Agenda packet — Fontana City Council, May 9, 2023 (part 4 of 7)

on other parcels until these 555 residential units are reclaimed within future planned residential projects; 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 Chapter 30 Article XV “No Net Loss Density Bonus/Replacement Program.” The 555 units will 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% on other parcels until the 555 residential units are reclaimed within future planned residential projects; and, WHEREAS, all the notices required by statute or the Fontana City Code have been given as required; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2023, the Planning Commission received public testimony and evidence presented by the applicant, City staff, and other interested parties at the public hearing held with respect thereto on Shea Industrial Commerce Center EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2022030544), General Plan Amendment No. 21-004, Zoning District Map Amendment No. 21-006, Development Agreement No. 22-006, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018), and Design Review No. 21-034, and recommended the its approval to the City Council by Resolution No. 2023-016; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2023, the City Council conducted a noticed public hearing on Shea Industrial Commerce Center EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2022030544), General Plan Amendment No. 21-004, Zoning District Map Amendment No. 21-006, Development Agreement No. 22-006, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018), and Design Review No. 21-034 and received testimony from any and all parties and considered the staff report and its attached supporting documents, as well as testimony from the project applicant and others; and
WHEREAS, based on the information presented to the City Council at the public hearing, the testimony received, and the supporting documents in evidence, the City Council finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Development Agreement, Tentative Parcel Map, and Design Review are in conformance with the goals and policies of the General Plan as referred to herein; and WHEREAS, based on the information contained in the Initial Study (Environmental Checklist) prepared for General Plan Amendment No. 21-004, Zoning District Map Amendment No. 21-006, Development Agreement No. 22-006, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018), Design Review No. 21-034, a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report have been prepared and circulated for the project and have been submitted with the inclusion of a Statement of Overriding Consideration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program with a recommendation for certification by the City Council; and WHEREAS, two (2) General Plan Amendments associated with MCN No. 21-090 (Shea Industrial Commerce Center Project) and MCN No. 21-099 (North Fontana Commerce Project) were received, each considered as a part of one motion at the May 9, 2023 City Council meeting to comply with state law; and 502
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 3 of 25 ends

WHEREAS, the City of Fontana wishes to protect and preserve the quality of the life throughout the City through effective land use and planning; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council RESOLVES as follows:

Section 1. The recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the Sierra Business Center Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022030544) was prepared for development, including the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Agreement, Tentative Vesting Map, and Design Review. The City Council has certified the She Industrial Commerce Center EIR and, based on the CEQA Sections 15162 through 15164, staff has determined that none of the criteria requiring a subsequent environmental document have been met and that further environmental analysis is not required. A Notice of Determination has been prepared.

Section 3. The City of Fontana City Council hereby makes the following findings for General Plan Amendment No. 21-004 in accordance with Section 30-31 “Purpose” of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code:

Finding: The purpose and intent is to keep an updated General Plan to reflect the current desires and needs of the citizens for the longterm growth of the City.

Findings of Fact: Changing the General Plan Land Use Designation of the site from Multi Family High Residential (R-MFH) to Light Industrial (I-L) would allow for the construction of a 199,999 square foot industrial commerce building. This development will assist with growing industrial commerce demand in the City of Fontana and the surrounding area. Additionally, properties to the south have a General Plan designation of Light Industrial.

Section 4. The City of Fontana’s City Council hereby makes the following findings for Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018) in accordance with Section No. 26-218(d) “Processing of application,” of the Fontana Subdivision Code:

Finding No. 1: That the proposed map is consistent with the city's general plan and any applicable specific plan.

Findings of Fact: Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018) is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site, which is Light Industrial (I-L). The lot size with the consolidation will meet the lot standards of the Light Industrial zoning district. The tentative parcel map is a request to consolidate two (2) existing parcels 503
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 4 of 25 ends

(APNs: 0239-151-09 and -38) into one (1) parcel for the construction of a concrete tilt-up industrial commerce building totaling approximately 199,999 square feet, which is a land use permitted in the General Plan.

Finding No. 2: That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.

Findings of Fact: The site design for Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 is consistent with the General Plan designation. The lot size and street configuration conform to the requirements of the Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design and Community Mobility and Circulation Elements of the City of Fontana General Plan, Subdivisions (Chapter No. 26) Chapter of the City of Fontana Municipal Code and the Light Industrial development standards. The project includes all on-site and off-site improvements to meet all the General Plan goals and objectives as well as all of the zoning requirements of the M-1 zone. Improvements consist of public sewer, public storm drain, streets, gutter, sidewalks, drainage, and grading to provide a safe and well-designed project for the area.

Finding No. 3: The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed.

Findings of Fact: The project site of approximately 11.1 adjusted gross acres, is adequate in size to accommodate the development referenced herein. The existing topography is conducive for the project and development of the site did not require setback variances; therefore, the site is suitable for this type of development. The lot size is consistent with surrounding industrial developments.

Finding No. 4: The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Findings of Fact: The design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018) is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The area surrounding the project site has been developed with industrial, storage, commercial, and warehouses uses, which are located south of the project site.

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared and certified for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing CEQA. According to the analysis in the Final EIR and supporting studies, even with incorporation of the mitigation measures, impacts 504
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 5 of 25 ends

to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and transportation would remain significant and unavoidable. Because there are significant and unavoidable impacts as a result of the project, a Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOC) was approved by the City Council. The design of the map will not cause substantial environmental damage or will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Finding No. 5: The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems.

Findings of Fact: The design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 will not cause public health problems. The development will include connection to the public sewer, connection to the public storm drain, sidewalks, drainage, and grading to provide a safe and well designed project for the area. Therefore, the project shall promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community.

Findings of Fact: The design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018) and public improvements will not conflict with access easements acquired by the public. Access to and from the project site would be provided from two driveways, both on Sierra Avenue. The truck traffic will enter and exit from Sierra Avenue and vehicle traffic will use the same entrances from Sierra Avenue.

Section 5. The City of Fontana City Council hereby makes the following findings for Design Review No. 21-034 in accordance with Section 30-120 “Findings for approval” of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code:

Finding No. 1: The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan.

Findings of Fact: The General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial (I-L) is intended for employee-intensive uses, including business parking, research and development, technology centers, corporate and support office uses, clean industry, supporting retail uses, truck and equipment sales and related services. The proposed industrial commerce facility provides for a consistent blend of well-designed industrial development in the immediate vicinity because it provides industrial consistency with the south to the north of the City.

Finding No. 2: This proposal meets or exceeds the criteria contained in Chapter 30 of the Zoning and Development Code and will result 505
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 6 of 25 ends

in an appropriate, safe and desirable development promoting the public health, safety, and welfare of the community.

Findings of Fact: The project, is a 199,999 square foot industrial commerce center.

The industrial commerce facility has been designed with office space totaling approximately 19,900 square feet. A gate-secured truck court with 34 loading docks on the south side of the building. The use of glazing, parapets, canopies, accent colors and painted banding will add structural and visual interest to the building. Additionally, variations to the building face and roof lines will be architecturally pleasing. Access to and from the project site would be provided from two driveways on Sierra Avenue. Landscaping would be ornamental in nature and would features trees, shrubs, and drought-tolerant accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers.

The project will be an appropriate and desirable development for the area.

The project as described in the above findings will result in the construction of a 199,999 square foot industrial commerce center.

All new improvements such as driveways, streets, sidewalks, drive aisles, and setbacks will comply with all applicable building, zoning, and fire codes and standards, and therefore, shall promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community.

Finding No. 3: The proposal is in its design and appearance is aesthetically and architecturally pleasing while enhancing the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Findings of Fact: The industrial commerce facility has been designed with the use of glazing, parapets, canopies, accent colors and painted banding will add structural and visual interest to the building. Additionally, variations to the building face and roof lines will be architecturally pleasing. Access to and from the project site would be provided from two driveways on Sierra Avenue. Landscaping would be ornamental in nature and would features trees, shrubs, and drought-tolerant accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers. The building will be compatible with the industrial commerce centers south of the site and will provide a quality, aesthetically please development for the surrounding neighborhood.

Finding No. 4: The site improvements are appropriate and will result in a safe, well designed facility.

Findings of Fact: The development complies with the Zoning and Development Code standards. The improvements include sewer and storm drain systems, site circulation, parking, landscaping, parks, lighting, 506
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 7 of 25 ends

driveways, sidewalks and decorative paving.

Section 6. Based on findings in Section 3,the City Council of the City of Fontana hereby approves 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) as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein.

Section 7. Based on the findings in Section 4, the City Council of the City of Fontana hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018) to merge two parcels into one subject to the Conditions of Approval, which are attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein.

Section 8. Based on the findings in Section 5, the City Council of the City of Fontana hereby approves Design Review No. 21-034 subject to the conditions of Approval, which are attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein.

Section 9. This Resolution shall take effect thirty (30) days after the adoption of the City Council Ordinance adopting Zone Change No. 21-006, and the City Council Ordinance approving Development Agreement No.22-006 whichever is adopted later, provided however, if either of those Ordinances are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise do not go into effect for any reason, then is resolution shall be null and void and have no further force and effect.

Section 10. Resolution Regarding Custodian of Record: The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at the Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9
th day of May 2023.

READ AND APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
_____________________
City Attorney
507
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 8 of 25 ends

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 9 th 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
508
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 9 of 25 ends

EXHIBIT “A”

EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION -

MULTI FAMILY HIGH RESIDENTIAL (R-MFH) TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-L) 509
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 10 of 25 ends

EXHIBIT “B”

CITY OF FONTANA

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: Master Case No. (MCN) 21-090 May 9, 2023
Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018)
LOCATION: The project site is located on the east side of Sierra Avenue and north Casa Grande Avenue (APNs: 0239-151-09 and -38)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

1. The rights and privileges granted by this project shall not become effective, nor shall the applicant commence the use for which this project is granted, until both of the following have occurred:

A. All of the improvements, construction, alteration and other work set forth in this project have been completed and have been accepted by the City, as evidenced by the City’s issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or other document evidencing the City’s final inspection and acceptance of the work.

B. All requirements of the Fontana City’s Municipal Code shall be complied with.

C. All Conditions of Approval imposed on this project have been fulfilled.

2. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning this subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Fontana shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City of Fontana shall cooperate in the defense. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, attorneys and employees from any and all actual or alleged claims, actions or proceedings against the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void, annul or seek monetary damages arising out of any challenge to the applicant’s proposed project or to any approvals of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning this 510
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 11 of 25 ends

project, including but not limited to actions challenging CEQA actions, permits, variances, plot plans, design plans, maps, licenses, and amendments. The City of Fontana shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City of Fontana shall cooperate in the defense.

In the event of any such third-party action or proceeding, the City shall have the right to retain its own separate legal counsel to defend the interests of the City. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for such legal fees and costs, in their entirety, including actual attorneys’ fees, which may be incurred by the City in defense of such action or proceeding. This indemnification shall also include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, the City and/or any parties bringing such forth.

The City of Fontana and the applicant acknowledge that the City would not have approved this project if the City were to be liable to applicant in damages under or with respect to all or any part of this application or this condition of approval.

Accordingly, applicant shall not sue the City for damages or monetary relief for any matter arising from or related to this condition of approval. Applicant’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be limited to declaratory/injunctive relief, mandate, and/or specific performance.

3. Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018) shall comply with all applicable development standards of, Chapter 26 (Subdivisions), Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development), and the Subdivision Map Act.

4. The applicant/developer shall underground all utilities, which for the purpose of this condition shall also include all boxes, structures and/or other equipment located in the public right-of-way, any public utility easement(s) and on any private property, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. A note to this effect shall be placed on the map prior to recordation of the final map.

5. The applicant/developer shall comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as approved by the Planning Commission.

6. All Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) contained herein shall be incorporated into all applicable final construction plans and a copy of these conditions shall be placed on a sheet in the final building and grading plans prior to issuance of any building or grading permits.

7. Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018) shall become null and void two (2) years from the date of approval, unless the appropriate permits have been obtained and construction, defined as permit obtainment, commencement of construction of the primary building on site, and successful completion of the first Building and Safety Division inspection, has commenced within this period. 511
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 12 of 25 ends

8. In the event that one or more of the Conditions of Approval for this project needs to be amended and/or deleted due to health, safety or welfare concerns, the City Manager is authorized to approve or conditionally approve such amendment/deletion, provided that City Manager shall bring such proposed amendment/deletion to the City Council at the next available meeting for City Council ratification, but in no event later than sixty (60) days following the City Manager’s decision. The noticing of such City Council meeting for possible ratification shall be pursuant to Section No. 30-23 of the Municipal Code.

9. The applicant shall post a publicly visible sign on the project site with the telephone number and 24-hour point of contact for dust, noise and construction complaints.

The 24-hour point of contact shall be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and have authority to commit additional assets to control dust, or respond to construction complaints after hours, on weekends and on holidays. Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays.

10. The applicant shall meet all guidelines identified in the Industrial Commerce Sustainability Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1891).

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:

11. The Project shall be served by the City’s sanitary sewer system, all sewer facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the City Standards. Main trunk sewer line shall be in accordance with master sanitary sewer plan or as approved by the City Engineer.

12. The Applicant shall obtain design and plan approval from all utility providers having jurisdiction over the on-site and off-site utilities. Completion of all undergrounding of on-site and off-site utilities is required by Section 27-52 of the City Municipal Code and in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer.

13. The Applicant shall maintain all improvements and utilities within the public right-ofway, including street sweeping, prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy by the City.

14. All driveway approaches along Sierra Avenue shall be restricted by right in and right out only and no median breaks will be provided.

15. Applicant shall construct a raised landscape median on Sierra Avenue from the southern project boundary to the northern project boundary in accordance with City Standard Plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT

16. The Applicant shall submit and gain approval of a complete Water Quality Management Plan report in accordance with the County of San Bernardino Technical Guidance Document and latest template.
512
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 13 of 25 ends

17. The Applicant shall submit and gain approval of a final drainage study prepared in accordance with the County of San Bernardino Hydrology Manual and Fontana Master Plan of Drainage.

PRIOR TO MAP RECORDATION

18. The applicant shall provide a Land Improvement Agreement, with accompanying security. The agreement shall be executed on City-provided forms.

19. Applicant shall pay the Inland Empire Utilities Agency approved extra-territorial service fee.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTIOM PERMITS

20. The Applicant shall record all map’s and easements as required for the development.

21. The Applicant shall submit engineered improvement plans and obtain full approval.

All required public improvements, including but not limited to streets, storm drainage systems, sewers, traffic signals, decorative streetlights, striping, signs, landscape, and any required traffic control and/or detour plans. All plans shall conform to City Standards and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

22. The Applicant/Engineer to provide the City of Fontana with As Built/Record Drawings for all public improvement plans.

23. The Applicant/Engineer shall provide centerline ties to the City of Fontana reflecting proper setting of all survey monuments within the project limits and replace any existing survey monuments damaged or removed during construction.

24. The Applicant/Engineer shall set survey monuments as required by the map and corner records must be recorded with the County.

25. The Applicant/Landscape Architect shall provide a “Landscape Certificate of Compliance” certifying that the work has been designed, installed, and will be maintained in accordance with the City of Fontana’s Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance 1743, FCC Section 28).

26. All sewers shall be video inspected by applicant/contractor. Sewer video shall include clean-out connection, clean-out to lateral segment, lateral, and main line.

Contractor performing the video inspection must have a NASSCO PACP, LACP, and MACP certification. Applicant shall provide a copy of the video on DVD or flash drive to inspection staff with an accompanying full report. Videos to be inspected and approved by City Inspector. If removal and replacement of any utility is required, a subsequent video of the repair will be required. If a TCO (Temporary Certificate of Occupancy) is required a full video inspection will be required as well at that time.

27. All storm drains shall be video inspected by applicant/contractor. Storm drain video shall include main lines and laterals. Applicant shall provide a copy of the video on 513
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 14 of 25 ends

DVD or flash drive to inspection staff. Videos to be inspected and approved by City Inspector. If removal and replacement of any utility is required, a subsequent video of the repair will be required.

28. The Applicant/Engineer of Record shall submit a conforming copy of the recorded Memorandum of Agreement for the Water Quality Management Plan and Storm Water Best Management Practice transfer. The Access, Maintenance, and the WQMP Certification for BMP Completion must be submitted to the City Project Engineer.

BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT:

29. The Parcel Map shall record prior to the issuance of any permits.

END OF CONDITIONS
514
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 15 of 25 ends

EXHIBIT “C”

CITY OF FONTANA

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: Master Case No. (MCN) 21-090 DATE: May 9, 2023 Design Review (DRP) No. 21-034
LOCATION: The project site is located on the east side of Sierra Avenue and north Casa Grande Avenue (APNs: 0239-151-09 and -38)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

1. The rights and privileges granted by this project shall not become effective, nor shall the applicant commence the use for which this project is granted, until both of the following have occurred:

B. All requirements of the Fontana City’s Municipal Code shall be complied with.

C. All Conditions of Approval imposed on this project have been fulfilled.

2. This Design Review shall become null and void two (2) years from the date of approval, unless the appropriate permits have been obtained and construction, defined as permit obtainment, commencement of construction of the primary building on site, and successful completion of the first Building and Safety Department inspection, has commenced within this period.

3. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, attorneys and employees from any and all actual or alleged claims, actions or proceedings against the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void, annul or seek monetary damages arising out of any challenge to the applicant’s proposed project or to any approvals of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning this project, including but not limited to actions challenging CEQA actions, permits, variances, plot plans, design plans, maps, licenses, and amendments. The City of Fontana shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City of Fontana shall cooperate in the defense.
515
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 16 of 25 ends

In the event of any such third-party action or proceeding, the City shall have the right to retain legal counsel. The applicant shall be responsible and reimburse the City for such legal fees and costs, in their entirety, including actual attorneys’ fees, which may be incurred by the City in defense of such action or proceeding. This indemnification shall also include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, the City and/or any parties bringing such forth.

Except as required under applicable State and Federal law, the City of Fontana and the applicant acknowledge that the City would not have approved this project if the City were to be liable to applicant in damages under or with respect to all or any part of this application or this condition of approval. Accordingly, applicant shall not sue the City for damages or monetary relief for any matter arising from or related to this condition of approval. Applicant’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be limited to declaratory/injunctive relief, mandate, and/or specific performance.

4. This project shall comply with all applicable provisions, regulations and development standards of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code.

5. The applicant shall meet all guidelines identified in the Industrial Commerce Sustainability Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1891).

6. The proposed water shall be painted to match the proposed building.

7. A Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA)-qualified archeologist experienced with Native American artifact identification and approved by the City of Fontana shall be present to monitor the first two (2) days of site preparation/ grubbing; the first two (2) days of mass grading; and the first two (2) days of utility trenching. Such monitoring activities may be reduced or terminated depending on the findings and recommendations of the archeologist. In the event that prehistoric or historic cultural resources be uncovered during these activities, representatives of the tribal entity(s) whom consider the project site to be within their traditional use area shall be contacted and invited to the site to review the find, and monitoring shall be continued at the discretion of archeologist.

8. Historic Archaeological Resources
A. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.

B. Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If 516
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 17 of 25 ends

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

C. 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.

9. The construction contractor shall use the following source controls at all times:

A. Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and holidays unless it is approved by the Building Inspector for cases that are considered urgently necessary as defined in Section No. 18-63(7) of the Municipal Code. For all noise-producing equipment, use types and models that have the lowest horsepower and the lowest noise generating potential practical for their intended use.

B. The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is properly operating (tuned-up) and lubricated, and that mufflers are working adequately.

C. Have only necessary equipment onsite.

D. Use manually-adjustable or ambient-sensitive backup alarms. When working adjacent to residential use(s), the construction contractor will also use the following path controls, except where not physically feasible, when necessary:

E. Install portable noise barriers, including solid structures and noise blankets, between the active noise sources and the nearest noise receivers.

F. Temporarily enclose localized and stationary noise sources.

G. Store and maintain equipment, building materials, and waste materials as far as practical from as many sensitive receivers as practical.

10.Any foam treatment used for architecture treatments and/or projections located on the first floor shall be covered with concrete or similar durable material a minimum of ¼ inch thick, or as determined by the Director of Planning. 517
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 18 of 25 ends

11.The Applicant shall provide uplighting with the landscape area along frontage of Sierra Avenue, to satisfaction of the Director of Planning or his/her designee.

12.All Conditions of Approval contained herein shall be incorporated into all applicable final construction plans and a copy of these conditions, signed by the property owner or legal representative, shall be placed on a sheet in the final building and grading plans prior to issuance of any building or grading permits.

13.The current development fees must be paid prior to issuance of building/construction permits.

14.In the event that one or more of the Conditions of Approval for this project needs to be amended and/or deleted due to health, safety or welfare concerns, the City Manager is authorized to approve or conditionally approve such amendment/deletion, provided that City Manager shall bring such proposed amendment/deletion to the City Council at the next available meeting for City Council ratification, but in no event later than sixty (60) days following the City Manager’s decision. The noticing of such City Council meeting for possible ratification shall be pursuant to Sections No. 30-30 and Sections No. 30-31 of the Municipal Code.

15.There shall be five (5) feet of landscaping and two (2) feet of decorative concrete for passengers to step out of vehicles, total of seven (7) feet, at end of automobile parking aisles.

16.Color combinations and color schemes for buildings approved under a design review application shall not be modified or changed without prior approval of the original approving body by a revision to the original application. Minor hue color changes may be approved by the Director of Planning. The Director of Planning may refer minor hue color changes to the original approving body for consideration under a revision to the original application.

17.Exterior lighting compatible with the design of the building shall be provided for the parking lot. The lighting shall be directed and shielded so as to illuminate only the parking area and to avoid glare impacts on adjacent properties.

18.Sidewalks shall be provided for all new developments in accordance with the city’s circulation element of the General Plan.

19.Two (2) bicycle parking racks or secured bicycle lockers shall be provided for all nonresidential developments.

20.All parking stalls shall be clearly marked by double striping pavement painting. Parking stall sizes shall be measured from the mid-point between the striping. No parking spaces shall be designated in an industrial parking facility, except for disabled persons parking, van pool, carpool, or any other designated parking as required by law.

21.All signs shall be reviewed under a separate Design Review Sign application. 518
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 19 of 25 ends

22.All roof-mounted equipment and ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view from adjacent properties and streets to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.

23.The occupants of this facility shall comply with applicable provisions of local, state and federal laws and regulations with respect to noise, vibration, smoke, odors, fire and explosive hazards, including, but not limited to the City’s adopted Hazardous Materials Management Plan and Industrial Wastewater/Discharge requirements.

24.All landscaping shall be healthy and maintained in a reasonable manner as determined by the Director of Planning or his/her designee.

25.Up lighting shall be provided throughout the project site to complement the architectural detail of the building and the landscaped areas, except where the building is adjacent to residential properties.

26.The transformer shall be screened by a solid screen wall and mature, dense landscaping, and not visible from the public right-of-way.

27.After the fifteen (15) day appeal period, the applicant shall remove the notice of Filing sign(s) from the project site. The applicant may request a refund of the sign deposit; the request shall be in writing accompanied with a refund application. The request shall be submitted to the Planning Department.

28.There shall be no refrigerated uses on site; unless, a future tenant follows any applicable studies/memorandums to amend this Condition of Approval.

29.Development fees and Planning Department final inspection fee must be paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy.

30.Applicant shall pay all applicable service fees pursuant to the City of Fontana Municipal Code.

31.The applicant/developer/property owner shall provide up-lighting on the perimeter and up-light proposed trees to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and his/her designee.

32.In the event that any off-site utility and/or infrastructure improvements are required as a direct result of future projects, construction of such off-site utility and infrastructure improvements shall not occur concurrently with the demolition, site preparation, and grading phases of project construction. This requirement shall be clearly noted on all applicable grading and/or building plans.

Page 20 of 25 ends

utilized shall be vandal-resistant fixtures. The type of lighting shall be fluorescent, white L.E.D.s or metal halide. Provide a photometric layout under separate exhibit to ensure the minimum light standard is met.

34.Incorporate an anti-graffiti coating onto the exterior of all proposed block walls to discourage graffiti.

35.Incorporate hostile landscape into the interior, perimeter landscape setback areas to discourage subjects from accessing the site.

36.Adhere to the Standard Building Security Specifications of the Fontana Police Department.

Prior To Issuance of Grading Permit

37.All Conditions of Approval and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) contained herein shall be incorporated into all applicable final construction plans and a copy of these conditions shall be placed on a sheet in the final building and grading plans prior to issuance of any building or grading permits.

ENGINEERING LAND DEVELOPMENT:

38.All Conditions of Approval issued to the project number MCN No. 21-090 shall apply.

39.Applicant shall pay all applicable service fees pursuant to the City of Fontana Municipal Code.

BUILDING & SAFETY:

40.The applicant shall design the project to show compliance with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable:

A. California Building Code
B. California Residential Code
C. California Electrical Code
D. California Mechanical Code
E. California Plumbing Code
F. California Energy Code
G. California Fire Code
H. California Green Building Standards Code

41.The applicant shall install an automatic fire suppression system, which is required in all new construction per FMC Chapter 11 Article II. Design and type of system shall be based upon the requirements of the Building Code, Fire Code and the requirements of the Fontana Fire Prevention District.
520
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 21 of 25 ends

42.The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (909-396-2000). SCAQMD requirements shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permit if hazardous materials are stored and/or used.

43.The applicant shall verify that any temporary building, trailer, commercial coach, etc. installed and/or used in connection with a construction project complies with FMC Chapter 5 Article XIV.

44.The applicant shall verify that all perimeter/boundary walls are designed and constructed so that the outer/exterior face of the wall is as close as possible to the lot line. In any case, the outer/exterior face of the wall shall be within two (2) inches of the lot line. Distances greater than two (2) inches may be approved prior to construction by the Building Official on a case by case basis for extenuating circumstances.

45.The applicant shall comply with the following grading requirements:

A. Grading plans shall be submitted to and approved by Building & Safety.

The grading plans shall indicate all site improvements and shall indicate complete drainage paths of all drainage water run-offs.

B. All drainage water shall drain via approved methods to an approved location, such as a public street, a public drainage system, etc.

C. Drainage water shall not cross over a public sidewalk. Drainage water may, however, cross under a sidewalk if an approved drainage structure is used.

D. A recorded drainage acceptance agreement is required from adjoining property(s) receiving flows from this property.

E. No water course or natural drainage shall be obstructed.

F. Minimum slope or grade for ALL drainage structures shall be one half (0.50) percent for concrete and one (1.0) percent for all other, or as otherwise approved by the Building Official.

G. Drainage water shall not pass from an ‘improved’ type of drainage structure to an ‘unimproved’ type of drainage structure (e.g., concrete swale to a dirt swale) unless otherwise approved by the Building Official.

H. A complete hydrology study using the latest edition of the San Bernardino County Flood Control Hydrology Manual, and complete hydraulic calculations justifying the size, slope, capacity, etc. of any and all drainage structures being utilized, shall be submitted to and approved by Building & Safety.

The on-site drainage system shall, as a minimum, be designed to handle the run-off generated by a ten (10) year storm. Check for flooding of all on-site structures (buildings) and all adjacent properties during a hundred (100) year storm.

I. The grading plans shall, as a minimum, contain sections at all lot lines 521
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 22 of 25 ends

and/or permit boundary lines. These sections shall clearly indicate:

1. The relationship between the proposed finished on-site grade elevations and the existing adjacent property grade elevations (Indicate any additional drainage water that may come from an adjacent property.); and

2. The ground cover/finished surface material being proposed (e.g., type of pavement, plant material, etc.); and

3. All proposed drainage structures; and

4. Any proposed and/or required walls or fencing.

46.The applicant shall verify that all exterior lighting shall be oriented, directed, and/or shielded as much as possible so that direct illumination does not infringe onto adjoining properties.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

47.The following items (as applicable) shall be completed by the applicant and submitted to Building & Safety prior to the issuance of building permits for this project:

A. Precise grading plans shall be approved
B. Rough grading completed
C. Compaction certification
D. Pad elevation certification
E. Rough grade inspection signed off by a City Building Inspector

48.If hazardous substances are used and/or stored, the applicant shall provide a technical opinion and report, identifying and developing methods of protection from the hazards presented by the hazardous materials, may be required. This report shall be prepared by a qualified person, firm, or corporation and submitted to Building & Safety. This report shall also explain the proposed facility's intended methods of operation and list all of the proposed materials, their quantities, classifications, and the effects of any chemical (material) inter-mixing in the event of an accident or spill.

49.The applicant shall combine the existing parcels into a single parcel, or a lot line adjustment shall be done so that the proposed structure(s) does not cross any lot line and complies with all requirements of the California Building Code, prior to any building permits being issued.

50.The applicant shall comply with the fire zone (VHFSZ) requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL:

51.All industrial / warehousing facilities are required to obtain coverage under the State Industrial General Permit and shall file with the State Board a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the terms of the General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity.
522
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 23 of 25 ends

Applicants shall be required to provide a copy of the Waste Discharger Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Board as evidence of coverage under the Industrial General Permit to; Sal Romero 909-428-8809 or [email protected].

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:

52.Jurisdiction. The above referenced project is under the jurisdiction of the Fontana fire Protection District (herein “Fire Department”). Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the Fire Department for verification of current fire protection requirements. All new construction shall comply with the current California Fire Code requirements and all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances, and standards of the Fire Department.

53.Fire Access Road Width. Prior to map recordation, all fire access roadways shall be designed to meet the requirements for this development and shall be approved by the Fire Department. All buildings shall have access provided by approved roads, alleys and private drives with a minimum twenty-six (26) foot unobstructed width and vertically to fourteen (14) feet six (6) inches in height. Buildings three (3) stories in height or more shall have a minimum access of thirty (30) feet unobstructed width and vertically to fourteen (14) feet six (6) inches in height. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-1.

54.Turnaround. An approved turnaround shall be provided at the end of each roadway one hundred and fifty (150) feet or more in length. Cul-de-sac length shall not exceed six hundred (600) feet; all roadways shall not exceed a 12 % grade and have a minimum of nineteen (19) foot inside radius and a forty-five (45) foot outside radius for all turns. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-1.

55.Street Signs. Approved temporary or permanent street signs shall be installed throughout the project prior any combustible materials being placed on the construction site. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-2.

56.Fire Lanes. The applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for review and approval of all proposed signage and striping for all fire access roadways. All curbs adjacent to fire lanes shall be painted red and “No Parking, Fire Lane” signs shall be installed on public and private roads in accordance with approved standards.

SBCoFD Standard A-2.

57.Water System Commercial. Prior to map recordation, or lot line adjustment, all water supply systems shall be designed to meet the required fire flow for this development and shall be approved by the Fire Department. The required fire flow shall be determined by using Appendix BB of the California Fire Code. A minimum of one new six (6) inch fire hydrant assembly with two (2) two and one half (2 1/2) inch and one (1) four (4) inch outlet (4”x2.5”x2.5”) shall be provided. All fire hydrants shall be spaced no more than three hundred (300) feet apart as measured along vehicular travel-ways. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard W-2. 523
Resolution No. 2023-_____

Page 24 of 25 ends

The Fire Flow for this project shall be: 4000 GPM for a two-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. Fire Flow is based on a 200,000 Square Foot structure.

58.Hydrant Marking. Blue reflective pavement markers indicating fire hydrant locations shall be installed as specified by the Fire Department. SBCoFD Standard W-2.

59.Water System Certification. The applicant shall provide the Fire Department with a letter from the serving water company, certifying that the required water improvements have been made or that the existing fire hydrants and water system will meet distance and fire flow requirements. Fire flow water supply shall be in place prior to placing combustible materials on the jobsite. California Fire Code Chapter 5.

60.Combustible Protection. Prior to combustibles being placed on the project site an approved paved roadway providing fire access and fire hydrants providing an acceptable fire flow shall be installed. California Fire Code Chapter 5.

61.Fire Sprinkler-NFPA #13. An automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA 13 and Fire Department standards is required. A fire sprinkler contractor shall submit three (3) sets of detailed plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. The plans shall include hydraulic calculations and manufacturer specification sheets. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal. California Fire Code Chapter 9 & SBCoFD Standard F-1.

62.Fire Alarm, Waterflow Monitoring. A water flow monitoring fire alarm system complying with the California Fire Code, NFPA and all applicable codes is required or fire sprinkler systems with twenty (20) sprinkler heads or more. A fire alarm contractor shall submit three (3) sets of detailed plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal. California Fire Code Chapter 9, NFPA 72 & SBCoFD Standard F-5.

63.Smoke Removal. An automatic smoke removal system complying with the California Fire Code, NFPA and all applicable codes is required. The applicant shall submit three (3) sets of detailed smoke removal system plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. The required fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal. California Fire Code Chapter 9.

64.Fire Extinguishers. Hand portable fire extinguishers are required. The location, type, and cabinet design shall be approved by the Fire Department. California Fire Code Chapter 9.

Page 25 of 25 ends

the building is two hundred (200) feet or more from the roadway, additional nonilluminated contrasting six (6) inch numbers shall be displayed at the property access entrances. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard B-1

66.Key Box. An approved Fire Department key box is required. The key box shall be provided with a tamper switch and shall be monitored by a Fire Department approved central monitoring service. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-4

67.Security Gates. In commercial, industrial and multi-family complexes, all swing gates shall have an approved fire department Knox Lock. Where an automatic electric security gate is used, an approved Fire Department override switch is required.

California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-3

68.Material Identification Placards. The applicant shall install, in all locations deemed appropriate by the Fire Department, approved material identification placards on the outside of all buildings and/or storage tanks that store hazardous or flammable materials. Additional placards shall be required inside the buildings when chemicals are segregated into separate areas. California Fire Code Chapter 50 & NFPA 704.

69.High-Piled Storage. The applicant shall submit an application for a High-Piled Storage permit for storage of over 12’ in height of Class I-IV commodities and/or over 6’ in height of high hazard commodities. Three (3) sets of detailed plans and a commodity analysis report shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. The applicant shall submit to the Fire Department concurrently with any racking permits to the Building and Safety Department. California Fire Code Chapter 32 & SBCoFD Standard S-1.

70.Secondary Access. The development shall have a minimum of 2 points of vehicular access during each phase of construction for fire and emergency access purposes and for evacuation routes. SBCoFD Standard A-1

END OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
525
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE 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), ZONING DISTRICT MAP AMENDMENT (ZONE CHANGE) NO. 21-006 TO AMEND THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR APNS: 0239-151-09 AND -38 FROM MULTI FAMILY HIGH RESIDENTIAL (R-5) TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M1) FOR APPROXIMATELY 11.1 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF CASA GRANDE AVENUE AND EAST OF SIERRA AVENUE.

