Fontana City Council
May 14, 2024

1039

EXHIBIT A
91 Exhibit B Page 102 of 109
1040
March 17, 2024
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Mr. Andrew J. Graf
Subject: Comment Letter on Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) For Hemlock Warehouse
Development Project, SCH No. 2009091089, Fontana,
California
Dear Mr. Graf:

At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
(ABJC), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed materials related to the above referenced project.

In February 2024, EPD Solutions, Inc, (EPD) on behalf of the City of Fontana (the City) published a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)1 for comments received before December 12, 2023, including but not limited to 3 separate letters from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on the deficiencies in the DSEIR. On February 29, 2024, EPD drafted a Memorandum2 to responses received from Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA). I have compiled the responses to the comments that were provided previously and note the inadequacies of the City’s responses to the substantial issues raised by SCAQMD and CARE CA.
1 EPD. 2024. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hemlock Warehouse Development Project SCH No. 2009091089. Prepared for City of Fontana by EPD Solutions, Inc. 2 EPD. 2024. Responses to Late Comments – Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA). Dated February 29, 2024.

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.

OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
92 Exhibit B Page 103 of 109
1041
The FSEIR and Memorandum concludes that no additional feasible mitigation is available to reduce impacts from the project on air quality in the area. This conclusion conflicts with the facts provided within the FSEIR.

1. Response To Comment A3.2 From FSEIR and Comment L1.8 Of The Memorandum -The FSEIR Underestimates The Average Truck Trip Length Of 39.9 Miles Used In The Air Quality Analysis Does Not Match The Length(s) Used To Support A Nearby Warehouses.

The City’s response to questions about the daily heavy duty truck vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the Air Quality Analysis is to claim that the distance utilized is consistent with guidance from SCAQMD is not supported by the facts. The City asserts that SCAQMD requires the use of the

39.9 mile trip length based on the SCAQMD’s Final Environmental Assessment and Adoption of Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (WAIRE), for which the trip length for Class 8 trucks (heavy duty multi-axle trucks) was assumed to travel 39.9 miles per trip based on modeling conducted for the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) from SCAG and the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).3
Even when SCAQMD, the author of the guidance listed as the basis for the 39.9 mile trip length, offers that the trip length from the Project Site to the Ports of Los Angeles or Long Beach are approximately 70 miles one way, the City concludes that the SCAQMD’s comments recommended trip lengths are “not supported by any substantial evidence provided by the SCAQMD. As such, because it would be speculative to assume that all Project truck trips would extend to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and because the percentage of truck trips that would extend to the ports is not known at this time, it is appropriate to be consistent with SCAQMD’s recommended methodology, which is based on actual data from similar facilities in the region.”4 As pointed out by SCAQMD and myself, the FSEIR’s reliance on the approximate 40-mile trip length does not comport with the reality of where warehoused materials will ship from in the region. It must be pointed out that the largest source(s) of containerized products, and therefore the primary sources of heavy-duty truck traffic, on the West Coast of the United States are the Ports of 3 SCAQMD. 2021. BOARD MEETING DATE: MAY 7, 2021 AGENDA NO. 27 pg 815. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf 4 EPD. 2024. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Hemlock Warehouse Development Project SCH No. 2009091089. Prepared for City of Fontana by EPD Solutions, Inc. pg 2-11 93 Exhibit B

1042
Los Angeles and Long Beach. “In 2020, the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland collectively accounted for over 34% of all United States international container trade. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach alone generate about 35,000 container truck trips every day.

Accordingly, the South Coast Air Basin now contains approximately 3,000 warehouses of over 100,000 square feet each, with a total warehouse capacity of approximately 700 million square feet, an increase of 20 percent over the last five years”),
5 citing Data from the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, Container TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Units)6 from 2020, the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland combined for 14.157 million TEUs, 34% of 41.24 million TEUs total nationwide.7
Additionally, another CEQA document for a similar project in San Bernardino County, the 2019 DEIR of the Duke Realty Alabama and Palmetto Warehouse Project, SCH 2019029078, utilized the average truck trip length of approximately 77 miles for heavy duty truck traffic, which is the distance to the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach.8 The Alabama/Palmetto Warehouse is located approximately 17 miles away from the Hemlock Project, therefore likely to have similar trip distances to the nearby ports.
5 Available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf 6 https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Container-TEU/x3fb-aeda/ 7 U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Operations Support – Port Peak Pricing Program Evaluation (2020), available at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09014/sect2.htm 8 MIG. 2019. Duke Alabama and Palmetto Warehouse Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for Count of San Bernardino. Appendix B Air Quality Analysis Technical Memorandum. Pg 3 94 Exhibit B Page 105 of 109
1043
Figure 1: Locations of Hemlock Warehouse Project and Duke Alabama/Palmetto Projects Since the Project’s operational emissions of NOx are primarily from mobile sources (55.70 lbs per day out of 70.54 lbs or 79% based on Table 5.1-10 of the DSEIR), increasing the trip length by 58% would create an even greater NOx problem for the Region. The City must revise the FSEIR’s air quality analysis to accurately calculate emissions using fact-based, reasonably foreseeable truck trip lengths.

