally exposed school child receptor (MEISC), the Kordyak Elementary School located approximately 3,200 feet north of the Shea Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the DPM emissions from trucks traveling to/from the Shea Project Site is calculated to be 0.01 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The non-cancer health risk index at the MEIW is estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-cancer health risk index threshold of 1.0. All other school campuses in the general vicinity of the Shea Project Site would be exposed to lower concentrations of Shea Project-related DPM emissions than the MEISC due to their increased distance from Shea Projectrelated truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk than the MEISC identified above. Impacts to school child receptors would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-36) Acacia Project: Localized emissions from Acacia Project construction and operations would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-34)
The receptor location with the greatest potential exposure to Acacia Project constructionrelated DPM emissions is an existing residence located at 4893 Condor Avenue, approximately 58 feet north of the Acacia Project Site. At this receiver location, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the Project is 1.79 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. Also, the non-cancer risk health index would be 0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-cancer health risk index threshold of 1.0. Acacia Project construction would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively-considerable manner to the exposure of receptors near the Acacia Project Site to substantial DPM emissions. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-36)
372
15 At the MEIR, which is a residence located at 4893 Condor Avenue approximately 58 feet north of the Acacia Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Acacia Project-related DPM emissions is calculated to be 0.73 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The non-cancer health risk index at the MEIR is estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-cancer health risk index threshold of 1.0. All other residential locations in the general vicinity of the Acacia Project Site would be exposed to lower concentrations of Acacia Project-related DPM emissions than the MEIR due to their increased distance from Acacia Project-related truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk than the MEIR identified above. The Acacia Project would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively-considerable manner to the exposure of residential receptors near the Acacia Project Site to substantial DPM emissions. Impacts to residential receptors would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-37) At the MEIW, the industrial facility located approximately 1,375 feet south of the Acacia Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the DPM emissions from trucks traveling to/from the Acacia Project Site is calculated to be 0.02 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The non-cancer health risk index at the MEIW is estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-cancer health risk index threshold of 1.0. All other places of business in the general vicinity of the Acacia Project Site would be exposed to lower concentrations of Project-related DPM emissions than the MEIW due to their increased distance from Acacia Project-related truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk than the MEIW identified above. Impacts to worker receptors would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-37 to 4.3-38)
There are no schools located within a quarter mile of the Acacia Project Site. At the MEISC, the Kordyak Elementary School located approximately 2,090 feet north of the Acacia Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the DPM emissions from trucks traveling to/from the Project Site is calculated to be 0.03 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The non-cancer health risk index at the MEIW is estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-cancer health risk index threshold of 1.0. All other school campuses in the general vicinity of the Acacia Project Site would be exposed to lower concentrations of Acacia Project-related DPM emissions than the MEISC due to their increased distance from Acacia Project-related truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk than the MEISC identified above. Impacts to school child receptors would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-38)
Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: A Project-specific CO “hot spot” analysis was not performed for the Project because CO attainment in the SCAB was thoroughly analyzed as part of SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment for Carbon Monoxide Plan (1992 CO Plan). The 2003 AQMP and the 1992 CO Plan found that peak CO concentrations in the SCAB were the byproduct of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and were not the result of traffic congestion. For context, the CO “hot spot” analysis performed for the 2003 AQMP recorded a CO concentration of 8.4 parts per million (8-hour) at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection in Los Angeles County; however, only a small portion of the recorded CO concentrations (0.7 parts per million) were attributable to traffic congestion at 373
16 the intersection. The vast majority of the recorded CO concentrations at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection (7.7 parts per million) were attributable to unique local meteorological conditions that resulted in elevated ambient air concentrations. In comparison, the busiest intersections in the Shea and Acacia Project Site vicinity would neither experience peak congestion levels or ambient CO concentrations comparable to the conditions observed at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection nor feature atypical meteorological conditions.

Further, data from other air pollution control districts in the State indicate that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, an individual development project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by between 24,000 and 44,000 vehicles per hour in order to generate a significant CO impact; the Shea and Acacia Projects would generate nowhere near this volume of traffic. Based on the relatively low local traffic congestion levels, low existing ambient CO concentrations, and the lack of any unusual meteorological and/or topographical conditions in the Shea and Acacia Project Site vicinity, neither the Shea nor Acacia Project is expected to cause or contribute to a CO “hot spot.” Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-35) The receptor location with the greatest potential exposure to cumulative Shea and Acacia Project construction-related DPM emissions is an existing residence located at 4893 Condor Avenue, approximately 58 feet north of the Acacia Project Site. At this receiver location, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the cumulative Shea and Acacia Projects is 2.02 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million.

Also, the non-cancer risk health index would be 0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD noncancer health risk index threshold of 1.0. Cumulative Shea and Acacia Project construction would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively-considerable manner to the exposure of receptors near the Shea and Acacia Project Sites to substantial DPM emissions. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-36)
At the MEIR, which is a residence located at 4893 Condor Avenue approximately 58 feet north of the Acacia Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to cumulative Shea and Acacia Project-related DPM emissions is calculated to be 0.76 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The non-cancer health risk index at the MEIR is estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD noncancer health risk index threshold of 1.0. All other residential locations in the general vicinity of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites would be exposed to lower concentrations of cumulative Shea and Acacia Project-related DPM emissions than the MEIR due to their increased distance from the Shea and Acacia Project-related truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk than the MEIR identified above. The Shea and Acacia Projects would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively-considerable manner to the exposure of residential receptors near the Shea and Acacia Project Sites to substantial DPM emissions. Impacts to residential receptors would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-38)
At the MEIW, the industrial facility located approximately 839 feet south of the Shea Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the cumulative DPM emissions from trucks traveling to/from the Shea and Acacia Project Sites is calculated to be 0.03 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The non-cancer health risk index at the MEIW is estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the 374
17 SCAQMD non-cancer health risk index threshold of 1.0. All other places of business in the general vicinity of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites would be exposed to lower concentrations of cumulative Shea and Acacia Project-related DPM emissions than the MEIW due to their increased distance from Shea and Acacia Project-related truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk than the MEIW identified above. Impacts to worker receptors would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-38 to 4.3-39)
There are no schools located within a quarter mile of the Acacia Project Site. At the MEISC, the Kordyak Elementary School located approximately 2,090 feet north of the Acacia Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the cumulative DPM emissions from trucks traveling to/from the Shea and Acacia Project Sites is calculated to be 0.04 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The non-cancer health risk index at the MEIW is estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-cancer health risk index threshold of 1.0. All other school campuses in the general vicinity of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites would be exposed to lower concentrations of cumulative Shea and Acacia Project-related DPM emissions than the MEISC due to their increased distance from Shea and Acacia Project-related truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk than the MEISC identified above. Impacts to school child receptors would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-39)
The South Coast AQMD discusses that it is infeasible to quantify health risks caused by projects similar to the Project, due to many factors. It is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence).

Even where a health risk assessment can be prepared, however, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk--it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer because of the Project. The LST analysis above determined that the Project would not result in emissions exceeding South Coast AQMD’s LSTs. Therefore, the Project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. As the Project’s emissions will comply with federal, state, and local air quality standards, the Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level and would not provide a reliable indicator of health effects if modeled. (DEIR, p. 4.3-39) C. Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Threshold “d”) Findings: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: During construction activities on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites, odors could be produced by construction equipment exhaust or from the application of asphalt and/or architectural coatings. However, standard construction practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. Furthermore, any odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction. In addition, construction activities on the Shea 375
18 and Acacia Project Sites would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance. Accordingly, the Shea and Acacia Project’s construction would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and all impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-39 to 4.3-40) During long-term operation, the Shea and Acacia Projects would operate as commerce centers, which are not typically associated with the emission of objectionable odors. Temporary outdoor refuse storage could be a potential source of odor; however, Shea and Acacia Projectgenerated refuse is required to be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations, thereby precluding any significant odor impact.

Furthermore, the occupant(s) of the proposed commerce centers would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance, during long-term operation. As such, long-term operation of the Shea and Acacia Projects would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and all impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-40)

2.2.4 Biological Resources
A. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Based on field surveys conducted on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites in 2022, no riparian habitat is present on either Project Site and none of the vegetation communities or land cover types observed on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites (i.e., California buckwheat scrub, Disturbed California buckwheat scrub, California buckwheat scrub with scattered chamise chaparral, Chamise chaparral, Holly-leaved cherry stand, and disturbed and developed land) are classified as a sensitive or natural community. There would be no substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. Therefore, all of the impacts to vegetation communities and developed and disturbed land would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-16)
B. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Threshold “c”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea and Acacia Project Sites do not contain any protected wetland or aquatic resources, including, but not limited to, natural drainages or water courses, wetland habitat, marsh, vernal pools, or coastal resources. As such, neither the Shea or Acacia Project would have a substantial adverse effect on State- or federally-protected wetlands 376
19 (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.4-16) C. Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Threshold “e”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Landscape plans for the Shea and Acacia Projects would be required to be in compliance with the City’s General Plan policy of using drought-resistant species and potentially enhancing shade through tree planting. Also, there are no trees on the site that qualify under the City’s Municipal Code (Section 28-67) as heritage, significant, and specimen trees. As such, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.4-17) D. Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Threshold “f”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea and Acacia Project Sites are not located within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.4-17)

2.2.5 Cultural Resources
A. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding:

Shea Project: One historic period single-family residence, constructed between 1953 and 1958 is present on the Shea Project Site. This structure would be demolished as part of the Shea Project’s construction. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) evaluated the residence for significance and concluded that it is not eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and is not significant under CEQA due to a lack of integrity combined with a lack of any association with significant persons or noteworthy architectural elements. Accordingly, implementation of the Shea Project would not result in a substantial adverse change to any historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and impacts would be less than significant.

Acacia Project: No historic structures or features are present on the Acacia Project Site.

Accordingly, implementation of the Acacia Project would not result in a substantial adverse 377
20 change to any historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.5-10)
B. Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Threshold “c”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Shea nor Acacia Project Site contain a cemetery and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate Site vicinity. Field surveys conducted on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites did not identify the presence of any human remains and no human remains are known to exist beneath the surface of the Shea or Acacia Project Sites.

Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Shea or Acacia Project construction. (DEIR, p. 4.5-11) If human remains are unearthed during Shea or Acacia Project construction, the construction contractor would be required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 “Disturbance of Human Remains.” According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.

According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials. With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, any potential impacts to human remains, including human remains of Native American ancestry, that may result from development of the Shea or Acacia Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-11 to 4.5-12)

2.2.6 Energy
A. Would the Project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
378
21 Facts in Support of Finding: Various renewable energy features are incorporated into the Shea and Acacia Projects. Specifically, pursuant to City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1879, the Shea Project would provide 100 percent of its electrical demand for non-refrigerated building space via rooftop solar panels, which for purposes of this analysis is estimated to be approximately 423,864 kWh per year. Similarly, the Acacia Project would provide 100 percent of its electrical demand for non-refrigerated building space via rooftop solar panels, which for purposes of this analysis is estimated to be approximately 824,551 kWh per year. (DEIR, p. 4.6-5) Shea Project: The Shea Project’s construction process would require the use of fuels (gasoline and diesel) and electricity. Shea Project-related construction would represent a “single‐ event” energy demand and would not require on‐going or permanent commitment of energy resources. Shea Project construction activities are estimated to consume approximately 63,323 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity, approximately 57,968 gallons of diesel fuel from operation of construction equipment, 20,293 gallons of diesel fuel from construction vendor trips, and 30,833 gallons of fuel from construction worker trips. The equipment used for Shea Project construction would conform to CARB regulations and State emissions standards. There are no unusual Shea Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive or less energy efficient than is used for comparable activities elsewhere in the region; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Additionally, Shea Project construction activities would be required to comply with State law (Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3)) and CARB Air Toxic Control Measures that place restrictions on the length of time that diesel-powered equipment and vehicles can idle before powering down (thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment). Lastly, Shea Project construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable CARB regulations regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of older, less-efficient diesel off-road construction equipment. Accordingly, the equipment and vehicles employed in construction of the Shea Project would not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-5 to 4.6-6)
Energy consumption in support of or related to Shea Project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by passenger car and truck vehicles accessing the Shea Project Site) and facility energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and Shea Project Site maintenance activities). The Shea Project’s energy demand is calculated to be 139,709 gallons of fuel, 1,300,613 kWh of electricity, and 1,417,347 kBTU of natural gas per year.

It should be noted that City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1879 requires the Shea Project to provide 100 percent of its electrical demand for non-refrigerated building space via rooftop solar panels, which for purposes of this analysis is estimated to be approximately 423,864 kWh per year. (DEIR, p. 4.6-7)
The Shea Project’s proposed building incorporates contemporary, energy-efficient/energyconserving design and operational programs (including the enhanced building/utility energy efficiencies mandated by the Energy Code and CalGreen). The Shea Project will be subject to compliance with 2019 Energy Code and CalGreen standards, which became effective on January 1, 2020, and mandate energy conservation features that are more stringent (energy-conserving) 379
22 than prior versions of the respective codes. On this basis, the Shea Project will inherently use less energy than comparable buildings constructed under prior versions of the Energy and CalGreen Codes. Project building operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy due to mandatory Energy Code and CalGreen compliance. Furthermore, the Shea Project Site is within the existing service areas of SCE and SoCalGas, is capable of being served by both energy providers, and implementation of the Shea Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or energy delivery systems. From a transportation energy perspective, the Shea Project Site’s location proximate to regional and local roadway systems would tend to minimize VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands.

Furthermore, the Shea Project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. (DEIR, p. 4.6-7)
Acacia Project: The Acacia Project’s construction process would require the use of fuels (gasoline and diesel) and electricity. Acacia Project-related construction would represent a “single‐event” energy demand and would not require on‐going or permanent commitment of energy resources. Acacia Project construction activities are estimated to consume approximately 112,040 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity, approximately 54,352 gallons of diesel fuel from operation of construction equipment, 34,312 gallons of diesel fuel from construction vendor trips, and 52,627 gallons of fuel from construction worker trips. The equipment used for Acacia Project construction would conform to CARB regulations and State emissions standards. There are no unusual Acacia Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive or less energy efficient than is used for comparable activities elsewhere in the region; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Additionally, Acacia Project construction activities would be required to comply with State law (Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3)) and CARB Air Toxic Control Measures that place restrictions on the length of time that diesel-powered equipment and vehicles can idle before powering down (thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment). Lastly, Acacia Project construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable CARB regulations regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of older, lessefficient diesel off-road construction equipment. Accordingly, the equipment and vehicles employed in construction of the Acacia Project would not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel. (DEIR, p. 4.6-6)
Energy consumption in support of or related to Acacia Project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by passenger car and truck vehicles accessing the Acacia Project Site) and facility energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and Acacia Project Site maintenance activities). The Project’s energy demand is calculated to be 311,893 gallons of fuel, 2,129,113 kWh of electricity, and 2,247,134 kBTU of natural gas per year.

It should be noted that City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1879 requires the Acacia Project to provide 100 percent of its electrical demand for non-refrigerated building space via rooftop solar panels, which for purposes of this analysis is estimated to be approximately 824,551 kWh per year. (DEIR, p. 4.6-8)
380
23 The Acacia Project’s proposed building incorporates contemporary, energyefficient/energy-conserving design and operational programs (including the enhanced building/utility energy efficiencies mandated by the Energy Code and CalGreen). The Acacia Project will be subject to compliance with 2019 Energy Code and CalGreen standards, which became effective on January 1, 2020, and mandate energy conservation features that are more stringent (energy-conserving) than prior versions of the respective codes. On this basis, the Acacia Project will inherently use less energy than comparable buildings constructed under prior versions of the Energy and CalGreen Codes. Acacia Project building operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy due to mandatory Energy Code and CalGreen compliance. Furthermore, the Acacia Project Site is within the existing service areas of SCE and SoCalGas, is capable of being served by both energy providers, and implementation of the Acacia Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or energy delivery systems. From a transportation energy perspective, the Acacia Project Site’s location proximate to regional and local roadway systems would tend to minimize VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. Furthermore, the Acacia Project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. (DEIR, p. 4.6-8) B. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding:

Federal Energy Regulations: Neither the Shea nor Acacia Project would interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be realized pursuant to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities on or through either the Shea or Acacia Project Site. Both the Shea and Acacia Projects support the strong planning processes emphasized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA‐21). The Shea and Acacia Projects are therefore consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of TEA‐21. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-8 to

4.6-9)
State Energy Regulations: The Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) provides policy recommendations to be implemented by energy providers in California. Electricity would be provided to the Shea and Acacia Projects by SCE. SCE is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR. Thus, because the SCE is consistent with the 2020 IEPR, the Shea and Acacia Projects are consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR. Additionally, the Shea and Acacia Projects would comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which would ensure that the Shea and Acacia Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. As such, development of the Shea and Acacia Projects would support the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR. (DEIR, p. 4.6-9) 381
24 The Shea and Acacia Projects support urban design and planning processes identified under the State of California Energy Plan, are consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the State of California Energy Plan. (DEIR, p. 4.6-9) The Shea and Acacia Projects will design the building shell and building components, such as windows, roof systems, electrical and lighting systems, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems to meet 2019 Energy Efficiency Standards, which would be confirmed by the City during the building permit review process. The Shea and Acacia Projects also are required by State law to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet or exceed 2019 Energy Efficiency Standards. On this basis, the Shea and Acacia Projects are determined to be consistent with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of the State’s 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-9 to 4.6-10)
No feature of the Shea and Acacia Projects would interfere with implementation of the requirements under AB 1493. Notwithstanding, all model year 2009-2016 passenger cars and light duty truck vehicles traveling to and from the Shea and Acacia Project Sites are required by law to comply with the legislation’s fuel efficiency requirements. (DEIR, p.4.6-10) No feature of the Shea and Acacia Projects would interfere with implementation of the requirements under California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards. Notwithstanding, energy directly or indirectly supplied to the Shea and Acacia Project Sites by electric corporations is required by law to comply with SB 1078. (DEIR, p.4.6-10)
Energy directly or indirectly supplied to the Shea and Acacia Project Sites by electric corporations is required by law to comply with SB 350. No feature of the Shea and Acacia Projects would interfere with implementation of the requirements under SB 350. (DEIR, p.4.6-10) Local Energy Regulations: The City of Fontana would require the Shea and Acacia Projects to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet or exceed the California Green Building Standards Code (as adopted by Chapter 5 of the Fontana Municipal Code). The City would confirm the Shea and Acacia Project’s compliance with the Building Code as part of the building permit review process. On this basis, the Shea and Acacia Projects are determined to be consistent with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of the California Building Standards Code. (DEIR, p.4.6-10)
The City of Fontana would require the Shea and Acacia Projects to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 1879, including the installation and operation of rooftop solar panels. The City would confirm the Project’s compliance with Ordinance No. 1879 as part of the building permit review process and as part of the City’s on-going code compliance process. On this basis, the Shea and Acacia Projects are determined to be consistent with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of Ordinance No. 1879. (DEIR, p.4.6-10)
382
25 2.2.7 Geology and Soils
A. Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving (Threshold “a”):
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?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: There are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward either the Shea Project Site or the Acacia Project Site and neither site is located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Because there are no known faults located on or trending towards the Project Sites, there is no potential for the either Project Site to directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to ground rupture.

No impact would occur. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-10 to 4.7-11)
The Shea and Acacia Projects would comply with the standards and recommendations contained within the geotechnical reports prepared for each Project, to ensure that the combined Shea and Acacia Projects would not directly or indirectly expose people and structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury or death, involving seismic shaking. Impacts of the combined Shea and Acacia Projects would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-12) The Shea and Acacia Projects are not expected to be subjected to a significant risk associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefication. Both the Shea and Acacia Project Sites would be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable seismic safety guidelines, including the standard requirements of the CBSC and Fontana Building Code.

Therefore, implementation of the combined Shea and Acacia Projects would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial hazards associated with seismic-related ground failure and/or liquefaction hazards. Impacts would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-13) The Shea and Acacia Project Sites are relatively flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. There are no recorded landslides, hillsides, or steep slopes on the Shea Project Site or in the immediate vicinity of the Sites. The Shea and Acacia Projects would be engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on-site and abutting off-site areas.

Accordingly, the combined Shea and Acacia Projects would not be exposed to substantial landslide risks, and implementation would not pose a substantial direct or indirect landslide risk to surrounding properties. Impacts would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-13 to 4.7-14) B. Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Threshold “b”) 383
26 Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, both the Shea Project Applicant and the Acacia Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). In addition, both the Shea and Acacia Projects would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-related activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Shea and Acacia Project Applicants would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution – including erosion/sedimentation – is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject properties. Lastly, both the Shea and Acacia Projects would be required to implement an erosion and dust control plan pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article II (and to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403) to minimize water- and windborne erosion. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and the erosion control plan would ensure that the Shea and Acacia Project’s implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with the Shea Project and Acacia Project construction activities would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures would be required. (DEIR, p. 4.7-14) Upon build-out of the Shea Project and Acacia Project, the Shea and Acacia Project Sites would be covered by buildings, landscaping, and impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the Shea Project Site and the Acacia Project Site would be captured, treated to reduce waterborne pollutants (including sediment), and conveyed off-site via an on-site storm drain system.