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, on April 18, 2023, the Planning Commission received public testimony and evidence presented by the applicant, City staff, and other interested parties at a public hearing held on Shea Industrial Commerce Center EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2022030544), General Plan Amendment No. 21-004, Zoning District Map Amendment No. 21-006, Development Agreement No. 22-006, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018), and Design Review No. 21-034, and after carefully considering all information pertaining to the proposed project, including the staff report, findings, and all information, evidence, and testimony presented, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Project to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the subject property is 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 City’s Regional House Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation; 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 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 526
Ordinance No. 2023 - ___

Page 2 of 4 ends

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 serve basis, density bonuses of up to 20% on other parcels until these 555 residential units are reclaimed within future planned residential projects; and,
WHEREAS, after the publication of notice as required by law, the City Council of the City of Fontana, California conducted a public hearing on Zoning District Map Amendment (Zone Change) No. 21-006; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Zoning District Map (Zone Change) Amendment No. 21-006 along with the entitlement referenced herein, received testimony and the supporting documents in evidence, and the City Council found that the Zoning District Map Amendment is in conformance with the goals and policies of the General Plan to provide a community that is balanced between residential, commercial, and industrial that is developed to high standards and provides diverse economic and social opportunities for our citizens and those who wish to invest here; and
WHEREAS, Zone Change Amendment No. 21-006 is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Fontana, General Plan Goal 7 of Chapter 15, “support highquality development in design standards and land use decisions”; and

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. The City Council approves this Ordinance pursuant to the certified Shea Industrial Commerce Center Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2022030544). The City Council finds that the EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of all the environmental impacts associated with the Ordinance. The City Council further finds that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act, and the State CEQA Guidelines. Further, based on the CEQA Sections 15162 through 15164, staff has determined that none of the criteria requiring a subsequent environmental document have been met and that further environmental analysis is not required. A Notice of Determination has been prepared.

Section 3. Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds this Ordinance promotes the public health, safety and welfare of the community.

Section 4. The City of Fontana City Council hereby makes the following findings for Zoning District Map Amendment (Zone Change) No. 21-006 in accordance with Section 30-40 “Purpose” of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code:
527
Ordinance No. 2023 - ___

Page 3 of 4 ends

Finding: The Zoning and Development Code may be amended by changing the development standards (text) or zoning
designation map boundaries of any zone whenever such an amendment is deemed necessary to protect or promote the public's health, safety, or general welfare or when
modification is viewed as appropriate in the context of generally accepted planning principles, surrounding land uses, and the General Plan.

Findings of Fact: Changing the zoning designation from Multi Family High Residential (R-5) to Light Industrial (M-1)would allow for the construction of a 199,999 square foot industrial commerce building. This development will assist with growing industrial commerce demand in the City of Fontana and the surrounding area. The zone change will provide consistency with the zoning and existing development to the south of the subject site and will provide safe and attractive development.

Section 5. The City Council approves Zoning District Map Amendment (Zone Change) No. 21-006 to amend the zoning designation for APNs: 0239-151-09 and -38 from Multi Family High Residential (R-5) to Light Industrial (M-1) as shown on Exhibit “A”, and attached hereto and by this reference incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

Section 6. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of the adoption and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the passage thereof, or after the adoption of the City Council Ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 22-006 whichever occurs later, provided however, if the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise does not go into effect for any reason, then this Ordinance shall be null and void and have no further force and effect. This Ordinance shall be published by the City Clerk at least once in the Herald News or other local newspaper of the general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Fontana, and henceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of May 2023.

READ AND APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
_________________________________________
City Attorney
528
Ordinance No. 2023 - ___

Page 4 of 4 ends

I, Germaine Key, City Clerk of the City of Fontana, and Ex-Officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is the actual Ordinance adopted by the City Council and was introduced at a regular meeting on the 9th day of May 2023, and was finally passed and adopted not less than five days thereafter on the 13th day of June 2023, by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
_________________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Fontana
_________________________________________
Mayor of the City of Fontana
ATTEST:
_________________________________________
City Clerk
529
Ordinance No. 2023 - ___

Page 5 of 4 ends

“EXHIBIT A”

EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING MAP DESIGNATION -
MEDIUM-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-5) TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-L) 530
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

FONTANA, PURSUANT TO THE CERTIFIED

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SHEA

INDUSTRIAL COMMERCE CENTER PROJECT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2022030544), APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 22-006 FOR A PUBLIC

BENEFIT FEE BETWEEN THE CITY OF FONTANA AND

SHEA PROPERTIES, WHICH PROVIDES A PUBLIC
BENEFIT FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $849,995.75.

WHEREAS, the City Council ("City Council") of the City of Fontana ("City") is authorized by California Government Code sections 65864 et seq. and section 30-322 of the City's Development Code ("Development Code") to enter into an agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property; and WHEREAS, City has found that development agreements will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning by providing a greater degree of certainty in that process, reduce the economic costs of development, allow for the orderly planning of public improvements and services, allocate costs to achieve maximum utilization of public and private resources in the development process, and ensure that appropriate measures to enhance and protect the environment are achieved; and
WHEREAS, because of the logistics, magnitude of the expenditure, and considerable lead time required to plan and develop the Property, Shea Properties (“Developer”) has proposed to enter into a development agreement concerning the Property (“Development Agreement”), to provide assurances that the Property can be developed without disruption caused by a change in the City’s planning policies and requirements except as provided in the Development Agreement, which assurances will thereby reduce the actual or perceived risk of planning for and proceeding with development of the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fontana, a California Municipal Corporation ("City") and Shea Properties ("Developer") are supportive of entering into a Development Agreement whereby Developer will acquire fee title to certain real property (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, Developer's interest in the Property, including that interest to be conveyed pursuant to the DA, constitutes a legal or equitable interest in real property pursuant to California Government Code section 65865; and 531
2 of 5
WHEREAS, Developer proposes the development of the Property for an industrial commerce building totaling approximately 199,999 square feet, including up to 19,900 square feet of office space, entailing front end investment in the planning, entitlement and development of the Property to achieve the goals of the City's General Plan ("General Plan"), as further described and conditioned in the Development Agreement (collectively, such development shall be referred to herein as the "Project"); and WHEREAS, City desires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of the Project in furtherance of the goals of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, City has found that the development agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference ("Development Agreement") is consistent with City's General Plan and it has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with Section 30-102 of the City Development Code; and
WHEREAS, City has determined that by entering into the Development Agreement: (i) City will promote orderly growth and quality development on the Property in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan and (ii) City will benefit from increased employment and industrial opportunities created by the Project for residents of the City; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2023, the City Council introduced this Ordinance through a first reading of this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the Shea Industrial Commerce Center Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022030544) has been prepared for development including development of the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has certified the Sierra Business Center EIR and, based on the CEQA Sections 15162 through 15164, staff has determined that none of the criteria requiring a subsequent environmental document have been met and that further environmental analysis is not required. A Notice of Determination has been prepared; ; and
WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement have undergone review by City at publicly noticed hearings and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable, and consistent with the General Plan. Further, City finds that:
(i) the economic interests of the City's citizens and the public health, safety and welfare will be best served by entering into the Development Agreement; (ii) the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the Property is located; 532
3 of 5
(iii) the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan; (iv) the Development Agreement is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice;
(v) the Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and
(vi) the Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development or the preservation of property values for the Property or any other property.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FONTANA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub.

Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the Sierra Business Center Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022030544) was prepared for development, including development of the Property. The City Council has certified the Sierra Business Center EIR and, based on the CEQA Sections 15162 through 15164, staff has determined that none of the criteria requiring a subsequent environmental document have been met and that further environmental analysis is not required. A Notice of Determination has been prepared.

Section 3. Pursuant to California Government Code sections 65865 et seq., the City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and incorporated by reference herein attached as “Exhibit A” for entitled "Development Agreement No. 22-006 between Shea Properties and the City of Fontana, a California municipal corporation.

Section 4. Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds this Ordinance promotes the public health, safety and welfare of the community because the Development Agreement will enable needed public improvements at the Property and the economic development of the Property will benefit the citizens of the City.

Section 5. The City Council hereby incorporates by reference the Recitals set forth herein and adopts those Recitals as its own as though fully set forth in this Ordinance.

Pursuant to California Government Code section 65867.5(b), and based on the entire record before the City Council, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan because the Development Agreement will result in the development of the Property at the intensity and density allowed under the General Plan and with the restrictions and standards set forth in the City's Municipal Code. 533
4 of 5
Section 6. Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that the Development Agreement is in the best interests of the City, and represents good land use practices, as it ensures the orderly development of the Property with amenities and infrastructure that will be beneficial to the community.

Section 7. The City Council further finds that among the public benefits to accrue to the residents of the City as a result of the Development Agreement are:

1. The revitalization of an underdeveloped site.

2. The development of onsite infrastructure upgrades that would not occur otherwise.

3. The generation of additional property tax.

4. The stimulation of adjacent areas in the City by introducing new industrial facilities and opportunities.

5. The implementation of numerous City planning and economic development policies which benefit the health and fiscal welfare of the City and its residents.

6. The payment of a public benefit fee from the Developer to the City to offset certain private benefits received by Developer under the DA.

Section 8. The City Clerk shall cause to be recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder a copy of the executed Development Agreement at the time and in the manner provided for in the DA.

Section 9. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption, and prior to the expiration of the fifteen (15) days from the passage thereof, provided however, if Ordinance adopting Zone Change No. 21-006 is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise do not go into effect for any reason, then this Ordinance shall be null and void and have no further force or effect. The Ordinance or a summary of the Ordinance shall be published at least once in the Herald News, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Fontana. Thereafter this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9
th day of May 2023.

READ AND APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:

City Attorney
I, Germaine Key, City Clerk of the City of Fontana, and Ex-Officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is the actual Ordinance adopted by the City Council and was introduced at a regular meeting on the 9 th day of May 2023,
534
5 of 5
and was finally passed and adopted not less than five days thereafter on the 13th day of June 2023 by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

City Clerk of the City of Fontana
Mayor of the City of Fontana
ATTEST:

City Clerk
535
EXHIBIT "A"

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
536
Recorded at request of: )
Clerk, City Council )
City of Fontana )
)
When recorded return to: )
City of Fontana )
8353 Sierra Avenue )
Fontana, CA 92335 )
Attention: City Clerk )
)
Exempt from Filing Fees, Government Code Section 6103
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 22-006

A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF FONTANA
a California Municipal Corporation
(“City”)
and

SHEA PROPERTIES
(“Owner”)
537
Exhibit A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 22-006
This Development Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) is entered into effective on the date it is recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder (hereinafter the “Effective Date”) by and among the City of Fontana, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter, “CITY”), and Shea Properties, (hereinafter, “OWNER”):

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY is authorized to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property, pursuant to Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, OWNER has requested CITY to enter into a development agreement with respect to that certain real property located on the east side of Sierra Avenue approximately 700 feet north of Casa Grande Avenue (APNs: 239-151-09; 239-151-28), as more particularly described on Exhibit “A” and shown on Exhibit “B” to this Agreement (the “Property”), and proceedings have been taken in accordance with the rules and regulations of CITY; and
WHEREAS, by electing to enter into this Agreement, CITY shall bind future City Councils of CITY by the obligations specified herein and limit the future exercise of certain governmental and proprietary powers of CITY; and
WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by CITY and the City Council and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable; and
WHEREAS, the best interests of the citizens of the CITY and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement; and WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of the Development Approvals described in this Agreement, the City Council of the City of Fontana reviewed, considered, and certified the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Sierra Business Center Project of which the Project, as that term is defined below, is a part, and made findings concerning the mitigation measures for the Project, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, DEVELOPER has filed an application for, and the City Council has approved Master Case No. (MCN) No. 21-090, Design Review Project (DRP) No. 21-034, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018), General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21-004 and Zone Change Application (ZCA) No. 21-006 (collectively, the “Project”).

WHEREAS, this Agreement and the Project are consistent with the CITY’s Comprehensive General Plan and any Specific Plan applicable thereto; and 538
WHEREAS, all actions taken and approvals given by CITY have been duly taken or approved in accordance with all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes, and other procedural matters; and WHEREAS, development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide substantial benefits to CITY and will further important policies and goals of CITY; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly development of the Property, ensure progressive installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the development of the Project, and generally serve the purposes for which development agreements under Sections 65864 et seq of the Government Code are intended; and
WHEREAS, OWNER has incurred and will in the future incur substantial costs in excess of the generally applicable requirements in order to assure vesting of legal rights to develop the Property in accordance with this Agreement.

COVENANTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS.

1.1 Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement shall be defined as follows:

1.1.1 “Agreement” means this Development Agreement.

1.1.2 “CITY” means the City of Fontana, a municipal corporation, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California.

1.1.3 “Development” means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including, but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping. “Development” does not include the maintenance, repair, reconstruction or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement or facility after the construction and completion thereof.

1.1.4 “Development Approvals” means all permits and other entitlements for use subject to approval or issuance by CITY in connection with development of the Property including, but not limited to:
(a) conditional use permits and design review permits;
539
(b) tentative parcel maps;
(c) General Plan and Zoning Code amendments; and,
(d) grading, encroachment and building permits.

1.1.5 “Development Exaction” means any requirement of CITY in connection with or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or Development Approval for the dedication of land, the construction of improvements or public facilities, or the payment of fees in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development on the environment or other public interests.

1.1.6 “Development Impact Fee” means a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment, whether characterized as a fee or a tax and whether established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability or imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project, but does not include park “in lieu” fees specified in Government Code Section 66477, fees for processing applications for governmental regulatory actions or approvals, fees collected under development agreements adopted pursuant to Article 2.5 of the Government Code (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 4, or fees collected pursuant to agreements with redevelopment agencies which provide for the redevelopment of property in furtherance or for the benefit of a redevelopment project for which a redevelopment plan has been adopted pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code).

1.1.7 “Development Plan” means the Existing Development Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations, as those terms are defined herein, applicable to development of the Property.

1.1.8 “Effective Date” means the date the ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective.

1.1.9 “Existing Development Approvals” means all Development Approvals approved or issued prior to the Effective Date.

1.1.10 “Existing Land Use Regulations” means all Land Use Regulations in effect on the Effective Date.

1.1.11 “Land Use Regulations” means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of CITY governing the development and use of land, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, timing and phasing of development, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property. “Land Use Regulations” does not include any CITY ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy, governing:
540
(a) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; (b) taxes and assessments;
(c) the control and abatement of nuisances;
(d) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; (e) the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

1.1.12 “Mortgagee” means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of trust or any other security-device lender, and their successors and assigns.

1.1.13 “OWNER” means the persons and entities listed as OWNER on page 1 of this Agreement and their successors in interest to all or any part of the Property.

1.1.14 “Project” means the development of the Property contemplated by the Development Plan as such Plan may be further defined, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

1.1.15 “Property” means the real property described on Exhibit “A” and shown on Exhibit “B” to this Agreement.

1.1.16 “Public Benefit Fee” means the one-time public benefit fee described in Section 4.3 of this Agreement.

1.1.17 “Reservations of Authority” means the rights and authority excepted from the assurances and rights provided to OWNER under this Agreement and reserved to CITY under Section 3.6 of this Agreement.

1.1.18 “Subsequent Development Approvals” means all Development Approvals required subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with development of the Property.

1.1.19 “Subsequent Land Use Regulations” means any Land Use Regulations adopted and effective after the Effective Date of this Agreement.

1.2 Exhibits. The following documents are attached to, and by this reference made a part of, this Agreement:

Exhibit “A” — Legal Description of the Property.

Exhibit “B” — Map showing Property and its location.

2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
541

2.1 Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement. Development of the Property is hereby authorized and shall be carried out only in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

2.2 Ownership of Property. OWNER represents and covenants that it is the legal or equitable owner of the fee simple title to the Property or a portion thereof.

2.3 Term. The initial term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date, and shall continue for a period of ten (10) years thereafter unless this term is modified or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term of this Development Agreement may be extended for an additional five (5) years following expiration of the initial term, provided the following have occurred:
(a) OWNER provides at least ninety (90) days written notice to CITY prior to the expiration of the initial term; and
(b) OWNER shall have obtained building permits for at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of the gross area of the industrial building(s) contemplated by the Project; and
(c) OWNER is not then in uncured default of this Agreement.

The initial term and, if and upon extension, the 5-year extension, shall sometimes be referred to herein collectively as the “Term.”
The term of this Agreement shall not be considered to run and shall toll for any period in which the Project is being challenged or litigated by a third-party.

2.4 Assignment.

2.4.1 Right to Assign. OWNER shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410 et seq., to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such sale, transfer or assignment shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties and obligations arising under or from this Agreement and be made in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent:
(a) No sale, transfer or assignment of any right or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer or assignment of all or a part of the Property.
(b) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer or assignment, or within fifteen (15) business days thereafter, OWNER shall notify CITY, in writing, of such sale, transfer or assignment and shall provide CITY with an executed agreement, in a form substantially similar to that attached hereto as Exhibit ___ which has been deemed reasonably acceptable to CITY, by the purchaser, transferee or assignee and providing 542
therein that the purchaser, transferee or assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties and obligations of OWNER under this Agreement. (c) Any sale, transfer or assignment not made in strict compliance with the foregoing conditions shall constitute a default by OWNER under this Agreement.

Notwithstanding the failure of any purchaser, transferee or assignee to execute the agreement required by Paragraph (b) of this Subsection 2.4.1, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser, transferee or assignee, but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, transferee or assignee until and unless such agreement is executed.

