City’s Tree Protection Ordinance (Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 28, Article III). The olive trees on the Project Site have the potential to meet the City’s definition of a “heritage tree.” As required by the Tree Protection Ordinance, the Project Applicant would be required to have a professional arborist survey the Project Site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Based on the findings of the arborist, the trees on the Project Site would require replacement at a minimum ratio of 1:1 or a maximum ratio of 4:1 depending on the size and health of the tree to be removed. The Project Alternative’s conceptual landscape plan provides for the planting of a minimum of 264 trees on the Project Site.
As part of the City’s standard building permit review process, City staff would confirm if the 264 trees proposed by the Project would be sufficient to meet the number of replacement trees required by the Tree Protection Ordinance or if additional trees would be needed (or fees paid to the City’s tree account to provide for the planting of trees on City land) in order to comply the requirements of the Municipal Code. The City would not issue a building permit until and unless compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance can be demonstrated. Accordingly, implementation of the Project Alternative would not result in a conflict with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. (EIR, pp. 4.2-9 to 4.2-10)
5. Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: 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?
Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Project Site is not located within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. (EIR, p. 4.2-10) E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Finding: Less than Significant Impact.
Explanation: Nine (9) historic period structures, all residences, constructed between 1923 and 1966 are present on the Project Site. All of these structures would be demolished as part of the Project Alternative. None of the structures on the Project Site were found to be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources or to be significant historic resources under CEQA due to a lack of integrity – the structures had been substantially altered since their original construction – combined with a lack of any association with significant persons or noteworthy architectural elements. 61639
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Accordingly, implementation of the Project Alternative would not result in a substantial adverse change to any historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (EIR, p. 4.3-11)
2. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The Project Site does not contain a cemetery and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate Site vicinity. Field surveys conducted on the Project Site did not identify the presence of any human remains and no human remains are known to exist beneath the surface of the Site. If human remains are unearthed during 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 Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the Site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the Site. According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials. With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, any potential impacts to human remains, including human remains of Native American ancestry, that may result from development of the Project Alternative would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.3-12)
E. ENERGY RESOURCES
1. Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption
61740
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: For the reasons discussed below, the Project Alternative would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue.
Energy Use During Construction
Project Alternative construction is estimated to consume approximately 213,110 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity, approximately 44,319 gallons of diesel fuel from operation of construction equipment, 22,926 gallons of diesel fuel from construction vendor trips, and 45,953 gallons of fuel from construction worker trips. (EIR, p. 4.4-5) The equipment used for Project Alternative construction would conform to California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations and State emissions standards.
There are no unusual characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive 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, Project construction activities would be required to comply with State law (Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, § 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, construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable CARB regulations regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of older, less-efficient diesel off-road construction equipment. Accordingly, the equipment and vehicles employed in construction of the Project Alternative would therefore not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel. (EIR, p. 4.4-5) Energy Use During Project Operation
Project Alternative operation would consume less than the 516,447 gallons of fuel, 7,371,414 kWh of electricity, and 9,031,641 kBTU of natural gas per year calculated for the Project due to the Alternative’s reduced operations of transport refrigeration units and reduced floor area utilized for cold storage. It should be noted that City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1891 requires the Project to provide 100 percent of its electrical demand for non-refrigerated building space via rooftop solar panels, which is estimated to be approximately 1,088,300 kWh per year. (EIR, p. 4.4-6)
The 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 Project Alternative 61841
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
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 Project Alternative will inherently use less energy than comparable buildings constructed under prior versions of the Energy and CalGreen Codes. Project Alternative building operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy due to mandatory Energy Code and CalGreen compliance.
Furthermore, the 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 Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or energy delivery systems. From a transportation energy perspective, the 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 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. (EIR, p.
4.4-6)
2. Conflict with Energy Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: Construction and operation of the Project Alternative would not conflict with or obstruct applicable federal, State, and local regulations for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) Transportation and access to the Project Site is provided by the local and regional roadway systems. The Project Alternative would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be realized pursuant to the ISTEA because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities on or through the Project Site. (EIR, pp. 4.5-6 to 4.5-7)
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) The Project Site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The Site selected for the Project Alternative facilitates access, acts to reduce vehicle miles traveled, takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems, and promotes land use compatibilities through collocation of similar uses. The Project Alternative supports the strong planning processes emphasized under TEA‐21. The Project is therefore consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of TEA‐21. (EIR, p. 4.4-7) 61942
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Integrated Energy Policy Report
The IEPR provides policy recommendations to be implemented by energy providers in California. Electricity would be provided to the Project Alternative by SCE.
SCE’s Clean Power and Electrification Pathway (CPEP) builds on existing State programs and policies that support the IEPR goals of improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in California. 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 Project Alternative is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR. (EIR, p. 4.4-7)
Additionally, the Project Alternative would comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which would ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. As such, development of the proposed Project would support the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR. (EIR, p. 4.4-7) State of California Energy Plan
The Project Site is located adjacent to major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The location of the Project Site facilitates access, is designed to minimize VMT, and takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems. Therefore, the Project Alternative supports urban design and planning processes identified under the State of California Energy Plan, is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the State of California Energy Plan. (EIR, p. 4.4-7)
California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards The Project Alternative will provide 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 Project Alternative also is required by State law to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet or exceed 2019 Energy Efficiency Standards. On this basis, the Project Alternative is determined to be consistent with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of the State’s 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (EIR, p. 4.4-7) Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493)
AB 1493 is not directly applicable to the Project Alternative as it is a statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions standards. No feature of the Project Alternative 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 62043
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
from the Project Site are required by law to comply with the legislation’s fuel efficiency requirements. (EIR, p. 4.4-8)
California Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078)
California’s RPS is not directly applicable to the Project Alternative as it is a statewide measure that establishes a renewable energy mix. No feature of the Project Alternative would interfere with implementation of the requirements under RPS.
Notwithstanding, energy directly or indirectly supplied to the Project Site by electric corporations is required by law to comply with SB 1078. (EIR, p. 4.4-8) Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) – Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 Energy directly or indirectly supplied to the Project Site by electric corporations is required by law to comply with SB 350. No feature of the Project Alternative would interfere with implementation of the requirements under SB 350. (EIR, p. 4.4-8) Fontana Municipal Code
The City of Fontana will require the Project Alternative to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet or exceed the California Green Building Standards Code (as adopted by Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 5). The City would confirm the Project Alternative’s compliance with the Building Code as part of the building permit review process. On this basis, the Project Alternative is determined to be consistent with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of the California Green Building Standards Code. (EIR, p. 4.4-8)
The City of Fontana will require the Project Alternative to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 1891, including the installation and operation of rooftop solar panels. The City would confirm the Project Alternative’s compliance with Ordinance No. 1891 as part of the building permit review process and as part of the City’s on-going code compliance process. On this basis, the Project Alternative is determined to be consistent with, and would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct implementation of Ordinance No. 1891. (EIR, p. 4.4-8)
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Due to Rupture of an Earthquake Fault
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 62144
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: There are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the Project Site and the Project Site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Because there are no known faults located on or trending towards the Project Site, there is no potential for the Project Alternative to expose people or structures directly or indirectly to substantial adverse effects related to ground rupture. (EIR, p. 4.5-10)
2. Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Due to Seismic Ground Shaking
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: strong seismic ground shaking?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The Project Site is in a seismically active area of southern California that is subject to strong ground motion due to earthquakes. As a result, the Project Site is susceptible to very strong ground shaking during a seismic event. The proposed building will be constructed in conformance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) and the Fontana Building Code. The CBSC and Fontana Building Code provide building standards that safeguard life and limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures. The CBSC and Fontana Building Code have been specifically tailored for California earthquake conditions. In addition, in conformance with the Fontana Municipal Code, the City will condition the Project Applicant to comply with the recommendations contained in the Project’s soils report, which includes recommendations to preclude adverse effects involving unstable soils and strong seismic ground-shaking, including, but not limited to, recommendations related to ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and depths, and selection of appropriate structural systems. With mandatory compliance with these standard and Site-specific design and construction measures, implementation of the Project Alternative would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury or death, involving seismic ground shaking, and no mitigation relating to this issue is therefore required. (EIR, p. 4.5-11)
3. Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Due to Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
62245
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The Project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable seismic safety guidelines, including the standard requirements of the CBSC and Fontana Building Code. Furthermore, and pursuant to the requirements of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 26, Division 4, the Project Alternative would be required (via conditions of approval) to comply with the grading and construction recommendations contained within the geotechnical report for the Project Site to further reduce the risk of seismic-related ground failure due to liquefaction. Therefore, implementation of the Project Alternative would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial hazards associated with seismic-related ground failure and/or liquefaction hazards. Impacts would be less-than-significant. (EIR, p. 4.5-11)
4. Exposure to Potential Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Due to Landslides
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: landslides? Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The Project Site is relatively flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. There are no recorded landslides, hillsides or steep slopes on the Project Site or in the immediate vicinity of the Site. The Project includes retaining walls, which would be constructed in accordance with the Site-specific recommendations contained within the Project’s geotechnical report to ensure their structural soundness. The City would condition the Project Alternative to comply with the Site-specific design and engineering recommendations contained within the geotechnical report to ensure these measures are implemented. Mandatory compliance with the recommendations contained within the Project Site’s geotechnical report would ensure that the Project is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards. Accordingly, the Project Alternative would not be exposed to substantial landslide risks, and implementation of the Project would not pose a substantial direct or indirect landslide risk to surrounding properties. (EIR, p. 4.5-11)
5. Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: For the reasons listed below, the Project Alternative would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation relating to this issue is therefore required.
62346
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Erosion During Project Construction
Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). In addition, the Project 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 constructionrelated activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project Applicant will 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 property. Lastly, the Project Alternative 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 Project Alternative’s implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. (EIR, pp. 4.5-11 to 4.5-12) Erosion During Project Operation
Pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), which is a Site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters, under long-term conditions via BMPs. The SWQMP is required to identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce or eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from storm water and non-storm water discharges. The SWQMP also is required to establish a post-construction implementation and maintenance plan to ensure on-going, long-term erosion protection. Compliance with the SWQMP will be required as a condition of approval for the Project Alternative, as will the long-term maintenance of erosion and sediment control features. Implementation of the SWQMP would ensure that the Project Alternative would not result in substantial, long-term soil erosion and loss of topsoil. (EIR, p. 4.5-12)
6. Soil Stability
Threshold: 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? 62447
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The Project Site is relatively flat and the Project Alternative does not propose the construction of any manufactured slopes. Additionally, the Project Alternative would not disturb or modify the existing manufactured slope for the Cypress Avenue overpass that abuts the Project Site and would not result in the slope becoming unstable.
Accordingly, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with landslide hazards. (EIR, p. 4.5-13)
The geotechnical report prepared for the Project Site indicates that the Site’s shrinkage/subsidence and 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 optimum moisture content. The City will condition the Project Alternative to comply with the Site-specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the Project’s geotechnical report. Based on the foregoing, potential impacts related to soil shrinkage/subsidence and collapse would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.5-13)
The Project Site is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility based on its topography and soil characteristics. Thus, the potential for lateral spreading is low.
Accordingly, impacts associated with lateral spreading would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.5-13)
7. Expansive Soil
Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: No impact.
Explanation: Based on expansion index testing of soil samples from the Project Site, the upper soils on the Project Site are non-expansive. Accordingly, implementation of the Project Alternative would not create substantial direct or indirect risk to life or property associated with the presence of expansive soils, and no mitigation relating to this issue is therefore required. (EIR, p. 4.5-13)
8. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Project Alternative is designed to connect to the City-owned municipal wastewater conveyance system, with wastewater treatment services supplied 62548
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
by the Inland Empire Utilities Authority (IEUA). The Project Alternative does not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Accordingly, implementation of the Project Alternative would result in no impact related to the use or performance of septic tanks and/or alternative wastewater systems. (EIR, pp. 4.5-13 to 4.5-14) G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: Implementation of the Project Alternative 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. In addition, implementation of the Project Alternative 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 Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15, or SB 32. Therefore, the Project Alternative would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (EIR, p. 4.6-21) H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: For the reasons listed below and discussed in the EIR, the Project Alternative would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation relating to this issue is therefore required.
Effects from Existing Site Conditions
62649
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Implementation of the Project Alternative would require demolition and removal of all existing structures and improvements on the Project Site, as well as the removal of all materials stored on the Site. No recognized environmental conditions (RECs) were identified on the Project Site. (EIR, p. 4.7-12)
Septic tanks were observed at the 16326, 16398, 16434, and 16464 Boyle Avenue properties. Septic systems occurring on-site would be required to be removed, handled, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable local and State regulations, including but not limited to the CCR Title 5, Appendix H. Accordingly, implementation of the Project Alternative 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 Project Site. (EIR, p. 4.7-12)
Storage tanks (i.e., aboveground storage tank totes and 55-gallons drums) holding petroleum products were observed at the 10349 Oleander Avenue and 16398 Boyle Avenue properties. Minor concrete staining was observed in the vicinity of the tanks; however, the concrete was observed to be in good condition and no unusual odors or stressed vegetation was observed on the Project Site. Accordingly, the presence and removal of the storage tanks is not presumed to create a negative adverse effect to the environment. The Project Alternative’s construction contractor would be required to remove, handle, and dispose of the storage tanks under the oversight of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, Hazardous Materials Division and in accordance with its requirements/regulations. Accordingly, implementation of the Project Alternative would not expose the public or the environment to significant hazards associated with the removal and disposal of the storage tanks found on the Project Site. (EIR, p. 4.7-12)
The Project Site contains structures known to be constructed before 1978 so there is potential for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and surfaces covered with lead paint to be present on the Project Site. Because ACMs are present in the existing construction debris and/or structures located on the property, then Rule 1403 requires notification of the SCAQMD prior to commencing any demolition or renovation activities.
Rule 1403 also sets forth specific procedures for the removal of asbestos, and requires that a representative trained in the requirements of Rule 1403 be present during the stripping, removing, handling, or disturbing of ACM. Mandatory compliance with the provisions of Rule 1403 would ensure that construction-related grading, clearing and demolition activities do not expose construction workers or nearby sensitive receptors to significant health risks associated with ACMs. (EIR, p. 4.7-13) During demolition of the existing buildings on the Project Site, there also is a potential to expose construction workers to health hazards associated with lead-based paint (LBP). The Project Alternative’s demolition and construction contractors would be required to comply with CCR Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 8, which includes requirements such as employer provided training, air monitoring, protective clothing, respirators, and hand washing facilities. Mandatory compliance with the requirements of CCR Title 17, 62750
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Division 1, Chapter 8 would ensure that construction workers and the public are not exposed to significant LBP health hazards during demolition and/or during transport of demolition waste to an appropriate disposal facility. (EIR, p. 4.7-13) Effects from Project Alternative Construction
Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would be operated on the Project Site during construction. This heavy equipment likely would be fueled and maintained by petroleum‐based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which are considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project Site during construction.
Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the Project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors 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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project Alternative would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase. (EIR, pp. 4.7-13 to 4.7-14) Although impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with the regulations cited above, Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.7-1 is specified herein to ensure regulatory compliance, which requires the Project Applicant to conduct soil testing in the event that any unidentified subsurface feature, oil, or chemical-stained concrete is discovered during grading and removal/remediation actions (if deemed hazardous).
Impacts would remain less than significant. (EIR pp. 4.7-14 and 4.7-18) MM 4.7-1. In the event that any unidentified subsurface feature, oil, or chemical-stained concrete is discovered during grading or other grounddisturbing construction activity, all activity in the vicinity of the unidentified material shall be halted and a qualified hazardous materials professional shall be called to inspect the site and determine if further assessment is needed. The results of any testing shall be provided to the City. In the event that the material is determined not to be hazardous, no further action is required. In the event that the material is deemed hazardous, removal/remediation shall be conducted pursuant to applicable State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 hazardous waste criteria or contamination standards for industrial land uses. This work must be carried out by a 62851
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
qualified hazardous materials professional hired by the Project Applicant.
Prior to the completion of material removal, the Project Applicant shall submit evidence to the City for review and approval demonstrating that the hazardous material has been appropriately removed/remediated. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Fontana’s Community Development Department.
Effects from Project Alternative Operation
Any business that occupies the warehouse building on the Project Site and that handles hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) will require a permit from the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, Hazardous Materials Division in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to the San Bernardino Fire Protection District and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business, and to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP). An HMBEP is a written set of procedures and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project Alternative 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 Project Alternative increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (EIR, p. 4.7-14)
2. Acutely Hazardous Materials within ¼ Mile of an Existing or Proposed School
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The Project Site is located approximately 0.14-mile northeast of Jurupa Hills High School, located at 10700 Oleander Avenue. Accordingly, the Project Alternative has 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. The use of and transport of hazardous substances or materials to-andfrom the Project Site during construction and long-term operational activities 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 62952
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
emission, handling of, or the routine transport of hazardous substances or materials toand-from the Project Site. (EIR, pp. 4.7-14 to 4.7-15) Although impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, MM 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 are specified herein to ensure regulatory compliance, which requires the Project Applicant to provide a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP) (if required by law) to the Superintendent’s Office and Facilities Office of the Fontana Unified School District as well as the Principal of Jurupa Hills High School. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.7-15 and 4.7-18 to 4.7-19)
MM 4.7-1. In the event that any unidentified subsurface feature, oil, or chemical-stained concrete is discovered during grading or other grounddisturbing construction activity, all activity in the vicinity of the unidentified material shall be halted and a qualified hazardous materials professional shall be called to inspect the site and determine if further assessment is needed. The results of any testing shall be provided to the City. In the event that the material is determined not to be hazardous, no further action is required. In the event that the material is deemed hazardous, removal/remediation shall be conducted pursuant to applicable State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 hazardous waste criteria or contamination standards for industrial land uses. This work must be carried out by a qualified hazardous materials professional hired by the Project Applicant.
Prior to the completion of material removal, the Project Applicant shall submit evidence to the City for review and approval demonstrating that the hazardous material has been appropriately removed/remediated. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Fontana’s Community Development Department.