Accordingly, the amount of erosion that would occur on the either the Shea or Acacia Project Sites would be minimal and would be comparable to existing conditions. (DEIR, p. 4.7-14) To meet the requirements of the City’s Municipal Storm Water Permit, and in accordance with Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX, both the Shea and Acacia Project Applicants would be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), which is a Site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters, under long-term conditions via Best Management Practices (BMPs).

The SWQMP for the Shea Project and the Acacia Project identifies preventive, low impact development BMPs (such as the use of permeable surfaces across the site, catch basin inserts, and an underground retention system), non-structural source control BMPs (such as vacuum sweeping of parking lots and routine maintenance of catch inserts to prevent clogging and maximize removal efficiency), and structural source control BMPs (such as utilizing efficient irrigation systems that minimize overspray), to minimize erosion. The Shea Project SWQMP and the Acacia Project SWQMP is also required to establish a post-construction implementation and maintenance plan to ensure on-going, long-term erosion protection. Compliance with the WQMP would be required as a condition of approval for both the Shea and Acacia Projects, as will the long-term maintenance of erosion and sediment control features. Because the Shea and Acacia Projects would both be 384
27 required to utilize erosion and sediment control measures to preclude substantial, long-term soil erosion and loss of topsoil, the both Shea Project and the Acacia Project would result in less-thansignificant impacts related to soil erosion. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-14 to 4.17-15) C. Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Threshold “c”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea and Acacia Project Sites are relatively flat, no substantial natural or man-made slopes are located on or adjacent to the Project Sites, and the Shea and Acacia Projects do not propose the construction of any sizable manufactured slopes.

Accordingly, the Project Sites would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with landslide hazards. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-15 to 4.17-16)
The geotechnical reports prepared for the Project Sites indicated that the settlement potential can be attenuated through the removal of surface and near surface soils down to competent materials and replacement with properly compacted fill. With mandatory compliance with the Project’s geotechnical report, impacts related to soil shrinkage/subsidence and collapse would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-15 to 4.17-16) Lateral spreading is primarily associated with liquefaction hazards. The Project Sites are not susceptible to liquefaction and thus, the potential for lateral spreading is low. Accordingly, impacts associated with lateral spreading would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-15 to 4.17- 16)
D. Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Threshold “d”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Expansion index tests were performed by Southern California Geotechnical (for the Shea Project) and NorCal Engineering (for the Acacia Project). Neither the Shea or Acacia Project Sites have expansive soils, therefore, the combined Shea and Acacia Project Sites would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with the presence of expansive soils. No impacts would occur. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-16 to 4.17-17) E. Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Threshold “e”)
Finding: No Impact
385
28 Facts in Support of Finding: Both the Shea and Acacia Projects would connect to the existing sewer line installed beneath Sierra Avenue. Neither the Shea or Acacia Project would utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.7-17)

2.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A. Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Threshold “a”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact (for Shea Project only) Facts in Support of Finding:

Shea Project: The Shea Project would result in emissions of 1,938.75 MTCO2e per year.

The GHG emissions from the Shea Project alone would not exceed the significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year and, thus, GHG emissions from the Shea Project alone would result in a less-than-significant impact on the environment. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-22 to 4.8-23) No mitigation is required, the following mitigation measures are nonetheless imposed:

MM 4.8-1 No portion of the buildings shall include cold storage space.

MM 4.8-2 Building roofs shall be solar-ready and shall be outfitted with a solar photovoltaic system that either supplies 100 percent of the building user’s anticipated electricity demand or is maximally sized given applicable Building Code requirements, clearance requirements around roof-mounted equipment, Southern California Edison interconnection regulations, transformer capacity, and other code compliance constraints.

Prior to issuance of a shell building permit, the City of Fontana shall verify that all or part of the roof structure is designed to support the installation of solar panels. The roofmounted solar photovoltaic systems shall be installed within 12 months of issuance of the first occupancy permit.

B. Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Threshold “b”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Shea and Acacia Projects would not conflict with the State’s ability to achieve the State-wide GHG reduction mandates and would be consistent with applicable policies and plans related to GHG emissions reductions. Implementation of the Shea and Acacia Projects would not actively interfere with any future federally-, State-, or locally-mandated retrofit obligations (such as requirements to use new technologies such as diesel particulate filters, emissions upgrades to a higher tier equipment, etc.) enacted or promulgated to legally require development projects to assist in meeting State-adopted GHG emissions reduction targets, including those established under EO S-3-05, EO B-30-15, or SB 32. Therefore, the Shea and Acacia Projects would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for 386
29 the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and would result in a less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.8-26)

2.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A. Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Threshold “a”) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Phase I Environmental Site Assessments for the Project Sites determined that both the Shea and Acacia Project Sites have low risk for vapor intrusion or vapor encroachment conditions. Impacts, therefore, would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-12) \
On the Shea Project site, it was determined that one septic system is present and there is potential that a second septic system may be present. Septic systems on the Shea Project Site would be required to be removed, handled, and disposed in accordance with all applicable local and State regulations. No septic systems are known to be located on the Acacia Project Site. Accordingly, implementation of the combined Shea and Acacia Projects would not expose the public or the environment to significant hazards associated with the removal and disposal of the on-site septic systems from the Shea Project Site; impacts would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-12) One older residential home is located on the Shea Project site, therefore there is a potential that the existing building may contain Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs) and/or Lead-Based Paints (LBPs). No structures are located on the Acacia Project Site. Any discovered asbestos or lead based paint would be required to be removed, handled, and disposed in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Accordingly, implementation of the combined Shea and Acacia Projects would not expose the public or the environment to significant hazards associated with demolition activities; impacts would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-12 to 4.9-13) Both Shea and Acacia Projects would be required to comply with all applicable, federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction‐related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the EPA, DTSC, and the Santa Ana RWQCB. With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations, the combined Shea and Acacia Projects would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase, whether the two Projects’ construction schedule was simultaneous or sequential. A less-than-significant impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9-14) The combined Shea and Acacia Projects are required to comply with applicable laws and regulations during long-term operation of the Projects. With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Shea and Acacia Projects would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would 387
30 the Acacia Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts associated with long-term operation of the Shea and Acacia Projects are regarded as less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-15) B. Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Threshold “c”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Kordyak Elementary School is located approximately 0.4- mile north of both Project Sites and Fitzgerald Elementary School is located approximately 0.5- mile east of the Project Sites. Accordingly, the Shea Project and Acacia Project do not have the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, and/or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school as part of onsite operations. However, the transport of such materials past the Kordyak Elementary school by vehicles using Sierra Avenue has the potential to occur, as is the case for all other vehicles using Sierra Avenue, which is a truck route. Project-related transport of materials past the Fitzgerald Elementary School is not a reasonable possibility, as that school is located in a residential community east of the Project Sites and is not on a truck route. (DEIR, p. 4.9-16) The use of and transport of hazardous substances or materials to and from the Shea Project Site and Acacia Project Site combined during construction and long-term operational activities, and whether construction of the two Projects occurs simultaneously or sequentially, would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations that would preclude substantial public safety hazards. Accordingly, there would be no potential for existing or proposed schools to be exposed to substantial safety hazards associated with emission, handling of, or the routine transport of hazardous substances or materials to-and-from the Shea and Acacia Project Sites and impacts would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-17) C. Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Threshold “d”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Shea Project Site nor Acacia Project Site are included on any list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, therefore no impact from the combined Projects would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9-17) D. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (Threshold “e”)
388
31 Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Shea Project nor Acacia Project is located within two miles of the public airport or within an airport land use plan, therefore, no impacts to airport safety would occur from the combined Projects. (DEIR, p. 4.9-18) E. Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Threshold “f”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Shea or Acacia Project contain any emergency facilities nor does they serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction, all materials and equipment would be stored/staged on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites and would not interfere with emergency vehicles traveling along Sierra Avenue. Limited Shea Project construction activities would occur within the Sierra Avenue public right-of-way and limited Acacia Project construction activities would occur within the Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road public rights-of-way; however, for any work within the right-of-way that requires a partial or full closure of a vehicle travel lane, the construction contractor would be required to implement a traffic control plan that complies with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and must be approved by the City to ensure that emergency response is not adversely affected. During construction and long-term operation, the proposed Shea Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. Accordingly, implementation of the Shea and Acacia Projects would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan, and no impact would occur. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-18 to 4.9-19)
F. Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Threshold “g”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea and Acacia Project Sites are located within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Both the Shea and Acacia Projects would be developed in a manner consistent with the jurisdictional requirements for fire protection and would generally decrease the fire hazard in the local area by transitioning both properties with patches of unirrigated vegetation to developed sites with irrigated landscaping and three buildings having a fire protection and sprinkler system. As such, development of the Shea Project and Acacia Project complies with Fontana’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Wildfire Mitigation Project 2 and Project 5 which direct the City to encourage new development to occur in locations avoiding or minimizing exposure to hazards and to enhance design requirements to improve resiliency in future disasters. Therefore, impacts regarding exposing people or structures either directly or indirectly to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be less-than-significant for the combined Projects. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-19 to 4.9-20)
389
32 2.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
A. Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Threshold “a”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea Project and Acacia Project would transform two properties that are undeveloped (other than with one residential home and a shed on the Shea Project site) to two commerce center developments collectively containing three buildings, drive aisles, parking areas, landscaping, and other supporting features. During the construction of these Projects, whether the construction activities occur simultaneously or sequentially, short-term water quality impacts would be addressed through requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB and Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX. Both Project Applicants would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit) and implement a SWPPP specifying BMPs that Project’s construction contractors would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property. With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Shea Project and Acacia Project combined would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during construction. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.10-12) Stormwater pollutants that may be produced during operation of the Projects would be reduced and managed by the required implementation of Storm Water Quality Management Plans (SWQMP) in compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit. Implementation of the SWQMP would ensures ongoing, long-term protection of the watershed basin. Additionally, mandatory compliance with the NPDES program requires the preparation of SWPPPs for the operational activities of each Project as applicable to the Projects’ operational characteristics.

With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Shea Project and Acacia Project combined would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during long-term operation. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.10-15)
B. Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Shea Project or Acacia Project propose the use of any wells or other groundwater extraction activities. The Shea and Acacia Projects would not directly draw water from the groundwater table. For these reasons, implementation of the Shea Project and Acacia Project has no potential to substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies and the Projects’ impact to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.10-15)
390
33 Development of the Shea Project and Acacia Project would increase impervious surface coverage on the Project Sites, which would, in turn, reduce the amount of water percolating down 150+ feet below the surface and into the groundwater table that underlies the Shea and Acacia Project Sites (the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, Rialto-Colton Subbasin). Because of the minimal amount of water that reaches the Subbasin from percolation, neither the Shea Project nor Acacia Project would result in substantial, adverse effects to local groundwater levels.

Additionally, both the Shea and Acacia Projects include design features that would maximize the percolation of on-site storm water runoff into the groundwater basin, such as underground infiltration chambers and permeable landscape areas. A detention basin is proposed to be located in the southwest corner of the Shea Project Site. Underground chambers are proposed to be located in the truck courts of the buildings on the Acacia Project site. Buildout of the Shea and Acacia Projects with these design features would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, Rialto-Colton Subbasin. Based on the foregoing information, the Shea and/or Acacia Projects either individually or collectively would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-15 to 4.10-16)
Therefore, the Shea and Acacia Projects would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Shea and/or Acacia Project either individually or combined would impede sustainable groundwater management of the Basin. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.10-16) C. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would (Threshold “c”):
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Both the Shea and Acacia Projects would include the installation of an integrated, on-site system of underground storm drain pipes, catch basins, and underground infiltration basins to capture on-site stormwater runoff flows, treat the runoff to minimize the amount of water-borne pollutants, and convey the treated flows to the public storm drain system in Sierra Avenue. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and the City-required erosion control plan would ensure that the Shea and Acacia Project’s implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. 391
34 Based on the foregoing information, water quality impacts associated with Shea and Acacia Project construction activities would be less than significant. Because the Shea and Acacia Project Applicants would be required by the SWQMPs to utilize erosion and sediment control measures to preclude substantial, long-term soil erosion and loss of topsoil, Shea and Acacia Project operation would result in less than significant impacts related to soil erosion and sedimentation. (DEIR, p. 4.10-16 to 4.10-17)
The Shea Project and Acacia Project would transform two properties that are undeveloped (other than with one residential home and a shed on the Shea Project site) into commerce center developments collectively containing three buildings, drive aisles, parking areas, landscaping, and other supporting features. Under existing conditions, drainage sheet flows north to south, with the Shea Project Site accepting run-on from the Acacia Project Site. Upon the development of both Projects, runoff from the Acacia Project Site would flow into an on-site storm water drainage system, discharging into a storm drain line installed in Sierra Avenue to the west. Similarly, runoff from the Shea Project Site would drain into an on-site storm drain system that would connect with a public storm drain lateral in Sierra Avenue. The storm drain system in Sierra Avenue and downstream has capacity to accept both the Acacia Project’s stormwater and the Shea Project’s stormwater. The Projects collectively would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. (DEIR, p. 4.10-19)
According to the FEMA FIRM No. 06071C7920H, the Shea and Acacia Project Sites are not located in a special flood hazard area, rather the Shea and Acacia Project Sites are located in an area outside of the 500-year (0.2% annual chance) floodplain. Accordingly, the Shea and Acacia Project Sites are not expected to be inundated by flood flows during the lifetime of the Shea and Acacia Projects and the Shea and Acacia Projects would not impede flood flows. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.10-19)
D. Would the Project result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Threshold “d”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Pacific Ocean is located over 45 miles southwest of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites; consequently, there is no potential for the Shea or Acacia Project Sites to be impacted by a tsunami as tsunamis typically only reach up to a few miles inland. The Shea and Acacia Project Sites are also not subject to flooding hazards associated with a seiche because the nearest large body of surface water (Silverwood Lake) is located more approximately 10 miles northeast of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites, which is too far away from the subject properties to impact the properties with a seiche. Furthermore, as noted in the City of Fontana General Plan EIR, the Shea and Acacia Project Sites are not located within any mapped dam inundation area. Because neither the Shea nor Acacia Project Site can be affected by a tsunami, seiche, or dam inundation, there is no potential for such hazards to inundate the Shea or Acacia Project Sites and cause a release of waterborne pollutants. Accordingly, neither the Shea nor 392
35 Acacia Project would release water pollutants due to inundation. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.10-19)
E. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Threshold “e”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea and Acacia Project Sites are located within the Santa Ana River Basin and Project-related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and SWQMP. Implementation of the Shea and/or Acacia Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan and impacts would be less than significant.

The Shea and Acacia Project Sites are located within the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin and within the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Subbasin. Implementation of the Shea and/or Acacia Project would not result in substantial adverse effects to local groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge. Thus, no component of either the Shea or Acacia Project would obstruct with or prevent implementation of the management plan for the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin. As such, the Shea and Acacia Project’s construction and operation would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.10-22)

2.2.11 Land Use and Planning
A. Would the Project physically divide an established community? (Threshold “a”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Under existing conditions, the Shea Project Site has one single-family residence and a shed in the southwestern corner and the remainder of the site is undeveloped. The Acacia Project Site is vacant and undeveloped, with no structures. The surrounding area is a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential uses. The Shea and Acacia Project Sites are separated from residential development to the north by undeveloped land and Duncan Canyon Road, to the east by a SCE easement containing overhead powerlines on steel support structures, and to the west by Sierra Avenue, to the west of which is a residential community under development. No residential land uses are located to the south of the Shea Project Sites. (DEIR, p. 4.11-6)
The Shea Project and Acacia Project would continue the pattern of commerce center development that already has occurred to the south along Sierra Avenue. The residential community to the east in the City of Rialto is physically separated from the Project Sites by the presence of an intervening SCE easement with overhead lines and steel support structures, and a solid perimeter wall constructed on the property lines of the residential homes. The residential community to the north is separated from the Acacia Project Site by Duncan Canyon Road and 393
36 except for a roadway entry into the community at Duncan Canyon Road and Condor Avenue, there is no other physical connection to the Project Sites. To the east, the Project Sites are separated from a new planned residential community that is currently under construction by Sierra Avenue, which is a designated truck route and at full buildout of the street will have six travel lanes and a raised center median. (DEIR, p. 4.11-7)
The Shea Project and Acacia Project are designed to connect with Sierra Avenue and continue the pattern of commerce center development that already has been established to the south on the east side of Sierra Avenue. This area contains the Target Distribution Center and commerce center buildings that are part of the Sierra Pacific Center development occupied by FedEx Supply Chain and other users. The Shea and Acacia Projects also do not involve the reconfiguration of streets that could have the potential to alter the surrounding pattern of future development.

Therefore, implementation of the Projects would not physically divide any existing, surrounding community and impacts would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.11-7)

2.2.12 Mineral Resources
A. Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? (Threshold “a”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Shea or Acacia Project Sites are located within an area known to be underlain by regionally- or locally-important mineral resources or within an area that has the potential to be underlain by regionally- or locally-important mineral resources.

Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State of California. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.12-2) B. Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Shea or Acacia Project Sites are located within an area known to be underlain by regionally- or locally-important mineral resources or within an area that has the potential to be underlain by regionally- or locally-important mineral resources.

2.2.13 Noise
A. Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in 394
37 the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The facts presented below evaluate three components of the Project that would generate noise – the construction process, on-site operational activities, and offsite traffic.

Project Construction Noise: Project-related construction noise would be temporary, shortterm, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction. Noise generated by the Project’s construction equipment would include a combination of bulldozer, trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, portable generators and power tools that when combined can reach high levels. (DEIR, p. 4.13-16) Shea and Acacia Project-related construction activities are expected to occur on weekdays (and, potentially, on Saturdays) during the hours when the City’s Municipal Code does not limit construction noise (i.e., 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). Accordingly, during these hours the Shea and Acacia Project construction noise levels would not exceed the standards established by the City and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-18) If the Shea and Acacia Project’s construction requires concrete pouring during nighttime hours (and if the City allows such nighttime activities pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18- 63(b)(7)), the resulting noise levels at all receiver locations would not exceed the standards established by the City and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-19) On-Site Operational Noise: Stationary (on-Site) noise sources associated with long-term Shea and Acacia Project operation are expected to include idling trucks, delivery truck and automobile parking, delivery truck backup alarms, roof-top air conditioning units, loading and unloading of delivery trailers, and parking lot vehicle movements. (DEIR, p. 4.13-20) The Shea and Acacia Project operations will satisfy the City of Fontana 70 dBA Leq daytime and 65 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards at the nearest receiver locations.