2.4.2 Release of Transferring Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer or assignment, a transferring owner shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement unless such transferring owner is given a release in writing by CITY, which release shall be provided by CITY upon the full satisfaction by such transferring owner of the following conditions:
(a) OWNER no longer has a legal or equitable interest in all or any part of the Property.
(b) OWNER is not then in default under this Agreement.
(c) OWNER has provided CITY with the notice and executed agreement required under Paragraph (b) of Subsection 2.4.1 above. (d) The purchaser, transferee or assignee provides CITY with security equivalent to any security previously provided by OWNER to secure performance of its obligations hereunder.

2.4.3 Subsequent Assignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer or assignment after an initial sale, transfer or assignment shall be made only in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of this Section.

2.4.4 Partial Release of Purchaser, Transferee or Assignee of Industrial or Commercial Lot. A purchaser, transferee or assignee of a lot, which has been finally subdivided as provided for in the Development Plan and for which a commercial or industrial plot plan for development of the lot has been finally approved pursuant to the Development Plan, may submit a request, in writing, to CITY to release said lot from the obligations under this Agreement relating to all other portions of the property. Within thirty (30) days of such request, CITY shall review, and if the above conditions are satisfied shall approve the request for release and notify the purchaser, transferee or assignee in writing thereof. No such release approved pursuant to this Subsection 2.4.4 shall cause, or otherwise affect, a release of OWNER from its duties and obligations under this Agreement.

2.4.5 Termination of Agreement With Respect to Individual Lots Upon Sale to Public and Completion of Construction. The provisions of Subsection 2.4.1 shall not apply to the sale or lease (for a period longer than one year) of any lot which has been finally 543
subdivided and is individually (and not in “bulk”) sold or leased to a member of the public or other ultimate user. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate with respect to any lot and such lot shall be released and no longer be subject to this Agreement without the execution or recordation of any further document upon satisfaction of both of the following conditions:
(a) The lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in “bulk”) sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate user; and,
(b) A certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy has been issued for a building on the lot, and the fees set forth under Section 4 of this Agreement have been paid.

2.5 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by written consent of all parties in the manner provided for in Government Code Section 65868 and the Development Agreement Policies. This provision shall not limit any remedy of CITY or OWNER as provided by this Agreement. Any amendment of this Agreement which has been requested by OWNER shall only be processed and considered by the CITY upon the payment of the applicable processing charge.

2.6 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events:
(a) Expiration of the stated term of this Agreement as set forth in Section

2.3. (b) Entry of a final judgment setting aside, voiding or annulling the adoption of the ordinance approving this Agreement.
(c) The adoption of a referendum measure overriding or repealing the ordinance approving this Agreement.
(d) Completion of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement including issuance of all required occupancy permits and acceptance by CITY or applicable public agency of all required dedications. (e) Termination of this Agreement based on any default of OWNER and following the termination proceedings required by the Development Agreement Policies.

Termination of this Agreement shall not constitute termination of any other land use entitlements approved for the Property. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder except with respect to any obligation to have been performed prior to such termination or with respect to any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement which has occurred prior to such termination or with respect to any obligations which are specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement. Upon such termination, any public facilities and services mitigation fees 544
paid pursuant to Section 4.2 of this Agreement by OWNER to CITY buildings on which construction has not yet begun shall be refunded to OWNER by CITY.

2.7 Notices.
(a) As used in this Agreement, “notice” includes, but is not limited to, the communication of notice, request, demand, approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent, waiver, appointment or other communication required or permitted hereunder. (b) All notices shall be in writing and shall be considered given either: (i) when delivered in person to the recipient named below; or (ii) on the date of delivery shown on the return receipt, after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope as either registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, and postage and postal charges prepaid, and addressed to the recipient named below; or (iii) on the date of delivery shown in the records of the telegraph company after transmission by telegraph to the recipient named below. All notices shall be addressed as follows:

If to CITY:

City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Attn: City Manager
Telephone: (909) 350-7600
Copy to:

Best, Best & Krieger, LLP
2855 E. Guasti Rd, Suite 400
Ontario, CA 91761
Attn: City Attorney
Telephone: (909) 989-8584
Facsimile: (909) 944-1441
If to OWNER:
____________
c/o Shea Properties
Attn: Julie A. Guizan, Esq.
130 Vantis Street, Suite 200
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Telephone: (949) 389-7173
Copy to:
________________
c/o Shea Properties
Attn: Jason Korengold.
130 Vantis Street, Suite 200
545
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Telephone: (949) 389-7000
Copy to:

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis
Attn: Jonathan E. Shardlow, Esq.
2010 Main Street, 8
th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 553-1313
(c) Either party may, by notice given at any time, require subsequent notices to be given to another person or entity, whether a party or an officer or representative of a party, or to a different address, or both. Notices given before actual receipt of notice of change shall not be invalidated by the change.

3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.

3.1 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement including the Reservations of Authority, OWNER shall have a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to the extent of, the Development Plan. The Project shall remain subject to all Subsequent Development Approvals required to complete the Project as contemplated by the Development Plan. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the Development Plan.

3.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise provided under the terms of this Agreement including the Reservations of Authority, the rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations. In connection with any Subsequent Development Approval, CITY shall exercise its discretion in accordance with the Development Plan, and as provided by this Agreement including, but not limited to, the Reservations of Authority. CITY shall accept for processing, review and action all applications for Subsequent Development Approvals, and such applications shall be processed in the normal manner for processing such matters.

3.3 Timing of Development. The parties acknowledge that OWNER cannot at this time predict when or the rate at which phases of the Property will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within the control of OWNER, such as market orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption, completion and other similar factors. Since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v.

City of Camarillo, (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of 546
development to prevail over such parties’ agreement, it is the parties’ intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that OWNER shall have the right to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as OWNER deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment, subject only to any timing or phasing requirements set forth in the Development Plan or the Phasing Plan set forth in Section 3.4. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this Section 3.3 or in this Agreement, City acknowledges that OWNER shall have no obligation to construct the Project and that OWNER shall not be subject to any penalty nor shall City be entitled to any legal or equitable remedy, including, without limitation, a claim for specific performance of this Agreement, if OWNER determines not to construct the Project for any reason.

3.4 Phasing Plan. Development of the Property shall be subject to all timing and phasing requirements established by the Development Plan.

3.5 Changes and Amendments. The parties acknowledge that refinement and further development of the Project will require Subsequent Development Approvals and may demonstrate that changes are appropriate and mutually desirable in the Existing Development Approvals. In the event OWNER finds that a change in the Existing Development Approvals is necessary or appropriate, OWNER shall apply for a Subsequent Development Approval to effectuate such change and CITY shall process and act on such application in accordance with the Existing Land Use Regulations, except as otherwise provided by this Agreement including the Reservations of Authority. If approved, any such change in the Existing Development Approvals shall be incorporated herein as Exhibit “C”, and may be further changed from time to time as provided in this Section. Unless otherwise required by law, as determined in CITY’s reasonable discretion, a change to the Existing Development Approvals shall be deemed “minor” and not require an amendment to this Agreement provided such change does not:
(a) Alter the permitted uses of the Property as a whole; or, (b) Increase the density or intensity of use of the Property as a whole; or,
(c) Increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings; or, (d) Delete a requirement for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes within the Property as a whole; or,
(e) Constitute a project requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code.

3.6 Reservations of Authority.

3.6.1 Limitations, Reservations and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the following Subsequent Land Use Regulations shall apply to the development of the Property.
547
(a) Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature imposed by CITY to cover the estimated actual costs to CITY of processing applications for Development Approvals or for monitoring compliance with any Development Approvals granted or issued.
(b) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure.
(c) Regulations, policies, and rules governing construction standards and specifications including, without limitation, the CITY’s Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, Fire Code and Grading Code. (d) Regulations imposing Development Exactions; provided, however, that no such subsequently adopted Development Exaction shall be applicable to development of the Property unless such Development Exaction is applied uniformly to development, either throughout the CITY or within a defined area of benefit which includes the Property. No such subsequently adopted Development Exaction shall apply if its application to the Property would physically prevent development of the Property for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the Development Plan.

In the event any such subsequently adopted Development Exaction fulfills the same purposes, in whole or in part, as the fees set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, CITY shall allow a credit against such subsequently adopted Development Exaction for the fees paid under Section 4 of this Agreement to the extent such fees fulfill the same purposes. (e) Regulations which may be in conflict with the Development Plan but which are reasonably necessary to protect the public health and safety. To the extent possible, any such regulations shall be applied and construed so as to provide OWNER with the rights and assurances provided under this Agreement. (f) Regulations which are not in conflict with the Development Plan. Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of development of the Property shall be deemed to conflict with the Development Plan and shall therefore not be applicable to the development of the Property.

3.6.2 Subsequent Development Approvals. This Agreement shall not prevent CITY, in acting on Subsequent Development Approvals, from applying Subsequent Land Use Regulations which do not conflict with the Development Plan, nor shall this Agreement prevent CITY from denying or conditionally approving any Subsequent Development Approval on the basis of the Existing Land Use Regulations or any Subsequent Land Use Regulation not in conflict with the Development Plan.

3.6.3 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that this 548
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce. In the event OWNER alleges that such State or Federal laws or regulations preclude or prevent compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, and the CITY does not agree, the OWNER may, at its sole cost and expense, seek declaratory relief (or other similar non-monetary remedies); provided however, that nothing contained in this Section 3.6.3 shall impose on CITY any monetary liability for contesting such declaratory relief (or other similar non-monetary relief).

3.6.4 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that CITY is restricted in its authority to limit its police power by contract and that the foregoing limitations, reservations and exceptions are intended to reserve to CITY all of its police power which cannot be so limited. This Agreement shall be construed, contrary to its stated terms if necessary, to reserve to CITY all such power and authority which cannot be restricted by contract.

3.7 Public Works. If OWNER is required by this Agreement to construct any public works facilities which will be dedicated to CITY or any other public agency upon completion, and if required by applicable laws to do so, OWNER shall perform such work in the same manner and subject to the same requirements as would be applicable to CITY or such other public agency should it have undertaken such construction.

3.8 Provision of Real Property Interests by CITY. In any instance where OWNER is required to construct any public improvement on land not owned by OWNER, OWNER shall at its sole cost and expense provide or cause to be provided, the real property interests necessary for the construction of such public improvements. In the event OWNER is unable, after exercising reasonable efforts, including, but not limited to, the rights under Sections 1001 and 1002 of the Civil Code, to acquire the real property interests necessary for the construction of such public improvements, and if so instructed by OWNER and upon OWNER’S provision of adequate security for costs CITY may reasonably incur, CITY shall negotiate the purchase of the necessary real property interests to allow OWNER to construct the public improvements as required by this Agreement and, if necessary, in accordance with the procedures established by law, use its power of eminent domain to acquire such required real property interests. OWNER shall pay all costs associated with such acquisition or condemnation proceedings. This section 3.8 is not intended by the parties to impose upon the OWNER an enforceable duty to acquire land or construct any public improvements on land not owned by OWNER, except to the extent that the OWNER elects to proceed with the development of the Project, and then only in accordance with valid conditions imposed by the CITY upon the development of the Project under the Subdivision Map Act or other legal authority.

3.9 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by the parties that other public agencies not within the control of CITY possess authority to regulate aspects of the development of the Property separately from or jointly with CITY and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. CITY agrees to cooperate fully, at no cost to CITY, with OWNER in obtaining any required permits or 549
compliance with the regulations of other public agencies provided such cooperation is not in conflict with any laws, regulations or policies of the CITY.

3.11 Vesting Tentative Maps. If any tentative or final subdivision map, or tentative or final parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with development of the Property, is a vesting map under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) and if this Agreement is determined by a final judgment to be invalid or unenforceable insofar as it grants a vested right to develop to OWNER, then and to that extent the rights and protections afforded OWNER under the laws and ordinances applicable to vesting maps shall supersede the provisions of this Agreement. Except as set forth immediately above, development of the Property shall occur only as provided in this Agreement, and the provisions in this Agreement shall be controlling over any conflicting provision of law or ordinance concerning vesting maps.

3.12 Utilities. The Project shall be connected to all utilities necessary to provide adequate water, sewer, gas, electric, and other utility service to the Project. OWNER shall contract with the CITY for CITY-owned or operated utilities serving the Project for such prices and on such terms as may be mutually agreed to between the parties.

4. PUBLIC BENEFITS.

4.1 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that development of the Property will result in substantial public needs which will not be fully met by the Development Plan and further acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers substantial private benefits on OWNER which should be balanced by commensurate public benefits. Accordingly, the parties intend to provide consideration to the public to balance the private benefits conferred on OWNER by providing more fully for the satisfaction of the public needs resulting from the Project.

4.2 Development Impact Fees.

4.2.1 Amount and Components of Fee(s). Development Impact Fees (DIF) shall be paid by OWNER. The DIF amounts to be paid by OWNER shall be the amounts that are in effect at the time such amounts are due. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall affect the ability of the CITY to impose new DIF or amend the amounts of existing DIF. Additionally, nothing contained in this Agreement shall affect the ability of other public agencies that are not controlled by CITY to impose and amend, from time to time, DIF established or imposed by such other public agencies, even though such DIF may be collected by CITY.
550

4.2.2 Time of Payment. The fees required pursuant to Subsection 4.2.1 shall be paid to CITY prior to the issuance of building permits. No fees shall be payable for building permits issued prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement, but the fees required pursuant to Subsection 4.2.1 shall be paid prior to the re-issuance or extension of any building permit for which such fees have not previously been paid.

4.2.3 Credits. OWNER shall be entitled to credit against the fees required pursuant to Subsection 4.2.1 for the dedication of land, the construction of improvements or the payment of fees.

4.3 Public Benefit Fee. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the building, as consideration for the privileges conferred by this Agreement, OWNER shall pay to the City a one-time public benefit fee totaling $849,995.75.

5. FINANCING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

If deemed appropriate, CITY and OWNER will cooperate in the formation of any special assessment district, community facilities district or alternate financing mechanism to pay for the construction and/or maintenance and operation of public infrastructure facilities required as part of the Development Plan. CITY also agrees that, to the extent any such district or other financing entity is formed and sells bonds in order to finance such reimbursements, OWNER may be reimbursed to the extent that OWNER spends funds or dedicates land for the establishment of public facilities. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is acknowledged and agreed by the parties that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring CITY or the City Council to form any such district or to issue and sell bonds.

6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE.

6.1 Periodic Review. The Planning Director shall review this Agreement annually, on or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in order to ascertain the good faith compliance by OWNER with the terms of the Agreement. OWNER shall submit an Annual Monitoring Report, in a form acceptable to the Planning Director, within 30 days after written notice from the Planning Director. The Annual Monitoring Report shall be accompanied by an annual review and administration fee sufficient to defray the estimated costs of review and administration of the Agreement during the succeeding year. The amount of the annual review and administration fee shall be set annually or as deemed necessary by resolution of the City Council.

6.2 Special Review. The City Council may order a special review of compliance with this Agreement at any time. The Planning Director shall conduct such special reviews.

6.3 Procedure.
(a) During either a periodic review or a special review, OWNER shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on OWNER.
551
(b) Upon completion of a periodic review or a special review, the Planning Director shall submit a report to the City Council setting forth the evidence concerning good faith compliance by OWNER with the terms of this Agreement and his or her recommended finding on that issue.
(c) If the City Council finds on the basis of substantial evidence that OWNER has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review shall be concluded.
(d) If the City Council makes a preliminary finding that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Council may modify or terminate this Agreement as provided in Section 6.4 and Section 6.5. Notice of default as provided under Section 7.4 of this Agreement shall be given to OWNER prior to or concurrent with, proceedings under Section 6.4 and Section 6.5.

6.4 Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a finding under Section 6.3, CITY determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, CITY shall give written notice to OWNER of its intention so to do. The notice shall be given at least ten calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing and shall contain:
(a) The time and place of the hearing;
(b) A statement as to whether or not CITY proposes to terminate or to modify the Agreement; and,
(c) Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform OWNER of the nature of the proceeding.

6.5 Hearing on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termination, OWNER shall be given an opportunity to be heard.

OWNER shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on OWNER. If the City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the Agreement, the City Council may terminate this Agreement or modify this Agreement to impose such conditions as are reasonably necessary to obtain compliance with the terms of this Agreement. . The decision of the City Council shall be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6.6 Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a Periodic or Special Review, OWNER is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, CITY shall, upon written request by OWNER, issue a Certificate of Agreement Compliance (“Certificate”) to OWNER stating that after the most recent Periodic or Special Review and based upon the information known or made known to the Planning Director and City Council that (1) this Agreement remains in effect and (2) OWNER is not in default. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, shall state whether the Certificate is issued after a Periodic or Special Review and shall state the anticipated 552
date of commencement of the next Periodic Review. OWNER may record the Certificate with the County Recorder.

Whether or not the Certificate is relied upon by assignees or other transferees or OWNER, CITY shall not be bound by a Certificate if a default existed at the time of the Periodic or Special Review, but was concealed from or otherwise not known to the Planning Director or City Council.

7. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES.

7.1 Remedies in General. It is acknowledged by the parties that CITY would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under this Agreement, or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof.

In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except that CITY shall not be liable in damages to OWNER, or to any successor in interest of OWNER, or to any other person, and OWNER covenants not to sue for damages or claim any damages:
(a) For any breach of this Agreement or for any cause of action which arises out of this Agreement; or
(b) For the taking, impairment or restriction of any right or interest conveyed or provided under or pursuant to this Agreement; or
(c) Arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy or issue regarding the application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Agreement.