MM 4.7-2. Prior to the issuance of any new occupancy permit for a use/user within the Project’s warehouse buildings, and to the extent hazardous materials exist on-site and a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP) is required by law, the Project Applicant/Developer or Project Site owner shall provide a copy of its approved Emergency Response Plan to the Superintendent’s Office and Facilities Office of the Fontana Unified School District as well as the Principal of Jurupa Hills High School outlining how the building user will prevent or respond to spills or leaks of hazardous materials related to its facility/facilities and use of the Project Site. If so requested, the Project Applicant/Developer or Project Site owner shall also meet with School District and Fire Department officials to discuss emergency response procedures as contained in the HMBEP for spills or leaks at the Project Site in relation to the nearby school facilities. This measure shall be implemented under the supervision of the City of Fontana’s Planning Division, with input from the Fontana Unified School 63053
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
District Superintendent as appropriate. All meetings shall be documented and documentation shall be provided to the City Planning Department within 30 days of each meeting. Failure to abide by these procedures may be grounds for revocation of any conditional use permits or other discretionary approvals for specific warehouse uses on the Project Site.
3. Hazardous Materials Sites
Threshold: 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? Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Project Site is not included on a hazardous materials database that falls within the categories regulated by Government Code Section 65962.5. (EIR, p.
4.7-15)
4. Public Airports and Private Airstrips
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The Project Site is not located within any Ontario International Airport (ONT) Safety Zone or Airspace Protection Zone and the ONT does not impose any land use restriction on the Project Site or design restrictions on the Project Alternative. The Project Alternative would not interfere with flight operations at the ONT because the building proposed by the Project Alternative would be no greater than 50 feet tall and the Project Alternative does not include an air travel component (e.g., runway, helipad).
Accordingly, implementation of the Project Alternative would not result in a safety hazard for people living or working near the Project Site. (EIR, p. 4.7-15) Additionally, the Project Site is located outside of the 60 dB CNEL noise contour for the ONT. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) considers noise levels 65 dB CNEL and below to be acceptable for all land uses; therefore, the Project Alternative would not expose future employees on the Site to excessive noise levels. (EIR, p. 4.7-16)
5. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 63154
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The Project Site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction, all materials and equipment would be stored/staged on the Project Site and would not interfere with emergency vehicles traveling along Slover Avenue, Oleander Avenue, or Cypress Avenue. Limited construction activities would occur within the Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue public rights-of-way; however, for any work within the right-of-way that requires a partial or full closure of a sidewalk or 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 Project Alternative would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. Accordingly, implementation of the Project Alternative would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. (EIR, p. 4.7-16)
6. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Project Site is not located adjacent to wildlands nor is the Project Site located within or adjacent to a very high fire hazard severity zone. Accordingly, the Project Alternative would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. (EIR, p. 4.7-16) I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Compliance with Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The Project Applicant would be required to comply with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which authorizes the NPDES permit program that covers point sources of pollution discharging to a water body. The NPDES program would require the Project Applicant and/or construction contractor to prepare a SWPPP and obtain authorization to discharge stormwater under an NPDES construction stormwater permit because the Project Alternative would result in construction on a site that is larger than one acre. The Project Applicant also would be required to comply with the California 63255
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 13000 et seq., of the California Water Code), which requires that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State of California. (EIR, p. 4.8-9) Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB and the City of Fontana, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit, from the State of California for construction activities. In addition, the Project Applicant 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 SWPPP for construction-related activities, including grading. The SWPPP would specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project Alternative would be required to implement during construction activities and ensure that violations of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements do not occur during construction. Accordingly, the Project Alternative would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. (EIR, p. 4.8-9) The Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. Compliance with the preliminary SWQMP would be required as a condition of Project Alternative approval pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX, and long-term maintenance of on-Site BMPs would be required to ensure their long-term effectiveness.
Additionally, the NPDES program requires certain land uses, including the industrial land uses proposed by the Project Alterative, to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and to implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program, unless an exemption has been granted. The Project Alternative’s mandatory compliance with all applicable water quality regulations would further reduce potential water quality impacts during long-term operation. The Project Alternative would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during long-term operation. (EIR, pp. 4.8-10 to 4.8-11)
2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The Project Alternative would connect to the City of Fontana’s municipal water system and would not utilize wells or any other groundwater extractive activities. Implementation of the Project Alternative has no potential to substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies. (EIR, p. 4.8-11) 63356
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Development of the Project Alternative would increase impervious surface coverage on the Project Site, which would, in turn, reduce the amount of water percolating down into the underground aquifer that underlies the Project Site and a majority of the City and surrounding areas (i.e., Chino Groundwater Basin). Percolation is just one of several sources of groundwater recharge for the Subbasin. A majority of the groundwater recharge in the Chino Groundwater Basin occurs within percolation basins (“recharge basins”) that are located in the northern and western portions of the Basin (and north and west of the City of Fontana). The Project Site is located in the eastern portion of the Chino Groundwater Basin and the Project Alternative would not physically impact any of the major groundwater recharge facilities in the Basin. Therefore, the Project Alternative would not result in substantial, adverse effects to local groundwater levels. Additionally, the Project Alternative includes design features that would maximize the percolation of on-site storm water runoff into the groundwater basin, such as permeable landscape areas. Accordingly, buildout of the Project Alternative with these design features would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the Chino Groundwater Basin. (EIR, pp. 4.8-11)
3. Existing Drainage Patterns and Runoff
Threshold: 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: result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation:
Erosion and Siltation
Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). In addition, the Project Applicant 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 SWPPP for construction-related activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be required to be implemented during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution, including erosion/siltation, is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Lastly, the Project Alternative would be required to implement an erosion and dust control plan pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 63457
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
9, Article II, and would be required to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize water- and windborne erosion. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and the City-required erosion control plan would ensure that the Project Alternative’s implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. (EIR, pp. 4.8-12 and 4.8-14) Stormwater Runoff
Upon Project Alternative buildout, approximately 48.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) of stormwater runoff would be discharged from the Project Site during peak storm conditions to the existing storm drain beneath Slover Avenue, which represents an approximately 21% reduction relative to existing conditions. The Project Alternative’s design provides for the reduction in stormwater runoff from the Project Site through underground infiltration/detention basins. Due to the reduction in the volume of peak stormwater runoff leaving the Project Site and discharging into the existing municipal storm drain system, implementation of the Project Alternative would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface water runoff from the site in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. (EIR, p. 4.8-14)
Stormwater Drainage System
Construction contractors would be required to comply with a SWPPP and the Project Alternative’s owner or operator would be required to comply with a SWQMP to ensure that construction activities and operational activities do not result in substantial amounts of polluted runoff. The Project Alternative would not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. (EIR, pp. 4.8-14 to 4.8-15) Flood Flows
According to the FEMA FIRM No. 06071C8654H, the Project Site is not located in a special flood hazard area. Accordingly, the Project Site is not expected to be inundated by flood flows during the lifetime of the Project Alternative and the Project Alternative would not impede flood flows. (EIR, p. 4.8-15)
4. Natural Hazards
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Pacific Ocean is located over 43 miles southwest of the Project Site; consequently, there is no potential for the Project Site to be impacted by a tsunami as tsunamis typically only reach up to a few miles inland. The Project Site also is not subject to flooding hazards associated with a seiche because the nearest large body of surface water (Prado Reservoir) is located more than 10 miles southwest of the Project 63558
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Site, which is too far away from the subject property to impact the property with a seiche.
Furthermore, as noted in the Fontana General Plan EIR, the Project Site is not located within any mapped dam inundation area. Because the Project Site cannot be affected by a tsunami, seiche, or dam inundation, there is no potential for such hazards to inundate the Project Site and cause a release of waterborne pollutants. Accordingly, the Project Alternative would not release water pollutants due to inundation. (EIR, p. 4.8-15)
5. Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The Project Applicant 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 Project Alternative would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan. (EIR, p.
4.8-15)
The Project Site is located within the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is an adjudicated groundwater basin. Adjudicated basins, like the Chino Groundwater Basin, are exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because such basins already operate under a court-ordered management plan to ensure their long-term sustainability. No component of the Project Alternative would obstruct with or prevent implementation of the management plan for the Chino Groundwater Basin. As such, the Project Alternative’s construction and operation would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater management plan. (EIR, p. 4.8-15).
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Divide an Established CommunityThreshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community?
Finding: No impact.
Explanation: Development of the Project Alternative would not physically disrupt or divide the arrangement of an established community. Railroad tracks and I-10 form the northern boundary of the Project Site; Slover Avenue forms the southern boundary of the Project Site; Oleander Avenue forms the western boundary; and Cypress Avenue forms the eastern boundary of the Project Site. Due to the existing barriers that already separate the Project Site from abutting properties, implementation of the Project Alternative would not result in the physical disruption or division of an established community. Furthermore, the proposed vacation of the segment of Boyle Avenue that bisects the Project Site would 63659
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
not divide an established community because this segment of Boyle Avenue terminates west of Cypress Avenue and is not a through street. (EIR, p. 5-8)
2. Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The Project Alternative is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and the Project would not conflict with any specific objectives, policies, or actions in the General Plan’s Community and Neighborhoods; Housing; Building a Healthier Fontana; Conservation, Open Space, Parks, and Trails; Public and Community Services; Community Mobility and Circulation; Infrastructure and Green Systems; Noise and Safety; Sustainability and Resilience; Economy, Education, and Workforce Development; and Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Development elements that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (EIR, p. 5-8) Implementation of the Project Alternative would not result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations. The Project Alternative is consistent with the land use and growth intensities reflected in the adopted General Plan and would not result in growth (and associated air pollution) that was not anticipated by the 2016 AQMP. (EIR, p. 5-11) The Project Alternative would not conflict with applicable regional plans, including Connect SoCal and the San Bernardino County CMP. (EIR, p. 5-11) K. MINERAL RESOURCES
1. Locally-Important, Regional, and Statewide Mineral
ResourcesThreshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
Threshold: 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?
Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Project Site is not located within an area known to be underlain by regionally-important mineral resources. In addition, the Project Site is not identified as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site in the Fontana General Plan.
Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the 63760
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
State of California. (EIR, p. 5-11)
L. NOISE
1. Local Noise Level StandardsThreshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The facts presented below evaluate three components of the Project Alternative that would generate noise – the construction process, on-site operational activities, and off-site traffic.
Construction Noise
Construction activities are expected to occur on weekdays (and, potentially, on Saturdays) during the hours allowed by the Fontana Municipal Code (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). During these hours, the Municipal Code does not place any limits on construction noise; therefore, Project construction noise levels would not exceed the standards established by the City. Should the Project require concrete pouring during nighttime hours, the Project’s nighttime concrete pouring noise levels would not exceed the standards established by the City at all receiver locations. Moreover, construction noise will not exceed the FTA standard of 80 dBA Leq during any phase of construction. (EIR, pp. 4.9-16)
Stationary Noise
Stationary (on-site) noise sources associated with long-term Project Alternative 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 dry goods, and parking lot vehicle movements. The Project Alternative also is expected to generate noise during the loading and unloading of delivery trailers on-site. Project Alternative operations would not expose any sensitive receptor location near the Project Site to stationary noise levels that exceed the applicable limits established by the City.
Furthermore, Project Alternative operations would only contribute to a 0.1 to 1.2 dBA Leq increase of daytime and nighttime ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receptor locations, which is an increase so small that it would not be perceptible. Accordingly, 63861
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Project Alternative operation would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and would not exceed City standards. (EIR, pp. 4.9-18) Transportation Noise
Under all analysis scenarios, Project Alternative-related traffic would contribute 1.0 dBA or less along all study area roadway segments adjacent to noise sensitive land uses, which would not exceed the City’s applicable standards. Therefore, the Project Alternative’s contribution to off-site traffic noise would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and would not exceed City standards (EIR, pp. 4.9-19 to 4.9-20)
2. Groundborne VibrationThreshold: Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: None of the receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project Site would be exposed to vibration levels caused by construction activities that exceed the applicable significance threshold. Accordingly, Project Alternative construction would not generate excessive or substantial temporary groundborne vibration or noise levels. (EIR, p. 4.9-21) Under long-term conditions, the Project Alternative would not include or require equipment or activities that would result in perceptible ground-borne vibration. Trucks would travel to and from the Project Site along local roadways; however, vibration levels for heavy trucks operating at the posted speed limits on paved surfaces are not perceptible beyond the travel way. The Project Alternative would not result in the exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels during long-term operation. (EIR, p. 4.9-21)
3. Private/Public AirportsThreshold: 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? Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The Project Site is located outside of the 60 dB CNEL airport noise contour for the ONT and is not located within an ONT Noise Impact Zone. Pursuant to the ONT ALUCP, all industrial land uses – including the proposed warehouse building – are suitable outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour with no sound attenuation needed.
Accordingly, the Project Alternative would be a compatible use within the vicinity of the 63962
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
ONT and operation of the Project Alternative would not expose people working on the Project Site to excessive noise levels. (EIR, pp. 4.9-21 to 4.9-22) M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. Induce Substantial Growth
Threshold: 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)? Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The proposed Project Alternative would have a beneficial effect on the area’s employment base by redeveloping the Project Site with a new industrial commerce center building. The jobs generated by the Project would provide additional employment opportunities for residents in the area. The Project Site is currently designated by the Fontana General Plan for industrial land uses, and the Project Alternative does not propose any uses that would result in unplanned population growth that is not already allowed by the General Plan. Additionally, the Project Site is located in an area of Fontana that is served by existing roadways and public utility infrastructure and the Project Alternative would not require the extension or expansion of any infrastructure beyond what is needed to service the Project Alternative. There are no components of the Project Alternative that would reasonably result in indirect or unplanned population growth because the surrounding area is fully developed under existing conditions. (EIR, pp. 5-11 to 5-12)
2. Displacing Housing and People
Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Project Alternative would result in the demolition of all housing units on the Project Site. The Site contains 10 legal non-conforming dwelling units.
According to data from the California Department of Finance, the average household in Fontana contains approximately four (4) people. Thus, the loss of 10 dwelling units on the Project Site would displace up to 40 people. The City of Fontana contains approximately 59,909 dwelling units and a population of 213,944. The dwelling units that would be lost on the Project Site represent approximately 0.02 percent of the total dwelling units in the City; the 40 people that would be displaced from the Project Site represent approximately
0.02 percent of the total population of the City. The City contains an estimated 2,836 vacant dwelling units under existing conditions which would be more than adequate to provide housing for the people that may be displaced from the Project Site. (EIR, p. 5-12) 64063
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Fire Protection Services
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services? Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The construction and operation of the Project Alternative would increase the demand for fire protection by introducing a new building to the Project Site; however, this increase in building area is 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 77 already achieves the Fontana Fire Protection District’s (FFPD) 5-minute response time goal to the Project Site. Additionally, the Project Alternative would incorporate fire prevention and fire suppression design features to minimize the potential demand placed on the FFPD. The Project Alternative also would install fire hydrants on-site and would provide paved primary and secondary emergency access to the Project Site to support the FFPD in the event fire suppression activities are needed on-site. Lastly, the proposed warehouse building would feature a fire alarm system and ceiling-mounted sprinklers. As a standard condition of approval, the Project Applicant/Developer or Project Site owner would be required to pay impact fees for fire protection services in accordance with Fontana Municipal Code Section 21- 122. The City will collect Development Impact Fees (DIF) for the Project Alternative based on building square footage. The payment of DIF fees, as well as increased property tax revenues that would result from development of the Project Alternative, would be used by the City to help pay for fire protection services and other public services. The Project Alternative would receive adequate fire protection service and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. (EIR, pp. 5-12 to 5-13)
2. Police Protection Services
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services? Finding: No Impact.
Explanation: The Project Alternative would introduce two new industrial commerce center buildings and employees and visitors to the Project Site, which would 64164
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services. Service demand in and of itself is not an environmental impact under CEQA unless such demand causes a physical change to the environment, and there is no aspect of the Project Alternative’s construction, design, or operation that would cause the need to construct new police protection facilities. During the City’s standard plan check process, a Fontana Police Department (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 Project Alternative is not anticipated to generate crime nor would the Project precipitate crime which would necessitate the construction of new or physically altered police facilities. Additionally, pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Section 21-122, the Project Applicant 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 Site would provide funding to offset potential increases in the demand for police services at Project build-out. (EIR, pp. 5-13 to 5-14)
3. Education
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Project Alternative does not include residential land uses and would not directly introduce new school-age children within the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD) boundaries. Furthermore, the Project Alternative is 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 FUSD schools. Because the Project Alternative would not directly generate students and is not expected to indirectly draw students to the area, the Project Alternative would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. Although the Project Alternative would not create a direct demand for public school services, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute development impact fees to the FUSD 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. (EIR, p. 5-14)
4. Parks
64265
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Project Alternative would not construct any new recreation facilities. Additionally, the Project Alternative would not expand any existing recreational facilities. The Project Alternative does not propose 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. (EIR, p. 5-14)
5. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Project Alternative does not include any residential land uses and, therefore, is not expected to result in a demand for other public facilities/services, including libraries, community recreation centers, post offices, public health facilities, and/or animal shelters. As such, implementation of the Project would not adversely affect other public facilities or require the construction of new or modified public facilities. (EIR, p. 5-15)
O. RECREATION
1. Existing Facilities
Threshold: Would the proposed 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? Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Project Alternative would entail the development of the subject property with industrial land uses. The Project Alternative does not propose 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. For all of 64366
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, implementation of the Project Alternative would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park. (EIR, p. 5-15)
2. New Recreational Facilities
Threshold: Would the proposed 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? Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Project Alternative does not propose to construct any new recreation facilities. Additionally, the Project Alternative would not expand any existing recreational facilities. Therefore, environmental effects related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not occur. (EIR, p. 5-15) P. TRANSPORTATION
1. Consistency with Circulation Performance Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: Implementation of the Project Alternative would not conflict with the goals and policies of SCAG’s regional planning program, including the goals related to vehicular and non-vehicular circulation primarily due to its proposed improvements to the local circulation network and geographic location in proximity to major local and regional truck routes. The Project would not conflict with any applicable General Plan policies addressing the circulation system. The Project also would not conflict with any applicable goals and policies addressing the circulation system from the City’s Active Transportation Plan. (EIR, pp. 4.10-5, 4.10-6, and 4.10-9)
2. Consistency with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and Congestion Management Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 or conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
64467
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Explanation: Under Baseline (2021) traffic conditions, the Project Alternative is calculated to generate 14.40 VMT per employee without consideration of the Project Alternative’s design features. With consideration of the Project Alternative’s design features, the Project Alternative’s VMT is 14.2 VMT per employee. The Project Alternative’s VMT would be approximately 16 percent below the average regional trip length, which would surpass the VMT reductions required by the applicable City significance threshold (15 percent below the average regional trip length). Accordingly, the Project Alternative’s VMT impact would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. (EIR, pp. 4.10-10 to 4.10-11) There are no CMP arterial roadways in the vicinity of the Project Site and the Project Alternative would neither generate 250 or more peak hour trips nor send 50 or more peak hour trips to a State highway facility. As such, the Project Alternative 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 Project Alternative. Notwithstanding, the Project Alternative does not include any component that would prevent or obstruct the implementation of the CMP’s goals and policies. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with the applicable congestion management plan. (EIR, p. 4.10-11)
3. Transportation Hazards
Threshold: 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)?