Furthermore, Shea and Acacia Project operations are not expected to generate a substantial daytime or nighttime noise level increase at the nearest receiver locations. Accordingly, the Shea and Acacia Project’s stationary noise impact would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-24) Off-Site Traffic Noise: The scenario in which Project traffic is added to existing traffic volumes, Existing plus Project (E+P) would not actually occur, as both the commercial and distribution warehouse components of the Project would not be fully constructed and operated until 2024 conditions. During this time period, traffic conditions are not static – other projects are being constructed, the transportation network is evolving, and traffic patterns are changing. Thus, this scenario is provided for information purposes only in order to fully analyze all of the traffic scenarios identified in the Project’s Traffic Study. (DEIR, p. 4.13-25) 395
38 Under E+P traffic conditions, Shea and Acacia Project-related traffic would contribute a maximum of 1.2 dBA CNEL to roadways in the vicinity of the Acacia Project Sites. This incremental noise increase would not exceed the applicable significance thresholds under the E+P scenario; therefore, the Projects’ contribution to off-site traffic noise would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-26)
Under Existing plus Ambient Growth traffic conditions, Project-related traffic would contribute a maximum of 1.1 dBA CNEL to roadways in the vicinity of the Project Sites. This incremental noise increase would not exceed the applicable significance thresholds; therefore, the Shea and Acacia Projects’ contribution to off-site traffic noise would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13- 26)
Under Opening Year plus Cumulative traffic conditions, Shea and Acacia Project-related traffic would contribute a maximum of 1.1 dBA CNEL to roadways in the vicinity of the Acacia Project Sites. This incremental noise increase would not exceed the applicable significance thresholds; therefore, the Projects’ contribution to off-site traffic noise would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-26)
B. Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Vibration levels at sensitive receptors near the Shea and Acacia Project Sites during Shea and Acacia Project construction are estimated to range from 0.000 to 0.025 in/sec PPV at distances ranging from 58 to 1,397 feet. None of the receiver locations in the vicinity of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites would be exposed to vibration levels that exceed the applicable significance threshold. Accordingly, Shea and Acacia Project construction would not generate excessive or substantial temporary groundborne vibration or noise levels and a less than significant impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.13-28) Under long-term conditions, the Shea and Acacia Projects would not include or require equipment or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration beyond the Shea and Acacia Project Sites. Trucks would travel to and from the Shea and Acacia Project Sites along local roadways; however, vibration levels for heavy trucks operating at the posted speed limits on paved surfaces are not perceptible beyond the roadway. The Shea and Acacia Projects would not result in the exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels during longterm operation and a less than significant impact would occur. (DEIR, pp. 4.13-29 to 4.13-30) 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 396
39 airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Threshold “c”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Shea nor Acacia Project Site is located within two miles of a public airport or airport with a land use compatibility plan. The closest airport is the Ontario International Airport (ONT) located approximately 10.7 miles southwest of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites. According to the ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Shea and Acacia Project Sites are outside of the ONT Airport Influence Area and the airport noise impact zones. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.13-30)

2.2.14 Population and Housing
A. Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Threshold “a”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding:

Shea Project: The Shea Project would employ construction workers in various trades over the estimated 13-month construction phase and is estimated to generate between approximately 78 and 167 jobs at buildout. Employment estimates were calculated using data and average employment density factors from a Commercial Real Estate Development Association (formerly National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP)) research study titled “Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space.” According to data from NAIOP, non-refrigerated warehouses employ on average one (1) worker for every 2,574 square feet (s.f.) of building area, while refrigerated warehouses employ an average of one (1) worker for every 1,910 s.f. of building area. Development of the Shea Project as analyzed in this EIR assumes 180,000 s.f. of non-refrigerated building area and 19,999 s.f. of refrigerated building space, although the City will apply a condition of approval on the Project prohibiting refrigerated space. Based on these estimated employment generation rates, the Shea Project is expected to create approximately 78 jobs [(199,999 s.f. ÷ 2,574 s.f./employee = 78 employees)]. (DEIR, pp. 4.14-4 to 4.14-5)
Another widely used source of average employment generation is SCAG’s “Employment Density Study” in which the average number of commerce center jobs in San Bernardino County is reported as one (1) worker for every 1,195 s.f. of building space. Based on SCAG’s estimated employment generation rate, the Shea Project would be expected to create approximately 167 jobs (199,999 s.f. ÷ 1,195 s.f./employee = 167 employees). The City’s employment market contained 55,448 jobs in 2017. By the year 2040, the employment market in Fontana is projected to grow to approximately 70,800 jobs. This projected increase in jobs would accommodate the Shea Project’s 78 to 167 total employees and collectively the Shea and Acacia Projects’ 228 to 490 employees. (DEIR, p. 4.14-5)
397
40 Acacia Project: The Acacia Project would employ construction workers in various trades over the estimated 13-month construction phase and is estimated to generate between approximately 150 and 322 jobs at buildout. For purposes of this analysis, employment estimates were calculated using data and average employment density factors from a Commercial Real Estate Development Association (formerly NAIOP) research study titled “Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space.” According to data from NAIOP, non-refrigerated warehouses would employ one (1) worker for every 2,574 square feet (s.f.) of building area, while refrigerated warehouses would employ one (1) worker for every 1,910 s.f. of building area. Development of the Project would include 355,413 s.f. of non-refrigerated building area and 29,630 s.f. of refrigerated building space although the City will apply a condition of approval on the Project prohibiting refrigerated space. Based on these estimated employment generation rates, the Acacia Project is expected to create approximately 150 jobs [(385,043 s.f. ÷ 2,574 s.f./employee = 150 employees)]. (DEIR, p. 4.14- 5)
Another widely used source of average employment generation is SCAG’s “Employment Density Study” in which the average number of commerce center jobs in San Bernardino County is reported as one (1) worker for every 1,195 s.f. of building space. Based on SCAG’s estimated employment generation rate, the Acacia Project would be expected to create approximately 323 jobs (385,043 s.f. ÷ 1,195 s.f./employee = 323 employees). The City’s employment market contained 55,448 jobs in 2017 (SCAG, 2019, p. 24). By the year 2040, the employment market in Fontana is projected to grow to approximately 70,800 jobs (SCAG, 2016). This projected increase in jobs would accommodate the Acacia Project’s 150 to 297 total employees and collectively the Shea and Acacia Projects’ 228 to 490 employees. (DEIR, p. 4.14-5) Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in December 2021, the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario region’s civilian labor force exceeded 2,121,300 persons with 2,012,500 people employed and an unemployment rate of 5.1% (or 108,800 persons). Accordingly, the region has an ample supply of potential employees to fill the 236 jobs anticipated to be generated by the Shea and Acacia Projects. The Projects’ labor demand is not expected to draw substantial numbers of new, unplanned residents to the area. Furthermore, based on the most recent available data, approximately 90% of City of Fontana residents commute outside of the City for work and more housing units are expected to be built within the City over the next 20+ years; the Shea Project and Acacia Project would provide job opportunities closer to home for existing and future residents in the nearby area, which would subsequently help achieve a better job-to-housing balance. Based on the foregoing, the Shea Project and Acacia Project are not expected to be a catalyst for any substantial, unplanned population increase. (DEIR, p. 4.14-6) There are no components of the Shea Project or Acacia Project that would remove obstacles to development in the local area (and result in indirect unplanned population growth) because the abutting area is already built-out, planned for development, or currently under construction for new development. Furthermore, the Shea and Acacia Projects would widen Sierra Avenue along the Project Sites’ frontages in accordance with the Fontana General Plan (and would not increase the planned capacity of these roadways). Both Projects would make connections to site-adjacent 398
41 existing and planned infrastructure and would not construct new infrastructure or increase the capacity of existing infrastructure. Therefore, none of the Shea Project’s or Acacia Project’s physical improvements would remove any development obstacles/barriers and that could result in unplanned growth. (DEIR, p. 4.14-6)
Based on the foregoing analysis, neither the Shea Project, Acacia Project nor any Projectrelated component would directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth that would cause a significant impact to the environment. Impacts would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-6)
The RHNA prepared by SCAG projected Fontana’s share of regional housing need for 2021-2029 as 17,477 new housing units, with 5,096 units in the very low-income category, 2,943 units in the low-income category, 3,029 units in the moderate-income category, and 6,409 units in the above moderate-income category. The City of Fontana is planning to accommodate its share of the projected regional need for housing units, as documented in the City’s General Plan Housing Element 2021-2029 (6th Cycle Housing Element). (DEIR, p. 4.14-6) Associated with the Shea Project and Acacia Project, both Projects entail General Plan Amendments (GPAs) and Zone Changes (ZCs) to change the properties’ land use designations and zoning classifications from a residential to non-residential category. The Shea Project’s proposed GPA No. 21-004 would amend the City’s General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designations for the Shea Project Site from Multi-Family High Density Residential (R-MFH) to Light Industrial (I-L). The Acacia Project’s proposed GPA No. 21-005 would amend the City’s General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designations for the Acacia Project Site from R-MFH and General Commercial (C-G) to I-L. Similarly, the Shea Project’s proposed ZC No. 21- 006 would amend the City’s Zoning District Map to change the zoning classification of the Shea Project Site from Multi-Family High Density Residential (R-5) to Light Industrial (M-1). The Acacia Project’s proposed ZC No. 21-007 would amend the City’s Zoning District Map to change the zoning classifications of the Acacia Project Site from R-5 and General Commercial (C-2) to M-1. (DEIR, p. 4.14-7)
Both the Shea Project and Acacia Project are required to comply with California’s Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330). Under existing zoning designations, up to 555 housing units could occur on the Shea Project Site and up to 725 housing units could occur on the residentially-zoned portion of the Acacia Project Site. To comply with SB 330, the Projects would comply with the City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 30 Article XV “No Net Loss Density Bonus/Replacement Program,” which was approved by the Fontana City Council via Ordinance No. 1906 on October 25, 2022. (DEIR, p. 4.14-7)
B. Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Threshold “b”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact (Shea Project); No Impact (Acacia Project) 399
42 Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea Project Site contains one residence and associated shed under existing conditions, and implementation of the Shea Project would remove these structures from the Shea Project Site. The removal of these structures would displace the current occupants of the one residence, which does not constitute the displacement of substantial numbers of people. The removal of one residence and associated shed from the Shea Project Site would not substantially affect the supply of readily available housing units in the City. Therefore, implementation of the Shea Project would not displace a substantial number of existing people or housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Implementation of the Shea Project would result in a less-than-significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.14- 7)
No residences are located on the Acacia Project Site and no displacements of housing or people would occur with the Acacia Project. (DEIR, p. 4.14-8)

2.2.15 Public Services
A. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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 Services (Threshold “a”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The construction and operation of the Shea and Acacia Projects would increase the demand for fire protection by introducing one building on the Shea Project Site and two buildings on the Acacia Project Site. The introductions of buildings on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites are not anticipated to result in an increase in demand for fire protection services high enough to trigger the need to physically construct new fire protection facilities because Station 79 already exists near the Site which provides paramedic and fire services. Additionally, the both the Shea and Acacia Projects would incorporate fire prevention and fire suppression design features to minimize the potential demand placed on the FFPD. The proposed buildings would be of concrete tilt-up construction. Concrete is non-flammable and concrete tilt-up buildings have a lower fire hazard risk than typical wood-frame construction. The Shea and Acacia Projects would also install fire hydrants on the sites. Lastly, the proposed commerce center buildings would feature a fire alarm system and ceiling-mounted sprinklers. (DEIR, p. 4.15-5)
The City of Fontana Community Development Department, Planning Division forwarded the Projects’ application materials to the FFPD for review and comment. The FFPD did not provide any comments to the Planning Division indicating that the Projects would not be adequately served by fire protection services or that incremental increase in the demand for FFPD services would result in or require new or expanded fire protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Based on the Shea and Acacia Project Site’s proximity to an existing fire station, the incremental increase in the demand for FFPD services would not result in or require new or expanded fire protection facilities in order 400
43 to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. (DEIR, p.

4.15-6)
Although the Shea and Acacia Projects would not result in the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities, as a standard condition of approval, both the Shea and Acacia Project Applicants would be required to pay impact fees for fire protection services in accordance with Section 21-122 of the Fontana Municipal Code. The City will collect Development Impact Fees (DIF) for the Shea and Acacia Projects based on building square footage. The Shea and Acacia Project’s payment of DIF fees, as well as increased property tax revenues that would result from development of the Shea and Acacia Projects, would be used by the City to help pay for fire protection services and other public services. (DEIR, p. 4.15-6) Based on the foregoing, the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects would receive adequate fire protection service and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Impacts to fire protection facilities would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.15-6) B. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for Police Protection (Threshold “b”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea Project would introduce one new commerce center building to the Shea Project Site and the Acacia Project would introduce two new commerce center buildings to the Acacia Project Site, along with employees and visitors to both the Shea and Acacia Project Sites. This would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services.

There is no aspect of the Shea and Acacia Project’s construction, design, or operation that would cause the need to construct new police protection facilities. During the building plan check process, an FPD representative reviews the building plans before the City issues a building permit to determine the needs for crime prevention, such as installation of lighting systems, emergency notification systems, and/ or crime prevention through environmental design. This preconstruction review process is intended to prevent or deter crime and the demand for police protection services to new developments. For these reasons, the Shea and Acacia Projects are not anticipated to generate crime nor would the Shea and Acacia Projects precipitate crime which would necessitate the construction of new or physically altered police facilities. Additionally, and pursuant to City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 21-122, both the Shea and Acacia Projects would be subject to payment of DIF fees, which the City uses in part to fund police protection services. Furthermore, property tax revenues generated from development of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites would provide funding to offset potential increases in the demand for police services at Shea and Acacia Project build-out. The City of Fontana uses DIF fees and property tax revenues to help pay for police protection needs and other public services. (DEIR, pp. 4.15-6 to 4.15-7) 401
44 Because Shea and Acacia Project implementation would not result in or require new or expanded police protection facilities and because the Shea and Acacia Projects are required to contribute appropriate DIF fees to offset the Shea and Acacia Project’s increased demand for police protection services, the Shea and Acacia Project’s impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.15-7)
C. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for School Services (Threshold “c”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: Neither the Shea nor Acacia Project include residential land uses and neither would directly introduce new school-age children within the Rialto Unified School District (RUSD) boundaries. Furthermore, the Shea and Acacia Projects are not expected to draw a substantial number of new residents to the surrounding area as the result of unplanned population or housing growth and would not, therefore, indirectly increase unplanned enrollment at RUSD schools. Because neither the Shea nor Acacia Project would directly generate students and neither is expected to indirectly draw students to the area, the Shea and Acacia Projects would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities.

Although the Shea and Acacia Projects would not create a direct demand for public school services, the Shea and Acacia Project Applicants would be required to contribute development impact fees to the RUSD in compliance with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, which allows school districts to collect fees from new developments to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity needs. Mandatory payment of school fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Impacts to RUSD schools would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.15-7) D. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for Library Services (Threshold “d”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea and Acacia Projects do not include any residential land uses and would not directly create a demand for public library facilities or directly result in the need to modify existing or construct new library buildings. Demand placed on libraries is based on the generation of a resident population associated with a person’s place of residence, and not typically their place of employment. The Shea and Acacia Projects would not result in an increase in the City’s population and would therefore not directly result in an increased demand for library facilities. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.15-7) 402
45 E. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for Other Public Services (Threshold “e”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea and Acacia Projects do not include any residential land uses and, therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects would result in a substantial increase in demand for public and/or private health care facilities.

Nonetheless, the Project could result in an incremental increase in demand for health services associated with the Shea and Acacia Project’s addition of employees in the area. Existing public health facilities would accommodate nominal increases in demand, such as demand from the Shea and Acacia Projects. Project implementation would not result in or require the physical construction, expansion, or alteration of public health facilities; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.15-8)

2.2.16 Recreation
A. Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea and Acacia Projects would entail the development of the subject properties with commerce center land uses. Neither the Shea or Acacia Project proposes any type of residential use or other land use that may generate a population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. There is a planned Class I bicycle facility located on the east side of the Shea and Acacia Projects, in the Southern California Edison easement. Under existing conditions, no work has begun on constructing the planned facility. It is expected that future employees of the Shea and Acacia Project commerce centers may use the planned facility, however, any use by employees is not reasonably expected to deteriorate the trail. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.16-3) B. Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The planned Class II bicycle facility along Sierra Avenue would be installed as part of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites along the street frontages. The Sierra Avenue frontage improvements are an inherent part of the Shea and Acacia Project’s construction and construction-related effects from the road widening inclusive of the bike lanes 403
46 are considered throughout this EIR. No other on- or off-site recreation facilities would be constructed as part of the Shea and Acacia Projects. Therefore, environmental effects related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not occur. (DEIR, p. 4.16-3)

2.2.17 Transportation
A. Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact (for Shea Project only) Facts in Support of Finding: The SBCTA provides VMT data for each of its member agencies and for the County of San Bernardino region via its San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM). The SBTAM identifies a baseline VMT per service population value, which calculates the number of daily vehicles miles traveled by each member of the “service population,” which includes area employees and residents. The baseline VMT for San Bernardino County is 17.1 VMT per employee; therefore, for analysis purposes, the City’s VMT significance threshold is set at 14.54 VMT per employee (17.1 VMT per employee x 0.85% = 14.54 VMT per employee (15% below 17.1). (DEIR, pp. 4.17-11 to 4.17-12) Shea Project: The Shea Project was determined to meet the screening criteria of project net daily trips less than 500 ADT and is therefore expected to result in a less than significant impact for VMT. Additionally, the Shea Project would generate fewer than 50 peak hour trips and would contribute fewer than 50 peak hour trips to any study area intersection. Accordingly, the Shea Project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 on an individual basis. (DEIR, p. 4.17-12)
B. Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Threshold “c”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The types of traffic generated during operation of the Shea and Acacia Projects (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) would be compatible with the type of traffic observed along adjacent roadways under existing conditions. All proposed improvements within the public right-of-way would be installed in conformance with City design standards. Project construction activities that would occur in the public right-of-way and that could temporarily require the partial or a travel lane is required to adhere to the applicable construction control practices that are specified in the State of California Department of Transportation Construction Manual and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, to minimize potential safety hazards. Urban Crossroads conducted a Caltrans Safety Evaluation and concluded that the Shea Project and Acacia Projects’ designs would not cause or significantly contribute to transportation safety issues. Based on the foregoing information, the Shea and Acacia Project’s 404
47 construction and operation would not create or substantially increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.17-13) C. Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? (Threshold “d”) Finding: No Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The types of vehicular traffic generated during operation of the Shea and Acacia Projects (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) would be compatible with the type of traffic observed along surrounding roadways under existing conditions. In addition, all proposed improvements within the public right-of-way would be installed in conformance with City design standards. The City reviewed the Shea and Acacia Project’s site plan drawings and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced through implementation of the Shea and Acacia Projects. Specifically, all Shea and Acacia Project construction materials and equipment would be stored/staged on the Shea or Acacia Project Sites and would not interfere with emergency vehicles traveling along Sierra Avenue or Duncan Canyon Road. Any Shea or Acacia Project construction activities that would occur within the Sierra Avenue or Duncan Canyon Road public right-of-way and requires a partial or full closure of a vehicle travel lane would require a traffic control plan that complies with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and that must be approved by the City of Fontana to ensure that emergency response is not adversely affected. Accordingly, the Shea and Acacia Projects’ construction and operation would not create or substantially increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.17-13)

2.2.18 Utilities and Services Systems
A. Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The facts presented below address the Project’s potential to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

Water and Water Treatment Facilities: Water demand features associated with the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects would consist of interior plumbing devices, outdoor landscape irrigation, and various industrial process systems. Water service would be provided to both the Shea and Acacia Project Sites by West Valley Water District (WVWD). (DEIR, p. 4.19-9) The Shea Project and Acacia Project would both install a 12-inch water main along the Project Sites’ frontages with Sierra Avenue. Neither Project would require the relocation or upsizing of any existing water lines off-site. The installation of the water main along Sierra Avenue and the installation of onsite tanks and onsite water lines that connect to the Sierra Avenue 405
48 line is an inherent part of the Projects’ construction processes. The installation of water conveyance lines as part of each Project’s construction process has the potential to cause environmental effects associated with short-term air pollutant emissions, noise, and traffic movement disruptions. All water utility installation work that occurs within a public street right of way must adhere to the construction control practices that reduce impacts that are specified in the State of California Department of Transportation Construction Manual, dated February 2022, published by Caltrans.

Environmental impacts associated with the construction of the Projects, including the installation of their proposed water lines are evaluated throughout the EIR. Where significant impacts are identified, feasible and enforceable mitigation measures are imposed on the Project to reduce impacts to the maximum practical effect. There are no unique impacts associated with the installation of water infrastructure to serve the Projects, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.19-9 to 4.19-10)
While the Shea Project and the Acacia Project would result in an incremental increase in demand for water treatment capacity, the Projects’ water demands would not result in or require new or expanded water treatment facilities beyond those facilities already planned as part of the 2015 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Impacts unique to the installation of water infrastructure would be less than significant.

Wastewater and Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Sewer demand features associated with the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects include interior plumbing devices in the proposed commerce center buildings. (DEIR, p. 4.19-10)
The Shea Project and Acacia Project would both install onsite sewer conveyance lines that would connect to a 12-inch line already installed with Sierra Avenue. Neither Project would require the relocation or upsizing of any existing sewer lines off-site. On the Shea Project Site, the existing septic system would be removed and disposed of per applicable regulatory standards.