7.2 Specific Performance. Except as set forth in Section 3.3, above, the parties acknowledge that money damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate and specific performance and other non-monetary relief are particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available to all parties for the following reasons:
(a) Money damages are unavailable against CITY as provided in Section 7.1 above.
(b) Due to the size, nature and scope of the project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, OWNER may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property or portions thereof. OWNER has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate OWNER for such efforts.
553

7.3 Release. Except for non-damage remedies, including the remedy of specific performance and judicial review as provided for in Section 6.5, OWNER, for itself, its successors and assignees, hereby releases the CITY, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, upon the CITY because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement.

7.4 Termination or Modification of Agreement for Default of OWNER. Subject to the provisions contained in Subsection 6.5 herein, CITY may terminate or modify this Agreement for any failure of OWNER to perform any material duty or obligation of OWNER under this Agreement, or to comply in good faith with the terms of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “default”); provided, however, CITY may terminate or modify this Agreement pursuant to this Section only after providing written notice to OWNER of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by OWNER to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, OWNER has failed to take such actions and cure such default within 60 days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such 60 day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such 60 day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default.

7.5 Termination of Agreement for Default of CITY. OWNER may terminate this Agreement only in the event of a default by CITY in the performance of a material term of this Agreement and only after providing written notice to CITY of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by CITY to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, CITY has failed to take such actions and cure such default within 60 days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such 60 day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such 60 day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default.

8. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION.

8.1 General Plan Litigation. CITY has determined that this Agreement is consistent with its Comprehensive General Plan, as such General Plan existed as of the Effective Date of this Agreement (“General Plan”), and that the General Plan meets all requirements of law. OWNER has reviewed the General Plan and concurs with CITY’s determination.

CITY shall have no liability in damages under this Agreement for any failure of CITY to perform under this Agreement or the inability of OWNER to develop the Property as contemplated by the Development Plan of this Agreement as the result of a judicial determination that on the Effective Date, or at any time thereafter, the General Plan, or portions thereof, are invalid or inadequate or not in compliance with law. 554

8.2 Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement. OWNER shall defend, at its expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against CITY, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Agreement. CITY shall promptly notify OWNER of any such claim, action or proceeding, and CITY shall cooperate in the defense. If CITY fails to promptly notify OWNER of any such claim, action or proceeding, or if CITY fails to cooperate in the defense, OWNER shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless CITY. CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding.

8.3 Indemnity. In addition to the provisions of 8.2 above, OWNER shall indemnify and hold CITY, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors free and harmless from any liability whatsoever, based or asserted upon any act or omission of OWNER, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors and independent contractors, for property damage, bodily injury, or death (OWNER’s employees included) or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, relating to or in any way connected with or arising from the activities contemplated hereunder, including, but not limited to, the study, design, engineering, construction, completion, failure and conveyance of the public improvements, save and except claims for damages arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of CITY. OWNER shall defend, at its expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, CITY, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors in any legal action based upon such alleged acts or omissions.

CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such legal action.

8.4 Environmental Assurances. OWNER shall indemnify and hold CITY, its officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any liability, based or asserted, upon any act or omission of OWNER, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors, and independent contractors for any violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to industrial hygiene or to environmental conditions on, under or about the Property, including, but not limited to, soil and groundwater conditions, and OWNER shall defend, at its expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, CITY, its officers, agents and employees in any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission. CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such action.

8.5 Reservation of Rights. With respect to Sections 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 herein, CITY reserves the right to either (1) approve the attorney(s) which OWNER selects, hires or otherwise engages to defend CITY hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, or (2) conduct its own defense, provided, however, that OWNER shall reimburse CITY forthwith for any and all reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, upon billing and accounting therefor.

8.6 Survival. The provisions of this Sections 8.1 through 8.6, inclusive, shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

9. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION.
555
The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit OWNER, in any manner, at OWNER’s sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property. CITY acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with OWNER and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. CITY will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
(a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. (b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee, has submitted a request in writing to the CITY in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from CITY of any default by OWNER in the performance of OWNER’s obligations under this Agreement.
(c) If CITY timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to OWNER under the terms of this Agreement, CITY shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to OWNER. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement. (d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of OWNER’s obligations or other affirmative covenants of OWNER hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; provided, however, that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by OWNER is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by CITY , the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to CITY’s performance hereunder, and further provided that any sale, transfer or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.4 of this Agreement.

10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

10.1 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder by the City Clerk within the period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. If the parties to this Agreement or their successors in interest amend or cancel this Agreement as provided for herein and in Government Code Section 65868, or if the CITY terminates 556
or modifies the agreement as provided for herein and in Government Code Section 65865.1 for failure of the applicant to comply in good faith with the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the City Clerk shall have notice of such action recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder.

10.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement.

10.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision of the Public Benefits set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, including the payment of the fees set forth therein, are essential elements of this Agreement and CITY would not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the event such provisions are determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever.

10.4 Governing Law; Interpretation. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof.

10.5 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement.

10.6 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural.

10.7 Joint and Several Obligations. If at any time during the term of this Agreement the Property is owned, in whole or in part, by more than one owner, all obligations of such owners under this Agreement shall be joint and several, and the default of any such owner shall be the default of all such owners. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no owner of a single lot which has been finally subdivided and sold to such owner as a member of the general public or otherwise as an ultimate user shall have any obligation under this Agreement except as provided under Section 4 hereof.

10.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of .the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element. 557

10.9 Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party’s right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter.

10.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.

10.11 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, epidemics, pandemics, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the party’s control, (including the party’s employment force), government regulations, court actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions), or other causes beyond the party’s control. If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement and the time for performance by either party of any of its obligations hereunder may be extended by the written agreement of the parties for the period of time that such events prevented such performance, provided that the term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances for more than five (5) years.

10.12 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefited thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited party.

10.13 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and, (c) is binding upon each party and each successor in interest during ownership of the Property or any portion thereof.

10.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had executed the same instrument.

10.15 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by a party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the filing, removal or change of venue to any other court.
558

10.16 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between CITY and OWNER is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such property.

10.17 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

10.18 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or restrict the exercise by CITY of its power of eminent domain.

10.19 Agent for Service of Process. In the event OWNER is not a resident of the State of California or it is an association, partnership or joint venture without a member, partner or joint venturer resident of the State of California, or it is a foreign corporation, then in any such event, OWNER shall file with the Planning Director, upon its execution of this Agreement, a designation of a natural person residing in the State of California, giving his or her name, residence and business addresses, as its agent for the purpose of service of process in any court action arising out of or based upon this Agreement, and the delivery to such agent of a copy of any process in any such action shall constitute valid service upon OWNER. If for any reason service of such process upon such agent is not feasible, then in such event OWNER may be personally served with such process out of this County and such service shall constitute valid service upon OWNER. OWNER is amenable to the process so served, submits to the jurisdiction of the Court so obtained and waives any and all objections and protests thereto. OWNER for itself, assigns and successors hereby waives the provisions of the Hague Convention (Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638).

10.20 Estoppel Certificate. Within thirty (30) business days following a written request by any of the parties, the other party shall execute and deliver to the requesting party a statement certifying that (i) either this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect or there have been specified (date and nature) modifications to the Agreement, but it remains in full force and effect as modified; and (ii) either there are no known current uncured defaults under this Agreement or that the responding party alleges that specified (date and nature) defaults exist. The statement shall also provide any other reasonable information requested. The failure to timely deliver this statement shall constitute a 559
conclusive presumption that this Agreement is in full force and effect without modification except as may be represented by the requesting party and that there are no uncured defaults in the performance of the requesting party, except as may be represented by the requesting party. OWNER shall pay to CITY all costs incurred by CITY in connection with the issuance of estoppel certificates under this Section 10.20 prior to CITY’s issuance of such certificates.

10.21 Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he or she/they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his or her/their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrants and represents that he or she/they has/have the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of its obligations hereunder.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Development Agreement on the last day and year set forth below.

OWNER
______________________
By: ________________________
Shea Properties, Management
Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Its: ________________________
Owner
Dated: ______________________
560

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing
this certificate verifies only the identity of
the individual who signed the document to
which this certificate is attached, and not
the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that
document.

State of California
County of )
On before me,
______________________________
_______
(insert name and title of the
officer)
personally appeared
_________________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature _________________________________ (Seal)
561
CITY:

CITY OF FONTANA, a California
municipal corporation
By:_____________________________
Acquanetta Warren, Mayor
Dated: __________________
By: ________________________________
Matthew C. Ballantyne, City Manager
ATTEST:

By:_____________________________
Germaine McClellan Key, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
________________________________
City Attorney
562

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature _________________________________ (Seal)
563
City of Fontana
Action Report
Planning Commission
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-2077 Agenda Date: 4/18/2023
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
FROM:

Planning Department
TITLE:

Master Case No. 21-090: General Plan Amendment No. 21-004, Zone Change No. 21-006, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018), Design Review No. 21-034, and Development Agreement No. 22-006 - for the development of a 199,999 square foot Industrial Commerce Building.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the information contained in this staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 2023-___, and forward a recommendation to the City Council to:

1. Adopt a resolution to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Statement of Facts and Findings, and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination;

2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 21-004; and,

3. Adopt an ordinance approving Zone Change No. 21-006; and,

4. Adopt an ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 22-006; and,

5. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018); and

6. Adopt a resolution approving Design Review No. 21-034, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval.

APPLICANT:

Sarah Bova
Shea Properties c/o Thienes Engineering
14349 Firestone Boulevard
La Mirada, CA 90638
LOCATION:

The project site is located on the east side of Sierra Avenue and north Casa Grande Avenue (APNs:
0239-151-09 and -38)
REQUEST:

1. General Plan Amendment No. 21-004 - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation for the subject site from Multi Family High Residential (R-MFH) to Light Industrial City of Fontana Page 1 of 6 Printed on 4/12/2023
powered by Legistar™5641
File #: 21-2077 Agenda Date: 4/18/2023
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
(I-L).

2. Zoning Change No. 21-006 - A request to amend the Zoning Map from Multi Family High Residential (R-5) to Light Industrial (M-1).

3. Development Agreement No. 22-006 - An agreement to include the payment of a public benefit fee.

4. Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018) - A request to combine two parcels into one parcel.

5. Design Review No. 21-034 - A request for site and architectural review of a 199,999 square foot industrial commerce building.

PROJECT PLANNER:

Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

A. Existing Land Use Designation:

Project Site
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

A. Project Site Area: Approximately 11.1 acres
B. Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowed: 60 Percent
Provided: 40 Percent
C. Building/Unit Analysis - Industrial Commerce Building Site:

Office Area: Approximately 19,900 square feet
Warehouse Area: Approximately 180,999 square feet
Total Area: Approximately 199,999 square feet
City of Fontana Page 2 of 6 Printed on 4/12/2023
powered by Legistar™5652
File #: 21-2077 Agenda Date: 4/18/2023
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
Office Area: Approximately 19,900 square feet
Warehouse Area: Approximately 180,999 square feet
Total Area: Approximately 199,999 square feet
D. Parking Analysis: Required: 62 Spaces
Provided: 168 Spaces
E. Landscaping: Required: 15 Percent
Provided: 17.45 Percent
ANALYSIS:

The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission review and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the proposed project that includes a general plan amendment, zone change, and a development agreement to facilitate the construction of a 199,999 industrial commerce building on a 11.1-acre site. The applicant has also applied for a tentative parcel map, and design review approval as required for industrial buildings 50,000 square feet or larger in size.

General Plan Amendment No. 21-004 and Zone Change No. 21-006 The applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment to amend the general plan land use designation of the project site to Light Industrial (I-L) and a Zone Change to change the Zoning District Map designation to Light Industrial (M-1). The proposed land use is consistent with the land use designations to the south of the project site.

Development Agreement No. 22-006
The application includes review of development agreement for a public benefit fee ($849,995.75).

The development agreement will be presented to the City Council for consideration.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018)
The proposed industrial commerce project site is currently composed of two (2) parcels. The applicant has filed for a tentative parcel map to consolidate the two (2) parcels into one (1) parcel of approximately 11.1 acres for the proposed development of the industrial commerce building.

Design Review No. 21-034
The industrial commerce building has been designed with office totaling approximately 19,900 square feet. A gate-secured truck court with 34 loading docks are proposed on the south side of the building.

The tower entry ways, clear float glass, painted bands, reveals, decorative panels, articulated window framing with glazing, and pop-outs provide structural and visual interest. The applicant has incorporated various of architectural features on all sides of building that meet or exceed the design guidelines of the Light Industrial Zone.

The project site is physically suitable in size and shape to support the development of the proposed industrial commerce building. The applicable building codes, zoning codes, and fire codes and standards, will make for a safe, attractive, and well-designed project. As proposed, the project is consistent with the standards of the Zoning and Development Code. The proposal has been designed to be compatible with the industrial uses to the south of the site, while also providing a development that has been designed with features (architectural relief, added landscaping, street City of Fontana Page 3 of 6 Printed on 4/12/2023
powered by Legistar™5663
File #: 21-2077 Agenda Date: 4/18/2023
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
development that has been designed with features (architectural relief, added landscaping, street improvements, and lighting), to enhance the character of the area.

The applicant is proposing 12-foot-high water tank that was required by West Valley Water District (WVWD) for the development of the project site. The water tank is required to provide fire protection for the building. The water tank will be painted to match the building. The water tank will be screened by the 14-foot-high screen wall and the dense landscaping.

Circulation/Grading/Walls
Access to and from the project site would be provided from two driveways along Sierra Avenue.

Proposed landscaping would be ornamental in nature and would features trees, shrubs, and droughttolerant accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers. The project site will drain to the detention basin that is located at the southwest corner of the property.

The proposed project will have an eight-foot-high tube steel fence located at the north, east, south side of the property. The project site will have two 12-foot-high tube steel rolling gates and 14-foothigh concrete screen wall located at the south side of the property screening the loading docks.

SB330
As currently zoned, this property would have allowed for the development of 555 residential units. To comply with California’s Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), the project will participate in the City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 30 Article XV “No Net Loss Density Bonus/Replacement Program.” The 555 units will be available as density bonuses for other residential properties throughout the city.

The program will enable, on a first come, first serve basis, density bonuses of up to 20% on other parcels until the 555 residential units are reclaimed within future planned residential projects.

Environmental
Technical Studies
Subsequent to the preparation and distribution of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and made available for public review; this DEIR analyzes the proposed project along with an adjacent proposed project (the overall DEIR is entitled “Sierra Business Center”). The environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR is based in part on specific studies and assessments undertaken for the City by qualified environmental scientists, specialists, and consultants. The Draft EIR addresses aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and services systems, and wildfire. The Draft EIR, technical studies and Final EIR and are made available at the following link: :
<https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-Documents>.

The Final EIR (“Sierra Business Center” EIR) describes the environmental impacts of the project and the mitigation measures to help minimize the project impacts on the environment. The scope of this City of Fontana Page 4 of 6 Printed on 4/12/2023
powered by Legistar™5674
File #: 21-2077 Agenda Date: 4/18/2023
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
the mitigation measures to help minimize the project impacts on the environment. The scope of this Final EIR includes analysis of environmental issues identified and raised in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and during the DEIR comment period.

The Final EIR determined that 16 categories of environmental effects for both projects would have impacts found not to be significant. The categories are: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Services Systems, and Wildfire. The potential impacts from the aforementioned topical areas are fully addressed in the FEIR and can be brought to a level of less than significant with mitigation.

The analysis in the Final EIR and supporting studies indicated that, even with incorporation of proposed mitigation measures, impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and transportation would remain significant and unavoidable. Because there are significant and unavoidable impacts as a result of the proposed project, a Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOC) is required.

Alternatives
As required by CEQA, a DEIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project which meets the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The proposed alternatives for this project include “No Project” and “Reduced Project.” Circulation
The project Draft EIR was circulated for the 45-day public review period beginning on November 10, 2022 and ending on January 3, 2023. The document was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for notification to State agencies for their possible comment. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the DEIR on December 6, 2022, to receive public comments. Prior to the end of the comment period, the City received comments on the DEIR from the following public agencies, organizations, and individuals:

Letter Date Received Organization/Name
Agencies
A January 3, 2023 California Department of Fish and Wildlife B* January 3, 2023 Blum Collins & Ho, LLP
C January 3, 2023 Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
D December 1, 2022 West Valley Water District
* Comment letter was withdrawn on January 17, 2023
The City, along with the environmental consultant, has reviewed and provided responses to the letters/comments above; both are included in the Final EIR. The Final EIR along with errata has been included with the environmental documentation made available at the following link:
<https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-Documents>. To approve the project, the City Council City of Fontana Page 5 of 6 Printed on 4/12/2023
powered by Legistar™5685
File #: 21-2077 Agenda Date: 4/18/2023
Agenda #: PH-C Category: Public Hearing
<https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-Documents>. To approve the project, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations indicating that the project benefits override or outweigh the project’s identified unavoidable environmental impacts.