Finding: Less than significant impact.
Explanation: The types of traffic generated during operation of the Project Alternative (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. If any component of Project Alternative construction would occur in the public right-of-way and result the partial or full closure of a sidewalk and/or travel lane, all work would be 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. The City reviewed the Project Alternative’s site plan drawings and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced within the City public right-of-way through implementation of the Project Alternative. (EIR, p. 4.10-11)
4. Emergency Access
64568
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The types of traffic generated during operation of the Project Alternative (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 Project Alternative’s site plan drawings and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced through implementation of the Project Alternative that would impede or interfere with emergency vehicles traveling along Slover Avenue, Cypress Avenue, or Oleander Avenue. Any construction activities that would occur within the Slover Avenue public right-of-way and requires a partial or full closure of a sidewalk or 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. (EIR, pp. 4.10-11 to 4.10-12)
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1. Utilities Infrastructure
Threshold: 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?
Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Project Alternative would construct an on-site network of water and sewer pipes and stormwater facilities that would connect to existing water, sewer, and storm drain lines beneath Oleander Avenue and Slover Avenue. The Project Alternative also would install connections to existing electricity (including undergrounding exiting overhead powerlines along the Project Site frontage with Slover Avenue), natural gas, and communications infrastructure that already exist in the area, and all such connections would be accomplished in conformance with the rules and standards enforced by the applicable service provider. The installation of water and sewer line connections, stormwater drainage facilities, electricity, natural gas, and communications infrastructure as provided by the Project Alternative would result in physical impacts to the environment; however, these impacts were considered throughout the EIR and feasible and enforceable mitigation measures were imposed to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. No impacts would occur specifically related to construction of the Project Alternative’s utility connections. (EIR, pp. 5-15 to 5-16)
2. Sufficient Water Supplies
64669
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Threshold: Would sufficient water supplies be available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Fontana Water Company (FWC) is responsible for supplying potable water to the Project Site and its surrounding area. As discussed in FWC’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), adequate water supplies are projected to be available to meet the estimated water demand for the FWC’s service area through at least 2045 under normal, historic single-dry and historic multiple-dry year conditions. The FWC forecasts for projected water demand are based on the population projections of the SCAG, which rely on the adopted land use designations contained within the general plans that cover the geographic area within FWC’s service. Because the Project Alternative would be consistent with the Fontana General Plan land use designation and zoning for the Project Site, the water demand associated with the Project was considered in the FWC’s projected demand in the 2020 UWMP and analyzed therein. Because the Project Alternative’s land uses were included in the FWC’s water planning demand projections and because the FWC expects to have adequate water supplies to meet all its demands until at least 2045; the FWC has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project Alternative from existing entitlements/resources and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. (EIR, p. 5-16)
3. Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Threshold: 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?
Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Project Alternative is calculated to generate 65,560 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. Wastewater generated by the Project would be treated by IEUA’s RP-1 or RP-4 wastewater treatment plants. The RP-1 facility has an existing treatment capacity of approximately 44 million gallons of wastewater per day and treats approximately 28 million gallons of wastewater per day on average; therefore, the RP-1 facility has approximately 16 million gallons of excess treatment capacity under existing conditions. The RP-4 facility has an existing treatment capacity of approximately 14 million gallons of wastewater per day and treats approximately 10 million gallons of wastewater per day on average; therefore, the RP-4 facility has approximately 4 million gallons of excess treatment capacity under existing conditions. The wastewater generated by the Project Alternative would only represent approximately 0.4 percent of the excess treatment capacity of RP-1 or approximately 1.6 percent of the excess treatment capacity of RP-4; therefore, it is anticipated that RP-1 and RP-4 have sufficient treatment capacity to provide service to the Project Alternative. The Project Alternative 64770
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. (EIR, p. 5-16)
4. Landfill Capacity
Threshold: 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?
Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The facts presented below address the Project’s solid waste generation.
Construction Waste
The Project Alternative’s construction phase is estimated to last for up to 10 months; therefore, the Project Alternative is estimated to generate approximately 2.25 tons of solid waste per day (676.5 tons ÷ 300 days = 2.25 tons per day) requiring landfill during construction. Non-recyclable construction waste would be disposed at the MidValley Landfill. This landfill receives well below its maximum permitted daily disposal volume; thus, the relatively minimal construction waste generated by the Project is not anticipated to cause the landfill to exceed its maximum permitted daily disposal volume.
Furthermore, the Mid-Valley Landfill is not expected to reach its total maximum permitted disposal capacities during the Project Alternative’s construction period. Thus, waste generated by the Project Alternative’s construction is not anticipated to cause the landfill to exceed its maximum permitted daily disposal volume. (EIR, p. 5-17) Operational Waste
Long-term, on-going operation of the Project Alternative would generate approximately 4.44 tons of solid waste per day. Pursuant to AB 939, at least 50 percent of the Project Alternative’s solid waste is required to be diverted from landfills; therefore, the Project Alternative would generate a maximum of 2.2 tons of solid waste per day requiring landfilling. Non-recyclable solid waste from the Project Alternative would be disposed at the Mid-Valley Landfill. This landfill receives well below its maximum permitted daily disposal volume; thus, waste generated by the Project Alternative’s operation is not anticipated to cause the landfill to exceed its maximum permitted daily disposal volume. Furthermore, the Mid-Valley Landfill is estimated to have adequate longterm capacity to accept waste from the Project Alternative as the landfill would not reach capacity until 2045, at the earliest time, and has opportunities for future expansion. (EIR, p. 5-18)
5. Solid Waste
64871
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Threshold: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: No impact.
Explanation: Pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 24, the Project Alternative’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 (Public Resources Code § 42911), the Project Alternative is 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 Project Alternative 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 Project Alternative and diverted to landfills, which in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites. (EIR, p. 5-18) R. WILDFIRES
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, (a) would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; (b) due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire; (c) would the Project require 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; (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?
Finding: No impact.
Explanation: The Project Site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; therefore, implementation of 64972
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
the Project Alternative would not exacerbate wildfire hazard risks or expose people or the environment to adverse environmental effects related to wildfires. (EIR, p. 5-19) SECTION 3. FINDING REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A
LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Planning Commission hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR and this Resolution that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:
A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Wildlife and Movement and Nesting/Migratory Birds
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project Alternative which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Explanation: The Project Site does not contain natural, surface drainage/watercourse or ponding features. Additionally, there are no water bodies on or adjacent to the Project Site that could support fish. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project Alternative to interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish. No local or regional wildlife corridors are present within or adjacent to the project Site and there are no native wildlife nurseries on or adjacent to the Site; therefore, no permanent or temporary impacts to wildlife movement or nursery sites would occur. Based on the foregoing information, the Project Alternative would result in no impact to any native resident or migratory fish, established wildlife corridor, or native wildlife nursery sites. (EIR, p. 4.2-9)
The Project Alternative would remove vegetation (i.e., trees, shrubs, and grasses) from the Project Site that serves as potential roosting and nesting habitat for birds common to the Fontana area, although no nests were observed on the Project Site and no birds are known to nest on the Site. Numerous non-sensitive bird species common to the Fontana area were observed on the Project Site, including but not limited to Anna’s hummingbird, house finch, American crow, raven, and Eurasian collared dove. Although these species are not considered special-status or sensitive based on their prevalence in southern California, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code are in place to protect these bird species, among others, while nesting. If Project Alternative construction is to occur during the avian nesting season (February 15 – 65073
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
September 1) and active nests are present on the Project Site, significant impacts to nesting birds could occur and mitigation is required. (EIR, p. 4.2-9) To ensure that potential impacts relating to this issue are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure has been identified:
MM 4.2-1: Vegetation clearing and ground disturbance shall be prohibited during the migratory bird nesting season (January 31 through September 1), unless a migratory bird nesting survey is completed in accordance with the following requirements:
a) A nesting bird survey shall be conducted on the Project site and within suitable habitat located within a 500-foot radius of the Project site by a qualified biologist within three (3) days prior to initiating vegetation clearing or ground disturbance.
b) If the survey identifies the presence of active nests, then the nests shall not be disturbed unless the qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive methods that either (i) the adult birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or (ii) the juveniles from the occupied nests are capable of independent survival.
c) If the biologist is not able to verify any of the conditions from sub-item “b,” above, then no disturbance shall occur within a buffer zone specified by the qualified biologist for each nest or nesting site. The buffer zone shall be species-appropriate (no less than 100-foot radius around the nest for non-raptors and no more than a 500-foot radius around the nest for raptors) and shall be sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect impacts from construction activities. The size and location of buffer zones, if required, shall be based on consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Fontana. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified biologist with City concurrence verify that the nests are no longer occupied and/or juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.
Implementation of MM 4.2-1 would ensure that pre-construction surveys are conducted for active bird nests in the event grading/clearing activities are occur during the breeding/nesting season. If nesting birds are present, the mitigation requires avoidance of active bird nests in conformance with accepted protocols and regulatory 65174
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
requirements. With implementation of the required mitigation, potential direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to below a level of significance. (EIR, p. 4.2-12)
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project Alternative which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Explanation: According to an archival records search, no pre/protohistoric cultural resources are located on or within a one-mile radius of the Project Site. Additionally, no pre/protohistoric resources were observed on the Project Site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known prehistoric archeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (EIR, p. 4.3-11)
Given the lack of any previously identified pre/protohistoric sites within or near the property and the magnitude of ground disturbances on the Project Site over the previous 90-plus years, there is little potential for any pre/protohistoric resources to be present or disturbed by the proposed development. Notwithstanding, excavations on the Project Site will 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, proposed excavations on the Project Site would occur within previously undisturbed soils that could, in theory, contain pre/protohistoric archaeological resources. If any pre/protohistoric cultural resources are unearthed during Project Alternative construction that meet the definition of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and are disturbed/damaged by Project construction activities, impacts to those pre/protohistoric cultural resources would be potentially significant.
To ensure that potential impacts relating to this issue are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures have been identified:
MM 4.3-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Fontana that an archaeologist that meets the latest version of the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications Standards (hereafter “Project Archaeologist”) has been retained to conduct the training and monitoring activities described in Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 and Mitigation Measure 4.3-3.
65275
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
MM 4.3-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant or construction contractor shall provide evidence to the City of Fontana that the construction site supervisors and crew members involved with grading and trenching operations have received training by the Project Archaeologist to recognize archaeological resources (historic and prehistoric) should such resources be unearthed during ground-disturbing construction activities. The training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of archaeological resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new supervisorial construction personnel involved with grading and trenching operations that begin work on the Project Site after the initial training session must take the training prior to beginning work on-site.
MM 4.3-3: The Project Archaeologist shall conduct monitoring during all grading, trenching, and excavation activities. The Project Archaeologist shall be equipped to salvage artifacts if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. Should the Project Archaeologist determine during construction activities that there are no archaeological resources within the Project’s disturbance area or should the archaeological sensitivity be reduced to low, archaeological monitoring activities can be reduced to spotchecking or may be allowed to cease.
MM 4.3-4: In the event that suspected cultural resources are discovered during Project construction activities:
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 cultural, tribal and archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant (if such tribal monitor chooses to participate in monitoring following adequate written notice to the Tribe). 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 preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include 65376
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
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.
Implementation of MMs 4.3-1 through MM 4.3-4 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant archaeological resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the Project Alternative. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project Alternative’s potential impacts to important archaeological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant. Potential cumulatively-considerable impacts likewise would be reduced to less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.3-15)
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Paleontological Resource or Geologic Feature
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Explanation: There are no known unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the Project Site under existing conditions. The Project Site is underlain at depth (approximately 10 feet below ground surface) by older alluvium soils that have a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. If construction activities encroach into previously undisturbed older alluvium deposits on the Project Site, the 65477
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Project Alternative could result in impacts to important paleontological resources if such resources are unearthed and not properly treated. Therefore, the Project Alternative’s potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource buried beneath the ground surface is determined to be a significant impact and mitigation is required. (EIR, p. 4.5-14)
To ensure that potential impacts relating to this issue are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures have been identified:
MM 4.5-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Fontana that a qualified paleontologist (“paleontologist”) has been retained by the Project Applicant or contractor to conduct monitoring of excavation activities and has the authority to halt and redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected paleontological resources are unearthed.
MM 4.5-2: The paleontologist shall conduct full-time monitoring during grading and excavation operations in undisturbed late Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits starting at a depth of 10 feet below the existing ground surface. The paleontologist shall be equipped to salvage fossils if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant and large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by the paleontologist to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources.
MM 4.5-3: Recovered specimens shall be properly prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary.
Identification and curation of specimens into the collections of the Division of Geological Sciences, San Bernardino County Museum, shall be required for discoveries of significance as determined by the paleontological monitor.
MM 4.5-4: A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the City of Fontana prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit.
Implementation of MMs 4.5-1 through 4.5-4 would ensure that grading activities within late Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits would be subject to monitoring by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor, and require that any uncovered paleontological 65578
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
resources are recovered and prepared for long-term preservation at an accredited institution (university or museum). Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project’s potential direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts to paleontological resources to below a level of significance. (EIR, p. 4.5-15) D. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); 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 is subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Explanation: No prehistoric resource sites, features, places, or landscapes were identified on the Project Site that are either listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Places and no pre/protohistoric 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 resources on the Project Site that in the City’s discretion had the potential to be considered a tribal cultural resource. (EIR, pp. 4.11-4 to 4.11-7)
Notwithstanding, due to the Project Site’s location in an area where Native American tribes are known to have a cultural affiliation, there is the possibility that pre/protohistoric archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources, could be encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities – although this is considered unlikely and could only occur in native, undisturbed soils approximately 1.0 to 4.5 feet below the ground surface due to the pervasive, historic and on-going disturbances that have occurred on the Project Site. Were a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, to be found on the Project Site during construction – and not protected – a significant impact would occur. Mitigation is required. (EIR, pp. 4.11-7 to 4.11-8)
To ensure that the Project’s potential significant impact to tribal cultural resources is mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures would apply:
65679
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
MM 4.3-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Fontana that an archaeologist that meets the latest version of the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications Standards (hereafter “Project Archaeologist”) has been retained to conduct the training and monitoring activities described in Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 and Mitigation Measure 4.3-3.
MM 4.3-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant or construction contractor shall provide evidence to the City of Fontana that the construction site supervisors and crew members involved with grading and trenching operations have received training by the Project Archaeologist to recognize archaeological resources (historic and prehistoric) should such resources be unearthed during ground-disturbing construction activities. The training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of archaeological resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new supervisorial construction personnel involved with grading and trenching operations that begin work on the Project Site after the initial training session must take the training prior to beginning work on-site.
MM 4.3-3: The Project Archaeologist shall conduct monitoring during all grading, trenching, and excavation activities. The Project Archaeologist shall be equipped to salvage artifacts if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. Should the Project Archaeologist determine during construction activities that there are no archaeological resources within the Project’s disturbance area or should the archaeological sensitivity be reduced to low, archaeological monitoring activities can be reduced to spotchecking or may be allowed to cease.
MM 4.3-4: In the event that suspected cultural resources are discovered during Project construction activities:
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 cultural, tribal and archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant (if such tribal monitor chooses to participate in monitoring following adequate written notice to the Tribe). If the resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding 65780
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
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 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.
Implementation of MMs 4.3-3 through MM 4.3-4 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project Alternative development. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project Alternative’s potential impact to significant tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant. Potential cumulatively-considerable impacts likewise would be reduced to less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.11-9)
SECTION 4. FINDING REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Planning Commission hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the EIR and in this Resolution, the following impacts from the proposed Project and related approvals cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:
65881
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
A. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions (“GHGs”), either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)); notwithstanding, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible mitigation measures that could reduce the Project’s impacts relating to GHGs toa level of less than significant. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3))
Explanation: The Project Alternative would exceed the significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year and, the GHG emissions generated by the Project Alternative are thus considered a significant impact on the environment. (EIR, pp. 4.6-20 and 6-13).
The Project Alternative, however, would result in approximately 11 percent less GHG emissions than the proposed Project.
In addition to the mitigation measures listed below, the Project Alternative will be required to implement design measures to maximize energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions as required by State law (for example, the use of energy efficient appliances as required by the CBSC) and by local regulations (for example, the installation of rooftop solar panels, 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. 1891). Although the mitigation measures listed below and mandatory compliance with applicable State and local regulations would reduce GHG emissions from the Project Alternative, these requirements would not substantially reduce mobile source GHG emissions (i.e., emissions from construction equipment, passenger cars, and heavy-duty trucks), which comprise approximately 66 percent of all GHG emissions related to the Project Alternative. Mobile source GHG emissions are regulated by State and federal fuel standards and tailpipe emissions standards, and are outside of the control and authority of the City, the Project Applicant, and future occupants of the Project Alternative. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides that mitigation measures must be within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Lead Agency in order to be implemented. No other mitigation measures are available that are feasible for the City to enforce that have a proportional nexus to the Project Alternative’s level of impact. (EIR, p. 4.6-22)
To reduce the Project’s impacts relating to GHG emissions to the extent feasible, the following mitigation measures would apply.