The installation of onsite sewer lines that connect to the Sierra Avenue line is an inherent part of the Projects’ construction processes. The installation of wastewater conveyance lines as part of each Project’s construction process has the potential to cause environmental effects associated with short-term air pollutant emissions, noise, and traffic movement disruptions. All wastewater utility installation work that occurs within a public street right of way must adhere to the construction control practices that reduce impacts that are specified in the State of California Department of Transportation Construction Manual, dated February 2022, published by Caltrans. Environmental impacts associated with the construction of the Projects, including the installation of their proposed sewer lines are evaluated throughout the EIR. Where significant impacts are identified, feasible and enforceable mitigation measures are imposed on the Project to reduce impacts to the maximum practical effect. There are no unique impacts associated with the installation of wastewater infrastructure to serve the Projects, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.19-10) The Projects’ wastewater would be conveyed to the RP-4 wastewater treatment facility operated by the IEUA, which has a treatment capacity of approximately 14 million gallons of wastewater per day but, under existing conditions, only treats, on average, approximately 10 million gallons of wastewater per day. The excess capacity for RP-4 is approximately 4 million 406
49 gallons per day, and sufficient to treat the Projects’ wastewater which would only comprise a small fraction of the available capacity. (DEIR, pp. 4.19-10 to 4.19-11) Stormwater Drainage Facilities: Under existing conditions, drainage sheet flows north to south, with the Shea Project Site accepting run-on from the Acacia Project Site. Upon the development of both Projects, runoff from the Acacia Project Site would flow into an on-site storm water drainage system, discharging into a storm drain line installed in Sierra Avenue to the west that would be supplemented by the installation of a 36” reinforced concrete pipe extension along the Acacia Project Site’s frontage, based on the City of Fontana’s Master Storm Plan. Storm water drainage features that would be installed on the Project Sites include but are not limited to catch basins, storm drain lines, underground chambers, and a surface basin located in the southwestern corner of the Shea Project Site. The installation of onsite and site adjacent storm water drainage infrastructure is an inherent part of the Projects’ construction processes. The installation of stormwater collection facilities and conveyance lines as part of each Project’s construction process has the potential to cause environmental effects associated with short-term air pollutant emissions, noise, and traffic movement disruptions. All storm water infrastructure installation work that occurs within a public street right of way must adhere to the construction control practices that reduce impacts that are specified in the State of California Department of Transportation Construction Manual, dated February 2022, published by Caltrans. Environmental impacts associated with the construction of the Projects, including the installation of their proposed storm water drainage systems are evaluated throughout this EIR. Where significant impacts are identified, feasible and enforceable mitigation measures are imposed on the Project to reduce impacts to the maximum practical effect. There are no unique impacts associated with the installation of stormwater drainage infrastructure to serve the Projects, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.19-11)
Dry Utilities: Under existing conditions, overhead electrical lines supported on wooden poles are located along the frontage of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites with Sierra Avenue. As part of the Projects’ development, these lines would be relocated underground along the frontage of both Project Sites. Other dry utility lines are available in the Sierra Avenue right-of-way, to which the Projects would make connections during the construction phase. The installation of onsite and site adjacent dry utility infrastructure is an inherent part of the Projects’ construction processes. The installation of dry utilities as part of each Project’s construction process has the potential to cause environmental effects associated with short-term air pollutant emissions, noise, and traffic movement disruptions. All electric line undergrounding and other dry utility installation work that occurs within a public street right of way must adhere to the construction control practices that reduce impacts that are specified in the State of California Department of Transportation Construction Manual, dated February 2022, published by Caltrans. Environmental impacts associated with the construction of the Projects, including the installation of their proposed dry utility systems are evaluated throughout this EIR. Where significant impacts are identified, feasible and enforceable mitigation measures are imposed on the Project to reduce impacts to the maximum practical effect. There are no unique impacts associated with the installation of dry utilities to serve the Projects, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.19-11) 407
50 B. Would sufficient water supplies be available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: WVWD forecasts for projected water demand are based on the population projections of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which rely on the adopted land use designations contained within the general plans that cover the geographic area within WVWD’s service. Because the Shea and Acacia Projects both involve General Plan Amendments, the Projects would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions used by WVWD to calculate its future water service obligations (and would have the potential to exceed WVWD’s service capabilities). The Shea Project’s proposed GPA No. 21-004 would amend the City’s General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designations for the Shea Project Site from Multi-Family High Density Residential (R-MFH) to Light Industrial (I-L). The Acacia Project’s proposed GPA No. 21-005 would amend the City’s General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designations for the Acacia Project Site from R-MFH and General Commercial (C-G) to I-L. (DEIR, p. 4.19-12)
Using water demand rates available from Table 5.1 of the WVWD’s Water Master Plan, the Shea and Acacia Projects would collectively generate an estimated water demand of 60,200 gallons per day (or 67.43 AFY) using a factor of 2,000 gallons per day per acre over the 30.1 net acre Project sites. (DEIR, p. 4.19-12)
In comparison, under the Project Sites’ existing land use designation of R-MFH (which permits up to 50 dwelling units (du) per acre) and using factors of 200 gallons per capita per day,

1.7 person per residential unit, and 25.6 acres of the Project Sites having a R-MFH designation, a water demand of 487.48 AFY would be generated (25.6 acres x 50 units per acre = 1,280 units x

1.7 people per unit = 2,176 people x 200 gallons per capita = 435,200 gallons/day (or 487.48 AFY).

Additionally, the approximately 4.5 acre of C-G designated land on the Acacia Project Site using a factor of 3,500 gallons per day per acre would generate a demand of 15,750 gallons per day (or

17.64 AFY). Thus, in total, water demand estimates for the Project Sites considering their existing land use designations are 505.12 AFY (487.48 + 17.64), compared to the proposed Project’s estimated water demand of 67.43 AFY. Implementation of the proposed Projects would therefore reduce water demand planned for the Project Sites by 437.69 AFY (505.12 – 67.43). Because the Projects would reduce water demand well below the amount planned for by WVWD, sufficient water supplies would be available to service the Projects in the reasonably foreseeable future. (DEIR, p. 4.19-12)
C. Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Threshold “c”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
408
51 Facts in Support of Finding: Wastewater generated by the Project would be treated at Inland Empire Utility Agency’s (IEUA) RP-4 wastewater treatment plants. Under existing conditions, RP-4 has an excess treatment capacity of approximately 4 million gallons per day, while Project operations are conservatively estimated to generate approximately 60,200 of wastewater per day. (The Project’s wastewater demand mirrors the water demand for Project operations and is conservative because Project operations include water use for landscape irrigation, which does not flow into the sewer system or require wastewater treatment.) Accordingly, implementation of the Project would utilize approximately 1.5% of the excess treatment capacity at RP-4. Accordingly, RP-4 has sufficient excess capacity to treat wastewater generated by the Project in addition to existing commitments. Implementation of the Project would not create the need for any new or expanded wastewater facility. Because there is adequate capacity at existing treatment facilities to serve Project demands, impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required. (DEIR, p. 4.19-13) D. Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Threshold “d”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The facts presented below address the Project’s solid waste generation.

Construction Waste: During construction of the Projects, a small amount of demolition material would be generated from removal of the one residential structure and shed located on the Shea Project Site. Waste also would be generated by the construction process on each Project Site, primarily comprising discarded materials and packaging. Based on the proposed building sizes of 199,999 s.f. on the Shea Project Site and 88,746 s.f. (Building 1) and 296,297 s.f. (Building 2) on the Acacia Project Site (585,042 s.f. of total building space), and using a construction waste generation factor of 4.34 pounds per square foot (EPA, 2009, p. 10), approximately 1,269.5 tons of waste would be generated over the course of Project construction ([585,042 sq. ft. × 4.34 lbs/sq. ft] ÷ 2,000 lbs/ton = 1,269.5 tons). AB 939 requires that a minimum of 50% of all solid waste be diverted from landfills (by recycling, reusing, and other waste reduction strategies) consistent with the State’s solid waste reduction goals; therefore, the Project is estimated to generate up to 634.7 tons of construction waste requiring disposal at a landfill. (DEIR, p. 4.19-13) The Projects’ construction, should both Projects be constructed simultaneously, would occur over a period of approximately 13 months (395 days), which corresponds to approximately

1.6 tons of construction waste being generated per day of construction activity. (If the Projects were constructed sequentially, less construction waste per day would be produced.) As of 2019, the Mid-Valley Landfill’s peak daily disposal was 5,330 tons, which represents 71% of the maximum daily capacity with 29% capacity available. The Project’s estimated constructionrelated generated waste represents approximately 0.02% ([1.6 tons ÷ 7,500 tons] × 100 = ~ 0.04%) of Mid-Valley Landfill’s maximum daily capacity. Thus, the small volume of solid waste 409
52 generated during Project construction (1.6 tons per day) would neither exceed State or local disposal standards nor exceed the local infrastructure capacity to handle the waste disposal; therefore, impacts to landfill capacity associated with near-term Project construction activities would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.19-13 to 4.19-14) Operational Waste: Based on a daily waste generation factor of 1.42 pounds of waste per 100 square feet of commerce center building area, long-term operation of the Projects would generate approximately 4.15 tons of solid waste per day ([585,042 sq. ft. × 1.42 lbs/ 100 sq. ft] ÷ 2,000 lbs/ton = 4.15 tons). A minimum of 50% of all solid waste would be required to be recycled pursuant to AB 939, consistent with the State’s solid waste reduction goals; therefore, Project operation would generate up to approximately 2.07 tons per day of solid waste requiring disposal at a landfill. As of February 2019, the Mid-Valley Landfill’s peak daily disposal was 5,330 tons, which represents 71% of the maximum daily capacity with 29% capacity available. The projected estimated operation-related generated waste represents approximately 0.03% ([2.07 tons ÷ 7,500 tons] × 100 = ~ 0.03%) of Mid-Valley Landfill’s maximum daily capacity. Thus, the small volume of solid waste expected to be generated during Project operation (1.6 tons per day) would neither exceed State or local disposal standards nor exceed the local infrastructure capacity to handle the waste disposal; therefore, impacts to landfill capacity associated with long-term Project operational activities would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.19-14) E. Would the Project comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Threshold “e”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: In order to assist the City of Fontana in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act, and pursuant to City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 24, the Shea and Acacia Project’s building occupant(s) would be required to work with future refuse haulers to develop and implement feasible waste reduction programs, including source reduction, recycling, and composting. Additionally, in accordance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (Cal Pub Res. Code Section 42911), the Shea and Acacia Projects are required to provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials where solid waste is collected. The collection areas are required to be shown on construction drawings and be in place before occupancy permits are issued. Further, in compliance with AB 341 (Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program), the future occupant(s) of the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects would be required to arrange for recycling services, if the occupant generates four (4) or more cubic yards of solid waste per week. The implementation of these mandatory requirements would reduce the amount of solid waste generated by the Shea and Acacia Projects and diverted to landfills, which in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites.

The Shea and Acacia Projects would be required to comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations; as such, impacts related to solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.19-14)
410
53 2.2.19 Wildfire
A. Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea and Acacia Project Sites do not contain any emergency facilities nor are they physically part of an emergency evacuation route. As part of the discretionary review process, the City reviewed the Shea and Acacia Project’s application materials to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to and from the Shea and Acacia Project Sites and that circulation on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites would be adequate for emergency vehicles. The development of the Shea and Acacia Projects as proposed would introduce driveway access points at Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road, with right turns only in and out of the Sierra Avenue driveways due to the planned raised center median. In the event of a wildfire emergency, the City’s emergency personnel are trained to direct vehicle traffic along the street system and designated evacuation routes to ensure safe and efficient evacuations. There are no components of the Shea or Acacia project that would substantially impair an emergency response plan. (DEIR, p. 4.20-6)
Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.20-6) B. Would the Project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea and Acacia Project Sites and areas surrounding the Shea and Acacia Project Sites are classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).

The areas surrounding the Shea and Acacia Project Sites are transitioning to fully developed communities with limited non-irrigated vegetative fuel. North of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites is Duncan Canyon Road and a developed residential community. East of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites an easement owned and routinely maintained by SCE. West of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites is Sierra Avenue and further west is a previously undeveloped property that is currently under construction as a residential community. Two undeveloped properties are located around the Shea and Acacia Project Sites, one at the southeast corner of Duncan Canyon Road and one immediately south of the Shea Project Site. The development of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites as proposed would reduce the risk of wildfire by transforming the undeveloped properties into developed properties complete with irrigated landscaping, paving, and fire sprinkler systems in the buildings. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.20-6 to 4.20-7) The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) (2017) reported that the type of development that the City anticipated within the Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) is 411
54 predominately residential, both single family dwellings (tract houses) and multiple family dwellings such as apartments and condominiums. The LHMP acknowledges that this creates a greater potential impact because residential structures are the least fire resistive in their construction and the population groups that inhabit them are the least prepared to evacuate in a large-scale wildfire event. In comparison, the Shea and Acacia Project Applicants are proposing General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes to redesignate the properties from planned high density housing and some commercial use to light industrial designations to allow for construction of the commerce center buildings that are proposed. The commerce center buildings are proposed to be constructed with concrete tilt-up walls, and concrete is very fire prone compared to what would occur if the She Project Site was developed with high density housing and the Acacia Project Site was developed with high density housing and commercial uses. As such, the proposed Projects would reduce fire risk on the Shea Project Site and Acacia Project site compared to what was anticipated in the City’s LHMP. Due to the Project Site’s location in context to surrounding development and property to the west under development, and the Project’s construction type of commerce center buildings with concrete tilt-up construction that would be built in compliance with all applicable Building and Fire Codes and include irrigated landscaping and fire protection systems and interior sprinkler systems, there is no reasonable potential that the Projects would expose the Project Sites’ occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. (DEIR, p. 4.20-7)
C. Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (Threshold “c”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea Project entails the construction and operation of a single concrete tilt-up dock high commerce center building (type III-B) with up to 199,999 square feet (s.f). The Acacia Project entails the construction and operation of two concrete tilt-up dock high commerce center buildings (type III-B). Building 1 would be a maximum of 296,297 s.f. and Building 2 would be a maximum of 88,746 s.f. (for a collective total of 385,043 s.f. of total building area at full buildout). Associated site improvements for both the Shea and Acacia Projects would include drive aisles, irrigated landscaping, utility infrastructure, exterior lighting, and signage. No components of either the Shea or Acacia Project would trigger the installation or maintenance of offsite infrastructure or wildfire management features that could result in exacerbated fire risks.

Less than significant impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.20-7) D. Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (Threshold “d”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
412
55 Facts in Support of Finding: Should the Shea and/or Acacia Project Sites ever be affected by wildfire, there is no potential that the Project Sites could affect other properties by induced flooding, slope instability, or landslides. Under existing and proposed conditions, the Shea and Acacia Project Sites exhibit little topographic variation, and development on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites as proposed would not involve any uses containing natural vegetation or other features subject to wildland fire hazards that could cause flooding or landslides. (DEIR, p. 4.20- 8)
The areas surrounding the Shea and Acacia Project Sites are transitioning to fully developed communities. North of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites is Duncan Canyon Road and a developed residential community. East of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites an easement owned and routinely maintained by SCE beyond which is a solid wall and beyond the wall is a fully developed community in the City of Rialto. West of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites is Sierra Avenue and further west is a previously undeveloped property that is currently under construction as a residential community. Two undeveloped properties are located around the Shea and Acacia Project Sites, one at the southeast corner of Duncan Canyon Road and one immediately south of the Shea Project Site. Both of these properties are flat and there is no reasonable possibility that in the remote event of a wildfire on the Sites, that these properties would be impacted by flooding, landslides, or instability due to the flat nature of the topography, developed condition of other surrounding properties, and the presence of an installed stormwater drainage system in the area.

The development of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites as proposed would reduce the risk of wildfire by transforming the undeveloped properties into developed properties complete with irrigated landscaping, paving, and fire sprinkler systems in the buildings. As a result, fire risk on surrounding properties would be reduced and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p.

4.20-8)

2.3 Impacts Identified in the EIR as Potentially Significant that Have been Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant
The City Council hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1). The potentially significant impacts, and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:

2.3.1 Biological Resources
A. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Threshold “a”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding:
413
56 Direct Impacts to Special-Status Plants: One special-status plant species, Parry’s spineflower, was detected on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites during the 2022 field surveys. (DEIR, p. 4.4-11) Impacts to Parry’s spineflower plants that would occur from implementation of the Shea and Acacia Projects are discussed below.

Shea Project: Construction of the Shea Project would result in the direct removal of 7.5 acres of vegetation communities and 4.38 acres of disturbed and developed land. The Shea Project would impact 87 individual Parry’s spineflower plants. Based upon the known record of Parry’s spineflower plants in the City of Fontana, the Shea Project’s impact to 87 individual plants out of approximately 20,750 plants would represent an impact to approximately 0.4 percent (0.4%) of the plants in the City based on California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records, which would be a less-than-significant impact considering the range of the species and the number of extant occurrences within the City as well as within its overall range. Further, the loss of 87 plants from the total population of 1,483 plants on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites combined would not reduce the population to below a self-sustaining level of at least 1,000 plants. (DEIR, p. 4.4- 13)
Acacia Project: Construction of the Acacia Project would result in the direct removal of

18.03 acres of vegetation communities and 2.37 acres of disturbed and developed land. The Acacia Project would impact 1,396 individual Parry’s spineflower plants. Based upon the known record of Parry’s spineflower plants in the City of Fontana, the Acacia Project’s impacts to 1,396 individual plants out of approximately 20,750 plants would represent an impact to approximately seven percent (7%) of the plants in the City based on CNDDB records, which would represent a significant impact considering the range of the species and the number of extant occurrences within the City as well as within its overall range. Further, the loss of 1,396 plants from the total population of 1,483 plants on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites combined would reduce the population to below a self-sustaining level of at least 1,000 plants, confirming the conclusion that the impact would be significant requiring mitigation. (DEIR, p. 4.4-13) Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: Construction of the combined Shea and Acacia Projects would result in the direct removal of 25.53 acres of vegetation communities and 6.75 acres of disturbed and developed land. The combined Shea and Acacia Projects would impact 1,483 individual Parry’s spineflower plants, which represents a substantial adverse effect on this sensitive species because 207 or more plants (1% or greater loss of known Parry’s spineflower plants in the City of Fontana based on CNDDB records) would be impacted and the population on the Sites would be completely eliminated. As such, combined Shea and Acacia Project impacts to Parry’s spineflower would be a cumulatively considerable significant impact and mitigation would be required. (DEIR, p. 4.4-13)
Direct Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife: Four special-status animal species (Bell’s sage sparrow, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, California horned lark, and Los Angeles pocket mouse) were detected on the Shea Project Site during field surveys. Five special-status animal species (coast horned lizard, coastal whiptail, Bell’s sage sparrow, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, and Los Angeles pocket mouse) were detected on the Acacia Project Site during field surveys. Potential direct impacts to these special-status species are discussed below. 414
57 Because wildlife species are migratory, the species are considered to be located on both Project Sites, so potential impacts are addressed collectively. (DEIR, p. 4.4-13) Coast Horned Lizard: Potential injury or mortality to individual coast horned lizards could occur, and habitat loss would occur over both the Shea and Acacia Project Sites from Project construction. Therefore, both the Shea and Acacia Projects have the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on this sensitive species. The Shea Project and the Acacia Project constructionrelated impacts to the coast horned lizard would be significant and mitigation would be required. (DEIR, p. 4.4-14)
Coastal Whiptail: Potential injury or mortality to individual species could occur, and habitat loss would occur over both the Shea and Acacia Project Sites from Project construction.

Therefore, both the Shea and Acacia Projects have potential to cause substantial adverse effects on this sensitive species. The Shea Project and the Acacia Project construction-related impacts to the coastal whiptail would be significant and mitigation would be required. (DEIR, p. 4.4-14) Bell’s Sage Sparrow: The Bell’s sage sparrow, which is on the State Watch List, was previously designated as a Species of Special Concern but no longer merits that sensitive status.

Therefore, this species is of lower sensitivity, and combined with its fairly wide range, and the small area of total impact on both the Shea and Acacia Project Sites, the Projects’ impacts would not cause a substantial adverse effect on this species from habitat loss. Additionally, the Bell’s sage sparrow would be expected to fly away from construction activity and, therefore, not be injured or killed during construction. Shea and Acacia Project construction impacts to the Bell’s sage sparrow would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-14) California Horned Lark: The California horned lark, which is on the State Watch List, used to be a Species of Special Concern. Therefore, this species is of lower sensitivity, and combined with its fairly wide range, and the small area of total impact on both the Shea and Acacia Project Sites, the Shea and Acacia Projects’ construction would not cause a substantial adverse effect on this species from habitat loss. Additionally, the California horned lark would be expected to fly away from construction activity and, therefore, not be injured or killed by construction. Shea and Acacia Project construction impacts to the California horned lark would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-14)
Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow: The southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, which is on the State Watch List, used to be a Species of Special Concern. Therefore, this species is of lower sensitivity, and combined with its fairly wide range and the small area of total impact in both the Shea and Acacia Project Sites, the Shea and Acacia Projects’ impacts would not cause a substantial adverse effect on this species from habitat loss. Additionally, the southern California rufous-crowned sparrow would be expected to fly away from construction activity and, therefore, not be injured or killed by construction. Shea and Acacia Project construction impacts to the southern California rufous-crowded sparrow would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4- 14)
415
58 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse: The Los Angeles pocket mouse is a Species of Special Concern that is present on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites in the same general location as Parry’s spineflower. It was trapped in the Shea Project Site one time and was trapped in the Acacia Project Site eight times during trapping surveys conducted in 2022. Potential injury or mortality to individual mice could occur, and habitat loss would occur on both the Shea and Acacia Project Sites during the Projects’ construction. Because this pocket mouse is a Species of Special Concern, the impacts may cause a substantial adverse effect on this species through potential injury or mortality and habitat loss. Shea and Acacia Project construction-related impacts to the Los Angeles pocket mouse would be significant and mitigation would be required. (DEIR, p. 4.4-15) Other Species: Three (3) other special-status animal species (southern California legless lizard, burrowing owl, and San Diego desert woodrat) were not observed on the Project Sites during 2022 field surveys and no signs of these species being present were observed; thus, they have low potential to occur on the Project Sites and there is no reasonable potential for these species to migrate onto the Sites given that the Project Sites are bounded by Sierra Avenue to the west, a SCE easement, block wall, and a developed residential community to the east, and properties that are developed or planned for development to the north and to the south. Therefore, there is no reasonable potential for the Shea and Acacia Projects to significantly impact these species. (DEIR, p. 4.4-15)
Potential Indirect Impacts to Special-Status Biological Resources: Since the Shea and Acacia Project Sites are already bordered by roads and development to the north, east, and west, neither the Shea nor Acacia Project would have any substantial indirect impacts on protected natural communities or wildlife in these directions. To the south of the Shea Project Site and to the northwest of the Acacia Project site are small vacant parcels in private ownership that have similar biological characteristics as the Shea and Acacia Project Sites. Construction and operational activities on the Shea and Acacia Project sites have the potential to result in minor indirect effects on the biological resources existing on these parcels; however, any such effects would be less than significant through compliance with regulatory requirements and Project design features such as requirements for construction dust control (SCAQMD Rule 403), noise abatement through perimeter wall design, water quality control through regulatory requirements and best management practices, and landscape and lighting design. If construction activities encroach beyond the boundaries of the construction site, indirect effects may occur, resulting in potentially significant indirect effects, for which mitigation in the form of temporary construction fencing will be required. (DEIR, p. 4.4-15)
To ensure that Project impacts to special-status wildlife species are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures and regulatory requirement are required.