MOTION:

Approve staff’s recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Vicinity Map

2. Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523

3. Project Plans

4. Existing General Plan Land Use Designation

5. Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation

6. Planning Commission Resolution PC 2023-___

7. Facts and Findings on the EIR

8. Development Agreement

9. Notice of Determination

10. Public Hearing Notice
City of Fontana Page 6 of 6 Printed on 4/12/2023
powered by Legistar™5696
ATTACHMENT NO. 1

VICINITY MAP
DATE: April 18, 2023
CASE: Master Case No. 21-090
General Plan Amendment No. 21-004
Zone Change No. 21-006
Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018)
Design Review No. 21-034
Development Agreement No. 22-006

NORTH

CITY OF FONTANA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Subject Site
5707
8 571
(34 DOCK-HI POSITIONS) 1 199,999SF
(N. A. P.) APN:0239-151-34 OFFICE OFFICE 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 444444444 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 7 7 7 7 77 7 99 8 10 10 10 10 11 11 1212 3 13 (N. A. P.) (N. A. P.) (N. A. P.) (N. A. P.) (N. A. P.) APN:0239-151-33 APN:0239-151-34 APN:0239-151-35 APN:0239-151-36 APN:0239-151-25 (F.H). (F.H). (F.H).
(F.H). (F.H).
(F.H).
(F.H).
(F.H). (F.H). R.O.W. ULTIMATE ON SITE R.O.W. ULTIMATE ON SITE R.O.W. ULTIMATE ON SITE SIDE WALK SIDE WALK UNDER GROUND DETENTION FIRE TRUCK TURN RADIUS FIRE TRUCK TURN RADIUS FIRE TRUCK TURN RADIUS EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV 8' HT. TUBE STEEL FENCE 8' HT. TUBE STEEL FENCE 8' HT. TUBE STEEL FENCE 8' HT. TUBE STEEL FENCE 8' HT. TUBE STEEL FENCE 8 888 LONG TERM BIKE RACKS AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE 1891 SHORT TERM BIKE RACKS AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE 1891 EV CHARGING AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE 1891 10 10 10 10 8 14' HT. CONCRETE SCREEN WALL 14' HT. CONCRETE SCREEN WALL

PROPOSED SEWER LATERAL
(E) SEWER LINE ON STREET
(E) WATER MAIN FUTURE DRIVEWAY EX. R.O.W. FUTURE DRIVEWAY INTERIM SIGNAGE INTERIM SIGNAGE INTERIM STRIPING INTERIM STRIPING NO TRUCK ACCESS SIGN WATER MAIN CONNECTION EX. EP INTERIM STRIPING PROP. 1:30 TAPERING 450' LF SITE DATA TABLE = 12' X 55' TRAILER PARKING SHEET DESCRIPTION: A1 CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN A2 CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN ARCHITECT AO ARCHITECTS 144 NORTH ORANGE STREET ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 CONTACT: DAN MACDAVID 714-639-9860 - PRINCIPAL OR STEPHEN PRZYBYLOWSKI 714-417-1122 - SENIOR DESIGNER [email protected] PROJECT TEAM: VICINITY MAP: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SCOTT PETERSON LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 2883 VIA RANCHEROS WAY FALLBROOK, CA 92028 CONTACT: SCOTT PETERSON OFFICE: 760-842 8993 [email protected] GRAPHIC LEGEND: = OFFICE ENTRY = GRADE DOOR (14'X14') = A.D.A. ACCESSIBLE PRKG. = PROPERTY LINE (SEE CIVIL) = DOCK DOOR & LEVELER = CANOPY OR OVERHANG = CENTERLINE OR GRID LINE = EASEMENT (SEE CIVIL) = TRASH ENCLOSURE W/ SOLID ROOF A.D.A ACCESIBLE = WB-67' TRACTOR TRAILER = ADA PATH OF TRAVEL CIVIL ENGINEER THIENES ENGINEERING, INC. 14349 FIRESTONE BLVD. LA MIRADA, CA 90638 CONTACT: MATT KIM (714) 521-4811 ext.265 [email protected] OWNER SHEA PROPERTIES 130 VANTIS, SUITE 200 ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92656 CONTACTS: STEVE PERALES JASON KORENGOLD A3 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS 1KEY NOTES: PEDESTRIAN PAVING (SEE CIVIL & LANDSCAPE) 2 CONCRETE VEHICULAR PAVING (SEE CIVIL) 3 LANDSCAPE AREA (SEE LANDSCAPE) 4 PER CITY STD. PARKING STALL 9'X19' 67 ACCESS DOOR OR EMERGENCY ACCESS DOOR AUTOMATIC ROLLING GATE (12' HEIGHT) 8 TRASH ENCLOSURE (ADA COMPLIANT) 5 A.D.A. PARKING 9' X _' & 12' X _'- (STATE STD.) 9 TRAILER PARKING 12' X 55' 10 CONCRETE SCREEN WALL (14' HEIGHT) 11 STEEL TUBULAR FENCE (8' HEIGHT) # 12 ADA RAMP (AS REQUIRED) A7 COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD A8 CONCEPTUAL SIGHT LINE SECTION A9 CONCEPTUAL WALL AND FENCE PLAN C1 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN C2 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN L1 LANDSCAPE PLAN P1 LIGHTING CUT SHEETS A4 NOT USED A6 COLORED CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS CONCEPTUAL 3D RENDERING A5 13 OUTDOOR BREAK AREA FOR EMPLOYEES LIGHTING: PACIFIC ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING INC. 8171 E. KAISER BLVD. ANAHEIM, CA 92808 CONTACT: REED STONEBURNER, PE (TEL)714-685-7766 (CELL)714-920-1411 P2 SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN A10 CONCEPTUAL 3D RENDERING = TUBE STEEL FENCE [email protected] C3 TRUCK TURNING EXHIBIT INTERIM DISCLAIMER: ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING OWNER AND OR AGENCY REVIEW AND IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY Shea | Properties SIERRA Industrial Facility FONTANA, CA. aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date 2022-09-20 Job No. 2021-141 Scale 1" = 40' 0' N 40' 80' 120' Scale 40'=1" 42"x30" © 2022 Architects Orange, LLP dba AO These plans are copyright protected. Under such protection unauthorized use is not permitted. These plans shall not be reproduced or used without written permission by AO. sheet plotted:
drawing file name:

Sep/21/2022 @ 1:35 PM
p:\2021-141 shea - sierra, fontana\design\entitlement\2021-141-00 sierra_fontana revised _2022-09-20.dwg CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANA1 See sheet A8 wall & fence plan for water tank elevation ORDINANCE NO. 1891 NOTE: ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS IN ORDINANCE 1891 SHALL BE CONDITION OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 9 572 DISCLAIMER:

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE SUBJECT

TO CHANGE PENDING OWNER AND OR AGENCY REVIEW

AND IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Shea | Properties
SIERRA Industrial Facility FONTANA, CA.
aoarchitects.com
714 / 639-9860
144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 N © 2019 Architects Orange, LLP dba AO These plans are copyright protected. Under such protection unauthorized use is not permitted. These plans shall not be reproduced or used without written permission by AO. sheet plotted:drawing file name:

Jan/25/2022 @ 2:10 PM
p:\2021-141 shea - sierra, fontana\design\entitlement\2021-141-00 sierra_fontana revised 5.dwg DISCLAIMER: ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING OWNER AND OR AGENCY REVIEW AND IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY 0 10 25 Job No. 2021-141
Scale 1" = 25'

CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN
A2
75 Date 2022-01-25
57310
NORTH ELEVATION 0 5 10 30
EAST ELEVATION 0 5 10 30 WEST (SIERRA AVENUE ELEVATION) 0 5 10 30 SOUTH ELEVATION 0 5 10 30

SOUTH ELEVATION
DISCLAIMER:

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE SUBJECTTO CHANGE PENDING OWNER AND OR AGENCY REVIEWAND IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY Shea | Properties
SIERRA Industrial Facility FONTANA, CA.
aoarchitects.com
714 / 639-9860
144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866
© 2019 Architects Orange, LLP dba AO These plans are copyright protected. Under such protection unauthorized use is not permitted. These plans shall not be reproduced or used without written permission by AO. sheet plotted:
drawing file name:

Apr/22/2022 @ 4:13 PM
p:\2021-141 shea - sierra, fontana\design\entitlement\2021-141-00 sierra_fontana revised 8.dwg Job No. 2021-141
Scale Varies
0 5 10 30 0 5 10 30

ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATION AT DOCK WALL
0 5 10 30

ENLARGED WEST ELEVATION ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATION

ROOF TOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE

SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW
A3
Date 2022-04-22

CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
11 574
57512
NOTE: Mullion color to match SW 7073 Network Grey
57613

IVECO IVECO
DISCLAIMER:

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE SUBJECT

TO CHANGE PENDING OWNER AND OR AGENCY REVIEW

AND IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Shea | Properties
SIERRA Industrial Facility FONTANA, CA.
aoarchitects.com
714 / 639-9860
144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866
© 2022 Architects Orange, LLP dba AO These plans are copyright protected. Under such protection unauthorized use is not permitted. These plans shall not be reproduced or used without written permission by AO. sheet plotted:drawing file name:

Sep/20/2022 @ 1:01 PM
p:\2021-141 shea - sierra, fontana\design\entitlement\2021-141-00 sierra_fontana revised _2022-09-19.dwg Job No. 2021-141
Scale Varies
14' HIGH CONCRETE

SCREEN WALL

SIDEWALK

SECTION A-A
0 4 8 24

ENLARGED PLAN
0 4 8 24
A A

ENLARGED ELEVATION AT SCREEN WALL
0 2 4 12
14' HIGH

CONCRETE

SCREEN WALL
12' HIGH

STEEL TUBULAR

ROLLING GATE

VIEW FROM

SIDEWALK

CONCEPTUAL SIGHT LINE SECTION
A7

GRADE AND DOCK DOORS BEYOND

HIDDEN FROM VIEW BEHIND BUILDING
Date 2022-09-20
57714
(34 DOCK-HI POSITIONS) 1 199,999SF
(N. A. P.) APN:0239-151-34 OFFICE OFFICE (N. A. P.) (N. A. P.) (N. A. P.) (N. A. P.) (N. A. P.) APN:0239-151-33 APN:0239-151-34 APN:0239-151-35 APN:0239-151-36 APN:0239-151-25 (F.H). (F.H). (F.H).
(F.H). (F.H).
(F.H).
(F.H).
(F.H). (F.H). R.O.W. ULTIMATE ON SITE R.O.W. ULTIMATE ON SITE R.O.W. ULTIMATE ON SITE SIDE WALK SIDE WALK UNDER GROUND DETENTION FIRE TRUCK TURN RADIUS FIRE TRUCK TURN RADIUS FIRE TRUCK TURN RADIUS EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV 8' HT. TUBE STEEL FENCE 8' HT. TUBE STEEL FENCE 8' HT. TUBE STEEL FENCE 8' HT. TUBE STEEL FENCE 8' HT. TUBE STEEL FENCE LONG TERM BIKE RACKS AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE 1891 SHORT TERM BIKE RACKS AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE 1891 EV CHARGING AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE 1891 14' HT. CONCRETE SCREEN WALL 14' HT. CONCRETE SCREEN WALL

PROPOSED SEWER LATERAL
(E) SEWER LINE ON STREET
(E) WATER MAIN FUTURE DRIVEWAY FUTURE DRIVEWAY INTERIM SIGNAGE INTERIM SIGNAGE INTERIM STRIPING INTERIM STRIPING NO TRUCK ACCESS SIGN WATER MAIN CONNECTION EX. EP INTERIM STRIPING PROP. 1:30 TAPERING 450' LF DISCLAIMER: ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING OWNER AND OR AGENCY REVIEW AND IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY Shea | Properties SIERRA Industrial Facility FONTANA, CA. aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Job No. 2021-141 Scale 1" = 40' 0' N40' 80' 120' Scale 40'=1" 42"x30" © 2022 Architects Orange, LLP dba AO These plans are copyright protected. Under such protection unauthorized use is not permitted. These plans shall not be reproduced or used without written permission by AO. sheet plotted:
drawing file name:

Sep/21/2022 @ 1:35 PM
p:\2021-141 shea - sierra, fontana\design\entitlement\2021-141-00 sierra_fontana revised _2022-09-20.dwg DISCLAIMER:

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING OWNER AND OR AGENCY REVIEW AND IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY 8' HEIGHT TUBE STEEL FENCE (PAINTED BLACK) 12' HEIGHT TUBE STEEL ROLLING GATE (PAINTED BLACK) LEGEND: 14' HEIGHT CONCRETE SCREEN WALL CONCEPTUAL WALL AND FENCE PLANA8 Date 2022-09-20 WATER TANK ELEVATION 15 578
57916
58017
SIERRA AVENUE BUILDING TRUCK YARD P.L. R.O.W. P.L. P.L. BUILDING SETBACK 1 A 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 BB C D EE FF 5 4 A' 'A 8 8 8 H G CRUSHED GRAVEL IN LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN SECURED YARD, TYP. CRUSHED GRAVEL IN LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN SECURED YARD, TYP. 10' I UNDERGROUND CHAMBERS PER CIVIL DWGS. 3'-0" BERM8 FT. TUBE STEEL FENCE 8 FT. TUBE STEEL FENCE 14 FT. HEIGHT CONC. SCREEN WALL 6' HT. TUBE STEEL BARRIER FENCE SURROUNDING BASIN 8 FT. TUBE STEEL FENCE INTERIM STRIPING PER CIVIL PLAN. INTERIM SIGNAGE FUTURE DRIVEWAY INTERIM STRIPING PER CIVIL PLAN. INTERIM STRIPING PER CIVIL PLAN. TREES SYMBOL TREE NAME QTY. WUCOLS PROPOSED STREET TREE ALONG SIERRA AVENUE PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD', LONDON PLANE TREE 24" BOX SIZE 10 M PARKING LOT SHADE TREE RHUS LANCEA, AFRICAN SUMAC 24" BOX SIZE ALTERNATE: ULMUS PARVIFOLIA, EVERGREEN ELM 17 L VERTICAL TREE AGAINST BUILDING BRACHYCHITON POPULNEUS, BOTTLE TREE & PODOCARPUS G. 'COLUMNAR', FERN PINE 15 GAL. SIZE & 24" BOX SIZE 34 L/M PROJECT ENTRY FLOWERING TREES CERCIDIUM F. 'DESERT MUSEUM', PALO VERDE 24" BOX SIZE 5 L BACKDROP STREET TREES GEIJERA PARVIFOLIA, AUSTRALIAN WILLOW 24" BOX SIZE 20 M TYP. PROPERTY LINE TREE QUERCUS ILEX, HOLLY OAK 15 GAL. SIZE ALTERNATE: TRISTANIA CONFERTA, BRISBANE BOX 28 L FLOWERING ACCENT TREE LAGERSTROEMIA I. 'WATERMELON RED', CRAPE MYRTLE 36" BOX SIZE 10 M PINUS ELDARICA, MONDELL PINE 24" BOX SIZE 15 L PLATANUS RACEMOSA, CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE 24" BOX SIZE. 13 M PLANTING LEGEND SHRUBS - SHRUBS SHALL BE CHOSEN FROM THE FOLLOWING: SYMBOL SHRUB NAME WUCOLS DODONAEA VISCOSA 'PURPUREA', HOPSEED BUSH 5 GAL. SIZE M LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS, TEXAS RANGER 5 GAL. SIZE L WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA, COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL. SIZE L ROSMARINUS 'TUSCAN BLUE', ROSEMARY SHRUB 5 GAL. SIZE L CALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN', DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH 5 GAL. SIZE L LIGUSTRUM TEXANUM, TEXAS PRIVET 5 GAL. SIZE M 1. NEW STREET TREE IN PARKWAY PER LEGEND. 2. PROPOSED NEW PARKING LOT SHADE TREE PER LEGEND. 3. VERTICAL TREE ALONG BUILDING PER LEGEND. 4. FLOWERING ACCENT TREE AT FOCAL AREAS PER LEGEND. 5. PROPERTY LINE TREE PER LEGEND. 6. FOUNDATION SHRUBS ALONG BUILDING PER LEGEND. 7. ALL TREES 4' OR LESS TO CURB, WALKWAY OR WALL SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH DEEP ROOT BARRIER PANELS. 18" MIN. DEPTH X 10' WIDE PANEL. 8. ENHANCED PAVING AT BUILDING ENTRY. DESIGN KEY NOTES: REFERENCE KEY NOTES: A. SIDEWALK PER CIVIL. B. TRASH ENCLOSURE PER ARCH. C. CONC. PAD AT MAN DOOR PER ARCH. D. WATER TANK FOR PROPOSED FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM. E. GATE PER ARCH. F. RAMP PER CIVIL. G. DETENTION BASIN PER CIVIL. H. TRANSFORMER PER CIVIL. I. TYP. 6'-0" HEIGHT TUBE STEEL FENCE AROUND DETENTION BASIN WITH GATE FOR MAINTENANCE R/W SIERRA AVENUE 1 10 6 9 8 3 7 5 2 4 1. TYPICAL STREET CURB 2. PARKWAY PLANTING PER LEGEND 3. PROPOSED STREET TREE IN PARKWAY PER LEGEND 4. 6'-0" CONC. SIDEWALK PER CIVIL PLAN 5. ACCENT PLANTING PER LEGEND 6. BACKDROP TREE PER LEGEND 7. PARKING LOT SHADE TREE PER LEGEND 8. ON-SITE PARKING 9. EVERGREEN SCREEN SHRUB PER LEGEND 10. 3'-0" BERM SECTION 'A-A' KEY NOTES: GROUND COVER AND SHRUB MASSES SYMBOL GROUND COVER/SHRUB MASS NAME WUCOLS ROSMARINUS O. 'PROSTRATUS', CREEPING ROSEMARY 1 GAL. SIZE @ 30" O.C. L LANTANA 'DWARF YELLOW', YELLOW LANTANA 1 GAL. SIZE @ 24" O.C. L SALVIA GREGGII, AUTUMN SAGE 1 GAL. SIZE @ 36" O.C. L MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS, DEER GRASS 1 GAL. SIZE @ 42" O.C. M LONICERA J. 'HALLIANA', HALL'S HONEYSUCKLE 1 GAL. SIZE @ 24" O.C. L SALVIA CLEVELANDII, CLEVELAND SAGE 5 GAL. SIZE @ 48" O.C. L EROSION CONTROL GROUND COVER AT BASIN SLOPES BACCHARIS PILULARIS, COYOTE BUSH 1 GAL. SIZE @ 42" O.C. L NOTE: APPLY A 3" MIN. LAYER OF MULCH TOP DRESSING WITHIN ALL PLANTING AREAS. A SAMPLE IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO APPLICATION.DETENTION BASIN BOTTOM SHALL RECEIVE A HYDROSEED MIX CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING: · ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM 1.0 LBS/ ACRE · ESCHSCHOLZIA CAESPITOSA 1.0 LBS/ ACRE · JUNCUS BUFONIUS 1.0 LBS/ ACRE · LEYMUS TRITICODIDESRIO 6.0 LBS/ ACRE · DESCHAMSIA DESPITOSA 4.0 LBS/ ACRE · FESTUCA RUBRA 'MOLATE' 10.0 LBS/ ACRE · HORDEUM BRACHYANTHERUM 6.0 LBS/ ACRE · MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS 1.0 LBS/ ACRE · MUHLENBERGIA MICROSPERMA 3.0 LBS/ ACRE · HORDEUM DEPRESSUM 3.0 LBS/ ACRE SCOTT PETERSON LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, INC. 2883 VIA RANCHEROS WAY FALLBROOK, CA 92028 PH: 760-842-8993 SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" 0 40' 80' 120' NORTH UPDATE 21 SEPTEMBER 2022 SIERRA INDUSTRIAL FACILITY CITY OF FONTANA, CA CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L-1 WUCOLS PLANT FACTOR THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN 'WUCOLS' REGION '4-SOUTH INLAND'. H = HIGH WATER NEEDS M = MODERATE WATER NEEDS L = LOW WATER NEEDS VL= VERY LOW WATER NEEDS · SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH EROSION CONTROL GROUND COVER PER LEGEND, AND MULCH MATERIAL WITH 'BINDER' MATERIAL SHALL BE APPLIED FOR EROSION CONTROL. · ROCK RIP-RAP MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED WHERE DRAIN LINES CONNECT TO INFILTRATION AREAS. · ALL UTILITY EQUIPMENT SUCH AS BACKFLOW UNITS, FIRE DETECTOR CHECKS, FIRE CHECK VALVE, AND AIR CONDITIONING UNITS WILL BE SCREENED WITH EVERGREEN PLANT MATERIAL ONCE FINAL LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN DETERMINED. GENERAL NOTES: THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN. IT IS BASED ON PRELIMINARY INFORMATION WHICH IS NOT FULLY VERIFIED AND MAY BE INCOMPLETE. IT IS MEANT AS A COMPARATIVE AID IN EXAMINING ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND ANY QUANTITIES INDICATED ARE SUBJECT TO REVISION AS MORE RELIABLE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE. IRRIGATION NOTE: THE PROJECT WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH A LOW FLOW IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONSISTING OF ET WEATHER BASED SMART CONTROLLER, LOW FLOW ROTORS, BUBBLER AND/ OR DRIP SYSTEMS USED THROUGHOUT. THE IRRIGATION WATER EFFICIENCY WILL MEET OR SURPASS THE CURRENT STATE MANDATED AB-1881 WATER ORDINANCE. CONCEPTUAL PLAN NOTE: SCHEMATIC SECTION 'A-A' CHARACTER STUDY SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0239-151-38 & 0239-151-09-0 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 21-018 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.:
18 581
Shea | Properties
SIERRA Industrial Facility FONTANA, CA. aoarchitects.com 714 / 639-9860 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 Date 6/28/2021 Job No. 2021-141 Scale EXP. 6-30-22 E E P ET S T TA RREG DEE IS ED R U G OF CALI RL L E A C T R I CFO IA N TO No. E 17290E R B N I E NE OFE S R ION . C AL EN RE NR S 8171 East Kaiser Boulevard Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 714/685-7766 714/685-7799 Fax PACIFIC ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING LIGHTING CUTSHEETS SHEET E0.3 0' 40' 80' 120' Scale: NTS 19 582
20 583
58421
22 585
23 586
24 587
25 588
Sierra Business Center
Shea Project Proposed GPA No. 21-004
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Source(s): ESRI, Nearmap Imagery (2021), SB County (2020), City of Fontana (2021)