MM 4.6-1: To ensure compliance with the City of Fontana Industrial 65982
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards, City Staff shall assure implementation of the following measures during Project design, construction, and operation.
a. Design and Construction Measures
1. All building roofs shall be solar-ready, which includes designing and constructing buildings in a manner that facilitates and optimizes the installation of a rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) system at some point after the building has been constructed. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-73(b)]
2. The office portion of a building's rooftop that is not covered with solar panels or other utilities shall be constructed with light colored roofing material with a solar reflective index ("SRI") of not less than 78. This material shall be the minimum solar reflective rating of the roof material for the life of the building. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-73(c)]
3. On buildings over 400,000 square feet, prior to issuance of a business license, the city shall ensure rooftop solar panels are installed and operated in such a manner that they will supply 100 percent of the power needed to operate all non-refrigerated portions of the facility including the parking areas. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-73(d)]
4. At least ten percent of all passenger vehicle parking spaces shall be electric vehicle (EV) ready, with all necessary conduit and related appurtenances installed. At least five percent of all passenger vehicle parking spaces shall be equipped with working Level 2 Quick charge EV charging stations installed and operational, prior to building occupancy. Signage shall be installed indicating EV charging stations and specifying that spaces are reserved for clean air/EV vehicles. Unless superior technology is developed that would replace the EV charging units, facility operator and any successors in interest shall be responsible for maintaining the EV charging stations in working order for the life of the facility. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-73(e)]
5. Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide chilled, cooled, or freezer warehouse space, a conduit shall be installed during construction of the building shell from the electrical room to 100 percent of the loading dock doors that have potential to serve the refrigerated space. When tenant improvement building permits are issued for any refrigerated warehouse space, electric plug-in units shall be installed at every dock door servicing the refrigerated space to allow transport refrigeration units (TRUs) to plug in. Truck operators with TRUs shall be required to utilize electric 66083
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
plug-in units when at loading docks. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-73(f)]
6. Bicycle racks are required per section 30-714 and in the amount required for warehouse uses by table 30-714 of the zoning and development code. The racks shall include locks as well as electric plugs to charge electric bikes. The racks shall be located as close as possible to employee entrance(s). Nothing in this section shall preclude the warehouse operator from satisfying this requirement by utilizing bicycle parking amenities considered to be superior such as locating bicycle parking facilities indoors or providing bicycle lockers. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-73(g)]
7. Cool surface treatments shall be added to all drive aisles and parking areas or such areas shall be constructed with a solar-reflective cool pavement such as concrete. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9- 74(a)]
8. To ensure that warehouse electrical rooms are sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential need for additional electrical panels, either a secondary electrical room shall be provided in the building, or the primary electrical room shall be sized 25 percent larger than is required to satisfy the service requirements of the building or the electrical gear shall be installed with the initial construction with 25 percent excess demand capacity. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-74(b)]
9. Use of super-compliant VOC architectural and industrial maintenance coatings (e.g., paints) shall be required. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-74(c)]
10. The applicant shall use reasonable best efforts to deploy the highest rated CARB Tier technology that is available at the time of construction. Prior to permit issuance, the construction contractor shall submit an equipment list confirming equipment used is compliant with the highest CARB Tier at the time of construction.
Equipment proposed for use that does not meet the highest CARB Tier in effect at the time of construction, shall only be approved for use at the discretion of the planning director and shall require proof from the construction contractor that, despite reasonable best efforts to obtain the highest CARB Tier equipment, such equipment was unavailable. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-74(e)(1)]
11. Use of electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers shall be required. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-74(e)(2)]
12. Designation of an area in any construction site where electricpowered construction vehicles and equipment can charge shall be required. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-74(e)(3)]
13. Identification in site plans of a location for future electric truck 66184
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
charging stations and installation of a conduit to that location shall be required. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-74(e)(4)]
14. Diesel-powered generators shall be prohibited except in case of emergency or to establish temporary power during construction. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-74(e)(4)]
b. Operational Measures
1. Anti-idling signs indicating a three-minute diesel truck engine idling restriction shall be posted at industrial commerce facilities along entrances to the site and in the dock areas and shall be strictly enforced by the facility operator. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9- 72(c)]
2. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy facility operators shall establish and submit for approval to the planning director a truck routing plan to and from the state highway system based on the city's latest truck route map. The plan shall describe the operational characteristics of the use of the facility operator, including, but not limited to, hours of operations, types of items to be stored within the building, and proposed truck routing to and from the facility to designated truck routes that avoids passing sensitive receptors, to the greatest extent possible. The plan shall include measures, such as signage and pavement markings, queuing analysis and
enforcement, for preventing truck queuing, circling, stopping, and parking on public streets. Facility operator shall be responsible for enforcement of the plan. A revised plan shall be submitted to the City of Fontana planning director prior to a business license being issued by the city for any new tenant of the property. The planning director shall have discretion to determine if changes to the plan are necessary including any additional measures to alleviate truck routing and parking issues that may arise during the life of the facility. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-72(d)]
3. Signs shall be installed at all truck exit driveways directing truck drivers to the truck route as indicated in the truck routing plan and state highway system. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-72(g)
4. Prior to issuance of a business license, city shall ensure for any facility with a building or buildings larger than 400,000 total square feet, that the facility shall include a truck operator lounge equipped with clean and accessible amenities such as restrooms, vending machines, television, and air conditioning. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-72(j)]
5. On-site motorized operational equipment shall be ZE (zero emission). [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-73(a)]
6. The facility operator shall incorporate a recycling program. [Fontana 66285
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Municipal Code Section 9-74(d)]
7. Property owner shall provide facility operator with information on incentive programs such as the Carl Moyer Program and voucher incentive program and shall require all facility operators to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's SmartWay Program. [Fontana Municipal Code Section 9-74(e)(4)]
MM 4.6-2: The following notes shall be listed on the Project’s grading plans, to be confirmed by the City of Fontana prior to grading permit issuance.
Project construction contractors shall be required by their contracts to ensure compliance with the notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Fontana staff or their designee to confirm compliance.
a. All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment shall have a minimum CARB Tier 3 engine rating.
b. Off-road diesel-powered construction equipment shall be shut off when not in use for three (3) minutes. In addition, off-road dieselpowered construction equipment shall be in the “on” position for no more than 10 hours per day. Project construction contractors shall maintain a daily log of off-road diesel-powered equipment usage, which shall be kept on-site for the duration of construction activities and made available to City of Fontana staff or their designee upon request.
c. Project construction contractors shall assure that all construction equipment complies with all applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) air quality regulations. Also, Project construction contractors shall tune and maintain all construction equipment in accordance with the equipment manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. Maintenance records for all pieces of equipment shall be kept on-site for the duration of construction activities and shall be made available for periodic inspection by City of Fontana staff or their designee.
d. Project construction contractors shall provide construction employees with information on transit and ridesharing programs and services.
e. Project construction contractors shall allow food trucks on-site during appropriate break and/or lunch periods to provide construction employees with meal options that minimize the need for off-site travel.
66386
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
MM 4.6-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Fontana demonstrating that the Project is designed to meet or exceed the equivalent of the “Silver” rating (Core and Shell) from the U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program and, also, meets or exceeds the CalGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of the Project’s building permit application is filed.
As noted above, a majority of the Project Alternative’s GHG emissions would be produced by mobile sources. Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Fontana) can substantively or materially affect reductions in mobile-source emissions beyond federal and State regulations. Accordingly, the City finds that the Project Alternative’s GHG emissions are a significant and unavoidable cumulatively-considerable impact which cannot feasibly be reduced to a less than significant level. (EIR, p. 4.6-23) SECTION 5. FINDING REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the EIR includes an analysis of cumulative impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) describes two acceptable methods for identifying a study area for purposes of conducting a cumulative impact analysis. These two approaches include (1) “the list of projects approach,” based on “a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency” and (2) “the summary of projections approach,” based on a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. The EIR relies on a combination of the “list of projects approach” and the “summary of projections approach.” The affected environment includes the City of Fontana. Seventeen (17) pending and approved projects were identified as cumulative projects. (EIR, pp. 4-2 to 4-4) The Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
A. AESTHETICS
For the reasons discussed below and in the EIR, the Project Alternative will not result in adverse cumulative aesthetic impacts.
The Project’s effects to scenic views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills, if any, would be localized to the immediate Project Site area and would not extend beyond the public viewing areas that immediately abut the Project Site. The views that would be affected only occur abutting the Project Site and the Project does not contain any off-site components that could adversely affect scenic views that occur elsewhere in the City. Because of the Site-specific nature of the Project Alternative’s impacts, there would be no direct or indirect connection to similar potential issues or cumulative effects to or from other properties. (EIR, pp. 5-4 to 5-5)
66487
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
The Project Site does not contain any special or unique scenic attributes, like rock outcroppings, native vegetation, or a substantial number of mature trees. The Project Site is not located near any designated State scenic highway and would not be visible from the nearest State highway that is eligible for a scenic designation (which is located approximately 15.1 miles east of the Project Site). Therefore, the Project Alternative has no potential to contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to scenic resources within a designated scenic route corridor. (EIR, p. 5-5)
The Project Alternative provides a high-quality aesthetic for the Project Site and its design does not conflict with applicable design regulations within the Fontana Zoning and Development Code governing scenic quality and no component of the Project Alternative would be incompatible with existing, surrounding development which is industrial in nature. Mandatory compliance to applicable development regulations and design standards would ensure that all cumulative development, including the Project Alternative, would incorporate high quality building materials, site design, and landscaping to preclude potential conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing visual quality. (EIR, p. 5-6)
With respect to potential cumulative light and glare impacts, the Project would be required to comply with Fontana Municipal Code Sections 30-265 and 30-266, which set standards for exterior lighting/fixtures. The restriction on unshielded light fixtures and “spill over” lighting enforced by these lighting regulations has the effect of minimizing light and glare that would affect daytime views and/or create sky glow. Cumulative development project in the City similarly would be required to comply with these light reduction requirements to ensure that future development does not introduce substantial sources of lighting or glare. As such, the Project Alternative would not contribute to cumulativelyconsiderable, adverse impacts to the existing daytime or nighttime views of the Project Site or its surroundings. (EIR, pp. 5-6 to 5-7)
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The Project Site is not used or zoned for agricultural production and does not contain any soils classified as “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance.” In addition, the Project Site does not contain forestland and is not zoned for forestry or timber production. Implementation of the Project would result in no cumulative impacts to agriculture and forestry resources. (EIR, pp. 5-7 to 5-8) C. AIR QUALITY
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project Alternative would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to local or regional air quality.
The Project Alternative is consistent with the 2016 AQMP; therefore, there is no potential for the Project Alternative to result in a cumulatively considerable effect on the environment due to an inconsistency with the 2016 AQMP. (EIR, p. 4.1-32) 66588
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Based on SCAQMD guidance, any exceedance of a regional or localized threshold for criteria pollutants also is considered a cumulatively-considerable effect, while air pollutant emissions that fall below applicable regional and/or localized thresholds are not considered cumulatively-considerable. The Project Alternative would not emit any air pollutants during construction or operation that exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional or localized threshold and, thus, the Project Alternative would result in effects to regional and local air quality that would not be cumulatively considerable. In addition, the Project Alternative will be required to comply with newly enacted City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1891, which goes above and beyond current state and regional air quality regulations and will serve to further reduce emissions of air pollutants. (EIR, p. 4.1-32) There are no components of the Project Alternative that would expose a substantial number of sensitive receptors to objectionable odors. Because the Project Alternative’s construction and operation would not create substantial and objectionable odors and because there are no sources of objectionable odors in the areas immediately surrounding the Project Site, there is no potential for odors from the Project Site to commingle with odors from nearby development projects and expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial, offensive odors. Accordingly, implementation of the Project Alternative would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact related to odors. (EIR, p. 4.1-32)
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project Alternative would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to biological resources with the incorporation of specified mitigation measures.
The Project Site does not contain any special-status plant or wildlife species nor does the Site have the potential to support such species. Therefore, the Project Alternative would not impact any special-status plant or wildlife species and, thus, the Project Alternative would have no potential to contribute to a cumulative impact to specialstatus plant and/or animal species. (EIR, p. 4.2-10) The Project Alternative would not impact any riparian or sensitive natural communities; therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulativelyconsiderable impact to these resources. (EIR, p. 4.2-10) The Project Alternative would not impact any State-protected or federallyprotected wetlands. Accordingly, the Project Alternative has no potential to contribute to a cumulatively-considerable impact to State or federally protected wetlands. (EIR, p. 4.2- 10)
The Project Alternative would remove ornamental trees on the property perimeter that have the potential to support nesting birds protected by federal and State regulations.
A wide range of habitat and vegetation types have the potential to support nesting birds; 66689
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
therefore, it is likely that other development projects within the cumulative study area also may impact nesting birds. Thus, the Project Alternative has the potential to contribute to a cumulatively-considerable impact to nesting birds. With the application of the mitigation measures provided in the EIR, cumulative impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level (previously discussed herein under Section 3.A). (EIR, p. 4.2- 10)
The Project Alternative would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Other development projects in the cumulative study area would be required to comply with applicable local policies and/or ordinances related to the protection of biological resources as a standard condition of review/approval. Because the Project Alternative and cumulative development would be prohibited from violating applicable, local policies or ordinances related to the protection of biological resources, a cumulatively-considerable impact would not occur. (EIR, p. 4.2-10) The Project Site is not located within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Because there is no conservation plan applicable to the Project Site, there is no potential for the Project Alternative to contribute to the violation of a conservation plan. No cumulative impact would occur. (EIR, p. 4.2- 10)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project Alternative would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to cultural resources with the incorporation of specified mitigation measures.
Record searches and field surveys indicate the absence of significant historical sites and resources on the Project Site; therefore, implementation of the Project Alternative has no potential to contribute towards a significant cumulative impact to historical sites and/or resources. (EIR, pp. 4.3-12)
Development activities on the Project Site would not impact any known prehistoric archaeological resources and the likelihood of uncovering previously unknown prehistoric archaeological resources during Project Alternative construction are low due to the magnitude of disturbance that has occurred on the Site due to historic agriculture, residential, and commercial uses. Nonetheless, the potential exists for subsurface prehistoric archaeological resource that meet the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 definition of a significant archaeological resource to be discovered on the Project Site – and other development project sites in the region – during construction activities.
Accordingly, the Project Alternative has the potential to contribute to a significant cumulative impact to prehistoric archaeological sites and/or resources. Therefore, the Project Alternative would result in a cumulatively-considerable impact to prehistoric archaeological resources, if such resources are unearthed during construction, for which 66790
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
mitigation is required. With implementation of mitigation measures provided in the EIR, cumulatively-considerable impacts would be less than significant (previously discussed herein under Section 3.B). (EIR, p. 4.3-12)
Mandatory compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq., would assure that all future development projects within the region treat human remains that may be uncovered during development activities in accordance with prescribed, respectful and appropriate practices, thereby avoiding significant cumulative impacts. (EIR, p. 4.3-12) F. ENERGY RESOURCES
The Project Alternative and other new development projects within the cumulative study area would be required to comply with all the same applicable federal, State, and local regulatory measures aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption and the conservation of energy. Accordingly, the Project Alternative would not cause or contribute to a significant cumulatively-considerable impact related to conflicts with a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (EIR, p. 4.4-9) G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project Alternative would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to geology and soils after the application of required mitigation.
With the exception of erosion hazards, potential hazardous effects related to geologic and soil conditions (i.e., fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, expansion, septic tanks) are unique to the Project Site, and inherently restricted to the specific property proposed for development. That is, issues including fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils would involve effects to (and not from) a proposed development project, are specific to conditions on the subject property, and are not influenced or exacerbated by the geologic and/or soils hazards that may occur on other, off-site properties. Because of the Site-specific nature of these potential hazards and the measures to address them, there would be no direct or indirect connection to similar potential issues or cumulative effects to or from other properties. (EIR, p. 4.5-14)
Regulatory requirements mandate that the Project Alternative incorporate design measures during construction and long-term operation to ensure that significant erosion impacts do not occur. Other development projects in the vicinity of the Project Site would be required to comply with the same regulatory requirements as the Project to preclude substantial adverse water and wind erosion impacts. Because the Project Alternative and other projects within the cumulative study area would be subject to similar mandatory regulatory requirements to control erosion hazards during construction and long-term operation, cumulative impacts associated with wind and water erosion hazards would be 66891
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.5-14)
The Project Alternative’s potential to result in cumulative impacts to paleontological resources is similar to that of other projects located in the region that are underlain by older alluvial soils. Because the older alluvial soils present on the Project Site contain high paleontological sensitivity and because this geologic layer is present throughout the City of Fontana and southern California, the potential to impact paleontological resources is a cumulatively-considerable impact for which mitigation is required. After the application of required mitigation, impacts would be less than significant (previously discussed herein under Section 3.C). (EIR, p. 4.5-14)
H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Global climate change (GCC) occurs as the result of global emissions of GHGs.
An individual development project does not have the potential to result in direct and significant GCC-related effects in the absence of cumulative sources of GHGs. The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impacts analysis (See CEQA Guidelines § 15130(f)). Accordingly, the analysis summarized in Section 4 herein reflects a cumulative impact analysis of the effects related to the Project Alternative’s GHG emissions, which concludes that the Project Alternative would generate cumulatively considerable GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. As noted in Section 4, no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce GHG emissions from the Project Alternative to below a cumulatively considerable level. (EIR, pp. 4.6-22 and 6-13)
I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project Alternative would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials.
The Project Alternative’s construction and operation would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Although the end user(s) of the Project Site are not presently known, if businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the proposed building, the business owners and operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Such uses also would be subject to additional review and permitting requirements by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District.
Similarly, any other developments in the area proposing the construction of uses with the potential for use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials also would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, and such uses would be subject to additional review and permits from their local oversight agency. Therefore, the potential for release of toxic substances or hazardous materials into the environment, 66992
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
either through accidents or due to routine transport, use, or disposal of such materials, would be reduced to a less-than-cumulatively-significant level. (EIR, pp. 4.7-16 to 4.7-17) The Project Site is located within one-quarter mile of Jurupa Hills High School.
There are several cumulative development projects also within one-quarter mile of Jurupa Hills High School. All cumulative development projects would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations related to the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the safe handling of hazardous materials, including the appropriate response and clean-up in the event of an accident, to preclude substantial health and safety hazards to students at Jurupa Hills High School. (EIR, p. 4.7-17)
The Project Site is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; therefore, the Project Alternative has no potential to contribute to substantial, cumulative effects related to the development or redevelopment of contaminated property.