Mitigation:

MM 4.4-2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that would authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to retain the services of a qualified biologist (“Dedicated Biologist”) to conduct trapping of Los Angeles pocket mouse for a minimum of five (5) days before ground disturbance commences and move any captured 416
59 mice to a location of suitable habitat outside of the project’s impact footprint. The Dedicated Biologist also shall monitor grubbing, clearing, and mass grading activities for sensitive animal species including Los Angeles pocket mouse, coast horned lizard and coastal whiptail. The Dedicated Biologist shall be required to be present during grubbing, clearing, and mass grading activities and if these species are observed, the Dedicated Biologist shall have the authority to pause or redirect construction equipment away from observed species and direct or move these animals out of harm’s way to the extent practicable, to a location of suitable habitat outside of the project’s impact footprint. If approved by CDFW, the Dedicated Biologist shall set traps for Los Angeles pocket mouse at night during the initial five days of grading and move any captured mice to a location of suitable habitat outside of the project’s impact footprint the next morning before grading activities resume. The grubbing, clearing, and mass grading contractor(s) shall be required via a note on the grading plans to follow the instructions of the Dedicated Biologist.

MM 4.4-3. At the initiation of construction activities, temporary construction fencing covered with a tarp or other solid barrier material shall be placed along the northern and southern property boundaries where construction activity would occur adjacent to undeveloped land to denote the physical limits of construction activity. The temporary fencing shall remain in place until the project’s permanent perimeter wall or fence is erected. No construction activity shall be permitted to encroach beyond the demarked limits of construction.

MM 4.4.6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any other permit that would authorize vegetation removal, the applicant is required to retain the services of a qualified biologist (“Dedicated Biologist”) to monitor all construction activities that entail native vegetation removal. The Dedicated Biologist shall be required to contact CDFW if any threatened or endangered species are identified on the construction site during monitoring of the construction activities and direct construction activities away from threatened and endangered species until California Endangered Species Act authorization is obtained from CDFW.

With implementation of MM 4.4-1, MM 4.4-2, MM 4.4-3, and MM 4.4-6, direct, potentially indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species would be mitigated to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-26)
B. Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Threshold “d”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: The Shea and Acacia Project Sites do not contain natural, surface drainage/watercourse or ponding features. Additionally, there are no water bodies on or adjacent to the Shea and Acacia Project Sites that could support fish. Therefore, there is no 417
60 potential for the Shea or Acacia Projects to interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish. The Shea and Acacia Project Sites also do not serve as wildlife corridors nor are they connected to an established corridor, and there are no native wildlife nurseries on or adjacent to either the Shea or Acacia Project Site. Therefore, there is no potential for the Shea or Acacia Project to impede the use of a native wildlife nursery Site. Based on the foregoing information, neither the Shea nor Acacia Project would result in impacts to any native resident or migratory fish, established wildlife corridor, or native wildlife nursery sites.

Both the Shea and Acacia Projects would remove vegetation (i.e., trees, shrubs, and grasses) from the Project Sites that provides potential roosting and nesting habitat for birds common to the Fontana area. Thirty (30) avian species were observed during field surveys on the Shea Project Site, and thirty-three (33) avian species were observed during the surveys of the Acacia Project Site, some of which, if present, could nest on the Sites, including the Bell’s sage sparrow, California horned lark, and southern California rufous-crowned sparrow. If construction of the Shea and Acacia Projects occur during the avian nesting season (February 1 through September 15) and active nests are present on either the Shea or Acacia Project Sites, significant impacts to nesting birds could occur. Both the Shea and Acacia Projects’ potential to impact nesting birds is a significant impact for which mitigation is required.

To ensure that Project impacts to migratory wildlife species are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures and regulatory requirement are required.

MM 4.4-4. In order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, the initial clearing, grubbing, and grading of land is recommended to but not required to occur outside of the nesting season (i.e., outside of the period February 1 through September 15. Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified Dedicated Biologist 3 days prior to the grounddisturbing activities. If birds are found to be nesting inside or within 250 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the impact area, construction shall be postponed at the discretion of a qualified biologist, until it is determined that the nest is no longer active.

1. The applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures.

2. Surveys shall be conducted by the Designated Biologist at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. If a nest is suspected, but not confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall establish a disturbance-free buffer until additional surveys can 418
61 be completed, or until the location can be inferred based on observations. If a nest is observed, but thought to be inactive, the Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest for one hour (four hours for raptors during the non-breeding season) prior to approaching the nest to determine status. The Designated Biologist shall use their best professional judgement regarding the monitoring period and whether approaching the nest is appropriate.

3. When an active nest is confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall immediately establish a conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest based on their best professional judgement and experience. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. If the Designated Biologist determines that such project activities may be causing an adverse reaction, the Designated Biologist shall adjust the buffer accordingly or implement alternative avoidance and minimization measures, such as redirecting or rescheduling construction or erecting sound barriers.

MM 4.4-5. Implementation of preconstruction surveys prior to ground disturbance and ongoing monitoring during grubbing, clearing, and grading activities for burrowing owl are required as follows:

1. Pre-Construction Survey for Burrowing Owls: The applicant shall retain a Designated biologist to perform a survey for burrowing owls at least 30 days prior to construction activities. If the results are negative, construction may commence with no restrictions other than a requirement for ongoing monitoring as provided for in (2) below.

2. Burrowing Owls Observed During Construction: If burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during Project grubbing, clearing, or grading, burrowing owl habitat shall be avoided and the Designated biologist shall implement any appropriate avoidance and minimization measures.

3. Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. If burrowing owls are detected on the Project site, a Burrowing owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to relocation of owls. The Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites and details on adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. As compensation for the scenario of loss of burrowing owl nesting and foraging habitat, the Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall identify mitigation including acquisition and funding the permanent protection for the loss of burrowing owl habitat consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report.
419
62 MM 4.4-4 and MM 4.4-5 assures compliance with the MBTA, which would reduce the combined Shea Project’s and Acacia Project’s potential impacts to migratory nesting birds to below a level of significance. (DEIR, p. 4.4-27)

2.3.2 Cultural Resources
A. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Threshold “b”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: BFSA conducted a cultural resources inventory of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites. The results of this records search indicate that no pre/protohistoric cultural resources have been recorded on or within a one-mile radius of the Shea or Acacia Project Site. Additionally, no pre/protohistoric resources were observed on the Shea or Acacia Project Site during the intensive field survey. Therefore, implementation of the Shea and/or Acacia Projects would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known prehistoric archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (DEIR, p. 4.5-11) Given the lack of any previously identified pre/protohistoric sites within or near either the Shea or Acacia properties and the magnitude of ground disturbances on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites over the previous 90-plus years, there is little potential for any pre/protohistoric resources to be present or disturbed by the proposed developments. Notwithstanding, excavations on portions of the Shea or Acacia Project Sites would exceed five (5) feet below the existing ground surface while previously disturbed soils on-site (i.e., artificial fills) extend only to a depth of approximately 2.5 to 8.5 feet below the ground surface; thus, excavations on-site that would occur within previously undisturbed soils could, in theory, contain pre/protohistoric archaeological resources. If any pre/protohistoric cultural resources are unearthed during Shea or Acacia Project construction that meet the definition of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and are disturbed or damaged by Project construction activities, impacts to those pre/protohistoric cultural resources would be potentially significant. Mitigation is thus required in the form of conditions of approval imposed on the Projects that set forth the procedures that would be followed should subsurface resources be discovered. As discussed below, with implementation of mitigation, direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.5-11)
Mitigation: To ensure that Project impacts to any significant archaeological resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures are required.

MM 4.5-1 Upon discovery of any cultural, tribal cultural, or archaeological resources, cease construction activities within 60 feet of the find or 100 feet of the find if funerary objects are present until the find can be assessed. All cultural, tribal and archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence 420
63 with area Tribes, including the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department and/or the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources.

Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.

MM 4.5-2 Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural Resources shall be returned to the culturally affiliated Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

MM 4.5-3 Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.

Implementation of MM 4.5-1 through 4.5-3 which would be applied as conditions of approval on the Projects, would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant archaeological resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Shea and Acacia Project construction. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Shea and Acacia Projects’ potential impacts to important archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant. Cumulatively-considerable impacts would likewise be reduced to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.5-16)

2.3.3 Geology and Soils
A. Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Threshold “f”)
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: The existence of coarse, Holocene alluvial fan deposits at the Project Sites and the lack of any known fossil specimens or fossil localities from within a severalmile radius encompassing the Project Sites support a conclusion that there is a low potential to discover paleontological resources at either Project Site. Nonetheless, there is a remote potential that paleontological resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing construction 421
64 activities conducted at depth in older alluvium soils. In the event that the Shea or Acacia Project’s construction activities extend at depth into previously undisturbed older alluvium deposits, the Shea or Acacia Project could result in impacts to important paleontological resources if such resources are unearthed and not properly treated. Therefore, the Shea and Acacia Projects’ potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource buried beneath the ground surface is determined to be a significant impact and mitigation is required. As discussed below, with implementation of mitigation, potential direct cumulatively-considerable impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-17)
Mitigation: To ensure that the Project’s potential impacts to paleontological resources are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures and regulatory requirements are required.

MM 4.7-1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Fontana that a qualified paleontologist (“paleontologist”) has been retained by the Project Applicant or contractor to be on-call should any suspected paleontological resources be unearthed during Project-related construction activities.

MM 4.7-2. If a suspected paleontological resource is discovered during earth disturbance activities, the discovery shall be cordoned off with a 100-foot radius buffer by the construction contractor so as to protect the discovery from further potential damage, and the paleontologist shall be consulted to assess the discovery.

MM 4.7-3. If a discovery is determined to be significant by the paleontologist, the following shall occur:
a. Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor for the remainder of ground-disturbing construction processes.

Monitoring will be conducted full-time in areas of grading or excavation in undisturbed sedimentary deposits.
b. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner.

Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or, if present, are determined on exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. The monitor shall notify the project paleontologist, who will then notify the concerned parties of the discovery.
c. Paleontological salvage during trenching and boring activities is typically from the generated spoils and does not delay the trenching or drilling activities. Fossils will be collected and placed in cardboard flats or plastic buckets and identified by field number, collector, and date collected. Notes will be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of 422
65 the site, which is photographed before it is vacated, and the fossils are removed to a safe place. On mass grading projects, discovered fossil sites are protected by flagging to prevent them from being overrun by earthmovers (scrapers) before salvage begins. Fossils will be collected in a similar manner, with notes and photographs being taken before removing the fossils. Precise location of the site is determined with the use of handheld GPS units. If the site involves remains from a large terrestrial vertebrate, such as large bone(s) or a mammoth tusk, that is/are too large to be easily removed by a single monitor, a fossil recovery crew shall excavate around the find, encase the find within a plaster and burlap jacket, and remove it after the plaster is set. For large fossils, use of the contractor’s construction equipment may be solicited to help remove the jacket to a safe location. d. Isolated fossils will be collected by hand, wrapped in paper, and placed in temporary collecting flats or five-gallon buckets. Notes will be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which is photographed before it is vacated, and the fossils are removed to a safe place.
e. Particularly small invertebrate fossils typically represent multiple specimens of a limited number of organisms, and a scientifically suitable sample can be obtained from one to several five-gallon buckets of fossiliferous sediment. If it is possible to dry screen the sediment in the field, a concentrated sample may consist of one or two buckets of material.

For vertebrate fossils, the test is usually the observed presence of small pieces of bones within the sediments. If present, as many as 20 to 40 five-gallon buckets of sediment can be collected and returned to a separate facility to wet-screen the sediment. f. In accordance with the “Microfossil Salvage” section of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (2010:7), bulk sampling and screening of fine-grained sedimentary deposits (including carbonate-rich paleosols) must be performed if the deposits are identified to possess indications of producing fossil “microvertebrates” to test the feasibility of the deposit to yield fossil bones and teeth. g. In the laboratory, individual fossils will be cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks will be repaired, and the specimen, if needed, will be stabilized by soaking in an archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B-72). h. Recovered specimens are prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation (not display), including screen-washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils. i. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the San Bernardino County Museum) shall be conducted. The paleontological program should include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Prior to curation, the lead agency (e.g., the City of Fontana) will be consulted on the repository/museum to receive the fossil material. 423
66 j. A final report of findings and significance will be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s).

The report, when submitted to, and accepted by, the appropriate lead agency, will signify satisfactory completion of the project program to mitigate impacts to any potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) that might have been lost or otherwise adversely affected without such a program in place.

Both the Shea and Acacia Projects would implement MMs 4.7-1 through 4.7-3 to ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any paleontological resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities, thereby reducing the potential impact of the Shea and Acacia Projects to paleontological resources to less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-24)

2.3.4 Tribal Cultural Resources
A. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is (Threshold “a”):
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation
Facts in Support of Finding: No prehistoric resource sites, features, places, or landscapes were identified on the surface of the Shea or Acacia Project Sites during field work conducted by BFSA in 2022 that are either listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Places. No resources were identified on the Shea or Acacia Project Sites that meet any of the four criteria to be eligible for the California Register and no prehistoric resource sites or isolates were found on the Project site. Furthermore, no substantial evidence was presented to or found by the City of Fontana that led to the identification of any obvious known and physically identifiable resources on the Shea or Acacia Project Sites that in the City’s discretion had the potential to be considered a tribal cultural resource. (DEIR, p. 4.18-4) As part of the SB 18 and AB 52 consultation processes required by State law, the City of Fontana sent notification of the Shea and Acacia Projects to Native American tribes with possible traditional or cultural affiliation to the Shea and Acacia Project areas on May 4, 2022. Based on the comments by the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, comments from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, and information available from the Projects’ cultural resources 424
67 investigation contained in Technical Appendix D, information indicates that subsurface tribal cultural resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, are potentially present on the Shea and/or Acacia Project Sites and have the potential to be discovered during grounddisturbing construction activities. (DEIR, p. 4.18-5) Although given the lack of any previously identified pre/protohistoric sites within or near either the Shea or Acacia properties and the magnitude of ground disturbances on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites over the previous 90-plus years, there is little potential for any pre/protohistoric resources to be present or disturbed by the proposed developments.

Notwithstanding, excavations on portions of the Shea or Acacia Project Sites would exceed five (5) feet below the existing ground surface while previously disturbed soils on-site (i.e., artificial fills) extend only to a depth of approximately 2.5 to 8.5 feet below the ground surface; thus, excavations on the Project Sites that would occur within previously undisturbed soils could, in theory, contain tribal cultural resources. If any tribal cultural resources are unearthed during Shea or Acacia Project construction that meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource according to Public Resources Code Section 21074 and that is: (i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or (ii) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, , impacts to the tribal cultural resource would be significant. Mitigation is thus required. As discussed below, with implementation of mitigation, direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p.

4.18-5)
The Shea and Acacia Project Sites do not contain a known cemetery site and human remains have not been previously discovered on the sites. Mandatory compliance with State law (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98) would ensure that, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during Shea or Acacia Project construction, the remains would be identified in accordance with proper protocols and the remains would be treated or disposed with appropriate dignity. Accordingly, the Shea and Acacia Projects would not result in a substantial adverse effect to tribal cultural resources associated with human remains. (DEIR, pp. 4.18-5 to 4.18-6)
Mitigation: To ensure proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project development, MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-3, previously noted herein, are required. (DEIR, p. 4.18-6)
Implementation of MMs 4.5-1 through 4.5-3 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Shea Project and Acacia Project development. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Shea and Acacia Projects’ potential impact to significant tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.18-7) 425
68 2.4 Impacts Identified in the EIR as being Significant and Unavoidable The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined herein and in the EIR, the following impacts from the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects and related approvals cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level by any feasible mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(2) and (a)(3), which are infeasible as a result of specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations, or are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein. For the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council finds and declares, in its independent judgment, that the Shea and Acacia Projects’ benefits substantially outweigh and justify the following significant and unavoidable impacts:

2.4.1 Air Quality
A. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Direct and Cumulatively-Considerable Impact Facts in Support of Finding: The SCAQMD 2016 AQMP, which is the applicable air quality plan for the Shea and Acacia Project areas, addresses long-term air quality conditions for the SCAB. Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the NAAQS and CAAQS. Violations of the NAAQS and/or CAAQS would occur if the emissions resulting from the Shea and/or Acacia Projects were to exceed the SCAQMD’s localized emissions thresholds. As a conservative measure, the Shea and Acacia Projects’ regional emissions of VOC, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 also are considered in this consistency determination because if the Shea or Acacia Project’s emissions of any of these pollutants would exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds, then these emissions could delay the SCAB’s attainment of federal and/or State ozone or particulate matter standards. The Shea and Acacia Project-related activities would not exceed SCAQMD localized emissions thresholds during construction or long-term operation. However, cumulative construction of the Shea and Acacia Projects would exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold for VOC emissions. VOCs are precursors for ozone; thus, cumulative Shea and Acacia Project construction activities would contribute a substantial volume of pollutants to the SCAB that could delay the attainment of federal and State ozone standards. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-26 to 4.3-27) The growth forecasts used in the AQMP to calculate future regional emissions levels are based on land use planning data provided by lead agencies via their general plan documentation.

Development projects that increase the intensity of use on a specific property beyond the respective general plan’s vision may result in increased stationary area source emissions and/or vehicle source emissions when compared to the AQMP assumptions. However, if a project does not exceed the growth projections in the applicable local general plan, then the project is considered to be consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP. Based on the years of Shea and Acacia Projects build-out phase, neither the Shea nor Acacia Project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. The prevailing planning document for the Shea and Acacia Project Sites is the City of Fontana’s General Plan. Under existing conditions, the Shea Project Site is designated for “Multi426 69 Family High Density Residential (R-MFH)” land use and has a zoning designation of Multi-Family High Residential (R-5). The Shea Project Applicant proposes to change the General Plan land use designation to Light Industrial (I-L) and the zoning designation to Light Industrial (M-1). Under existing conditions, the Acacia Project Site is designated for R-MFH and “General Commercial (C-G)” land uses and has a zoning designation of R-5 and General Commercial (C-2). The Acacia Project Applicant proposes to change the General Plan land use designation to I-L and the zoning designation to M-1. Neither the Shea nor Acacia Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the subject properties. Accordingly, the both the Shea and Acacia Projects would conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 2.

In summary, the cumulative construction of the Shea and Acacia Projects would exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold for VOC emissions. Additionally, both the Shea and Acacia Projects propose to change the land use designations in the General Plan, and would therefore be considered inconsistent with the AMQP. (DEIR, p. 4.3-27)

2.4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A. Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Threshold “a”) Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Cumulatively-Considerable Impact (for Shea and Acacia Projects Combined)
Facts in Support of Finding:

Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: When considered together, the Shea and Acacia Projects would result in emissions of 5,951.89 MTCO2e per year. The combined, cumulative GHG emissions from the Shea and Acacia Projects would exceed the significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year and, thus, are considered a significant impact on the environment. (DEIR, p. 4.8-24)
Mitigation: The Shea and Acacia Projects would be required to implement design measures to maximize energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions as required by State law (for example, the use of energy efficient appliances as required by the Title 24 of the California Green Building Code) and by local regulations (for example, the installation of solar-ready roofs, the installation of electrical plug-ins for TRUs, the installation of electric vehicle charging stations, and limitations on diesel vehicle idling, as required by City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1879). Although mandatory compliance with applicable State and local regulations would reduce Shea and Acacia Projectrelated GHG emissions, these requirements would not reduce the Shea and Acacia Project’ mobile source GHG emissions (i.e., emissions from construction equipment, passenger cars, and heavyduty trucks), which comprise approximately 66 percent of all Shea and Acacia Project-related GHG emissions, below the level considered significant by the SCAQMD. Compliance with Title 24 of the California Green Building Code and City Ordinance No. 1879 already serve to reduce area-source GHG emissions to the maximum feasible extent. As advancements in vehicle technology progress, it is expected that a higher percentage of vehicles including trucks will be electric-powered than occurs today. However, until vehicle technology advances and electric 427
70 trucks are more commonly commercially available with enough power to haul heavy loads over long distances, it is reasonable to assume that the truck fleet that will access the Project Sites will be diesel-powered. Mobile source GHG emissions are regulated by State and federal fuel standards and tailpipe emissions standards, and are outside of the control and authority of the City of Fontana, the Shea and Acacia Project Applicants, and future Shea and Acacia Project occupants.