DUNCAN CANYON RD
SIERRA

AVE SIERRA

AVE DUNCAN CANYON RD
0 175 350 700
Feet

E X I S T I N G

P R O P O S E D

R-PC R-PC
C-C
C-G
C-G
R-M
R-MFH
R-MFH
I-L
P-UC
R-SF

R-PC R-PC
C-C
C-G
C-G
R-M
I-L
I-L
I-L
P-UC
R-SF
C-G
#

SHEA PROJECT SITE
#

SHEA PROJECT SITE
C I T
Y

O F F O N T
A N A
C I T
Y

O F R I A L T
O
C I T
Y

O F F O N T
A N A
C I T
Y

O F R I A L T
O
C I T
Y

O F R I A L T
O
Legend
City of Fontana
General Plan Land Use Designations
R-MFH Multi Family High Residential
R-PC Residential Planned Community
R-SF Single Family Residential
R-M Medium Density Residential
C-C Community Commercial
C-G General Commercial
I-L Light Industrial
P-UC Public Utility
58926
Sierra Business Center
Shea Project Proposed ZC No. 21-006
Lead Agency: City of Fontana SCH No. 2022030544
Source(s): ESRI, Nearmap Imagery (2021), SB County (2020), City of Fontana (2021)

DUNCAN CANYON RD
SIERRA
AVE

E X I S T I N G

DUNCAN CANYON RD
SIERRA
AVE

P R O P O S E D
0 175 350 700
Feet
SP SP
SP
C-2
C-2
R-2
R-5
R-5
M-1
P-UC
R-1
C-2
SP SP
SP
C-2
C-2
R-2
M-1
P-UC
R-1
M-1
Legend
City of Fontana
Zoning Classifications
R-5 Multi Family High Density Residential
R-PC Residential Planned Community
R-1 Single Family Residential
R-2 Medium Density Residential
C-2 General Commercial
M-1 Light Industrial
P-UC Public Utility Corridor
SP Specific Plan #27
#

SHEA PROJECT SITE
C I T
Y

O F F O N T
A N A
C I T
Y

O F R I A L T
O
C I T
Y

O F F O N T
A N A
C I T
Y

O F R I A L T
O
C I T
Y

O F R I A L T
O
M-1
#

SHEA PROJECT SITE
59027
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
RESOLUTION PC NO. 2023-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

FONTANA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A

RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2022030544), THE

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, THE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND THE

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS, AND DIRECT STAFF TO
FILE THE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION; AND FORWARD TO THE

CITY COUNCIL A RECOMMENDATION OF ADOPTION OF A
RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21-
004, ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE CHANGE
NO. 21-006, ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 22-006 AND ADOPTION OF A
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20523
(TPM NO. 21-018) AND DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-034 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 199,999 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCE CENTER ON A 11.1 ACRE SITE.

WHEREAS, the City received an application on September 22, 2021, a request to construct an industrial commerce facility including General Plan Amendment No. 21-004, Zoning Code Amendment No. 21-004, Development Agreement No. 22-006, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018), and Design Review No. 21-034..

Project Applicant: Sarah Bova
Shea Properties c/o Thienes Engineering
14349 Firestone Boulevard
La Mirada, CA 90638

Project Location: The project site is located on the east side of Sierra Avenue and north Casa Grande Avenue (APNs: 0239-151-09 and -38)
Project Site Area: 11.1 adjusted gross acres
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2023, the Planning Commission received a staff report and all the information, evidence, and public testimony and considered General Plan Amendment No. 21-004, Zoning Code Amendment No. 21-006, Tentative Parcel Map 20523 (TPM No. 21-018), Design Review No. 21-034 and Development Agreement No. 22-006; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Fontana wishes to protect and preserve the quality of the life throughout the City, through effective land use and planning; and, WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final EIR (“Sierra Business Center”), consisting of the comments received during the 45-day public review and comment 59128
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 2 of 24 ends

period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft EIR, and an errata making minor, non-substantive changes to the Final EIR. For the purposes of this Resolution, the “EIR” shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR, together with the other sections of the Final EIR; and, WHEREAS, based on the information contained in Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 2022030544), the EIR has been circulated per the CEQA guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, as currently zoned, this property would have allowed for the development of 555 residential units. To comply with California’s Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), the project will participate in the City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 30 Article XV “No Net Loss Density Bonus/Replacement Program.” The 555 units will be available as density bonuses for other residential properties throughout the city. The program will enable, on a first come, first serve basis, density bonuses of up to 20% on other parcels until the 555 residential units are reclaimed within future planned residential projects; and,
WHEREAS, Conditions of Approval have been prepared and are attached hereto as Exhibit “A and B” for Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018) and Design Review No. 21-034; and,
WHEREAS, the owners of property within 660 feet of the proposed project site were notified via public hearing notice mailer prior to the Public Hearing; and a notice of the public hearing was published in the Fontana Herald newspaper on April 7, 2023, at City Hall and at the project site; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission carefully considered all information pertaining to the proposed project, including the staff report, findings, and all the information, evidence, and testimony presented at its public hearing on April 18, 2023; and, WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 21-004, Zoning Code Amendment No. 21-006, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018), Design Review No. 21-034 and Development Agreement No. 22-006 are supported by goals and policies of the General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission RESOLVES as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. The City of Fontana Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for General Plan Amendment No. 21-004 in accordance with Section 30-31 “Purpose” of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code:
59229
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 3 of 24 ends

Finding: The purpose and intent is to keep an updated General Plan to reflect the current desires and needs of the citizens for the long-term growth of the City.

Findings of Fact: The applicant is proposing to change the General Plan Land Use Designation of the site from Multi Family High Residential (RMFH) to Light Industrial (I-L). This would allow for the construction of a 199,999 square foot industrial commerce building. This development will assist with growing industrial commerce demand in the City of Fontana and the surrounding area. Additionally, properties to the south have a General Plan designation of Light Industrial.

Section 3. The City of Fontana Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for Zone Change No. 21-006 in accordance with Section 30-40 “Purpose” of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code:

Findings of Fact: The applicant is proposing to change the zoning designation from Multi Family High Residential (R-5) to Light Industrial (M-1). This would allow for the construction of a 199,999 square foot industrial commerce building. This development will assist with growing industrial commerce demand in the City of Fontana and the surrounding area. The proposed zone change will provide consistency with the zoning and existing development to the south of the subject site and will provide safe and attractive development.

Section 4. The City of Fontana’s Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018) in accordance with Section No. 26-218(d) “Processing of application,” of the Fontana Subdivision Code:

Finding No. 1: That the proposed map is consistent with the city's general plan and any applicable specific plan.

Findings of Fact: Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018) is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site, which is Light Industrial (I-L). The proposed lot size with the consolidation will meet the lot standards of the Light 59330
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 4 of 24 ends

Industrial zoning district. The tentative parcel map is a request to consolidate two (2) existing parcels (APNs: 0239-151-09 and -38) into one (1) parcel for the construction of a concrete tilt-up industrial commerce building totaling approximately 199,999 square feet, which is a land use permitted in the General Plan.

Finding No. 2: That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.

Findings of Fact: The site design for Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 is consistent with the General Plan. As indicated in the Planning Commission staff report, the lot size and street configuration conform to the requirements of the Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design and Community Mobility and Circulation Elements of the City of Fontana General Plan, Subdivisions (Chapter No. 26) Chapter of the City of Fontana Municipal Code and the Light Industrial development standards. The project includes all on-site and offsite improvements to meet all the General Plan goals and objectives as well as all of the zoning requirements of the M-1 zone. Improvements consist of public sewer, public storm drain, streets, gutter, sidewalks, drainage, and grading to provide a safe and well-designed project for the area.

Finding No. 3: The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed.

The area surrounding the project site has been developed with of industrial, storage, commercial, and warehouses uses.

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing CEQA.

Based on the information in the EIR, the project does not represent significant effect on the environment as a result of project implementation. The mitigation measures establish within 59431
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 5 of 24 ends

the EIR will reduce any significant impacts to the surrounding area. The proposed use is anticipated based on the Land Use Designation and the Zoning and Development Code.

Finding No. 5: The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems.

Findings of Fact: The design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 will not cause public health problems. The proposed development complies with the Zoning and Development Code and General Plan.

Improvements include connection to the public sewer, connection to the public storm drain, sidewalks, drainage, and grading to provide a safe and well-designed project for the area. Therefore, the project shall promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community.

Finding No. 6: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The planning commission may approve a map if it finds that alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to easements previously acquired by the public.

Findings of Fact: The design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018) and public improvements will not conflict with access easements acquired by the public. Access to and from the project site would be provided from two driveways, both on Sierra Avenue. The truck traffic will come in and out from Sierra Avenue and vehicle traffic will use the entrances from Sierra Avenue.

Section 5. The City of Fontana Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for a Design Review No. 21-034 in accordance with Section 30-120 “Findings for approval” of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code:

Finding No. 1: The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan.

Findings of Fact: The proposed General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial (I-L) is intended for employee-intensive uses, including business parking, research and development, technology centers, corporate and support office uses, clean industry, supporting retail uses, truck and equipment sales and related services. The proposed industrial commerce facility provides for a consistent blend of well-designed industrial development in the immediate vicinity.

Finding No. 2: This proposal meets or exceeds the criteria contained in Chapter 30 of the Zoning and Development Code and will
59532
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 6 of 24 ends

result in an appropriate, safe and desirable development promoting the public health, safety, and welfare of the community.

Findings of Fact: The project, as proposed, is a request for the Planning Commission to review and forward recommendation of approval for the site and architectural design for the proposed 199,999 square foot industrial commerce center. The industrial commerce facility has been designed with office totaling approximately 19,900 square feet. A gate-secured truck court with 34 loading docks are proposed on the south side of the building. The use of glazing, parapets, canopies, accent colors and painted banding will add structural and visual interest to the building. Additionally, variations to the building face and roof lines will be architecturally pleasing. Access to and from the project site would be provided from two driveways on Sierra Avenue. Proposed landscaping would be ornamental in nature and would features trees, shrubs, and drought-tolerant accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers.

The project will be an appropriate and desirable development for the area. With the requested associated general plan amendment and zone change from Multi Family High Residential to Light Industrial, the project will meet or exceed the criteria contained in the Design Review section of the Fontana Zoning and
Development Code.

The proposed project as described in the above findings will result in the construction of a 199,999 square foot industrial commerce center. All new improvements such as driveways, streets, sidewalks, drive aisles, and setbacks will comply with all applicable building, zoning, and fire codes and standards, and therefore, shall promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community.

Finding No. 3: The proposal is in its design and appearance is aesthetically and architecturally pleasing while enhancing the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Findings of Fact: As indicated in Finding No. 1, the proposed industrial commerce facility has been designed with the use of glazing, parapets, canopies, accent colors and painted banding will add structural and visual interest to the building. Additionally, variations to the building face and roof lines will be architecturally pleasing. Access to and from the project site would be provided from two driveways one on Sierra Avenue. Proposed landscaping would be
ornamental in nature and would features trees, shrubs, and drought-tolerant accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers. The proposed building will be compatible with the 59633
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 7 of 24 ends

industrial commerce centers south of the site and will provide a quality, aesthetically please development for the surrounding neighborhood.

Finding No. 4: The site improvements are appropriate and will result in a safe, well designed facility.

Findings of Fact: The proposed development complies with the Zoning and Development Code standards. The improvements include sewer and storm drain systems, site circulation, parking, landscaping, parks, lighting, driveways, sidewalks and decorative paving.

Section 6. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, any oral or written comments received, and the administrative record prior to making any decision on the proposed project. The Planning Commission finds that the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contain a complete and accurate reporting of all the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The Planning Commission further finds that the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been completed in compliance with the 2019 Local CEQA Guidelines and the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2022030544), pursuant to Section 15126 through 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and Section 8.1 of the City of Fontana’s 2019 Local CEQA Guidelines and direct staff to file the Notice of Determination and adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 21-004, adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Code Amendment No. 21-006, adopt an ordinance approved Development Agreement No. 22-006 and adopt a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018) and Design Review No. 20-034, subject to the findings as indicated herein and the Conditions of Approval, have been prepared and are attached hereto as Exhibit “A and B”.

Section 8. Resolution Regarding Custodian of Record: The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at the Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

Section 9. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Fontana, California, at a regular meeting held on this 18th day of April, 2023. 59734
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 8 of 24 ends

City of Fontana
___________________________
Cathline Fort, Chairperson
ATTEST:

I, Ralph Thrasher, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Fontana, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting thereof, held on this 18th day of April 2023, by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Ralph Thrasher, Secretary
59835
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 9 of 24 ends

EXHIBIT “A”

CITY OF FONTANA

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: Master Case No. (MCN) 21-090 April 18, 2023
Tentative Parcel Map No. 20523 (TPM No. 21-018)
LOCATION: The project site is located on the east side of Sierra Avenue and north Casa Grande Avenue (APNs: 0239-151-09 and -38)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

1. The rights and privileges granted by this project shall not become effective, nor shall the applicant commence the use for which this project is granted, until both of the following have occurred:

B. All requirements of the Fontana City’s Municipal Code shall be complied with.

C. All Conditions of Approval imposed on this project have been fulfilled.

Page 10 of 24 ends

licenses, and amendments. The City of Fontana shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City of Fontana shall cooperate in the defense.