The Project Alternative is not a noise-sensitive land use and would not be adversely affected by noise from operations at the ONT. In addition, the Project Alternative would not introduce any land use to the Project Site that would conflict with the ONT ALUCP. Therefore, the Project Alternative would not affect airport noise levels or be affected by airport noise levels and, therefore, would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact associated with airport hazards. (EIR, p. 4.7-17) The Project Site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route; thus, there is no potential for the Project Alternative to contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (EIR, p. 4.7-17)
The Project Site is not located within or in close proximity to areas identified as being subject to wildland fire hazards and would have no potential to contribute to adverse, cumulative wildland fire hazards. (EIR, p. 4.7-17) J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project Alternative would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to hydrology and water quality.
Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board and the Santa Ana RWQCB, all construction projects that disturb one (1) or more acres of land area are required to obtain coverage for construction activities under the State’s General Construction NPDES Permit. In order to obtain coverage, an effective site-specific SWPPP is required to be developed and implemented. The SWPPP must identify potential on-Site pollutants and identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures to reduce or eliminate discharge of pollutants to surface 67093
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
waters. In addition, the Project Applicant and all cumulative developments in the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program, which establishes water quality standards for ground and surface waters of the region. Compliance with these mandatory regulatory requirements, would ensure that development projects within the Santa Ana River watershed, including the Project Alternative, would not cumulatively contribute to substantial water quality impairments during construction. (EIR, p. 4.8-16) The Project Alternative and other development projects within the watershed would similarly be required by law to prepare and implement site-specific SWQMPs to ensure that runoff does not substantially contribute to water quality violations. Accordingly, operation of the Project Alternative would not contribute to cumulatively-considerable water quality effects. (EIR, p. 4.8-16)
The Project Alternative incorporates design features that would allow surface runoff to infiltrate into the groundwater basin. Other development projects would similarly be required by applicable lead agencies to incorporate design features that facilitate percolation (e.g., through minimum landscaped/permeable area requirements, water quality/detention basins, infiltration basins). Also, implementation of the Project Alternative would not result in substantial adverse effects to local groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge. Thus, no component of the Project Alternative would obstruct with or prevent implementation of the management plan for the Chino Groundwater Basin and other development projects within the Chino Groundwater Basin would be prohibited from any activity that would endanger the health and sustainability of the groundwater basin. Based on the lack of impacts to groundwater, the provision of design measures that would facilitate percolation, and compliance with applicable Chino Groundwater Basin management plans, cumulative development would not result in a considerable, adverse effect to local groundwater supplies. (EIR, pp. 4.8-16 to 4.8-17) Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations and applicable drainage plans would require development sites to be protected from flooding during peak storm events (i.e., 100-year storm) and also would not allow development projects to expose downstream properties to increased flooding risks during peak storm events. In addition, future development proposals within the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to prepare hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, subject to review and approval by the responsible City/County Engineer, to demonstrate that substantial on- and/or off-site flood hazards would not occur. The Project Alternative is designed to ensure that runoff from the Project Site during peak storm events is reduced relative to existing conditions.
Because the Project Alternative and all other developments throughout the Santa Ana River Basin, would need to comply with federal, State, and local regulations to ensure that stormwater discharges do not substantially exceed existing volumes or exceed the volume of available conveyance infrastructure, a substantial cumulative impact related to flood hazards would not occur. (EIR, p. 4.8-17)
Lastly, the Project Site is not located within a special flood hazard area or in an 67194
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
area subject to inundation. Accordingly, development on the Project Site would have no potential to impede or redirect flood flows and a cumulatively-considerable impact would not occur. (EIR, p. 4.8-17)
K. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The Project Site does not provide access to established communities and development of the Site would not isolate any established communities or residences from neighboring communities. Development and operation of the Project Alternative would not physically disrupt or divide the arrangement of an established community. The Project Alternative also would not conflict with any of the policies or goals in the Fontana General Plan, SCAG Connect SoCal, SCAQMD AQMP, and San Bernardino County CMP. Accordingly, the Project Alternative has no potential to cause or contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts related to land use and planning. (EIR, pp. 5-8 to 5- 11)
L. MINERAL RESOURCES
The Project Site is not located within an area that is 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. Implementation of the Project Alternative would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state. Accordingly, the Project Alternative has no potential to cause or contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts relating to mineral resources. (EIR, p. 5-11)
M. NOISE
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project Alternative would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to noise.
Cumulative Construction Noise
There are no known active, pending, or planned construction projects in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site that would overlap with the Project Alternative’s expected construction schedule. Accordingly, there is no potential for the Project Alternative to contribute to the exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to substantial temporary (construction-related) increases in daytime or nighttime ambient noise levels. (EIR, pp. 4.9-22 to 4.9-23)
Cumulative Stationary Noise
Due to the relatively low levels of operational noise, the Project Alternative’s noise contribution would not be perceptible to noise-sensitive receptors near the Project Site during daytime or nighttime hours. The Project Alternative’s permanent stationary noise impacts would not be cumulatively-considerable. (EIR, p. 4.9-23) 67295
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Cumulative Traffic Noise
The Project Alternative’s traffic noise contributions along study area roadways would not exceed applicable significance thresholds and, therefore, would not be cumulatively-considerable under near- or long-term conditions. (EIR, p. 4.9-23) Cumulative Groundborne Vibration and Noise
During construction, peak vibration impacts would occur during the grading phase when large pieces of equipment, like bulldozers, are operating on-site. (During the nongrading phases of construction, when smaller pieces of equipment are used on-site, vibration would be minimal.) Vibration effects diminish rapidly from the source; therefore, the only reasonable sources of cumulative vibration in the vicinity of the Project Site could occur on properties abutting these sites. As described above, there are no known active or pending construction projects abutting the Project Site that would overlap with the Project’s proposed construction schedule. Accordingly, there is no potential for the Project Alternative to contribute to the exposure of persons to substantial temporary groundborne vibration or noise. (EIR, p. 4.9-23)
Under long-term conditions, the Project Alternative would not include or require equipment or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration beyond the Project Site. Trucks would travel to and from the Project Site 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 Project Alternative would not cumulatively-contribute to the exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels during long-term operation. (EIR, p. 4.9-23) Cumulative Airport Noise
There are no conditions associated with implementation of the Project Alternative that would cumulatively contribute airport noise or exposure of additional people to unacceptable levels of airport noise. Additionally, the Project Site and the immediately surrounding area are not subject to substantial airport- or air traffic-related noise (and are not occupied by land uses that are sensitive to airport or air-traffic related noise).
Accordingly, there is no potential for cumulative development to expose persons residing or working in the Project Site area to excessive airport-related noise levels. (EIR, p. 4.9- 24)
N. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Project Alternative does not propose any uses that would result in unplanned growth that is not already allowed by the Fontana General Plan. Although the Project Alternative would result in the demolition of 10 homes – and the displacement of their residents – would not cause or contribute to the need to construct replacement housing elsewhere in the City. (EIR, p. 5-12)
67396
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
O. PUBLIC SERVICES
Based on the 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. Likewise, the Project Alternative would not contribute to the need for new or expanded police protection facilities. Moreover, the Project Applicant’s payment of DIF fees, as well as increased property tax revenues that would result from development of the Project Alternative, would be used by the City to help pay for fire protection services, police protection services and other public services. Because the Project Alternative would not directly generate students and is not expected to indirectly draw students to the area, the Project Alternative would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. Nevertheless, the Project applicant will be required to pay impact fees to the Fontana Unified School District.
The Project Alternative does not propose 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, as well as other public facilities. Based on the foregoing information and information provided in the EIR, the Project Alternative would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts to public services. (EIR, pp. 5- 12 to 5-14)
P. RECREATION
The Project Alternative does not propose 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. The Project Alternative also would not construct any new on- or off-site recreation facilities. Thus, the Project Alternative would have no impact to recreation facilities. (EIR, p. 5-15) Q. TRANSPORTATION
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project Alternative would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to transportation.
For the reasons explained in detail in the EIR, the Project Alternative would not conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and, thus, would not cumulatively contribute to a conflict or obstruction with an applicable transportationrelated program. (EIR, p. 4.10-12) Under cumulative traffic conditions, the Project Alternative is calculated to generate 7.29 VMT per employee. The Project Alternative’s cumulative VMT would be approximately 49 percent below the average regional trip length (i.e., 14.37 miles), which would surpass the VMT reductions required by applicable significance threshold (15 percent below the average regional trip length). Accordingly, the Project Alternative’s 67497
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
cumulative VMT impact is considered to be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.10-12) The Project Alternative would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact under the topics of transportation hazards and emergency access because the Project would not cause or exacerbate existing transportation design safety concerns or adversely affect emergency access and there are no cumulative development projects adjacent to the Project Site that could contribute additive effects that could degrade motor vehicle or pedestrian safety or emergency vehicle access in proximity to the Project Site. (EIR, p. 4.11-10)
R. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Development activities on the Project Site would not impact any known tribal cultural resources and the likelihood of uncovering previously unknown tribal cultural resources during Project construction are low due to the magnitude of disturbance that has occurred on the Site due to historic agriculture, residential, and commercial uses.
Nonetheless, the potential exists for buried/masked tribal cultural resources to be discovered on the Project Site – and other development project sites in the region – during construction activities. Accordingly, the Project Alternative has the potential to contribute to a significant cumulative impact to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Project Alternative would result in a cumulatively-considerable impact to tribal cultural resources, if such resources are unearthed during construction, for which mitigation is required. With implementation of mitigation measures provided in the EIR, cumulatively-considerable impacts would be less than significant (previously discussed herein under Section 3.B). (EIR, pp. 4.11-8 to 4.11-9)
S. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project Alternative would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to utilities and service systems.
The installation of water and sewer line connections, stormwater drainage facilities, electricity, natural gas, and communications infrastructure as provided by the Project Alternative would result in physical impacts to the environment; however, these impacts were considered throughout the EIR and feasible and enforceable mitigation measures were imposed to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. No impacts would occur specifically related to construction of the Project Alternative’s utility connections. (EIR, pp. 5-15 to 5-16)
The FWC forecasts for projected water demand are based on the population projections of the SCAG, which rely on the adopted land use designations contained within the general plans that cover the geographic area within FWC’s service. Because the Project Alternative would be consistent with the Fontana General Plan land use designation and zoning for the Project Site and, the water demand associated with the Project was considered in the FWC’s projected demand in the 2020 UWMP and analyzed 67598
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
therein. Because the Project Alternative’s land uses were included in the FWC’s water planning demand projections and because the FWC expects to have adequate water supplies to meet all its current and projected demands until at least 2045; the FWC has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project Alternative and cumulative development from existing entitlements/resources and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. (EIR, p. 5-16)
Wastewater generated by the Project Alternative and cumulative development would be treated by IEUA’s RP-1 or RP-4 wastewater treatment plants. The RP-1 facility has approximately 16 million gallons of excess treatment capacity under existing conditions. The RP-4 facility has approximately 4 million gallons of excess treatment capacity under existing conditions. It is anticipated that RP-1 and RP-4 have sufficient treatment capacity to provide service to the Project Alternative and cumulative development and the Project Alternative would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact related to the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. (EIR, p. 5-16)
Solid waste generated by construction and operation of the Project Alternative would represent nominal proportions of the daily disposal capacity at the Mid-Valley Landfill. The Mid-Valley Landfill has sufficient daily capacity to handle solid waste generated by the Project Alternative and other cumulative developments both during construction and long-term operation. The Project Alternative’s incremental contribution to solid waste generation may contribute to an ultimate need for expanding the solid waste disposal facilities. Moreover, it is possible that as other developments in the region are proposed, construction of new solid waste disposal facilities to serve those developments could occur, and such facilities may or may not receive solid waste generated by the Project Alternative. With planned expansion activities of landfills in the Project vicinity (including the Mid-Valley Landfill) and projected growth rates contained in the City’s General Plan EIR, sufficient landfill capacity would exist to accommodate future disposal needs through 2030. Therefore, development according to the Fontana General Plan would not create demands for solid waste services that would exceed the capabilities of the waste management system. Therefore, the Project Alternative’s cumulative impacts to solid waste disposal facilities are evaluated as less than significant. (EIR, pp. 5-17 to 5-18)
T. WILDFIRE
The Project Site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Implementation of the Project Alternative would not exacerbate any existing wildfire hazard risks or expose people or the environment to adverse environmental effects related to wildfires. The Project Alternative would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to wildfire. (EIR, p. 5- 17)
67699
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
SECTION 6. FINDING REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
According to Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is required to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should a project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or
The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.
Natural resources, in the form of construction materials and energy resources, would be used in the construction of the industrial commerce center facility. The consumption of these natural resources would represent an irreversible change to the environment. However, development of the Project Alternative would have no measurable adverse effect on the availability of such resources, including resources that may be nonrenewable (e.g., construction aggregates, fossil fuels). Additionally, the Project Applicant is required by law to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) as well as City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1891, which will minimize the Project Alternative’s demand for energy, including energy produced from non-renewable sources. (EIR, p. 5-2)
The proposed industrial commerce center facility is consistent with the Project Site’s existing General Plan land use designation and zoning, and the proposed industrial commerce center use would be compatible with existing and planned industrial developments within the corridor between I-10 and Slover Avenue. Although the proposed warehouse distribution building could be perceived to be incompatible with the existing legal, non-conforming residential land uses that abut the Project Site on the west, the Project Alternative would not result in any significant and unavoidable local/localized physical impacts to these receptors. Accordingly, the Project Alternative and its environmental effects would not compel or commit surrounding properties to land uses other than those that are existing today or those that are planned by the Fontana General Plan. For this reason, the Project Alternative would not result in a significant, irreversible change to nearby, off-site properties. (EIR, p. 5-2)
Mandatory compliance with federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials handling, storage, and use by all construction contractors (near term) and occupants (long-term) would ensure that any hazardous materials used on the Project Site would be safely and appropriately handled to preclude any irreversible, substantial damage to the environment that could result if hazardous materials were released from the Site. (EIR, p. 5-2)
100 677
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
The proposed industrial commerce center would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Accordingly, the Project Alternative would not result in a significant, irreversible change to the environment related to energy use. (EIR, p. 5-2)
SECTION 7. FINDING REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
The State CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss the ways a project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth must not be assumed as beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e), a project would be considered to have a growth-inducing effect if it would result in any of the effects listed below. Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment; Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas); Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.
According to regional population projections included in SCAG’s Connect SoCal, the City of Fontana’s population is projected to grow by 75,700 persons between 2016 and 2045 (an approximately 1.1% annual increase). Over this same time period, employment in the City is expected to add 18,400 new jobs (an approximately 1.0% annual increase). Economic growth would likely take place as a result of the operation of the proposed industrial commerce center building. The Project Alternative’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 Project Site, would be highly unlikely to result in any unanticipated, adverse physical impacts to the environment. In addition, the Project Alternative would create jobs, a majority of which would likely be filled by residents of the housing units either already built or planned for development within the City of Fontana and nearby incorporated and unincorporated areas. Accordingly, because it is anticipated that most of the Project Alternative’s future employees would already be living in the Inland Empire area, the introduction of employment opportunities on the Project Site would not induce substantial growth in the area. (EIR, p. 5-3) The Project Alternative represents infill, urban redevelopment with land uses in an area of the City that is planned for employment-generating land uses. The Project Alternative would not extend roads or infrastructure to an area that is not already served 101 678
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
by these facilities. Thus, the Project Alternative would not remove obstacles to growth or include improvements that that could induce growth. Furthermore, the area surrounding the Project Site consists of a mixture of light industrial and legal, non-conforming residential land uses. Development of the Project Site is not expected to place short-term development pressure on abutting properties because these areas are either already developed or are planned for future development with light industrial land uses.
Furthermore, the Project Site is already served by utilities and infrastructure, and there are no components of the Project Alternative that would remove obstacles for surrounding properties to develop. (EIR, p. 5-4)
Based on the foregoing response and the information disclosed in the EIR, the Project Alternative would not result in substantial, adverse growth-inducing impacts.
SECTION 8. FINDING REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The EIR evaluated three alternatives to the Project for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project’s environmental effects while also meeting the majority of the Project’s objectives.
A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the Project are as follows:
1. To expand economic development in the City of Fontana by re-developing an underutilized property with an in-demand industrial use within a portion of the City that is planned for long-term industrial development.
2. To make efficient use of a property in the City of Fontana by maximizing its buildout potential for employment-generating uses.
3. 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.
4. To develop an industrial building with loading bays adjacent to City of Fontana truck routes and in close proximity to the I-10 Freeway that can be used as part of the southern California supply chain and goods movement network.
5. To attract businesses that can expedite the delivery of goods to consumers and businesses in the City of Fontana and beyond.
6. To develop a project that has architectural design and operational characteristics that are compatible with other existing and planned land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site.
7. To redevelop a property that has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities.
102 679
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE
SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
1. 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.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(2))
Historic activities on the Project Site have resulted in pervasive, ongoing disturbance over the last 90+ years. The Project Site does not contain any natural/native habitat and the Project Site is used for the manufacturing of pre-cast concrete products.
Based on review of aerial photography and the Fontana General Plan Land Use Map, there are no other properties in the City of Fontana that are large enough to support the proposed industrial commerce center facility and have fewer developmental and environmental constraints than the Project Site. (EIR, p. 6-3) Development of the proposed industrial commerce center at an alternative location would likely result in similar (or greater) environmental impacts as would occur with implementation of the Project at the proposed Project Site. The Project’s significant and unavoidable impact is related primarily to vehicles traveling to/from the Project Site and not related to the presence of sensitive resources on the Project Site or its location near sensitive receptors. Vehicle-related impacts are a direct reflection of the Project’s expected operational characteristics as a warehouse distribution facility, regardless of where the Project is located. Because the Project Site abuts a designated truck route (Slover Avenue) and is located in close proximity to on/off-ramps to I-10, any alternative site that was located farther from State freeways or major arterial roads that are designated truck routes than the Project Site would increase vehicle miles traveled (and would result in a concomitant increase in the severity of GHG emissions from tailpipe emissions). Further, an alternative site that was not as thoroughly disturbed by existing development as the Project Site may have additional environmental impacts that the Project would not. (EIR, p. 5-3)
For these reasons, a more detailed analysis of alternative sites is not warranted.
C. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR
1. No Project Alternative
Description: The No Project Alternative considers no development on the Project Site beyond what exists on the Site today. As such, the non-conforming residential uses 103 680
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
and vacant parcels would remain on the Project Site for the foreseeable future. This alternative was selected by the City of Fontana to compare the environmental effects of the Project against an alternative that would leave the property in its existing state.