The City of Fontana has been progressive with adoption of Ordinance No. 1879, with the goal to accelerate air quality pollutant and GHG emission reductions to the extent practical, covering items that are within the jurisdictional control of the City and feasible for commerce center developers and operators to implement. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides that mitigation measures must be within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Lead Agency (i.e., City) in order to be implemented. Two mitigation measures are recommended herein, and no other mitigation measures are available that are feasible for the City to enforce, beyond those already required by regulations including City Ordinance No. 1897, that have a proportional nexus to the Shea and Acacia Projects’ level of impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-27 to 4.8-28) MM 4.8-1 No portion of the buildings shall include cold storage space.

As noted above, a majority of the cumulative Shea and Acacia Projects’ GHG emissions would be produced by mobile sources. Neither the Shea Project Applicant, the Acacia Project Applicant, or the City of Fontana can substantively or materially affect reductions in cumulative Shea and Acacia Project mobile-source emissions beyond federal and State regulations.

Accordingly, the City finds that the cumulative Shea and Acacia Project’s GHG emissions are a significant and unavoidable cumulatively-considerable impact for which no feasible mitigation is available. (DEIR, p. 4.8-28)

2.4.3 Land Use and Planning
A. Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable Direct and Cumulatively-Considerable Impact Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Shea and Acacia Projects would require General Plan Amendments to change the land use designation of the Shea Project Site from Multi428 71 Family High Density Residential (R-MFH) to Light Industrial (I-L) and the Acacia Project Site from R-MFH and General Commercial (C-G) to I-L. Nonetheless, the Shea and Acacia Projects would be consistent with all applicable General Plan goals and policies related to environmental effects. (DEIR, p. 4.11-7)
A Zone Change has been requested for both the Shea Project (ZC No. 21-006) and the Acacia Project (ZC No. 21-007) to amend the City Zoning Map to change the zoning classification of the Shea Project Site from Multi-Family High Density Residential (R-5) to Light Industrial (M1) and the Acacia Project Site from R-5 and General Commercial (C-2) to M-1. Approval of the requested Zone Changes would eliminate any potential inconsistency between the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects and the site’s underlying zoning classifications. Neither the Shea or Acacia Project would conflict with any development regulations and design standards in the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the M-1 zone, and there are no components of the Shea or Acacia Project’s proposed Zone Change that would result in impacts not already evaluated and disclosed by this EIR. Impacts would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, p. 4.11-14) Neither the Shea nor Acacia Project would conflict with the adopted goals of the RTP/SCS.

The Shea and Acacia Projects would not result in any land use and planning conflicts with the 2020 SCS/RTP. (DEIR, p. 4.11-15)
The Shea and Acacia Project’s consistency with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP was addressed in detail in EIR Subsection 4.3, Air Quality. As concluded in EIR Subsection 4.3, implementation of the Shea and Acacia Projects would result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations because cumulative construction of the Shea and Acacia Projects would exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold for VOC emissions. Based on the years of the Shea and Acacia Project build-out phase, neither Project would exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP; however, both Projects proposes to change the General Plan land use designation to Light Industrial (I-L) and the zoning designation to Light Industrial (M-1) and are therefore not consistent with the General Plan land use designations for the properties. As such, the Shea and Acacia Projects are therefore considered to be inconsistent with the AQMP and a significant and unavoidable direct impact is expected. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-16 to 4.11-17)
The Shea and Acacia Project’s consistency with the San Bernardino County CMP is addressed in EIR Subsection 4.17, Transportation. As concluded in EIR Subsection 4.17, none of the intersections in the Shea or Acacia Project study areas are part of the San Bernardino CMP roadway network. Therefore, neither the Shea nor Acacia Projects would result in a substantial environmental impact due to a conflict with the San Bernardino County CMP LOS standards for the CMP arterial roadway and freeway network. Land use and planning impacts associated with CMP consistency would thus be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.11-17) In summary, the Shea and Acacia Projects would require a change to the site’s General Plan land use designation and would therefore result in a significant and unavoidable impact associated with AQMP compliance. There is no mitigation available to address the land use change, and the City of Fontana has already maximized air pollutant reduction associated with commerce center land uses through the passage of Ordinance No. 1879 which applies mandatory 429
72 sustainability standards to industrial commerce center development projects. The City would ensure compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 1879 as part of their standard building permit review/approval and site inspection processes. (DEIR, pp. S-38 to S-39, S-85)

2.4.4 Transportation
A. Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (Threshold “a”)
Finding: Cumulatively-Considerable Impact (Shea and Acacia Projects Combined) Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Shea and Acacia Projects would not conflict with the goals and policies of SCAG’s regional planning program that are applicable to the Shea and Acacia Projects and related to vehicular and non-vehicular circulation. (DEIR, p.

4.17-6) Neither the Shea nor Acacia Project would conflict with any applicable General Plan policies addressing the circulation system. As such, Shea and Acacia Project impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.17-7)
The Shea and Acacia Projects would not conflict with any applicable Active Transportation Plan goals addressing the circulation system but would conflict with Objective 1.A related to VMT. As such, The Acacia Project individually and the Shea and Acacia Project impacts when considered together would be significant. The Shea and Acacia Projects would facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access along Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road by installing frontage improvements along these roadways including a sidewalk and Class II bike lane along Sierra Avenue. Also, there is a planned Class I bike trail planned in the Southern California Easement to the east of the Project Sites, which is not a part of the proposed Projects. Although non-vehicular travel is encouraged in the area by the provision of sidewalks and bike lanes, the baseline VMT per employee for the combined Shea and Acacia Projects would be higher than the City regional baseline VMT per employee. The regional average VMT per for San Bernardino County is 17.1 VMT per employee; therefore, for analysis purposes, the City’s VMT significance threshold is set at 14.54 VMT per employee. The combined Shea and Acacia Projects would generate 19.41 VMT per employee (approximately 33.49 percent above the existing baseline). Because the combined Shea and Acacia Projects would generate VMT that is above the regional baseline, the combined Shea and Acacia Projects are considered to substantially influence or increase VMT within the City. The combined Shea and Acacia Projects would conflict with Objective 1.A. (DEIR, p. 4.17- 10)
Mitigation measures are not available to reduce the Shea and Acacia Projects’ cumulatively-considerable impacts due to Project-related VMT. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in the form of commute trip reduction program measures could be implemented including commute trip reduction marketing, providing a ridesharing program, implementing subsidized or discounted transit programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, providing employer-sponsored vanpools, price workplace parking, and implementing employee parking cash-outs. Other regional transportation measures that may reduce VMT include, but are not 430
73 limited to, improving/increasing access to transit, increasing access to common goods and service, or orientating land uses towards alternative transportation. Neither the Shea or Acacia Project Applicant or the City of Fontana has the jurisdictional authority to mandate business practices of private enterprises nor is it feasible for the City to monitor these practices. For these reasons, mitigation to further reduce the Acacia Projects’ VMT is not feasible. (DEIR, pp. S-91 to S-92) B. Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Threshold “b”)
Finding: Significant Direct and Cumulatively-Considerable Impact (for Shea and Acacia Projects Combined)
Facts in Support of Finding: The baseline VMT for San Bernardino County is 17.1 VMT per employee; therefore, for analysis purposes, the City’s VMT significance threshold is set at

14.54 VMT per employee (17.1 VMT per employee x 0.85% = 14.54 VMT per employee (15% below 17.1). (DEIR, p. 4.17-12)
Combined Shea and Acacia Projects: Using employment generation factors from SCAG, the combined Shea and Acacia Projects are estimated to have 490 employees. Under Baseline (2022) traffic conditions, the combined Shea and Acacia Projects are calculated to generate 19.41 VMT per employee. The combined Shea and Acacia Project’s VMT would be approximately 33.49 percent above the average regional trip length, which would not meet the VMT reductions required by the applicable significance threshold (15 percent below the average regional trip length).

Accordingly, the combined Shea and Acacia Projects’ VMT impact is considered a significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.17-12)
There are no CMP arterial roadways in the vicinity of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites and the neither the Shea or Acacia Project would generate 250 or more peak hour trips nor send 50 or more peak hour trips to a State highway facility. As such, the Shea and Acacia Projects when considered together would not be considered a major traffic generator pursuant to the San Bernardino County CMP’s traffic impact analysis guidelines and is not expected to substantially affect the performance of the CMP circulation network. The CMP’s land use and travel demand management goals and policies are directed to local and regional public agencies and none would be directly applicable to the Projects. Notwithstanding, the Shea and Acacia Projects do not include any component that would prevent or obstruct the implementation of the CMP’s goals and policies. Accordingly, the neither the Shea or Acacia Project would conflict with the applicable congestion management plan and no impact would occur. (DEIR, pp. 4.17-12 to 4.17-13) In summary, because no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the VMT for the combined Shea and Acacia Project’s employees to below the City’s calculated average VMT, the combined Shea and Acacia Project’s would result in a significant and unavoidable direct and cumulatively considerable impact. (DEIR, p. S-92)
431
74 Mitigation measures are not available to reduce the combined Shea and Acacia Projects’ direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts due to Project-related VMT. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in the form of commute trip reduction program measures could be implemented including commute trip reduction marketing, providing a ridesharing program, implementing subsidized or discounted transit programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, providing employer-sponsored vanpools, price workplace parking, and implementing employee parking cash-outs. Other regional transportation measures that may reduce VMT include, but are not limited to, improving/increasing access to transit, increasing access to common goods and service, or orientating land uses towards alternative transportation. Neither the Shea or Acacia Project Applicant or the City of Fontana has the jurisdictional authority to mandate business practices of private enterprises nor is it feasible for the City to monitor these practices. For these reasons, mitigation to further reduce the combined Shea and Acacia Projects’ VMT is not feasible. (DEIR, pp. S-92 to S-93)

2.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Caused by the Proposed Project Should It Be Implemented
The CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c)). An environmental change would fall into this category if: a) the project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; b) the primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses; c) the project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or d) the proposed consumption of resources are not justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use of energy). (DEIR, p. 5-2)
Determining whether the Shea or Acacia Project may result in significant irreversible environmental changes requires a determination of whether key non-renewable resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them.

Natural resources, in the form of construction materials and energy resources, would be used in the construction of the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects. The consumption of these natural resources would represent an irreversible change to the environment. However, development of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites would have no measurable adverse effect on the availability of such resources, including resources that may be non-renewable (e.g., construction aggregates, fossil fuels). Additionally, both the Shea Project and Acacia Project are required by law to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) in effect at the time of building permit issuance, which will minimize the Shea and Acacia Projects’ demand for energy, including energy produced from non-renewable sources. A more detailed discussion of Shea and Acacia Project energy consumption is provided in EIR Subsection 4.5, Energy. (DEIR, p. 5-2) Implementation of the Shea and Acacia Projects would commit the Shea Project Site to a onebuilding commerce center facility and the Acacia Project to a two-building commerce center facility. The land use proposed for both the Shea and Acacia Project Sites is compatible with the existing industrial and commercial land uses that are located to the south and also compatible with the use of Sierra Avenue (which abuts both the Shea and Acacia Project Sites on the west) as a 432
75 City-designated truck route. Accordingly, neither the Shea Project or Acacia Project and their environmental effects would compel or commit surrounding properties to land uses other than those that are existing today or those that are planned by the City’s General Plan. Land uses in the City of Rialto to the east are already built out. For this reason, neither the Shea Project or Acacia Project would result in a significant, irreversible change to nearby, off-site properties. (DEIR, p. 5-2)
EIR Subsection 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides an analysis of the potential for hazardous materials to be transported to/from the Shea and Acacia Project Sites and/or used on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites during construction and operation. As concluded in Subsection 4.8, mandatory compliance with federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials handling, storage, and use by all Shea and Acacia Project construction contractors (near term) and occupants (long-term) would ensure that any hazardous materials used on-site would be safely and appropriately handled to preclude any irreversible damage to the environment that could result if hazardous materials were released from the Shea or Acacia Project Sites. (DEIR, pp. 5-2 to 5-3) As discussed in detail under EIR Subsection 4.5, Energy, the Shea and Acacia Projects would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Accordingly, neither the Shea Project or Acacia Project would result in a significant, irreversible change to the environment related to energy use. (DEIR, p. 5-3)
Based on the above, Shea Project and Acacia Project construction and operation would require the commitment of limited, slowly renewable and non-renewable resources. However, this commitment of resources would not be substantial as demonstrated in EIR Subsection 4.6, Energy.

Although both Projects entail General Plan Amendments that would add previously unplanned job growth to the City of Fontana and that is not consistent with regional and local growth forecasts and development goals for the area, construction of the Projects will comply with CALGreen and have energy-efficient and low water use design features to ensure that the use of non-renewable resources would be limited to essential needs. Further, and as discussed in Subsection 4.8.2 (DEIR pp. 4.8-8 through 4.8-19), the regulatory environment in California is trending toward the mandatory use of renewable energy for building operations and passenger vehicle and truck power (electric engines). As such, the loss of non-renewable resources as a result of the Projects would not be highly accelerated when compared to existing conditions, and such resources would not be used in an inefficient or wasteful manner. Shea and Acacia Project construction and operation would adhere to the sustainability requirements of Title 24, Green Building Code, and CALGreen.

Therefore, neither the Shea Project or Acacia Project would result in the commitment of large quantities of natural resources that would result in significant irreversible environmental changes. (DEIR, p. 5-3)

2.6 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects could be growth inducing. The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing if it would foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). New employees and new residential populations represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms 433
76 of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area. (DEIR, p. 5-3)
A project could indirectly induce growth at the local level by increasing the demand for additional goods and services associated with an increase in population or employment and thus reducing or removing the barriers to growth. This typically occurs in suburban or rural environs where population growth results in increased demand for service and commodity markets responding to the new population of residents or employees. (DEIR, p. 5-3) According to regional population projections included in SCAG’s Connect SoCal, the City of Fontana’s population is projected to grow by 75,700 residents between 2016 and 2045 (approximately 0.99 percent annual growth) (SCAG, 2020). Over this same time period, employment in the City is expected to add 18,400 new jobs (approximately 0.84 percent annual job growth) (ibid). Economic growth would likely take place as a result of the Shea and Acacia Project’s operation as commerce center facilities. Given that the Project would generate approximately 490 employees, the Project would represent approximately 2.6% of the City’s projected job growth. The Shea and Acacia Project’s employees (short-term construction and longterm operational) would purchase goods and services in the region, but any secondary increase in employment associated with meeting these goods and services demands is expected to be accommodated by existing goods and service providers and, based on the amount of existing and planned future commercial and retail services available in areas near the Shea and Acacia Project Sites, would be highly unlikely to result in any unanticipated, adverse physical impacts to the environment. In addition, the Shea Project and Acacia Project would create jobs, a majority of which would likely be filled by residents of the housing units either already built or planned for development within the City Fontana, City of Rialto, and nearby incorporated and unincorporated areas. Accordingly, because it is anticipated that most of the Shea and Acacia Project’s future employees would already be living in the City of Fontana or the immediate surrounding Inland Empire area, the Shea and Acacia Projects’ introduction of new employment opportunities on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites would not induce substantial growth in the area. (DEIR, pp. 5-3 to 5-4)
Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. Typically, growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as SCAG. Significant growth impacts also could occur if a project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. In general, growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way. (DEIR, p. 5-4)
The area surrounding the Shea and Acacia Project Sites consist of planned commercial development and an existing residential community to the north, planned and existing commerce enter development to the south, a public utility corridor then a residential community in the City 434
77 of Rialto to the east, and undeveloped land to the west on the west side of Sierra Avenue that is planned as a residential community. Development of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites are not expected to place short-term development pressure on abutting properties because these areas are already built-out, have approvals for future development, or have proposals for future development under review by the City of Fontana. (DEIR, p. 5-4)
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not result in substantial, adverse growthinducing impacts. (DEIR, p. 5-4)

2.7 Project Alternatives
The EIR analyzed four alternatives to the Shea and Acacia Projects as proposed and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects while also meeting the majority of the Project’s objectives.

2.7.1 Alternatives Considered but not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis A. Alternative Sites
CEQA does not require that an analysis of alternative sites be included in an EIR. However, if the surrounding circumstances make it reasonable to consider an alternative site, then an alternative sites analysis should be considered and analyzed in the EIR. In making the decision to include or exclude an analysis of an alternative site, the “key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)). (DEIR, p. 6-4)
The Shea Project Applicant does not own or control any nearby sites where the Project could be reasonably located. (DEIR, p. 6-4)
The Acacia Project Applicant controls a 24.79-acre property located south of Jurupa Hills High School, north of Santa Ana Avenue, east of Citrus Avenue, and east and west of Oleander Avenue (divided by Oleander) in south Fontana. While the property is located in south Fontana and could serve as commerce center space, it would not be feasible to locate the proposed Acacia Project on the property because the property consists of non-contiguous potential development areas and all of the potential development areas are too small to accommodate the Acacia Project as proposed.

The property south of Jurupa Hills High School is segregated into three potential development areas, split by a property that contains residential development and also split by Oleander Avenue.

Due to the size and division of potential development areas, none would be large enough to accommodate the Acacia Project as proposed. (DEIR, p. 6-4) Additionally, development of the Acacia Project at an alternative location would likely result in similar (or greater) environmental impacts as would occur with implementation of the Acacia Project at the proposed Acacia Project Site. The Acacia Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts are related primarily to vehicles traveling to/from the Acacia Project Site and not related 435
78 to the presence of sensitive resources on the Acacia Project Site or its location near sensitive receptors. Although the Acacia Project Site is located west of existing residents in the City of Rialto and south and east of existing and planned residents in the City of Fontana, the alternative site in south Fontana is located directly south of Jurupa Hills High School and nearby other sensitive receptors. Vehicle-related impacts are a direct reflection of the Acacia Project’s expected operational characteristics as a commerce center, regardless of where the Acacia Project is located. (DEIR, p. 6-4)

2.7.2 Alternatives Selected for Analysis in the EIR
A. No Development Alternative
The No Development Alternative allows decision-makers to compare the environmental impacts of approving the Shea and Acacia Projects to the environmental impacts that would occur if the Shea and Acacia Project Sites were left in their existing conditions for the foreseeable future.