In the event of any such third-party action or proceeding, the City shall have the right to retain its own separate legal counsel to defend the interests of the City.

The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for such legal fees and costs, in their entirety, including actual attorneys’ fees, which may be incurred by the City in defense of such action or proceeding. This indemnification shall also include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, the City and/or any parties bringing such forth.

8. In the event that one or more of the Conditions of Approval for this project needs to be amended and/or deleted due to health, safety or welfare concerns, the City 60037
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 11 of 24 ends

Manager is authorized to approve or conditionally approve such amendment/deletion, provided that City Manager shall bring such proposed amendment/deletion to the City Council at the next available meeting for City Council ratification, but in no event later than sixty (60) days following the City Manager’s decision. The noticing of such City Council meeting for possible ratification shall be pursuant to Section No. 30-23 of the Municipal Code.

9. The applicant shall post a publicly visible sign on the project site with the telephone number and 24-hour point of contact for dust, noise and construction complaints. The 24-hour point of contact shall be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and have authority to commit additional assets to control dust, or respond to construction complaints after hours, on weekends and on holidays.

Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays.

10. The applicant shall meet all guidelines identified in the Industrial Commerce Sustainability Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1891).

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:

13. The Applicant shall maintain all improvements and utilities within the public rightof-way, including street sweeping, prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy by the City.

14. All driveway approaches along Sierra Avenue shall be restricted by right in and right out only and no median breaks will be provided.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT

Page 12 of 24 ends

17. The Applicant shall submit and gain approval of a final drainage study prepared in accordance with the County of San Bernardino Hydrology Manual and Fontana Master Plan of Drainage.

PRIOR TO MAP RECORDATION

18. The applicant shall provide a Land Improvement Agreement, with accompanying security. The agreement shall be executed on City-provided forms.

19. Applicant shall pay the Inland Empire Utilities Agency approved extra-territorial service fee.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTIOM PERMITS

20. The Applicant shall record all map’s and easements as required for the development.

21. The Applicant shall submit engineered improvement plans and obtain full approval. All required public improvements, including but not limited to streets, storm drainage systems, sewers, traffic signals, decorative streetlights, striping, signs, landscape, and any required traffic control and/or detour plans. All plans shall conform to City Standards and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

22. The Applicant/Engineer to provide the City of Fontana with As Built/Record Drawings for all public improvement plans.

24. The Applicant/Engineer shall set survey monuments as required by the map and corner records must be recorded with the County.

26. All sewers shall be video inspected by applicant/contractor. Sewer video shall include clean-out connection, clean-out to lateral segment, lateral, and main line.

Page 13 of 24 ends

27. All storm drains shall be video inspected by applicant/contractor. Storm drain video shall include main lines and laterals. Applicant shall provide a copy of the video on DVD or flash drive to inspection staff. Videos to be inspected and approved by City Inspector. If removal and replacement of any utility is required, a subsequent video of the repair will be required.

BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT:

29. The Parcel Map shall record prior to the issuance of any permits.

END OF CONDITIONS
60340
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 14 of 24 ends

EXHIBIT “B”

CITY OF FONTANA

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: Master Case No. (MCN) 21-090 DATE: April 18, 2023 Design Review (DRP) No. 21-034
LOCATION: The project site is located on the east side of Sierra Avenue and north Casa Grande Avenue (APNs: 0239-151-09 and -38)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

1. The rights and privileges granted by this project shall not become effective, nor shall the applicant commence the use for which this project is granted, until both of the following have occurred:

B. All requirements of the Fontana City’s Municipal Code shall be complied with.

C. All Conditions of Approval imposed on this project have been fulfilled.

Page 15 of 24 ends

4. This project shall comply with all applicable provisions, regulations and development standards of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code.

5. The applicant shall meet all guidelines identified in the Industrial Commerce Sustainability Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1891).

6. The proposed water shall be painted to match the proposed building.

B. Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation 60542
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 16 of 24 ends

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

C. 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.

9. The construction contractor shall use the following source controls at all times:

B. The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is properly operating (tuned-up) and lubricated, and that mufflers are working adequately.

C. Have only necessary equipment onsite.

E. Install portable noise barriers, including solid structures and noise blankets, between the active noise sources and the nearest noise receivers.

F. Temporarily enclose localized and stationary noise sources.

G. Store and maintain equipment, building materials, and waste materials as far as practical from as many sensitive receivers as practical.

11.The Applicant shall provide uplighting with the landscape area along frontage of Sierra Avenue, to satisfaction of the Director of Planning or his/her designee. 60643
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 17 of 24 ends

13.The current development fees must be paid prior to issuance of building/construction permits.

15.There shall be five (5) feet of landscaping and two (2) feet of decorative concrete for passengers to step out of vehicles, total of seven (7) feet, at end of automobile parking aisles.

18.Sidewalks shall be provided for all new developments in accordance with the city’s circulation element of the General Plan.

19.Two (2) bicycle parking racks or secured bicycle lockers shall be provided for all nonresidential developments.

20.All parking stalls shall be clearly marked by double striping pavement painting.

Parking stall sizes shall be measured from the mid-point between the striping. No parking spaces shall be designated in an industrial parking facility, except for disabled persons parking, van pool, carpool, or any other designated parking as required by law.

21.All signs shall be reviewed under a separate Design Review Sign application.

22.All roof-mounted equipment and ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view from adjacent properties and streets to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
60744
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 18 of 24 ends

24.All landscaping shall be healthy and maintained in a reasonable manner as determined by the Director of Planning or his/her designee.

26.The transformer shall be screened by a solid screen wall and mature, dense landscaping, and not visible from the public right-of-way.

28.There shall be no refrigerated uses on site; unless, a future tenant follows any applicable studies/memorandums to amend this Condition of Approval.

29.Development fees and Planning Department final inspection fee must be paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy.

30.Applicant shall pay all applicable service fees pursuant to the City of Fontana Municipal Code.

31.The applicant/developer/property owner shall provide up-lighting on the perimeter and up-light proposed trees to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and his/her designee.

33.Adhere to the City standard of one foot candle minimum for all entrances, exits, pedestrian paths, parking lots, and activity areas. Reflect all light fixtures on the site plan. All areas shall be illuminated during all hours of darkness and all luminaries utilized shall be vandal-resistant fixtures. The type of lighting shall be fluorescent, white L.E.D.s or metal halide. Provide a photometric layout under separate exhibit to ensure the minimum light standard is met.

34.Incorporate an anti-graffiti coating onto the exterior of all proposed block walls to discourage graffiti.
60845
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 19 of 24 ends

35.Incorporate hostile landscape into the interior, perimeter landscape setback areas to discourage subjects from accessing the site.

36.Adhere to the Standard Building Security Specifications of the Fontana Police Department.

Prior To Issuance of Grading Permit

ENGINEERING LAND DEVELOPMENT:

38.All Conditions of Approval issued to the project number MCN No. 21-090 shall apply.

39.Applicant shall pay all applicable service fees pursuant to the City of Fontana Municipal Code.

BUILDING & SAFETY:

40.The applicant shall design the project to show compliance with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable:

43.The applicant shall verify that any temporary building, trailer, commercial coach, etc. installed and/or used in connection with a construction project complies with FMC Chapter 5 Article XIV.
60946
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 20 of 24 ends

45.The applicant shall comply with the following grading requirements:

A. Grading plans shall be submitted to and approved by Building & Safety. The grading plans shall indicate all site improvements and shall indicate complete drainage paths of all drainage water run-offs.

B. All drainage water shall drain via approved methods to an approved location, such as a public street, a public drainage system, etc.

C. Drainage water shall not cross over a public sidewalk. Drainage water may, however, cross under a sidewalk if an approved drainage structure is used.

D. A recorded drainage acceptance agreement is required from adjoining property(s) receiving flows from this property.

E. No water course or natural drainage shall be obstructed.

F. Minimum slope or grade for ALL drainage structures shall be one half (0.50) percent for concrete and one (1.0) percent for all other, or as otherwise approved by the Building Official.

I. The grading plans shall, as a minimum, contain sections at all lot lines and/or permit boundary lines. These sections shall clearly indicate:

2. The ground cover/finished surface material being proposed (e.g., type of pavement, plant material, etc.); and

3. All proposed drainage structures; and

4. Any proposed and/or required walls or fencing.
61047
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 21 of 24 ends

46.The applicant shall verify that all exterior lighting shall be oriented, directed, and/or shielded as much as possible so that direct illumination does not infringe onto adjoining properties.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

47.The following items (as applicable) shall be completed by the applicant and submitted to Building & Safety prior to the issuance of building permits for this project:

A. Precise grading plans shall be approved
B. Rough grading completed
C. Compaction certification
D. Pad elevation certification
E. Rough grade inspection signed off by a City Building Inspector

50.The applicant shall comply with the fire zone (VHFSZ) requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL:

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:

Page 22 of 24 ends

comply with the current California Fire Code requirements and all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances, and standards of the Fire Department.

California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-1.

The Fire Flow for this project shall be: 4000 GPM for a two-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. Fire Flow is based on a 200,000 Square Foot structure.

58.Hydrant Marking. Blue reflective pavement markers indicating fire hydrant locations shall be installed as specified by the Fire Department. SBCoFD Standard W-2.

Page 23 of 24 ends

place prior to placing combustible materials on the jobsite. California Fire Code Chapter 5.

California Fire Code Chapter 9 & SBCoFD Standard F-1.

California Fire Code Chapter 9, NFPA 72 & SBCoFD Standard F-5.

64.Fire Extinguishers. Hand portable fire extinguishers are required. The location, type, and cabinet design shall be approved by the Fire Department. California Fire Code Chapter 9.

65.Commercial (large facility) Addressing. Commercial and industrial developments in excess of 100,000 sq. ft. shall have the street address installed on the building with numbers that are a minimum twelve (12) inches in height and with a one and one half (1 ½) inch stroke. The street address shall be visible from the street. During the hours of darkness, the numbers shall be electrically illuminated (internal or external). Where the building is two hundred (200) feet or more from the roadway, additional non-illuminated contrasting six (6) inch numbers shall be displayed at the property access entrances. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard B-1

67.Security Gates. In commercial, industrial and multi-family complexes, all swing gates shall have an approved fire department Knox Lock. Where an automatic 61350
Resolution PC No. 2023-____

Page 24 of 24 ends

electric security gate is used, an approved Fire Department override switch is required. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-3

END OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
61451
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
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
61552
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 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 ..........................................................2

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 ....................................................................................53

2.4 Impacts Identified in the EIR as being Significant and Unavoidable .........................65

2.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Caused by the Proposed Project Should It Be Implemented ..............................................................71

2.6 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project.....................................................73

2.7 Project Alternatives.....................................................................................................74

3.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations...............................................................................78

4.0 Additional Facts on Record...................................................................................................79

4.1 Adoption of a Monitoring Plan for Mitigation Measures ...........................................79

4.2 Custodian of Record ...................................................................................................79 61653
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 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.

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 61754
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 2 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 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).

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.

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 61855
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 3 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;
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 61956
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 4 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. 62057
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 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 decision-making 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 substantially similar to the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and are found to be equally effective in avoiding or lessening the identified 62158
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 6 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)
62259
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 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-of-way 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 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 62360
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 8 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) 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)
62461
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 9 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 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 62562
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 10 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 tilt-up 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 pole-mounted 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 single-family 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 tilt-up 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 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 62663
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 11 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 non-agricultural 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)
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) 62764
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 12 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 non-agricultural 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 nonforest 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 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 62865
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 13 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. Diesel-fueled 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 non-cancer 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 noncancer health risk index threshold of 1.0. All other residential locations in the general vicinity of the Shea Project Site would be exposed to lower concentrations of Shea Project-related 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 62966
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 14 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 Projectrelated 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 noncancer 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 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. 4.3-36)
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)
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 cumulativelyconsiderable 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) 63067
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 15 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 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) 63168
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 16 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 non-cancer 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 non-cancer 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 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 63269
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 17 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 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 Project-generated 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 longterm 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
63370
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 18 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 (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
63471
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 19 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 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 63572
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 20 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
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 63673
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 21 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, lessefficient 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) 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 63774
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 22 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) The Acacia 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 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 63875
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 23 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)
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 63976
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 24 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)

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 64077
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 25 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”) 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 64178
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 26 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), nonstructural 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 postconstruction 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 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-than-significant 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
64279
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 27 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
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-thansignificant 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 roof-mounted 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”) 64380
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 28 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 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 64481
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 29 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-thansignificant 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 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 on-site 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
64582
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 30 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”)
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, 64683
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 31 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)

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
64784
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 32 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) 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 64885
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 33 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. 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. 64986
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 34 Accordingly, neither the Shea nor 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 singlefamily 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 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 65087
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 35 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 lessthan-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. 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)

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 the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Threshold “a”) Finding: Less-than-Significant Impact
65188
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 36 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 off-site 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) 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; 65289
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 37 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 long-term 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 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 65390
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 38 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)
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, 65491
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 39 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 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 65592
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 40 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 (IL). 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 MultiFamily 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) 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)
65693
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 41 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 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)
65794
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 42 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 pre-construction 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)
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
65895
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 43 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)
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 65996
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 44 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 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 66097
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 45 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 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 66198
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 46 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 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 66299
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 47 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 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 100 663
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 48 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)
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 101 664
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 49 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
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.
102 665
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 50 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 construction-related 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 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 MidValley 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
103 666
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 51 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)

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
104 667
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 52 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 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 105 668
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 53 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
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:
106 669
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 54 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:

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-thansignificant 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 107 670
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 55 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. 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 construction-related 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 lessthan-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 108 671
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 56 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) 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:
109 672
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 57 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 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 110 673
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 58 the Shea and Acacia Project Sites that could support fish. Therefore, there is no 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 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.

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 be completed, or until the location can be 111 674
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 59 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.

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)
112 675
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 60 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 cumulativelyconsiderable 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 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 113 676
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 61 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, 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.

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 several-mile 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 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 114 677
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 62 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 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, 115 678
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 63 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.
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.
116 679
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 64 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 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 ground-disturbing 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 117 680
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 65 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)

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:
118 681
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 66 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 “Multi-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 119 682
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 67 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 Project-related 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 heavy-duty 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 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)
120 683
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 68 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 MultiFamily 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 (M-1) 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)
121 684
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 69 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 (M1) 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 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)
122 685
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 70 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’ cumulativelyconsiderable 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 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)
123 686
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 71 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)
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 cashouts. 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 124 687
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 72 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 one-building 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 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)
125 688
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 73 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 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 long-term 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 126 689
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 74 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 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 growth-inducing 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 127 690
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 75 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 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 128 691
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 76 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 multi-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 constructionrelated 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 129 692
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 77 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 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 130 693
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 78 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)

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.
131 694
Sierra Business Center: Shea Project
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2022030544 79 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 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 Community Development 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 Community Development Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. The custodian for these records is Salvador Quintanilla, Associate Planner. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. 132 695

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Recorded at request of: )
Clerk, City Council )
City of Fontana )
)
When recorded return to: )
City of Fontana )
8353 Sierra Avenue )
Fontana, CA 92335 )
Attention: City Clerk )
)
Exempt from Filing Fees, Government Code Section 6103
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 22-006

A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF FONTANA
a California Municipal Corporation
(“City”)
and
___________________
(“Owner”)
ATTACHMENT NO. 8 133 696
Exhibit A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 22-006
This Development Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) is entered into effective on the date it is recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder (hereinafter the “Effective Date”) by and among the City of Fontana, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter, “CITY”), and Shea Properties, (hereinafter, “OWNER”):

WHEREAS, this Agreement and the Project are consistent with the CITY’s Comprehensive General Plan and any Specific Plan applicable thereto; and 134 697
WHEREAS, all actions taken and approvals given by CITY have been duly taken or approved in accordance with all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes, and other procedural matters; and WHEREAS, development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide substantial benefits to CITY and will further important policies and goals of CITY; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly development of the Property, ensure progressive installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the development of the Project, and generally serve the purposes for which development agreements under Sections 65864 et seq of the Government Code are intended; and
WHEREAS, OWNER has incurred and will in the future incur substantial costs in excess of the generally applicable requirements in order to assure vesting of legal rights to develop the Property in accordance with this Agreement.

1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS.

1.1 Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement shall be defined as follows:

1.1.1 “Agreement” means this Development Agreement.

1.1.2 “CITY” means the City of Fontana, a municipal corporation, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California.

1.1.4 “Development Approvals” means all permits and other entitlements for use subject to approval or issuance by CITY in connection with development of the Property including, but not limited to:
(a) conditional use permits and design review permits;
135 698
(b) tentative parcel maps;
(c) General Plan and Zoning Code amendments; and,
(d) grading, encroachment and building permits.

1.1.7 “Development Plan” means the Existing Development Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations, as those terms are defined herein, applicable to development of the Property.

1.1.8 “Effective Date” means the date the ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective.

1.1.9 “Existing Development Approvals” means all Development Approvals approved or issued prior to the Effective Date.

1.1.10 “Existing Land Use Regulations” means all Land Use Regulations in effect on the Effective Date.

1.1.11 “Land Use Regulations” means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of CITY governing the development and use of land, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, timing and phasing of development, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property. “Land Use Regulations” does not include any CITY ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy, governing:
136 699
(a) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; (b) taxes and assessments;
(c) the control and abatement of nuisances;
(d) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; (e) the exercise of the power of eminent domain.