Impacts: Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in no physical environmental impacts to the Project Site beyond those that have historically occurred on the property. All significant effects of the Project would be avoided by the selection of this alternative. (EIR, pp. 6-5 through 6-7)
Objectives and Feasibility: The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project’s objectives because it would not re-develop the Project Site and would not promote local economic development, including through the creation of new jobs and the expansion of the local tax base. (EIR, p. 6-7)
Finding: The Planning Commission rejects the No Project Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) this alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives; (2) even though this alternative would avoid impacts relating to development of the Project site, given the regional high demand for logistics/warehouse uses this alternative would most likely displace impacts to another location rather than reduce or avoid impacts to the environment; and (3) this alternative is infeasible given that retention of the site in its vacant condition would result in a blighted condition and would be inconsistent with the Fontana General Plan, which anticipates full development of the Project site. Therefore, the No Development Alternative is eliminated from further consideration.
2. Boyle Avenue Preservation and Reduced Building Area
Alternative
Description: The Boyle Avenue Preservation and Reduced Building Area Alternative (“Boyle Avenue Alternative”) considers a proposal where the segment of Boyle Avenue located east of Oleander Avenue and west of Cypress Avenue is retained, splitting the Project Site into two halves. Under this Alternative, both the northern and southern halves of the Project Site would be developed with warehouse distribution/commerce center land uses at a FAR of 0.45, as allowed by the City of Fontana General Plan and Zoning and Development Code, resulting in a combined total of approximately 560,250 s.f. of building area on the Site. This Alternative was used to evaluate whether a scenario that would retain Boyle Avenue and develop the Site with smaller industrial buildings would result in fewer environmental impacts than the Project.
Impacts: The Boyle Avenue Alternative would likely increase the Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental impact from GHG emissions. This alternative would also increase energy consumption in comparison to the Project; however, energy impacts would remain less than significant. Upon application of the same mitigation measures as the Project, the Boyle Avenue Alternative would result in similar, less than significant impacts as the Project to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, 104 681
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. (EIR, pp. 6-8 to 6-11)
Objectives and Feasibility: The Boyle Avenue Alternative would not meet Project Objective 2 because it provides a reduced scale of development in comparison to the proposed Project and would not maximize employment-generating potential of development on the Project Site. The Boyle Avenue would meet all other Project objectives because it provides a similar land use and building design as the Project. (EIR, p. 6-11)
Finding: The Planning Commission rejects the Boyle Avenue Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) this alternative does not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment; (2) this alternative would result in higher GHG emissions than the Project; and (3) this alternative meets the Project objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed Project. Therefore, the Boyle Avenue Alternative is eliminated from further consideration.
3. Modified Building Operations Alternative
Description:
The Modified Building Operations Alternative (the “Project Alternative” discussed throughout these findings) considers a proposal where a physical development design that is identical to the proposed Project is provided, but operations of the building are modified to limit refrigerated warehouse space to no more than 12.5 percent of the total proposed building area (approximately 78,200 s.f.). Other than reducing the amount of floor area that would potentially be utilized for refrigerated storage uses, all other aspects of the proposed Project – including but not limited to its site plan, building height, architecture design, landscape design, proposed use, and hours of operation – would remain unchanged. Due to the reduction in the amount of cold storage provided, operation of this Alternative would require less electricity than the Project and, also, fewer heavy trucks equipped with transport refrigeration units (TRUs). This Alternative was selected to evaluate whether modifying a relatively energy-intensive aspect of the Project’s operations would result in a substantive reduction to any of the significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project.
Impacts: The Project Alternative would reduce – but not avoid – the Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental impact from GHG emissions by approximately 10 percent. This Alternative would reduce energy consumption in comparison to the Project; however, both the Project and the Project Alternative would result in less than significant environmental impacts from energy consumption. The Project Alternative would require the same mitigation measures as the Project for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, GHG emissions hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources. Upon consideration of all required mitigation measures, the 105 682
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Project Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resources, which is the same conclusion drawn for the Project. (EIR, pp. 6-11 to 6-14)
Objectives and Feasibility: The Project Alternative would meet all of the Project’s objectives because it provides a similar land use and identical building design and scale of development as the Project. (EIR, p. 6-11)
Finding: The Planning Commission adopts and approves the Project Alternative rather than the Project because the Project Alternative would meet all the Project’s objectives while reducing the Project’s significant unavoidable effect related to GHG emissions.
D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in the EIR. In general, the environmentally superior alternative as defined by CEQA should minimize adverse impacts to the Project site and its surrounding environment.
The No Project Alternative would avoid or reduce all of the Project’s significant environmental impacts and, therefore, is environmentally superior to the Project. The No Project Alternative is 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 § 15126.6(e)(2).
Thus, the Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative because the Project Alternative would result in the greatest reduction of environmental impacts among the remaining alternatives. As noted above, the Planning Commission is electing to adopt the Project Alternative in lieu of the Project.
SECTION 9. ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Planning Commission hereby declares that, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Planning Commission has balanced the benefits of the Project Alternative against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project Alternative. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, if the benefits of the a development project outweigh the proposed project’s unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered “acceptable.” Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project Alternative to the extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures contained in the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and this Resolution, 106 683
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
having considered the entire administrative record on the Project and Project Alternative, and having weighed the benefits of the Project Alternative against its unavoidable adverse impact after mitigation, the Planning Commission has determined that each of the following social, economic and environmental benefits of the Project Alternative 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 Project Alternative 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 both developed and vacant land into productive commerce center use.
B. The Project Alternative will allow a property to be developed 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.
C. The Project Alternative 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.
D. The Project Alternative creates short-term construction jobs that would generate increases in construction employee wages, as well as a multiplier effect of those wages that will create secondary jobs to support construction activities and the needs of construction workers. The addition of new jobs to the City of Fontana will create direct and indirect economic benefits, such as increased tax income to the City and spending on goods and services; E. Implementation of the Project Alternative will result in payment of Development Impact Fees, City permitting fees, and property taxes, that would benefit the City of Fontana by increasing available funding for needed public services and infrastructure; and
F. The Project Alternative will redevelop an underutilized property, thereby eliminating the potential threats of vacancy, neglect, and blight that could occur if the property is not reused and which may cause safety hazards to the residents of the City and hazard to the environment.
SECTION 10. ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached to this 107 684
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Resolution as Exhibit “A.” In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures listed herein and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control.
SECTION 11. 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 9353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA. The custodian for these records is Patty Nevins, Director of Community Development. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
SECTION 12. CERTIFICATION
The Planning Commission finds that it has been presented with the EIR as the decision-making body for the Project, and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR before approving the Project Alternative. The Planning Commission further certifies that the EIR is accurate and objective, that it has been completed in full compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission declares that no evidence of new significant impacts as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been received by the Planning Commission after circulation of the Draft EIR which would require recirculation.
Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.
SECTION 12. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of San Bernardino (Clerk of the Board of Supervisors) and the State Clearinghouse within 5 (five) working days of final Project approval.
SECTION 13. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
SECTION 14. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Resolution or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Fontana, 108 685
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
California, at a regular meeting held on this 19th day of March 2024.
City of Fontana
_________________
Cathline Fort, Chairperson
ATTEST:
I, Ricardo Quintana, 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 19th day of March, 2024, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________
Ricardo Quintana, Secretary
109 686
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Exhibit “A”
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
110 687
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Air Quality
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less than
Significant Impact. The
Project would neither
contribute to a delay in the
attainment of federal and
State air quality standards
in the SCAB nor exceed
local growth projections.
Accordingly, the Project
would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of
the 2016 AQMP.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Threshold b: Less than
Significant Impact. Project
construction and
operational activities would
not exceed the applicable
SCAQMD regional
threshold for any criteria
pollutant. Thus, the Project
would not contribute
cumulatively considerable
volumes of any air pollutant
for which the SCAB does
not attain federal or State
air quality standards.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
111 688
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Threshold c: Less than
Significant Impact.
Implementation of the
Project would not: 1)
exceed applicable
SCAQMD localized criteria
pollution emissions
thresholds during
construction and operation;
2) would not expose
sensitive receptors to toxic
air contaminants (i.e.,
DPM) that exceed the
applicable SCAQMD
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk
thresholds; and 3) would
not cause or contribute to
the formation of a CO “hot
spot.”
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Threshold d: Less than
Significant Impact. The
Project would not produce
air emissions that would
lead to unusual or
substantial constructionrelated or operationalrelated odors. The Project is required to comply with
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
112 689
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
SCAQMD Rule 402, which
prohibits the discharge of
odorous emissions that
would create a public
nuisance.
Biological Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: No Impact.
The Project Site does not
contain or support any
special-status plant or
wildlife species. As such,
implementation of the
proposed Project would not
have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitat
modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold b.: No Impact.
The Project Site does not
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
113 690
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
contain riparian and/or
other sensitive natural
habitats; therefore, the
Project would have no
impact on riparian or other
sensitive habitats as
classified by the CDFW or
USFWS.
Threshold c: No Impact. No
State- or federallyprotected wetlands are
located on the Project Site;
therefore, no impact to
wetlands would occur.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold d: Potentially
Significant Direct and
Cumulatively-Considerable
Impact. There is no
potential for the Project to
interfere with the movement
of fish or impede the use of
a native wildlife nursery
site. However, the Project
has the potential to impact
nesting migratory birds
protected by the MBTA and
California Fish and Game
Code, should habitat
removal occur during the
MM 4.2-1 Vegetation
clearing and ground
disturbance shall be prohibited
during the migratory bird
nesting season (January 31
through September 1), unless
a migratory bird nesting survey
is completed in accordance
with the following
requirements:
a) A nesting bird survey shall
be conducted on the Project
Site and within suitable
habitat located within a 500-
Project
Biologist
City of
Fontana
Planning
Division
Prior to
construction
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
114 691
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
nesting season and should
nesting birds be present.
foot radius of the Project
Site by a qualified biologist
within three days prior to
initiating vegetation clearing
or ground disturbance.
b) If the survey identifies the
presence of active nests,
then the nests shall not be
disturbed unless the
qualified biologist verifies
through non-invasive
methods that either (i) the
adult birds have not begun
egg-laying and incubation;
or (ii) the juveniles from the
occupied nests are capable
of independent survival.
c) If the biologist is not able to
verify any of the conditions
from sub-item “b,” above,
then no disturbance shall
occur within a buffer zone
specified by the qualified
biologist for each nest or
nesting site. The buffer
zone shall be speciesappropriate (no less than
115 692
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
100-foot radius around the
nest for non-raptors and no
more than a 500-foot radius
around the nest for raptors)
and shall be sufficient to
protect the nest from direct
and indirect impacts from
construction activities. The
size and location of buffer
zones, if required, shall be
based on consultation with
the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and shall be subject
to review and approval by
the City. The nests and
buffer zones shall be field
checked weekly by a
qualified biological monitor.
The approved buffer zone
shall be marked in the field
with construction fencing,
within which no vegetation
clearing or ground
disturbance shall
commence until the
qualified biologist, with City
concurrence, verifies that
116 693
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
the nests are no longer
occupied and/or juvenile
birds can survive
independently from the
nests.
Threshold e: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
Project would not conflict
with any local policies or
ordinances protecting
biological resources.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Threshold f: No Impact.
The Project impact area is
not located within the
boundaries of any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or
State habitat conservation
plan.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Cultural Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: No Impact. No
historic resources, as
defined by CEQA
Guidelines Section
15064.5, are present on the
Project Site; therefore, no
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
117 694
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
historic resources could be
altered or destroyed by
construction or operation of
the Project..
Threshold b: Potentially
Significant Direct and
Cumulatively-Considerable
Impact. No known
prehistoric resources are
present on the Project Site
and the likelihood of
uncovering buried
prehistoric resources on the
Project Site is low due to
the magnitude of historic
ground disturbance on the
Project Site. Nonetheless,
the potential exists for
Project-related construction
activities to result in a
potentially direct and
cumulatively-considerable
impact to significant
subsurface prehistoric
archaeological resources
should such resources be
discovered during Projectrelated construction
activities.
MM 4.3-1 Prior to the
issuance of a grading permit,
the Project Applicant shall
provide evidence to the City of
Fontana that an archaeologist
that meets the latest version of
the Secretary of the Interior
Professional Qualifications
Standards (hereafter “Project
Archaeologist”) has been
retained to conduct the training
and monitoring activities
described in Mitigation
Measure 4.3-2 and Mitigation
Measure 4.3-3.
MM 4.3-2 Prior to the
issuance of a grading permit,
the Project Applicant or
construction contractor shall
provide evidence to the City of
Fontana that the construction
site supervisors and crew
members involved with grading
and trenching operations have
Project
Applicant
Project
Archaeologist
City of
Fontana
Planning
Division
Prior to
issuance of
grading permit
Less-thanSignificant
Impact after
Mitigation
118 695
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
received training by the Project
Archaeologist to recognize
archaeological resources
(historic and prehistoric) should
such resources be unearthed
during ground-disturbing
construction activities. The
training will include a brief
review of the cultural sensitivity
of the area; what resources
could potentially be identified
during earthmoving activities;
the requirements of the
monitoring program; the
protocols that apply in the
event inadvertent discoveries
of archaeological resources
are identified, including who to
contact and appropriate
avoidance measures until the
find(s) can be properly
evaluated; and any other
appropriate protocols. All new
supervisorial construction
personnel involved with
grading and trenching
operations that begin work on
the Project Site after the initial
training session must take the
119 696
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
training prior to beginning work
on-site.
MM 4.3-3 The Project
Archaeologist shall conduct
monitoring during all grading,
trenching, and excavation
activities. The Project
Archaeologist shall be
equipped to salvage artifacts if
they are unearthed to avoid
construction delays. Should
the Project Archaeologist
determine during construction
activities that there are no
archaeological resources
within the Project’s disturbance
area or should the
archaeological sensitivity be
reduced to low, archaeological
monitoring activities can be
reduced to spot-checking or
may be allowed to cease.
MM 4.3-4 In the event that
suspected cultural resources
are discovered during Project
construction activities:
120 697
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a. Upon discovery of any
cultural, tribal cultural, or
archaeological resources,
construction activities in the
immediate vicinity of the find
shall cease until the find can
be assessed. All cultural,
tribal and archaeological
resources unearthed by
Project construction
activities shall be evaluated
by the qualified
archaeologist and tribal
monitor/consultant. If the
resources are Native
American in origin,
interested Tribes (as a
result of correspondence
with area Tribes) shall
coordinate with the
landowner regarding
treatment and curation of
these resources. Typically,
the Tribe will request
preservation in place or
recovery for educational
purposes. Work may
continue on other parts of
121 698
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
the project while evaluation
takes place.
b. Preservation in place shall
be the preferred manner of
treatment. If preservation in
place is not feasible,
treatment may include
implementation of
archaeological data
recovery excavation to
remove the resource along
the subsequent laboratory
processing and analysis.
All Tribal Cultural
Resources shall be returned
to the Tribe. Any historic
archaeological material that
is not Native American in
origin shall be curated at a
public, non-profit institution
with a research interest in
the materials, if such an
institution agrees to accept
the material. If no institution
accepts the archaeological
material, they shall be
offered to the Tribe or a
local school or historical
122 699
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
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.
123 700
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Threshold c: Less-ThanSignificant Impact. In the
unlikely event that human
remains are discovered
during Project grading or
other ground disturbing
activities, the Project would
be required to comply with
the applicable provisions of
California Health and
Safety Code Section
7050.5 and California
Public Resources Code
Section 5097 et seq.
Mandatory compliance with
State law would ensure that
any discovered human
remains are appropriately
treated and would preclude
the potential for significant
impacts.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Energy
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
amount of energy and fuel
consumed by construction
and operation of the Project
would not be inefficient,
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
124 701
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
wasteful, or unnecessary.
Furthermore, the Project
would not cause or result in
the need for additional
energy facilities or energy
delivery systems.
Threshold b: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
Project would not cause or
result in the need for
additional energy
production or transmission
facilities. The Project would
not conflict with or obstruct
the achievement of energy
conservation goals within
the State of California
identified in State and local
plans for renewable energy
and energy efficiency.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Geology & Soils
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-thanSignificant Impact.
Implementation of the
Project would not expose
people or structures to
substantial direct or indirect
adverse effects related to
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
125 702
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
liquefaction or fault rupture.
The Project Site is subject
to seismic ground shaking
associated with
earthquakes; however,
mandatory compliance with
local and State regulatory
requirements and building
codes would ensure that
the Project minimizes
potential hazards related to
seismic ground shaking to
less-than-significant levels.
126 703
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Threshold b: Less-thanSignificant Impact.
Implementation of the
Project would not result in
substantial soil erosion or
loss of topsoil. The Project
Applicant would be required
to obtain a National
Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for
construction activities and
adhere to a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), and prepare an
erosion control plan to
minimize water and wind
erosion. Following
completion of development,
the Project’s owner or
operator would be required
by law to implement a
Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) during
operation, which would
preclude substantial
erosion impacts in the longterm.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
127 704
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Threshold c: Less-thanSignificant Impact. There is
no potential for the Project’s
construction or operation to
cause, or be impacted by,
on- or off-site landslides or
lateral spreading. Potential
hazards associated with
unstable soils would be
precluded through
mandatory adherence to
the recommendations
contained in the Project’s
site-specific geotechnical
reports during Project
construction.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Threshold d: No Impact.
The Project Site contains
soils with no susceptibility
to expansion; therefore, the
Project would not create
substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property
associated with the
presence of expansive
soils. No impact would
occur.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
128 705
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Threshold e: No Impact. No
septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal
systems are proposed to be
installed on the Project Site.
Accordingly, no impact
would occur associated
with soil compatibility for
wastewater disposal
systems.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold f: Potential Direct
and CumulativelyConsiderable Impact. The
Project would not impact
any known paleontological
resource or unique
geological feature.
However, the Project Site is
underlain by older alluvium
soils with a high sensitivity
for paleontological
resources. Accordingly,
construction activities on
the Project Site have the
potential to unearth and
adversely impact
paleontological resource
that may be buried beneath
the ground surface.
MM 4.5-1 Prior to the
issuance of a grading permit,
the Project Applicant shall
provide evidence to the City of
Fontana that a qualified
paleontologist
(“paleontologist”) has been
retained by the Project
Applicant or contractor to
conduct monitoring of
excavation activities and has
the authority to halt and redirect
earthmoving activities in the
event that suspected
paleontological resources are
unearthed.