Under existing conditions, the Shea and Acacia Project Sites are undeveloped with the exception of one single-family residence and a shed in the southwest corner of the Shea Project Site. (DEIR, p. 6-5)
Implementation of the No Development Alternative would result in no physical environmental impacts to the Shea and Acacia Project Sites beyond those that have historically occurred on the Shea and Acacia Project Sites and that will continue to occur into the future from routine maintenance activities. All potentially significant effects of the Shea and Acacia Projects would be avoided by the selection of this Alternative. However, the No Development Alternative would not be consistent with the land use designations applied to the properties by the City of Fontana General Plan and would not facilitate frontage improvements to Sierra Avenue including widening, paving, and associated bike lane and sidewalk improvements as would occur under the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects. The No Development Alternative also would neither generate nor accommodate demand for additional housing. Because the No Development Alternative would not result in development of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites and would not promote local economic development, including through the creation of new jobs and the expansion of the local tax base, the No Development Alternative would not meet the Shea and Acacia Projects’ objectives. (DEIR, p. 6-11)
B. No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative allows decision-makers to compare the environmental impacts of the Shea and Acacia Projects against a development proposal that conforms to the land use standards and development regulations prescribed by the City of Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code under the Shea and Acacia Project Site’s existing land use and zoning designations. The No Project Alternative considers development of the Shea and Acacia Project Sites in accordance with the existing land use designation of R-MFH for the Shea Project Site and R-MFH and C-G for the Acacia Project Site. Containing approximately 4.5 net acres of C-G designated property on the Acacia Project Site and 25.6 net acres of R-MMF property on the Shea and Acacia Projects combined, this Alternative assumes a 4.5 net acre commercial shopping plaza having 70,000 s.f. of floor space at the southeast corner of Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road, and 1,280 multi436 79 family residential units with a 70% lot coverage and 55-foot structure height as permitted by the City’s R-5 Zone across the remainder of the Sites. The extent of physical ground disturbance would occur over the entirety of the Project Sites as would similarly occur under the proposed Shea and Acacia Projects. (DEIR, p. 6-11)
The No Project Alternative would result in the development of a 4.5 net acre commercial shopping plaza having approximately 70,000 s.f. of floor space at the southeast corner of Sierra Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road, and 1,280 multi-family residential units with a 70% lot coverage and 55- foot structure height across the remainder of Project Site. Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in identical physical environmental impacts as compared to the Shea and Acacia Projects related to biological resources, geology and soils, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources because the extent and depth of ground disturbance would be similar. Although the building type would be different (commercial and multi-family residential instead of commerce center development), the intensity of use on the site would be similar resulting in similar less-than significant construction-related effects and long-term effects associated with aesthetics, public services, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. Because truck traffic would be less under the No Project Alternative, but total vehicle trips would increase, operational impacts related to air quality, GHG, and noise would be similar under the No Project Alternative and the GHG impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The Acacia Project’s and the Shea and Acacia Project’s combined VMT impact would be omitted as the No Project Alternative’s VMT impact would be based on service population and less than significant. The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project’s objectives. (DEIR, pp. 6-18 to 6-19) C. Reduced Project Alternative 1: Shea Project Development The Reduced Project Alternative 1 considers the development of the Shea Project as proposed and no development of the Acacia Project. Under this Alternative, the Shea Project Site would be developed with the proposed one-building commerce center and the 19.6 gross acre Acacia Project Site would remain undeveloped as it is under existing conditions. A detailed evaluation of the Shea Project’s implementation is available in Subsections 4.1 through 4.20 of the EIR. (DEIR, p. 6-19)
The Reduced Project Alternative 1 would reduce the Shea and Acacia Projects’ significant and unavoidable GHG emission impacts and reduce but not avoid the significant air quality and land use impacts associated with inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. The Reduced Project Alternative 1 would eliminate the Acacia Project’s significant impact to Parry’s spineflower and reduce the Shea and Acacia Projects’ less than significant impacts to other biological resources and to cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and increase impacts associated with wildfire potential due to the Acacia Project Site remaining undeveloped. All other impacts from the Reduced Project Alternative 2 would be similar to the Shea and Acacia Projects. (DEIR, p. 6-25)
The Reduced Project Alternative 1 would meet all of the Shea and Acacia Project’s objectives; however, only the Shea Project would be constructed and become operational, and the Acacia 437
80 Project would not be developed. As such, the Project objectives would be met to a lesser extent than the Shea and Acacia Projects. (DEIR, p. 6-25)
D. Reduced Project Alternative 2: Acacia Project Development The Reduced Project Alternative 2 considers the development of the Acacia Project as proposed and no development of the Shea Project. Under this Alternative, the Acacia Project Site would be developed with the proposed two-building commerce center and the 11.5 gross acre Shea Project Site would remain undeveloped, with the exception of the one single-family residence, as it is under existing conditions. A detailed evaluation of the Acacia Project’s implementation is available in Subsections 4.1 through 4.20 of the EIR. (DEIR, p. 6-26) The Reduced Project Alternative 2 would reduce the Shea and Acacia Projects’ less than significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and increase potential wildfire impacts associated with the Shea Project Site remaining undeveloped. The significant and unavoidable GHG impact would be reduced but not avoided and significant air quality and land use impacts associated with inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP would be reduced but not avoided. The transportation impact associated with VMT would not be avoided or reduced and remain significant and unavoidable. All other impacts from the Reduced Project Alternative 2 would be similar to the Shea and Acacia Projects. (DEIR, p. 6-32)
The Reduced Project Alternative 2 would meet all of the Shea and Acacia Project’s objectives; however, only the Acacia Project would be constructed and become operational, and the Shea Project would not be developed. As such, the Project objectives would be met to a lesser extent than the Shea and Acacia Projects. (DEIR, p. 6-32)

2.7.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in the EIR. In general, the environmentally superior alternative as defined by CEQA should minimize adverse impacts to the project site and its surrounding environment. (DEIR, p. 6-32) Both the No Development Alternative and No Project Alternative would avoid or reduce all or some of the Shea and Acacia Projects’ significant environmental impacts and, therefore, can be considered environmentally superior to the Project. Both the No Development Alternative and No Project Alternative are considered to be a “no project” alternative as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3). If a “no project” alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2). (DEIR, pp. 6-32 to 6-33) The Reduced Project Alternative 1: Shea Project Development, is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, although it does not meet the Project objectives to the extent as the Shea and Acacia Projects combined. (DEIR, p. 6-33)
438
81 3.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City Council hereby declares that it has balanced the benefits of the Shea Project against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Shea Project. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, if the benefits of the Shea Project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered “acceptable.” Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Shea Project to the extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures contained in the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and herein, having considered the entire administrative record on the Shea Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Shea Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after implementation of all feasible mitigation, the City Council has determined that each of the following social, economic and environmental benefits of the Shea Project separately and individually outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impact and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:

A. The Shea Project provides for the development of a functional, well serviced, and attractive commerce center development that improves and maximizes economic viability within the City by the orderly transition of vacant land into productive commerce center use.

B. The Shea Project attracts new employment-generating business to the City of Fontana thereby increasing household earnings and reducing the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.

C. The Shea Project provides for public roadway frontage improvements including a public sidewalk on Sierra Avenue.

D. The Shea Project will allow a vacant and undeveloped property to develop as a productive, revenue-generating facility that will contribute revenue to the City of Fontana on an ongoing basis and allow the City to improve the level of services it can provide to its residents and businesses.

E. The Shea Project will assist in meeting the substantial demand for commerce buildings in the City and across the Inland Empire and will promote a mix of land uses along Sierra Avenue that provide for a sound and diversified economic base and ample employment opportunities for the citizens of Fontana.

F. The Shea Project will provide a commerce center building on Sierra Avenue, a designated Truck Route, that provides access to the regional transportation system.

G. Through Shea Project design features, mandatory compliance with the CALGreen, and the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR, the Shea Project will implement energy conservation measures and include contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs.

The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through the approval and implementation of the Shea Project outweigh the identified significant adverse 439
82 environmental impact of the Shea Project that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.

The City Council finds that each of the Shea Project’s benefits separately and individually outweigh all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.

4.0 Additional Facts on Record

4.1 Adoption of a Monitoring Plan for Mitigation Measures Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the City of Fontana hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”). The City finds that the MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with the changes (i.e., mitigation measures) imposed on the Shea Project to mitigate or avoid effects on the environment during Shea Project implementation. The MMRP is on file with the City of Fontana Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335.

4.2 Custodian of Record
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Fontana Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. The custodian for these records is Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. 440
83 EXHIBIT B

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
441
1 Shea Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
Aesthetics
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project would not
substantially affect a scenic
vista. The Shea Project Site
does not contain any
designated scenic vistas or
scenic corridors. The Shea
Project would not
substantially affect views of
the San Gabriel Mountains or
the Jurupa Hills from nearby
public viewing areas.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Threshold b: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project Site is not located
within the viewshed of a
scenic highway and does not
contain scenic resources.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Threshold c: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact 442
2 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
Project is located in an
urbanized area would not
conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality
during construction or
operation.

Threshold d: Less-thanSignificant Impact.

Compliance with Fontana
Municipal Code and Fontana
General Plan requirements
for artificial lighting would
ensure less-than-significant
impacts associated with light
and glare affecting day or
nighttime views in the area
from on-site lighting
elements.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Agriculture and Forestry
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: No Impact. As
mapped by the CDC’s
FMMP, the Shea Project Site
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
443
3 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
is classified by the FMMP as
“Grazing Land.” Based on
the FMMP, the Shea Project
Site does not contain any
Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance, or
Farmland of Local
Importance. As such, the
Shea Project would not
convert FMMP-designated
Farmland to a nonagricultural use, and no
impact would occur.

Threshold b: No Impact. The
Shea Project Site is not zoned
for agricultural use, is not
used for agricultural
production, and is not subject
to any Williamson Act
contracts. Therefore, no
impacts would occur.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold c: No Impact. The
Shea Project would have no
impact to off-site properties
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
444
4 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
that are agriculturally zoned
as no surrounding property is
currently used primarily for
agricultural purposes.

Thresholds d and e: No
Impact. There are no forest
lands in the Shea Project
vicinity, and no lands in the
Shea Project vicinity are
zoned for timberland,
timberland production, or
forest uses. The Shea Project
would not result in the
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use. No impact
would occur.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Air Quality
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: The Shea
Project would require a
change to the General Plan
land use designation and
would therefore result in a
significant and unavoidable
No mitigation is available. N/A N/A N/A Significant and Unavoidable
Direct and
CumulativelyConsiderable
Impact
445
5 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
impact associated with
AQMP compliance.

Threshold b: Shea Project
construction and operational
activities would not exceed
the applicable SCAQMD
regional threshold for any
criteria pollutant. Thus, the
Shea Project would not
contribute cumulatively
considerable volumes of any
air pollutant for which the
SCAB does not attain federal
or State air quality standards.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Threshold c: Implementation
of the Shea Project would not:
1) exceed applicable
SCAQMD localized criteria
pollution emissions
thresholds during
construction and operation; 2)
would not expose sensitive
receptors to toxic air
contaminants (i.e., DPM) that
exceed the applicable
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 446
6 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
SCAQMD carcinogenic and
non-carcinogenic risk
thresholds; and 3) would not
cause or contribute to the
formation of a CO “hot spot.”
Threshold d: The Shea
Project would not produce air
emissions that would lead to
unusual or substantial
construction-related or
operational-related odors.

The Shea Project is required
to comply with SCAQMD
Rule 402, which prohibits the
discharge of odorous
emissions that would create a
public nuisance.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Biological Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: The Shea
Project’s construction would
remove habitat for the Los
Angeles pocket mouse, the
coast horned lizard, and the
coastal whiptail, which could
MM 4.4-2 Prior to issuance of a
grading permit or any other permit
that would authorize vegetation
removal, the applicant is required to
retain the services of a qualified
Shea Project
Applicant
City of Fontana Prior to the
issuance of a
grubbing permit or
grading permit
Less-thanSignificant Impact
447
7 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
result in injury or death of
individual species, and which
is considered a significant
direct and cumulativelyconsiderable impact to these
Special Species of Concern.

If construction activities
encroach onto adjacent offsite undeveloped parcels,
potentially significant
indirect effects also could
occur.
biologist (“Dedicated Biologist”) to
conduct trapping of Los Angeles
pocket mouse for a minimum of
five (5) days before ground
disturbance commences and move
any captured mice to a location of
suitable habitat outside of the
project’s impact footprint. The
Dedicated Biologist also shall
monitor grubbing, clearing, and
mass grading activities for sensitive
animal species including Los
Angeles pocket mouse, coast
horned lizard and coastal whiptail.

The Dedicated Biologist shall be
required to be present during
grubbing, clearing, and mass
grading activities and if these
species are observed, the Dedicated
Biologist shall have the authority to
pause or redirect construction
equipment away from observed
species and direct or move these
animals out of harm’s way to the
extent practicable, to a location of
448
8 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
suitable habitat outside of the
project’s impact footprint. If
approved by CDFW, the Dedicated
Biologist shall set traps for Los
Angeles pocket mouse at night
during the initial five days of
grading and move any captured
mice to a location of suitable habitat
outside of the project’s impact
footprint the next morning before
grading activities resume. The
grubbing, clearing, and mass
grading contractor(s) shall be
required via a note on the grading
plans to follow the instructions of
the Dedicated Biologist.

4.4-3 At the initiation of
construction activities, temporary
construction fencing covered with a
tarp or other solid barrier material
shall be placed along the northern
and southern property boundaries
where construction activity would
occur adjacent to undeveloped land
Shea Project
Applicant
City of Fontana At the initiation of
construction
449
9 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
to denote the physical limits of
construction activity. The
temporary fencing shall remain in
place until the project’s permanent
perimeter wall or fence is erected.

No construction activity shall be
permitted to encroach beyond the
demarked limits of construction.

4.4.6 Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit or any other permit
that would authorize vegetation
removal, the applicant is required to
retain the services of a qualified
biologist (“Dedicated Biologist”) to
monitor all construction activities
that entail native vegetation
removal. The Dedicated Biologist
shall be required to contact CDFW
if any threatened or endangered
species are identified on the
construction site during monitoring
of the construction activities and
direct construction activities away
from threatened and endangered
Shea Project
Applicant
City of Fontana Prior to the
issuance of a
grubbing permit or
grading permit
Less-thanSignificant Impact
450
10 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
species until California Endangered
Species Act authorization is
obtained from CDFW.

Threshold b: The Shea
Project Site does not contain
riparian and/or other sensitive
natural habitats; therefore, the
Shea Project would have no
impact on riparian or other
sensitive habitats as classified
by the CDFW or USFWS.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Threshold c: No State- or
federally-protected wetlands
are located on the Shea
Project Site; therefore, no
impact to wetlands would
occur.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No impact.

Threshold d: There is no
potential for the Shea Project
to interfere with the
movement of fish or impede
the use of a native wildlife
nursery site. However, the
Shea Project has the potential
to impact nesting migratory
MM 4.4-4 In order to ensure
compliance with the MBTA and
California Fish and Game Code, the
initial clearing, grubbing, and
grading of land is recommended to
but not required to occur outside of
the nesting season (i.e., outside of
the period February 1 through
Shea Project
Applicant; Shea
Project Biologist
City of Fontana Prior to the
issuance of a
grubbing permit or
grading permit and
within 3 days of
ground-disturbing
activities
Less-thanSignificant Impact
451
11 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
birds protected by the MBTA
and California Fish and Game
Code, should habitat removal
occur during the nesting
season and should nesting
birds be present.

September 15). Prior to any grounddisturbing activities a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified
Dedicated Biologist 3 days prior to
the ground-disturbing activities. If
birds are found to be nesting inside
or within 250 feet (500 feet for
raptors) of the impact area,
construction shall be postponed at
the discretion of a qualified
biologist, until it is determined that
the nest is no longer active.

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
nests and breeding territories,
and identifying nesting stages
and nest success;
determining/establishing
appropriate avoidance and
minimization measures; and
monitoring the efficacy of
implemented avoidance and
minimization measures.

Surveys shall encompass all
suitable areas including trees,
shrubs, bare ground, burrows,
cavities, and structures.

Survey duration shall take
into consideration the size of
the project site; density, and
complexity of the habitat;
453
13 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
number of survey
participants; survey
techniques employed; and
shall be sufficient to ensure
the data collected is complete
and accurate. If a nest is
suspected, but not confirmed,
the Designated Biologist shall
establish a disturbance-free
buffer until additional surveys
can be completed, or until the
location can be inferred based
on observations. If a nest is
observed, but thought to be
inactive, the Designated
Biologist shall monitor the
nest for one hour (four hours
for raptors during the nonbreeding season) prior to
approaching the nest to
determine status. The
Designated Biologist shall use
their best professional
judgement regarding the
monitoring period and
454
14 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
whether approaching the nest
is appropriate.

3. When an active nest is
confirmed, the Designated
Biologist shall immediately
establish a conservative
avoidance buffer surrounding
the nest based on their best
professional judgement and
experience. The Designated
Biologist shall monitor the
nest at the onset of project
activities, and at the onset of
any changes in such project
activities (e.g., increase in
number or type of equipment,
change in equipment usage,
etc.) to determine the efficacy
of the buffer. If the
Designated Biologist
determines that such project
activities may be causing an
adverse reaction, the
Designated Biologist shall
455
15 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
adjust the buffer accordingly
or implement alternative
avoidance and minimization
measures, such as redirecting
or rescheduling construction
or erecting sound barriers.

MM 4.4-5 Implementation of
preconstruction surveys prior to
ground disturbance and ongoing
monitoring during grubbing,
clearing, and grading activities for
burrowing owl are required as
follows:

1. Pre-Construction Survey for
Burrowing Owls: The
applicant shall retain a
Designated biologist to
perform a survey for
burrowing owls at least 30 days
prior to construction activities.

If the results are negative,
construction may commence
with no restrictions other than
Shea Project
Applicant; Shea
Project Biologist
City of Fontana Prior to the
issuance of a
grubbing permit or
grading permit and
within 30 days of
ground-disturbing
activities
456
16 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
a requirement for ongoing
monitoring as provided for in
(2) below.

2. Burrowing Owls Observed
During Construction: If
burrowing owls are observed
within the Project site during
Project grubbing, clearing, or
grading, burrowing owl habitat
shall be avoided and the
Designated biologist shall
implement any appropriate
avoidance and minimization
measures.

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan shall include the number
and location of occupied
burrow sites and details on
adjacent or nearby suitable
habitat available to owls for
relocation. If no suitable
habitat is available nearby for
relocation, details regarding
the creation of artificial
burrows (numbers, location,
and type of burrows) shall also
be included in the Burrowing
Owl Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan. As
compensation for the scenario
of loss of burrowing owl
nesting and foraging habitat,
the Burrowing Owl Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan shall
identify mitigation including
acquisition and funding the
permanent protection for the
loss of burrowing owl habitat
458
18 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
consistent with the 2012
CDFW Staff Report.

Threshold e: The Shea
Project would not conflict
with any local policies or
ordinances protecting
biological resources.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.

Threshold f: The Shea Project
impact area is not located
within the boundaries of any
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or
State habitat conservation
plan. Therefore, no impact
would occur.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.

Cultural Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-thanSignificant Impact. One
historic-period residence is
located on the Shea Project
that would be demolished to
construct the Shea Project,
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 459
19 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
but the structure does not
meet the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5 definition of
a significant historical
resource. Therefore, no
significant historic resources
could be altered or destroyed
by construction or operation
of the Shea Project, and
impacts to historic resources
would be less than
significant.

Threshold b: Significant
Direct and CumulativelyConsiderable Impact. No
known prehistoric resources
are present on the Shea
Project Site and the
likelihood of uncovering
buried prehistoric resources
on the Shea Project Site is low
due to the magnitude of past
ground disturbance on the
Shea Project Site.

Nonetheless, the potential
Upon discovery of any cultural,
tribal cultural, or archaeological
resources, cease construction
activities within 60 feet of the find
or 100 feet of the find if funerary
objects are present until the find can
be assessed. All cultural, tribal and
archaeological resources unearthed
by Project construction activities
shall be evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist meeting the Secretary
of the Interior Standards and tribal
monitor/ consultant. If the
Shea Project
Applicant; Shea
Project
Archaeologist
City of Fontana
Building and
Safety
Department
If cultural, tribal
cultural, or
archaeological
resources are
found during the
Shea Project’s
construction
Less-thanSignificant Impact
with Mitigation
460
20 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
exists for Shea Project-related
construction activities to
result in a direct and
cumulatively-considerable
impact to significant
subsurface prehistoric
archaeo-logical resources
should such resources to be
discovered during Shea
Project-related construction
activities.
resources are Native American in
origin, interested Tribes (as a result
of correspondence with area Tribes
including the Yuhaaviatam of San
Manuel Nation Cultural Resources
Department and/or the Gabrieleno
Band of Mission Indians – Kizh
Nation) 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.
461
21 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
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
culturally affiliated Tribe. Any
historic archaeological material that
is not Native American in origin
shall be curated at a public, nonprofit 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.

Shea Project
Applicant; Shea
Project
Archaeologist
City of Fontana
Building and
Safety
Department
If a significant
archaeological
resource is
discovered during
the Shea Project’s
construction
Less-thanSignificant Impact
with Mitigation
462
22 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
Archaeological and Native
American monitoring and
excavation during construction
projects shall be consistent with
current professional standards. All
feasible care to avoid any
unnecessary disturbance, physical
modification, or separation of
human remains and associated
funerary objects shall be
taken. Principal personnel shall
meet the Secretary of the Interior
standards for archaeology and have
a minimum of 10 years’ experience
as a principal investigator working
with Native American
archaeological sites in southern
California. The Qualified
Archaeologist shall ensure that all
other personnel are appropriately
trained and qualified.

Shea Project
Applicant; Shea
Project
Archaeologist
City of Fontana
Building and
Safety
Department
During
construction
Less-thanSignificant Impact
with Mitigation
Threshold c: Less-thanSignificant Impact. In the
unlikely event that human
remains are discovered
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 463
23 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
during Shea Project grading
or other ground disturbing
activities, the Shea Project
would be required to comply
with the applicable provisions
of California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5
and California Public
Resources Code Section 5097
et seq. Mandatory
compliance with State law
would ensure that any
discovered human remains
are appropriately treated and
would preclude the potential
for significant impacts.

Energy
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: The amount of
energy and fuel consumed by
construction and operation of
the Shea Project would not be
inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary. Furthermore,
the Shea Project would not
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 464
24 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
cause or result in the need for
additional energy facilities or
energy delivery systems.

Threshold b: The Shea
Project would not cause or
result in the need for
additional energy production
or transmission facilities. The
Shea Project would not
conflict with or obstruct the
achievement of energy
conservation goals within the
State of California identified
in State and local plans for
renewable energy and energy
efficiency.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Geology and Soils
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-thanSignificant Impact.

Implementation of the Shea
Project would not expose
people or structures to
substantial direct or indirect
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 465
25 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
adverse effects related to
liquefaction or fault rupture.

The Shea Project Site is
subject to seismic ground
shaking associated with
earthquakes; however,
mandatory compliance with
local and State regulatory
requirements and building
codes would ensure that the
Shea Project minimizes
potential hazards related to
seismic ground shaking to
less-than-significant levels.

Threshold b: Less-thanSignificant Impact.

Implementation of the Shea
Project would not result in
substantial soil erosion or loss
of topsoil. The Shea Project
Applicant would be required
to obtain a NPDES permit for
construction activities and
adhere to a SWPPP, and
prepare an erosion control
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 466
26 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
plan to minimize water and
wind erosion. Following
completion of development,
the Shea Project’s owner or
operator would be required
by law to implement a
SWQMP during operation,
which would preclude
substantial erosion impacts in
the long-term.