Project
Applicant
Project
Paleontologist
City of
Fontana
Planning
Division
Prior to
issuance of
grading permit
Less-thanSignificant
after
Mitigation
129 706
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
MM 4.5-2 The
paleontologist shall conduct
full-time monitoring during
grading and excavation
operations in undisturbed late
Pleistocene old alluvial fan
deposits starting at a depth of
10 feet below the existing
ground surface. The
paleontologist shall be
equipped to salvage fossils if
they are unearthed to avoid
construction delays and to
remove samples of sediments
that are likely to contain the
remains of small fossil
invertebrates and vertebrates.
The paleontologist shall be
empowered to temporarily halt
or divert equipment to allow for
the removal of abundant and
large specimens in a timely
manner. Monitoring may be
reduced if the potentially
fossiliferous units are not
present in the subsurface, or if
present, are determined upon
exposure and examination by
130 707
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
the paleontologist to have a low
potential to contain or yield
fossil resources.
MM 4.5-3 Recovered
specimens shall be properly
prepared to a point of
identification and permanent
preservation, including screen
washing sediments to recover
small invertebrates and
vertebrates, if necessary.
Identification and curation of
specimens into the collections
of the Division of Geological
Sciences, San Bernardino
County Museum, shall be
required for discoveries of
significance as determined by
the paleontological monitor.
MM 4.5-4 A final monitoring
and mitigation report of findings
and significance shall be
prepared, including lists of all
fossils recovered, if any, and
necessary maps and graphics
to accurately record the original
131 708
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
location of the specimens. The
report shall be submitted to the
City of Fontana prior to
issuance of the first occupancy
permit.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: CumulativelyConsiderable Impact. The
Project would exceed the
City’s significance
threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e
per year. As such, the
Project would generate
substantial, cumulativelyconsiderable GHG
emissions that may have a
significant impact on the
environment.
MM 4.6-1 To ensure
compliance with the City of
Fontana Industrial Commerce
Centers Sustainability
Standards, City Staff shall
assure implementation of the
following measures during
Project design, construction,
and operation.
a. Design and Construction
Measures
1. All building roofs shall be
solar-ready, which includes
designing and constructing
buildings in a manner that
facilitates and optimizes the
installation of a rooftop solar
photovoltaic (PV) system at
some point after the building
has been constructed.
Project
Applicant
City of
Fontana
Planning
Division and
Building &
Safety
Division
Prior to
issuance of
building permits
and final
inspection
(Design and
Construction
Measures);
Ongoing during
operation
(Operational
Measures)
Significant
Unavoidable
CumulativelyConsiderable
Impact
132 709
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
[Fontana Municipal Code
Section 9-73(b)]
2. The office portion of a
building's rooftop that is not
covered with solar panels or
other utilities shall be
constructed with light
colored roofing material
with a solar reflective index
("SRI") of not less than 78.
This material shall be the
minimum solar reflective
rating of the roof material for
the life of the building.
[Fontana Municipal Code
Section 9-73(c)]
3. On buildings over 400,000
square feet, prior to
issuance of a business
license, the city shall ensure
rooftop solar panels are
installed and operated in
such a manner that they will
supply 100 percent of the
power needed to operate all
non-refrigerated portions of
the facility including the
133 710
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
parking areas. [Fontana
Municipal Code Section 9-
73(d)]
4. At least ten percent of all
passenger vehicle parking
spaces shall be electric
vehicle (EV) ready, with all
necessary conduit and
related appurtenances
installed. At least five
percent of all passenger
vehicle parking spaces shall
be equipped with working
Level 2 Quick charge EV
charging stations installed
and operational, prior to
building occupancy.
Signage shall be installed
indicating EV charging
stations and specifying that
spaces are reserved for
clean air/EV vehicles.
Unless superior technology
is developed that would
replace the EV charging
units, facility operator and
any successors in interest
shall be responsible for
134 711
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
maintaining the EV
charging stations in working
order for the life of the
facility. [Fontana Municipal
Code Section 9-73(e)]
5. Unless the owner of the
facility records a covenant
on the title of the underlying
property ensuring that the
property cannot be used to
provide chilled, cooled, or
freezer warehouse space, a
conduit shall be installed
during construction of the
building shell from the
electrical room to 100
percent of the loading dock
doors that have potential to
serve the refrigerated
space. When tenant
improvement building
permits are issued for any
refrigerated warehouse
space, electric plug-in units
shall be installed at every
dock door servicing the
refrigerated space to allow
transport refrigeration units
135 712
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
(TRUs) to plug in. Truck
operators with TRUs shall
be required to utilize electric
plug-in units when at
loading docks. [Fontana
Municipal Code Section 9-
73(f)]
6. Bicycle racks are required
per section 30-714 and in
the amount required for
warehouse uses by table
30-714 of the zoning and
development code. The
racks shall include locks as
well as electric plugs to
charge electric bikes. The
racks shall be located as
close as possible to
employee entrance(s).
Nothing in this section shall
preclude the warehouse
operator from satisfying this
requirement by utilizing
bicycle parking amenities
considered to be superior
such as locating bicycle
parking facilities indoors or
providing bicycle lockers.
136 713
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
[Fontana Municipal Code
Section 9-73(g)]
7. Cool surface treatments
shall be added to all drive
aisles and parking areas or
such areas shall be
constructed with a solarreflective cool pavement
such as concrete. [Fontana
Municipal Code Section 9-
74(a)]
8. To ensure that warehouse
electrical rooms are
sufficiently sized to
accommodate the potential
need for additional electrical
panels, either a secondary
electrical room shall be
provided in the building, or
the primary electrical room
shall be sized 25 percent
larger than is required to
satisfy the service
requirements of the building
or the electrical gear shall
be installed with the initial
construction with 25 percent
137 714
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
excess demand capacity.
[Fontana Municipal Code
Section 9-74(b)]
9. Use of super-compliant
VOC architectural and
industrial maintenance
coatings (e.g., paints) shall
be required. [Fontana
Municipal Code Section 9-
74(c)]
10.The applicant shall use
reasonable best efforts to
deploy the highest rated
CARB Tier technology that
is available at the time of
construction. Prior to permit
issuance, the construction
contractor shall submit an
equipment list confirming
equipment used is
compliant with the highest
CARB Tier at the time of
construction. Equipment
proposed for use that does
not meet the highest CARB
Tier in effect at the time of
construction, shall only be
138 715
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
approved for use at the
discretion of the planning
director and shall require
proof from the construction
contractor that, despite
reasonable best efforts to
obtain the highest CARB
Tier equipment, such
equipment was unavailable.
[Fontana Municipal Code
Section 9-74(e)(1)]
11.Use of electric-powered
hand tools, forklifts, and
pressure washers shall be
required. [Fontana
Municipal Code Section 9-
74(e)(2)]
12.Designation of an area in
any construction site where
electric-powered
construction vehicles and
equipment can charge shall
be required. [Fontana
Municipal Code Section 9-
74(e)(3)]
139 716
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
13.Identification in site plans of
a location for future electric
truck charging stations and
installation of a conduit to
that location shall be
required. [Fontana
Municipal Code Section 9-
74(e)(4)]
14.Diesel-powered generators
shall be prohibited except in
case of emergency or to
establish temporary power
during construction.
[Fontana Municipal Code
Section 9-74(e)(4)]
b. Operational Measures
1. Anti-idling signs indicating a
three-minute diesel truck
engine idling restriction
shall be posted at industrial
commerce facilities along
entrances to the site and in
the dock areas and shall be
strictly enforced by the
facility operator. [Fontana
Municipal Code Section 9-
72(c)]
140 717
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
2. Prior to issuance of
certificate of occupancy
facility operators shall
establish and submit for
approval to the planning
director a truck routing plan
to and from the state
highway system based on
the city's latest truck route
map. The plan shall
describe the operational
characteristics of the use of
the facility operator,
including, but not limited to,
hours of operations, types
of items to be stored within
the building, and proposed
truck routing to and from the
facility to designated truck
routes that avoids passing
sensitive receptors, to the
greatest extent possible.
The plan shall include
measures, such as signage
and pavement markings,
queuing analysis and
enforcement, for preventing
truck queuing, circling,
141 718
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
stopping, and parking on
public streets. Facility
operator shall be
responsible for enforcement
of the plan. A revised plan
shall be submitted to the
City of Fontana planning
director prior to a business
license being issued by the
city for any new tenant of
the property. The planning
director shall have
discretion to determine if
changes to the plan are
necessary including any
additional measures to
alleviate truck routing and
parking issues that may
arise during the life of the
facility. [Fontana Municipal
Code Section 9-72(d)]
3. Signs shall be installed at all
truck exit driveways
directing truck drivers to the
truck route as indicated in
the truck routing plan and
state highway system.
142 719
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
[Fontana Municipal Code
Section 9-72(g)
4. Prior to issuance of a
business license, city shall
ensure for any facility with a
building or buildings larger
than 400,000 total square
feet, that the facility shall
include a truck operator
lounge equipped with clean
and accessible amenities
such as restrooms, vending
machines, television, and
air conditioning. [Fontana
Municipal Code Section 9-
72(j)]
5. On-site motorized
operational equipment shall
be ZE (zero emission).
[Fontana Municipal Code
Section 9-73(a)]
6. The facility operator shall
incorporate a recycling
program. [Fontana
Municipal Code Section 9-
74(d)]
143 720
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
7. Property owner shall
provide facility operator with
information on incentive
programs such as the Carl
Moyer Program and
voucher incentive program
and shall require all facility
operators to enroll in the
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency's SmartWay
Program. [Fontana
Municipal Code Section 9-
74(e)(4)]
MM 4.6-2 The following
notes shall be listed on the
Project’s grading plans, to be
confirmed by the City of
Fontana prior to grading permit
issuance. Project construction
contractors shall be required by
their contracts to ensure
compliance with the notes and
permit periodic inspection of
the construction site by City of
Fontana staff or their designee
to confirm compliance.
Project
Applicant
City of
Fontana
Planning
Division and
Building
and Safety
Division
Prior to
issuance of
grading permits
and building
permits.
144 721
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a. All off-road diesel-powered
construction equipment
shall have a minimum
CARB Tier 3 engine rating.
b. Off-road diesel-powered
construction equipment
shall be shut off when not in
use for three (3) minutes. In
addition, off-road dieselpowered construction
equipment shall be in the
“on” position for no more
than 10 hours per day.
Project construction
contractors shall maintain a
daily log of off-road dieselpowered equipment usage,
which shall be kept on-site
for the duration of
construction activities and
made available to City of
Fontana staff or their
designee upon request.
c. Project construction
contractors shall assure
that all construction
equipment complies with all
145 722
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
applicable California Air
Resources Board (CARB)
air quality regulations. Also,
Project construction
contractors shall tune and
maintain all construction
equipment in accordance
with the equipment
manufacturer’s
recommended
maintenance schedule and
specifications. Maintenance
records for all pieces of
equipment shall be kept onsite for the duration of
construction activities and
shall be made available for
periodic inspection by City
of Fontana staff or their
designee.
d. Project construction
contractors shall provide
construction employees
with information on transit
and ridesharing programs
and services.
146 723
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
e. Project construction
contractors shall allow food
trucks on-site during
appropriate break and/or
lunch periods to provide
construction employees
with meal options that
minimize the need for offsite travel.
MM 4.6-3 Prior to the
issuance of a building permit,
the Project Applicant or
successor in interest shall
provide documentation to the
City of Fontana demonstrating
that the Project is designed to
meet or exceed the equivalent
of the “Silver” rating (Core and
Shell) from the U.S. Green
Building Council Leadership in
Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) program and,
also, meets or exceeds the
CalGreen Tier 2 standards in
effect at the time of the
Project’s building permit
application is filed.
Project
Applicant
City of
Fontana
Planning
Division and
Building &
Safety
Division
Prior to
issuance of
building permit.
147 724
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Threshold b: Less than
Significant Impact. The
Project would be consistent
with or otherwise would not
conflict with, applicable
regulations, policies, plans,
and policy goals that would
further reduce GHG
emissions.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Summary of Impacts
Thresholds a and b: Lessthan-Significant Impact.
During Project construction
and operation, mandatory
compliance with federal,
State, and local regulations
would ensure that the
Project would not create a
significant hazard to the
environment due to routine
transport, use, disposal, or
upset of hazardous
materials.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Threshold c: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
Project Site is located
within one-quarter mile of
Jurupa Hills High School;
MM 4.7-1 In the event that
any unidentified subsurface
feature, oil, or chemical-stained
concrete is discovered during
grading or other groundN/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
148 725
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
however, the Project would
comply with applicable
federal, State, and local
regulations related to the
handling, storage, use, and
transport of hazardous
materials to ensure that
students at Jurupa Hills
High School are not
exposed to substantial
hazardous emissions or
acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or
waste.
disturbing construction activity,
all activity in the vicinity of the
unidentified material shall be
halted and a qualified
hazardous materials
professional shall be called to
inspect the site and determine
if further assessment is
needed. The results of any
testing shall be provided to the
City. In the event that the
material is determined not to be
hazardous, no further action is
required. In the event that the
material is deemed hazardous,
removal/remediation shall be
conducted pursuant to
applicable State Department of
Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) or California Code of
Regulations (CCR) Title 22
hazardous waste criteria or
contamination standards for
industrial land uses. This work
must be carried out by a
qualified hazardous materials
professional hired by the
Project Applicant. Prior to the
completion of material removal,
149 726
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
the Project Applicant shall
submit evidence to the City for
review and approval
demonstrating that the
hazardous material has been
appropriately
removed/remediated. This
measure shall be implemented
to the satisfaction of the City of
Fontana’s Community
Development Department.
MM 4.7-2 Prior to the
issuance of any new
occupancy permit for a
use/user within the Project’s
warehouse buildings, and to
the extent hazardous materials
exist on-site and a Hazardous
Materials Business Emergency
Plan (HMBEP) is required by
law, the Project
Applicant/Developer or Project
Site owner shall provide a copy
of its approved Emergency
Response Plan to the
Superintendent’s Office and
Facilities Office of the Fontana
Unified School District as well
150 727
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
as the Principal of Jurupa Hills
High School outlining how the
building user will prevent or
respond to spills or leaks of
hazardous materials related to
its facility/facilities and use of
the Project Site. If so
requested, the Project
Applicant/Developer or Project
Site owner shall also meet with
School District and Fire
Department officials to discuss
emergency response
procedures as contained in the
HMBEP for spills or leaks at the
Project Site in relation to the
nearby school facilities. This
measure shall be implemented
under the supervision of the
City of Fontana’s Planning
Division, with input from the
Fontana Unified School District
Superintendent as appropriate.
All meetings shall be
documented and
documentation shall be
provided to the City Planning
Department within 30 days of
each meeting. Failure to abide
151 728
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
by these procedures may be
grounds for revocation of any
conditional use permits or other
discretionary approvals for
specific warehouse uses on the
Project Site.
Threshold d: No Impact.
The Project Site is not
located on any list of
hazardous materials sites
complied pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold e: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
Project is consistent with
the restrictions and
requirements of the ONT
ALUCP. As such, the
Project would not result in
an airport safety hazard for
people residing or working
in the Project area.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Threshold f: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
Project Site does not
contain any emergency
facilities nor does it serve
as an emergency
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
152 729
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
evacuation route. During
construction and long-term
operation, adequate
emergency vehicle access
is required to be provided.
Accordingly,
implementation of the
Project would not impair
implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency
response plan or an
emergency evacuation
plan.
Threshold g: No Impact.
The Project Site is not
located in close proximity to
wildlands or areas with high
fire hazards. Thus, the
Project would not expose
people or structures to a
significant wildfire risk.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Hydrology and Water Quality
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
Project would not violate
any water quality standards
or waste discharge
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
153 730
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade
surface or ground water
quality. Adherence to a
SWPPP and WQMP is
required as part of the
Project’s implementation to
address construction- and
operational-related water
quality.
Threshold b: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
Project would not physically
impact any of the major
groundwater recharge
facilities in the Chino
Groundwater Basin. The
Project would not
substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the Project would
impede sustainable
groundwater management
of the Basin.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Threshold c: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
Project would be required
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
154 731
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
to comply with applicable
water quality regulatory
requirements to minimize
erosion and siltation.
Additionally, the Project
would not result in flooding
on- or off-site or
impede/redirect flood flows.
Lastly, the Project would
not create or contribute
runoff that would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff.
Threshold d: No Impact.
The Project Site would not
be subject to inundation
from tsunamis, seiches, or
other hazards
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold e: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
Project would not conflict
with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
155 732
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
sustainable groundwater
management plan.
Noise
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
Project would generate
short-term construction and
long-term operational noise
but would not generate
noise levels that exceed the
standards established by
the Fontana General Plan
or Municipal Code.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Threshold b: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
Project’s construction and
operational activities would
not result in a perceptible
groundborne vibration or
noise.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Threshold c: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
proposed Project would be
compatible with noise
levels from the ONT and
operation of the Project
would not expose future
employees on the Project
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
156 733
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Site to excessive noise
levels.
Transportation
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
Project would not conflict
with an applicable program,
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Threshold b: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
VMT generated by the
Project would not exceed
the City’s significance
threshold. Further, the
Project would not conflict
with the San Bernardino
County CMP.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Threshold c: Less-thanSignificant Impact. The
Project would not introduce
any significant
transportation safety
hazards due to a design
feature or incompatible use.
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-thanSignificant Impact
Threshold d: No Impact.
Adequate emergency
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact
157 734
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
access would be provided
to the Project Site during
construction and long-term
operation. The Project
would not result in
inadequate emergency
access to the Site or
surrounding properties.
Tribal and Cultural Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Significant
Direct and Cumulatively
Considerable Impact. The
Project Site does not
contain any recorded,
significant tribal cultural
resource sites; therefore,
the Project would not cause
a substantial adverse
change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource
that is listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
Resources or a local
register of historical
resources. Nonetheless,
Project construction
activities have the potential
MMs 4.3-1 through 4.3-4 shall
apply (refer to Subsection 4.3,
Cultural Resources).
Refer to MM
4.3-1 through
4.3-4
Refer to
MM 4.3-1
through 4.3-
4 Refer to MM
4.3-1 through
4.3-4
Less-thanSignificant
Impact with
Mitigation
158 735
Attachment No. 4
THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
PARTY
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
to unearth and adversely
impact tribal cultural
resources that may be
buried at the Project Site.
159 736
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
RESOLUTION PC NO. 2024-_____
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
FONTANA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21-007 (TPM
NO. 20456) AND DESIGN REVIEW NO 21-013 TO CONSOLIDATE 21 PARCELS INTO ONE PARCEL AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 623,460
SQUARE FEET INDUSTRIAL COMMERCE CENTER BUILDING, ON A
PARCEL OF APPROXIMATELY 29.8 ACRES, PURSUANT TO
CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) (SCH NO
202112059) LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SLOVER
AVENUE AND CYPRESS AVENUE (APNS: 0251-163-01, -02, -03, -04, - 05, -06, -07, -08, -09, -10, & -13, AND 0251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, & -25) AND DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.
WHEREAS, On September 19, 2006, assessor parcel numbers (“APN”) 0251-163- 01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07, -08, -09, -10, & -13, and 0251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, - 14, -15, -16, -20, -23, & -25 were annexed from San Bernardino County into the City of Fontana (“Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2021, the City of Fontana (“City”) received an application from Duke Realty/PROLOGIS (“Applicant”) for a Tentative Parcel Map (Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007) (TPM No. 20456)] for the consolidation of 22 parcels into one lot of approximately 29.8 acres and Design Review (DRP No. 21-013) for the development of an industrial commerce center building of approximately 623,460 square feet at the Project Site; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site has a General Plan land use designation of General Industrial (I-G) and Light Industrial (I-L); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resource Code §§ 21000 et seq.) (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.) the City previously determined that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the City Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City prepared and, pursuant to Resolution No. 2024-___ certified the Final Program EIR (FEIR) on March 19, 2024, and Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) consisting of comments received during the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft FEIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions and errata to the Draft FEIR. For the purposes of this Resolution, the “FEIR” shall refer to the Draft FEIR, as revised by the Final FEIR’s errata section, together with the other sections of the Final FEIR; and 160 737
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
WHEREAS, based on that evaluation, staff concluded that the FEIR fully analyzed and mitigated, where feasible, all potentially significant environmental impacts, if any, that would result from the Proposed Project, and therefore, no subsequent EIR or mitigated negative declaration is required; and
WHEREAS, the Conditions of Approval are attached hereto as “Exhibit A” for Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) and as “Exhibit B” for DRP No. 21-013; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2024, a notice of the public hearing was published in the Fontana Herald newspaper and simultaneously displayed at City Hall and at the Project Site; and
WHEREAS, the owners of property within 660 feet of the Project Site were notified via public hearing notice mailer prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, all of the notices required by statute and the Fontana Municipal Code (FMC) have been given as required; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2024, a duly noticed public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) and DRP No. 21-013 was held by the Fontana Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) to consider testimony and evidence presented by the Applicant, City staff, and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2024, the Planning Commission carefully considered all information, evidence and testimony presented at its public hearing on Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) and DRP No. 21-013; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to protect and preserve the quality of the life throughout the City, through effective land use and planning; 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 true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. CEQA. Consistent with CEQA (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 202112059) was prepared for development. Per Resolution PC No. 2024-___, the Planning Commission adopted environmental findings and a 161 738
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Statement Of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA, certified the EIR, which analyzed Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) and DRP No. 21-013, adopted the MMRP, and approved the Project and a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
Section 3. Tentative Parcel Map Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) in accordance with Section 26-218 (d) “Processing of application” of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code”:
Finding No. 1. That the proposed map is consistent with the city's general plan and any applicable specific plan.
Finding of Fact: Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation for the Project Site, which is General Industrial (I-G) and Light Industrial (I-L). The General Plan and zoning districts allow for industrial (warehouse) use. The project meets the General Plan 5 Action Statement which encourages directing new industrial development in order to build out this area designated for industrial development. The lot size with the consolidation will meet the lot standards of the General Industrial (M2) and Light Industrial (M-1) zoning districts. This project site is not located within a specific plan.
Finding No. 2. That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.
Finding of Fact: The project has been designed to be consistent with the General Plan, including any on-site and off-site improvements. 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 General Plan, and Chapter No. 26 of the FMC and the General 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 industrial zoning districts. The project plans have been reviewed by the Planning Department, and the Engineering Department, and the conditions of approval will ensure compliance with the city code and regulations. This project site is not located within a specific plan.
Finding No. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development.
162 739
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Finding of Fact: The overall project site of approximately 29.8 acres, is adequate in size to accommodate the development. The Project Site is of an adequate size to accommodate industrial development and the existing topography is relatively flat with an approximate 12-foot gradient difference. The project plans have been reviewed by the Planning Department, and the Engineering Department, and the conditions of approval will ensure compliance with the city code and regulations.
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 and wildlife or their habitat.
Finding of Fact: The design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
The project site has been previously disturbed with underdeveloped uses. The surrounding areas are developed with other industrial uses and other properties are being reviewed through other entitlement processes. 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 established within the EIR will reduce any significant impacts to the surrounding area. The FEIR prepared for the project and the MMRP have adequately identified any potential impacts associated with the project.
Finding No. 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvement will not cause serious public health problems.
Finding of Fact: The design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) will not cause public health problems. The project was evaluated through the EIR for impacts. Improvements for the project include sidewalks, drainage, undergrounding of utilities, and site grading to provide a safe and well-designed project for the area. The project plans have been reviewed by the Planning Department, and the Engineering Department, and the conditions of approval will ensure compliance with the city code and regulations. Therefore, the project 163 740
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
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.
Finding of Fact: The design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) and associated public improvements, will not conflict with access easements acquired by the public. The property will be accessed from Oleander Avenue and Slover Avenue.
Section 4. Design Review Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for Design Review No. 21-013 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, Zoning and Development Code, and any applicable Specific Plan.
Finding of Fact: The project is for the development of an industrial commerce center building totaling approximately 623,460 square feet on a 29.8-acre site. Architectural features for the project include varying roof heights, window statements and aluminum framing. The site and building design comply with the criteria contained in the design review section of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code. As required, the project has high quality architecture and appropriate screening comprised of screen walls and landscaping that will make for an appropriate and desirable development.
The project is consistent with Chapter 15 (Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Development) of the General Plan which allows for industrial commerce centers (warehousing) in the I-G and I-L land use districts.
Furthermore, the building is designed in a manner that limits off-site impacts. For example, the dock areas are designed to be located away from public view, and there is sufficient stacking distance along all the driveways. Therefore, this industrial commerce center project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation.
Finding No. 2. The proposal meets or exceeds the criteria contained in this chapter and will result in an appropriate, safe, and desirable development promoting the public health, safety, and welfare of the community.
164 741
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Finding of Fact: The project will result in the construction of a warehouse building totaling approximately 623,460 square feet. This facility will be built pursuant to all applicable building, zoning, and fire codes, in addition to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and referenced herein. Architectural features such as glazing, aluminum frames, and a variety of colors will add structural and visual interest to the building. Additionally, variations to the building face and roof lines, with corner elements at a maximum of 48.5-foot will be architecturally pleasing and be consistent with the surrounding area.
The project will include sidewalk and landscape improvements along Slover Avenue, Oleander Avenue, and Cypress Avenue. The site improvements have been reviewed by the Fire, Building and Safety, Engineering Departments and conditions of approval were added to the project in order to ensure a safe project for the occupants and community.
Access to and from the project site is provided by four private driveways, three (3) along Oleander Avenue and one along of Slover Avenue. The trucks will access the site from two (2) driveway along Oleander Avenue and one (1) along Slover Avenue. Passenger vehicles will access the site from Oleander Avenue.
The project shall be served by the City’s sanitary sewer system.
There is an existing sewer main available within Slover Avenue and one to be constructed within Oleander Avenue, a lateral connection will be proposed to connect to one of them. The applicant shall connect the proposed building to sewer main. All construction shall be in accordance with the City Standards.
Proposed landscaping would be ornamental in nature and would features trees, shrubs, and drought-tolerant accent plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers. Therefore, the project will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the occupants and community.
Finding No. 3. The proposal, in its design and appearance, is aesthetically and architecturally pleasing resulting in a safe, well-designed facility while enhancing the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Findings of Fact: The project has been determined to be aesthetically and architecturally pleasing and compatible with the surrounding area.
The project site is approximately 22 adjusted parcels, totaling 29.8 acres, and is physically suitable in size and shape to support the industrial commerce center building. Constructing the project in 165 742
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
accordance with applicable building, zoning, and fire codes will make for a safe, attractive, and well-designed project. The project will create visual interest with architectural features such as glazing, corner elements, and a variety of colors with variations to the building face and roof lines. The project is designed to be compatible with the surrounding industrial uses while providing a development that has been designed with features (architectural relief, landscaping, street improvements, and lighting), to enhance the character of 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 will result in appropriate improvements, not only for the Project Site, but the surrounding area. Project features include sidewalks, drainage, grading, and perimeter and privacy walls, and gates to provide a safe and well-designed neighborhood.
The project has been reviewed by the City’s Planning, Engineering, Building and Safety, and Fontana Fire Prevention Departments for site circulation, access, and safety and the conditions of approval will ensure compliance with the city code and regulations. The warehouse project meets and exceeds the standards of the Zoning and Development Code and will provide a safe design for public access. The surrounding area is developed with recent constructed industrial commerce buildings which have provided a safe and welldesigned facilities. This project will be consistent with the surrounding developed that has occurred.
Section 5. Approvals. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as "Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference, and approves Design Review No. 21-013, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 6. 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 7. Certification. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
166 743
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
Section 9. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Fontana, California, at a regular meeting held on this 19th day of March 2024.
City of Fontana
_________________
Cathline Fort, Chairperson
ATTEST:
I, Ricardo Quintana, 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 19th day of March, 2024, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________
Ricardo Quintana, Secretary
167 744
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBIT “A”
CITY OF FONTANA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: Master Case No. (MCN) 21-038 March 19, 2024
Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456)
LOCATION: The project site is located on the northwest corner of Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue over 22 parcels (APNs: 0251-163-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, - 06, -07, -08, -09, -10, & -13, and 0251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, - 16, -20, -23, & -25) .
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 requirements of the Fontana City’s Municipal Code shall be complied with.
B. All Conditions of Approval imposed on this project have been fulfilled.
2. The applicant/developer/property owner 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.
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 168 745
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
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. This tentative parcel map shall comply with all applicable development standards of Chapter 26 (Subdivisions), Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code) of the Municipal Codes of the City of Fontana and the Subdivision Map Act.
4. The applicant/developer/property owner 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. All Conditions of Approval 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.
6. This Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) 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.
7. 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. 30-30 of the Municipal Code.
8. 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 169 746
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
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.
ENGINEERING LAND DEVELOPMENT:
9. 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 designed and constructed in accordance with master sanitary sewer plan or as approved by the City Engineer.
10. The applicant/developer/property owner 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 No. 27-52 of the City Municipal Code and in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer.
11. The applicant/developer/property owner shall maintain all improvements and utilities within the public right-of-way, including street sweeping, prior to final acceptance by the City.
12. The project will have at most two ingress/egress points along Slover Ave. The easternmost location shall be designed, constructed, and signed for emergency vehicle access only. The westernmost location shall be designed, constructed, and signed to restrict ingress and egress to right-in and right-out movements only.
13. The project will have at most three ingress/egress points along Oleander Ave.
14. Left-turn ingress and/or egress at all access locations may be restricted in the future due to traffic operational or safety concerns. Alternatives to such restrictions may be considered, subject to approval of the City Engineer.
15. Intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance must be shown to meet the required standards both horizontally and vertically at all ingress/egress locations including consideration for walls, landscaping, grading, and vegetation.
16. The location of bicycle parking shall be depicted on the site plan. Bicycle parking shall comply with the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals.
17. All gated ingress locations shall provide a visual indication to drivers prior to entering the gated driveway whether the gate is closed or open. This may be excluded if sufficient turn-around space is provided for the design vehicle or if the gate is manned with personnel who would permit an errant driver to enter the gate to turn around and depart. At no time shall the project cause vehicles entering the site to need to reverse into a travel lane in the public right-of-way in order to depart or turnaround. 170 747
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
18. The project shall provide a ridesharing program and establish a permanent transportation management association with funding requirements for employers.
Ridesharing shall be promoted through a multifaceted approach including a minimum of: designating a minimum of 18 desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and providing an app or website for coordinating rides.
19. The project shall contribute the fair share amount for improvements identified in the traffic study. The project shall contribute 25.4% of the cost for a new traffic signal based on an engineer’s estimate provided by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer for the construction of a new traffic signal at Juniper Ave and Slover Ave.
20. The project shall identify the improvements necessary for the intersection of Oleander Ave and Slover Ave to achieve an acceptable Level of Service, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The project shall design and construct the improvements identified.
Prior To Issuance of Grading Permit
21. The applicant/developer/property owner shall submit and gain approval of a complete Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Report in accordance with the County of San Bernardino Technical Guidance Document and latest template.
22. The applicant/developer/property owner 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
23. The applicant/developer/property owner shall provide a Land Improvement Agreement, with accompanying security. The agreement shall be executed on City-provided forms.
Prior To Issuance of Construction Permits
24. The applicant/developer/property owner shall record any map’s, right-of-way dedications, easements, reciprocal access agreement as required for the development.
25. The applicant/developer/property owner shall submit engineered improvement plans and obtain full approval. All required public improvements, including but are not limited to street, storm drainage systems, sewers, traffic signals, streetlights, striping, signs, landscape, and any required traffic control and/or detour plans. utilities, streetlights, signing and striping, traffic control and/or detour plans. All plans shall conform to City Standards and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer.
171 748
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
26. Design the extension of Master Storm Drainage Plan Line DZ-7 in Oleander Ave together with an extension of Line DZ-7 to the project site to serve as the primary drainage discharge point for the project. Include a supporting hydrology and hydraulics study.
27. The Applicant shall perform a pavement quality analysis by a qualified geotechnical engineer for Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue for the City to review and approve.
Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue along the project frontage shall be fully replaced to bring the pavement structural section into conformance with City standards. Any remedial action less than full replacement shall be justified by the pavement analysis and shall bring the pavement condition to a 20-year pavement life.
Prior To Issuance of Final Certification of Occupancy
28. Construct the extension of Master Storm Drainage Plan Line DZ-7 in Oleander Ave together with an extension of Line DZ-7 to the project site.
29. The applicant/engineer to provide the City of Fontana with As Built/Record Drawings for all public improvement plans.
30. Slurry seal roads effected by the development as directed by the inspector. Slurry seal limits may extend past the project frontage to address existing striping/pavement markings that conflicts with new striping/pavement markings, repair trenches, and other areas as determined by the inspector.
31. 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.
32. The applicant/engineer shall set survey monuments as required by the map, and corner records must be recorded with the County.
33. 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).
34. 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. 172 749
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
35. 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.
36. 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 (BMP) Transfer. The Access, Maintenance, and the WQMP Certification for BMP Completion must be submitted to the City Project Engineer.
37. Existing and proposed public catch basins in industrial areas shall be fitted with BioClean™ Connector Pipe Screen (CPS) trash screens in compliance with trash provisions of the water quality control plan for inland surface waters, enclosed bay, and estuaries of California.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT:
38. The Parcel Map shall record prior to the issuance of any permits.
39. Any temporary building, trailer, commercial coach, etc. installed and/or used in connection with a construction project shall comply with Fontana City Code.
END OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
173 750
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBIT “B”
CITY OF FONTANA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: Master Case No. (MCN) 21-038 March 19, 2024
Design Review No. (DRP) No. 21-013
LOCATION: The project site is located on the northwest corner of Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue over 22 parcels (APNs: 0251-163-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, - 06, -07, -08, -09, -10, & -13, and 0251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, & -25).
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; and
B. All other Conditions of Approval imposed by this project have been fulfilled.
2. 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 Manger’s decision. The noticing of such City Council meeting for possible ratification shall be pursuant to Section No. 30-30 and Section No. 30-31 of the Municipal Code.
3. The applicant/developer/property owner 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 174 751
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
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 California Environmental Quality Act (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 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.
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 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.
5. The applicant/developer shall comply with the mitigation measures identified in the CEQA (SCH No. 202112059) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as approved by the Planning Commission.
6. Prior to the construction of any modifications, all structural and aesthetic changes to the project design must be requested and approved in writing by the Director of Planning or his/her designee. Major structural and aesthetic changes exceeding the codified parameters of administrative policy shall be presented to the Planning Commission for approval. Changes made without approval as stated herein, will prevent the occupancy of the structure until corrections are approved in writing by all appropriate staff.
7. 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 175 752
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
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.
8. 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.
9. This project will comply with all applicable provisions, regulations, and development standards of the City of Fontana Municipal Code.
10. The applicant shall meet all the requirements of Chapter No. 9, Article No. 5 (Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards).
11. A copy of the Industrial Sustainability Ordinance requirements shall be placed on the final grading plans and the final building plans.
12. 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.
13. Sidewalks shall be provided for all new developments in accordance with the city’s circulation element of the General Plan.
14. The applicant shall 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.
15. The applicant shall incorporate an anti-graffiti coating onto the exterior of all proposed block walls to discourage graffiti.
16. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the Trip Reduction Measures in of the Zoning Code (Section 30-962).
17. Two (2) bicycle parking racks or secured bicycle lockers shall be provided for all nonresidential developments.
18. 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 176 753
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
parking spaces shall be designated in a commercial/retail parking facility, except for disabled persons parking, van pool, carpool, or any other designated parking as required by law.
19. The applicant shall depict step outs in the landscaping areas as required pursuant to the Zoning and Development Code Section No. 30-671(a)(8)c, on the Site and Landscaping plans prior to submittal of Building Department plan check.
20. All signs shall be reviewed under a separate Design Review Sign application.
21. 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.
22. All landscaping shall be healthy and maintained in a reasonable manner as determined by the Director of Planning or his/her designee.
23. The transformer shall be screened by either a screen wall or mature, dense landscaping, and not visible from the public right-of-way.
24. 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.
25. There shall be no refrigerated uses on site beyond amount analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); unless a future tenant proposes to have such uses conducts an update of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document and any applicable studies/memorandums to amend this Condition of Approval.
26. Development fees and Planning Department final inspection fees must be paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
27. Applicant shall pay all applicable service fees pursuant to the City of Fontana Municipal Code.
28. The applicant shall provide up-lighting on the perimeter and up-light proposed trees to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and his/her designee.
29. 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, 177 754
ATTACHMENT NO. 5