Threshold c: Less-thanSignificant Impact. There is
no potential for the Shea
Project’s construction or
operation to cause, or be
impacted by, on- or off-site
landslides or lateral
spreading. Potential hazards
associated with unstable soils
would be precluded through
mandatory adherence to the
recommendations contained
in the Site-specific
geotechnical report during
Shea Project construction.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 467
27 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
Threshold d: No Impact. The
Shea Project Site contains
soils with low susceptibility
to expansion; therefore, the
Shea Project would not create
substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property
associated with the presence
of expansive soils. No impact
would occur.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold e: No Impact. No
septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems
are proposed to be installed
on the Shea Project Site.

Accordingly, no impact
would occur associated with
soil compatibility for
wastewater disposal systems.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold f: Significant
Direct and Cumulatively
Considerable Impact. The
Shea Project would not
impact any known
paleontological resource or
MM 4.6.1 Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, the Project
Applicant shall provide evidence to
the City of Fontana that a qualified
paleontologist (“paleontologist”)
has been retained by the Project
Shea Project
Applicant; Shea
Project
Paleontologist
City of Fontana
Building and
Safety
Department
Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit
Less-thanSignificant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
468
28 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
unique geological feature and
has a low potential to impact
such resources due to the
existence of coarse, Holocene
alluvial fan deposits which do
not yield fossils and the lack
of any known fossil
specimens or fossil localities
from within a several-mile
radius. Nonetheless,
construction activities on the
Shea Project Site conducted
at depth in alluvium soils
have the potential to unearth
and adversely impact
paleontological resource that
may be buried beneath the
ground surface.

Applicant or contractor to be on-call
should any suspected
paleontological resources be
unearthed during Project-related
construction activities.

MM 4.7.2 If a suspected
paleontological resource is
discovered during earth disturbance
activities, the discovery shall be
cordoned off with a 100-foot radius
buffer by the construction contractor
so as to protect the discovery from
further potential damage, and the
paleontologist shall be consulted to
assess the discovery.

Shea Project
Applicant; Shea
Project
Paleontologist
City of Fontana
Building and
Safety
Department
During earth
disturbance
activities
Less-thanSignificant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
MM 4.7.3 If a discovery is
determined to be significant by the
paleontologist, the following shall
occur:
a. Monitoring of mass grading and
excavation activities in areas
identified as likely to contain
Shea Project
Applicant; Shea
Project
Paleontologist
City of Fontana
Building and
Safety
Department
If a significant
paleontological
resource is
discovered on the
Shea Project Site
Less-thanSignificant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
469
29 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
paleontological resources shall be
performed by a qualified
paleontologist or paleontological
monitor for the remainder of
ground-disturbing construction
processes. Monitoring will be
conducted full-time in areas of
grading or excavation in
undisturbed sedimentary deposits.
b. Paleontological monitors will be
equipped to salvage fossils as they
are unearthed to avoid construction
delays. The monitor must be
empowered to temporarily halt or
divert equipment to allow removal
of abundant or large specimens in a
timely manner. Monitoring may be
reduced if the potentially
fossiliferous units are not present in
the subsurface, or, if present, are
determined on exposure and
examination by qualified
paleontological personnel to have
low potential to contain fossil
470
30 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
resources. The monitor shall notify
the project paleontologist, who will
then notify the concerned parties of
the discovery.
c. Paleontological salvage during
trenching and boring activities is
typically from the generated spoils
and does not delay the trenching or
drilling activities. Fossils will be
collected and placed in cardboard
flats or plastic buckets and
identified by field number,
collector, and date collected. Notes
will be taken on the map location
and stratigraphy of the site, which
is photographed before it is
vacated, and the fossils are
removed to a safe place. On mass
grading projects, discovered fossil
sites are protected by flagging to
prevent them from being overrun
by earthmovers (scrapers) before
salvage begins. Fossils will be
collected in a similar manner, with
471
31 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
notes and photographs being taken
before removing the fossils.

Precise location of the site is
determined with the use of
handheld GPS units. If the site
involves remains from a large
terrestrial vertebrate, such as large
bone(s) or a mammoth tusk, that
is/are too large to be easily
removed by a single monitor, a
fossil recovery crew shall excavate
around the find, encase the find
within a plaster and burlap jacket,
and remove it after the plaster is
set. For large fossils, use of the
contractor’s construction
equipment may be solicited to help
remove the jacket to a safe location.
d. Isolated fossils will be collected
by hand, wrapped in paper, and
placed in temporary collecting flats
or five-gallon buckets. Notes will
be taken on the map location and
stratigraphy of the site, which is
472
32 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
photographed before it is vacated,
and the fossils are removed to a
safe place.
e. Particularly small invertebrate
fossils typically represent multiple
specimens of a limited number of
organisms, and a scientifically
suitable sample can be obtained
from one to several five-gallon
buckets of fossiliferous sediment.

If it is possible to dry screen the
sediment in the field, a
concentrated sample may consist of
one or two buckets of material. For
vertebrate fossils, the test is usually
the observed presence of small
pieces of bones within the
sediments. If present, as many as
20 to 40 five-gallon buckets of
sediment can be collected and
returned to a separate facility to
wet-screen the sediment.
473
33 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
f. In accordance with the
“Microfossil Salvage” section of
the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology guidelines (2010:7),
bulk sampling and screening of
fine-grained sedimentary deposits
(including carbonate-rich
paleosols) must be performed if the
deposits are identified to possess
indications of producing fossil
“microvertebrates” to test the
feasibility of the deposit to yield
fossil bones and teeth.
g. In the laboratory, individual
fossils will be cleaned of
extraneous matrix, any breaks will
be repaired, and the specimen, if
needed, will be stabilized by
soaking in an archivally approved
acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of
acetone and Paraloid B-72).
h. Recovered specimens are
prepared to a point of identification
474
34 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
and permanent preservation (not
display), including screen-washing
sediments to recover small
invertebrates and vertebrates.

Preparation of individual
vertebrate fossils is often more
time-consuming than for
accumulations of invertebrate
fossils.
i. Identification and curation of
specimens into a professional,
accredited public museum
repository with a commitment to
archival conservation and
permanent retrievable storage (e.g.,
the San Bernardino County
Museum) shall be conducted. The
paleontological program should
include a written repository
agreement prior to the initiation of
mitigation activities. Prior to
curation, the lead agency (e.g., the
City of Fontana) will be consulted
475
35 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
on the repository/museum to
receive the fossil material.
j. A final report of findings and
significance will be prepared,
including lists of all fossils
recovered and necessary maps and
graphics to accurately record their
original location(s). The report,
when submitted to, and accepted
by, the appropriate lead agency,
will signify satisfactory
completion of the project program
to mitigate impacts to any potential
nonrenewable paleontological
resources (i.e., fossils) that might
have been lost or otherwise
adversely affected without such a
program in place.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project would produce GHG
emissions that would not
Although no mitigation is required,
the following mitigation measures
are nonetheless imposed.

Less-thanSignificant Impact
476
36 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
exceed the SCAQMD
significance threshold of
3,000 MTCO2e per year. As
such, the Shea Project would
have a less than significant
impact on the environment.

MM 4.8-1 No portion of the
buildings shall include cold storage
space.

MM 4.8-2: Building roofs shall be
solar-ready and shall be outfitted
with a solar photovoltaic system
that either supplies 100 percent of
the building user’s anticipated
electricity demand or is maximally
sized given applicable Building
Code requirements, clearance
requirements around roof-mounted
equipment, Southern California
Edison interconnection regulations,
transformer capacity, and other
code compliance constraints. Prior
to issuance of a shell building
permit, the City of Fontana shall
verify that all or part of the roof
structure is designed to support the
installation of solar panels. The
roof-mounted solar photovoltaic
Shea Project
Applicant
Shea Project
Applicant
City of Fontana
Building &
Safety
Department
City of Fontana
Building &
Safety
Department
Prior to issuance
of a building
permit
Prior to issuance
of a shell building
permit and within
one year of the
building’s
occupancy.
477
37 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
systems shall be installed within 12
months of issuance of the first
occupancy permit.

Threshold b: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project would be consistent
with or otherwise would not
conflict with, applicable
regulations, policies, plans,
and policy goals that would
further reduce GHG
emissions.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Summary of Impacts
Thresholds a and b: Lessthan-Significant Impact.

During Shea Project
construction and operation,
mandatory compliance to
federal, State, and local
regulations would ensure that
the proposed Shea Project
would not create a significant
hazard to the environment
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 478
38 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
due to routine transport, use,
disposal, or upset of
hazardous materials.

Threshold c: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project Site is not located
within one-quarter mile of
any existing or planned
school site, but construction
and operation activities have
the potential to involve
transport of hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials,
substances, and/or wastes
past the Kordyak Elementary
school by vehicles using
Sierra Avenue, which is a
truck route. The transport of
hazardous materials is
required to comply with
applicable federal, State, and
local regulations related to
the use, storage, and transport
of hazardous materials, which
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 479
39 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
would reduce impacts to lessthan-significant.

Threshold d: No Impact. The
Shea Project Site is not
located on any list of
hazardous materials sites
complied pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold e: No Impact. The
Shea Project Site is not
located within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold f: No Impact. The
Shea Project Site does not
contain any emergency
facilities nor does it serve as
an emergency evacuation
route. During construction
and long-term operation,
adequate emergency vehicle
access is required to be
provided. Accordingly,
implementation of the Shea
Project would not impair
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
480
40 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or an emergency
evacuation plan.

Threshold g: Less-thanSignificant Impact. Although
the Shea Project Site is
located within a very high fire
hazard severity zone, its
development would reduce
vegetative fuel on the
property and as such expose
the Site and area to less fire
risk than under existing
conditions. Therefore,
impacts regarding exposing
people or structures either
directly or indirectly to
significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland
fires would be less-thansignificant.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Hydrology and Water Quality
Summary of Impacts
481
41 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project would not violate any
water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground
water quality. Adherence to a
SWPPP and SWQMP is
required as part of the Shea
Project’s implementation to
address construction- and
operational-related water
quality.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Threshold b: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project would not physically
impact any of the major
groundwater recharge
facilities in the Upper Santa
Ana Valley Groundwater
Basin, Rialto-Colton
Subbasin. The Shea Project
would not substantially
decrease groundwater
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 482
42 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
supplies or interfere
substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the Shea Project would
impede sustainable
groundwater management of
the Basin.

Threshold c: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project would be required to
comply with applicable water
quality regulatory
requirements to minimize
erosion and siltation.

Additionally, the Shea
Project would not result in
flooding on- or off-site or
impede/redirect flood flows.

Lastly, the Shea Project
would not create or contribute
runoff that would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 483
43 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff.

Threshold d: No Impact. The
Shea Project Site would not
be subject to inundation from
tsunamis, seiches, or other
hazards.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold e: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project would not conflict
with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Land Use Planning
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: The Shea
Project would not physically
divide an established
community.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Threshold b: The Shea
Project would require a
change to the site’s General
Plan land use designation and
No mitigation is available. N/A N/A N/A Significant and Unavoidable
Direct and
Cumulatively484
44 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
would therefore result in a
significant and unavoidable
impact associated with
AQMP compliance. There is
no mitigation available to
address the land use change,
and the City of Fontana has
already maximized air
pollutant reduction associated
with commerce center land
uses through the passage of
Ordinance No. 1879 which
applies mandatory
sustainability standards to
industrial commerce center
development projects. The
City would ensure
compliance with the
requirements of Ordinance
No. 1879 as part of their
standard building permit
review/approval and site
inspection processes.

Considerable
Impact
Mineral Resources
Summary of Impacts
485
45 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
Thresholds a and b: No
Impact. The Shea Project
Site does not contain any
known mineral resources that
would be of value to the
region or the residents of the
State. As such, the Shea
Project would not result in the
loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan and no impact
would occur.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Noise
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: The Shea
Project would generate shortterm construction and longterm operational noise but would not generate noise
levels that exceed the
standards established by the
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 486
46 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
Fontana General Plan or
Municipal Code.

Threshold b: The Shea
Project’s construction and
operational activities would
not result in a perceptible
groundborne vibration or
noise.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Threshold c: The Shea
Project Site is not located
within an area exposed to
high levels of noise from the
ONT Airport. As such, the
Shea Project would not
expose people to excessive
noise levels associated with a
public airport or public use
airport.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Population and Housing
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
estimated 78 to 167 jobs to be
generated by the Shea Project
are expected to be filled by a
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 487
47 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
labor force that already
resides in the region.

Accordingly, the Shea Project
would not induce substantial
unplanned population
growth.

Threshold b: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project would remove one
existing occupied residence.

The removal of one home
would not displace
substantial numbers of people
or require the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Public Services
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project would increase the
demand for fire protection
services provided by the
FFPD. Although demand
would be increased, the
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 488
48 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
FFPD’s existing fire stations
have adequate physical
capacity to service the Shea
Project. Increased demand,
unless it results in some form
of a physical environmental
impact, is not an
environmental effect under
CEQA; thus, impacts are lessthan-significant.

Threshold b: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project increase the demand
for police protection services
provided by the Fontana
Police Department. Service to
the Shea Project Site is
provided by the Fontana
Police Department
Headquarters, and the
Fontana Police Department
has no plans to physically
construct or expand a station
due to the Shea Project or
other growth in the area. As
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 489
49 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
such, the Shea Project would
have no physical
environmental effects on
police protection services.

Increased demand, unless it
results in some form of a
physical environmental
impact, is not an
environmental effect under
CEQA; thus, impacts are lessthan-significant.

Threshold c: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project would not result in or
require new or expanded
public school facilities and
would not result in any direct
demand for school facilities.

There is no potential for the
Shea Project to have a direct
physical impact on any
school. For these reasons,
less-than-significant impacts
to school facilities would
occur.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 490
50 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
Threshold d: No Impact. The
Shea Project would not result
in or require new or expanded
public library facilities and
would not result in any direct
demand for library space.

There is no potential for the
Shea Project to have a direct
physical impact on any
library. For these reasons, no
impact to library facilities
would occur.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold e: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project would result in an
incremental increase in
demand for public health
services associated with
persons that would be
employed at or visit the Shea
Project Site. However,
because the Shea Project
would not result in or require
the physical construction or
alteration of public health
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 491
51 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
facilities to accommodate the
Shea Project’s demand,
impacts to public health
facilities would be less-thansignificant.

Recreation
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: No Impact. The
Shea Project does not propose
any type of residential use or
other land use that would
generate a population that
would increase the use of
recreation facilities or
existing neighborhood or
regional parks. No
deterioration of the planned
Class I bicycle facility to the
east of the Shea Project Site is
expected from use by Shea
Project employees. Parks
would not by physically
affected by the Shea Project.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold b: No Impact. The
Shea Project would install the
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
492
52 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
planned Class II bicycle
facility along its Sierra
Avenue street frontage. No
other on- or off-site recreation
facilities or expansion of any
existing off-site recreational
facilities. No impacts related
to the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities would occur.

Transportation
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a, Cumulatively
Considerable Impact: The
Shea Project would not
conflict with an applicable
program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the
circulation system but when
considered in combination
with the adjacent Acacia
Project, would conflict with
the City’s Active
Transportation Plan.

No mitigation is available. N/A N/A N/A Significant and Unavoidable
Impact
493
53 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
Threshold b Less-thanSignificant Impact: The Shea
Project alone would screen
out of the need to conduct a
VMT analysis, and thus not
exceed the City’s significance
threshold. Further, the Shea
Project would not conflict
with the San Bernardino
County CMP.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Threshold c Less-thanSignificant Impact: The Shea
Project would not introduce
any significant transportation
safety hazards due to a design
feature or incompatible use.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Threshold d No Impact:

Adequate emergency access
would be provided to the Shea
Project Site during
construction and long-term
operation. The Shea Project
would not result in inadequate
emergency access to the Shea
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
494
54 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
Project Site or surrounding
properties.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Significant
Direct and CumulativelyConsiderable Impact. The
Shea Project has the potential
to result in significant impacts
to tribal cultural resources in
the absence of protective
measures in the event that
such resources are discovered
during ground-disturbing
construction activities.

Refer to MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5-
3, above
Shea Project
Applicant; Shea
Project
Archaeologist
City of Fontana
Building and
Safety
Department
If cultural, tribal
cultural, or
archaeological
resources are
found on the Shea
Project Site;
During
construction
Less-thanSignificant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Utilities and Service Systems
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
physical environmental
effects associated with
installing the Shea Project’s
water, wastewater,
stormwater drainage, and dry
utility infrastructure is
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 495
55 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
evaluated throughout this EIR
and no adverse impacts
specific to the provision
utilities services have been
identified.

Threshold b: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
WVWD is expected to have
sufficient water supplies to
service the Shea Project. The
Shea Project would not
exceed the WVWD’s
available supply of water
during normal years, singledry years, or multiple-dry
years.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Threshold c: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
IEUA would provide
wastewater treatment services
to the Shea Project site via
RP-4. These facilities have
adequate capacity to service
the Shea Project and no new
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 496
56 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
or expanded facilities would
be needed.

Threshold d: Less-thanSignificant Impact. There is
adequate capacity available at
the Mid Valley Landfill to
accept the Shea Project’s
solid waste during both
construction and long-term
operation. The Shea Project
would not generate solid
waste in excess of State or
local standards or in excess of
the capacity of local
infrastructure to handle the
waste.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Threshold e: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project would comply with all
applicable solid waste statutes
and regulations; as such,
impacts related to solid waste
statutes and regulations
would be less-thansignificant.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 497
57 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
Wildfire
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-thanSignificant Impact. During
construction and as part of
ongoing operations at the
Shea Project Site, the City
will require that adequate
access for emergency
vehicles be maintained. No
emergency routes would be
affected by the Project.

Accordingly, the Shea Project
would not impair
implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or an emergency
evacuation plan, and impacts
would be less-thansignificant.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Threshold b: Less-thanSignificant Impact. Due to the
developed nature of the
surrounding area and
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 498
58 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
requirements to construct the
Shea Project in accord with
applicable Building and Fire
Codes, there is no reasonable
potential that the Shea Project
would expose the Project
Sites’ occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire.

Threshold c: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The Shea
Project proposes the
development of a single
commerce center building, no
components of which would
trigger the installation or
maintenance of wildfire
management features that
could result in exacerbated
fire risks.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact Threshold d: Less-thanSignificant Impact. There is
no potential that the Shea
Project could affect other
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact 499
59 THRESHOLD

MITIGATION MEASURES (MM)

FOR SHEA PROJECT

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION
properties by induced
flooding, slope instability, or
landslides. Under existing
and proposed conditions, the
Shea Project Site exhibits
little topographic variation,
and development on the Shea
Project Site as proposed
would not involve any uses
containing natural vegetation
or other features subject to
wildland fire hazards that
could cause flooding,
landslides, instability, or
changes in downstream
drainage patterns.
500
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA

APPROVING, PURSUANT TO THE CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SHEA INDUSTRIAL COMMERCE CENTER
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2022030544), GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 21-004 (PART NO. 1 OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE NO. 2 OF 2023) AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION ON APPROXIMATELY 11.1 ADJUSTED GROSS ACRES
(APNs: 0239-151-09 and -38) FROM MULTI FAMILY HIGH RESIDENTIAL (R-MFH) TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-L), APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20523 (TPM NO. 21-018) TO MERGE TWO PARCELS, AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-034 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 199,999 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL COMMERCE CENTER AND
ASSOCIATED ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS.

WHEREAS, the City of Fontana General Plan was adopted by the City Council on November 13, 2018 and the City of Fontana Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on February 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2021, applicant, Shea Properties, submitted a request for a General Plan Amendment No. 21-004 to change the land use designation from Multi Family High Residential (R-MFH) to Light Industrial (I-L) on approximately 11.1 adjusted gross acres of a two parcels (APNs: 0239-151-09 and -38) (see attached Exhibit “A”), Amend the Zoning District Map (Zoning District Map Amendment No. 21-006) to rezone the parcels from Multiple-Family High Density Residential (R-5) to Light Industrial (M-1), a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM NO. 21-018) to merge two parcels into one, and Design Review No. 21-034 to allow the development of a 199,999 square foot industrial commerce building with associated landscaping and parking (Project); and WHEREAS, the subject site includes two parcels that were annexed from San Bernardino County into the City of Fontana on October 8, 1981; and WHEREAS, the subject property is proposed to be developed below the assumed capacity as identified in the approved Housing Element, however there is still sufficient capacity in the city at the “extremely low/very low” income category to meet the Regional House Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers; and
WHEREAS, to comply with California’s Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), the project will participate in the City of Fontana Municipal Code (FMC) Chapter 30 Article XV “No Net Loss Density Bonus/Replacement Program.” Pursuant to FMC section 30-967, the Unit Bank cannot exceed 2,200 units. The Unit Bank is currently 0 units. These 555 units will be added to the Unit Bank increasing the number of units in the Unit Bank to 555 which is less than the 2,200 units authorized by FMC. The units in the Unit Bank shall be available as density bonuses for other residential properties throughout the city.

The program will enable, on a first come, first served basis, density bonuses of up to 20% 501
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 2 of 25 ends

Fontana City CouncilMay 9, 2023

Fontana City Council
May 9, 2023