2. Response To Comment A.3-7 – Permitting Of Stationary Equipment.

The City’s response to the SCAQMD’s comment about permitting of stationary equipment such as emergency generator(s) and fire pump(s), requiring permit(s) from South Coast AQMD is wholly inadequate. The City states that the “proposed building would be used for warehouse distribution and logistics. Currently, there is no plan for installation of an emergency generator or fire Duke Alabama/Palmetto
Project
Hemlock Warehouse
Project
95 Exhibit B Page 106 of 109
1044
pump. It’s possible that there may be a future need for an emergency generator and fire pump.

However, future occupants’ proposed uses would be processed through the City’s permitting system.

Should future tenants require stationary equipment such as an emergency generator, and fire pump, or other machinery, a permit from South Coast AQMD would be required, and would be verified by the City’s permitting process.”
To be compliant with the California Fire Code (CFC) and local fire authorities, the Project will be required to install a fire pump system. In addition, the operational emissions from all backup generators (BUGs), fire pumps, and booster pumps that will be used at the Project site must be analyzed in conjunction with the Project’s other operational emissions to determine the full extent of the Project’s operational air quality impacts. In particular, operational emissions from BUGs due to testing and maintenance along with unscheduled events, including but not limited to Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events and extreme heat events, may be substantial and must be analyzed by the City. Given the location of the Project Site in the most heavily impacted air quality region (South Coast Air Basin), the City must ensure that minimum impacts from stationary sources (BUGs and fire pumps) on air quality from the Project, the City must require at a minimum be Tier 4 compliant equipment in any final EIR.

3. The Underlying Assumptions Regarding the Number of Vehicles Associated With Each Square Foot of Building Utilized In The Air Quality Analysis Reflects Only The Low End Of The ITE Guidance On High Cube Warehouses And Does Not Reflect The Range Of Values Reported By ITE.

The choice of the daily trip rate has a profound impact on the calculated emissions for operational associated with the Project. The City’s choice for the trip rate is at the lowest end of the values reported in the literature. The ITE manual includes a variety of average daily vehicle trips for HCWs which range from a low of 1.4 per 1,000 square feet for transload and short-term storage warehouses to a high of 6.44 trips per square feet for fulfillment center warehouses.9 An averaged value of all the warehouse HCW types reported in the ITE manual would be 3.28 trips per 1,000 square feet. Based on the results in the DSEIR, it is assumed that a 75% warehouse use (ITE Code 150) with a trip generation rate of 1.710 and 25% cold storage (ITE Code 157) with a 2.120. This equates to a 9 Institute of Transportation Engineers (2020).
96 Exhibit B Page 107 of 109
1045
trip generation rate of 1.81 trips per 1,000 square feet.

Figure 2: Trip rates per 1,000 square feet as reported in ITE manual Using the ITE manual rates above, the proposed 726,826 square foot of HCW Project could result in 1,017 to 4,681 trips daily.

In the 2016 SCAQMD study, a value of 1.432 daily vehicle trips per 1,000 GSF is calculated for Transload and Short-term Storage HCWs. The study further states that, while the dataset for Transload and Short-term Storage HCWs is larger than those for Cold Storage HCWs, Fulfillment Center HCWs, and Parcel Hub HCWs, the relationship between building gross square footage and vehicle trips for Transload and Short-term HCWs does not produce an acceptable level of correlation to develop a fitted curve equation (emphasis added). In a 2019 study of warehouse trip generation performed by WSP for the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WR-COG), the average daily trip rate was substantially higher (50% higher) than the SCAQMD study. WSP performed traffic counts at 16 warehouses, segmented between 11 fulfillment centers and 5 parcel hubs. The average daily trip rate across the 11 fulfillment centers was 2.13 per 1000 square feet.

These studies suggest that the value used to justify the number of vehicle trips per day utilized by the City is not supportable, and the DSEIR lacks any supporting evidence to justify its reliance on a 1.81 daily trip rate. Based on the evidence and reasonable calculations provided in the SCAQMD Transload
and ShortTerm Storage
Warehouse
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Non-Sort
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Sort
Parcel Hub
Warehouse
Cold Storage
Warehouse
Rate Used In
DSEIR
Daily Vehicle Traffic Trips 1.4 1.81 6.44 4.63 2.12 1.81

1.4 1.81

6.44 4.63

2.12 1.81
97 Exhibit B Page 108 of 109
1046
and WR-COG studies, the City should, at a minimum, re-evaluate the Project’s operational emissions based on the newer WR-COG rate (2.13) in a revised DSEIR.

Conclusion
The facts identified and referenced in this comment letter lead me to reasonably conclude that the Project could result in significant, unmitigated impacts if allowed to proceed. The DSEIR should be revised to address these substantial concerns.

Sincerely,
98 Exhibit B Page 109 of 109
1047
City of Fontana
Action Report
Planning Commission
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-2905 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
Agenda #: PH-D Category: Public Hearing
FROM:

Planning Department
TITLE:

Master Case No. 22-143: Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 20710) No. 23-012, Design Review (DRP) No. 22-064, Development Agreement (AGR) No. 24-002, and Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the development of an industrial warehouse building totaling approximately 881,826 square feet on approximately 40.01 acres. ..End
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Based on the information contained in this staff report and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 2024-_____, and:
a. Certify the FSEIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Facts and Findings, and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination.

2. Based on the information contained in this staff report and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 2024-_____, and:
a. Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-012 (TPM No. 20710); and b. Approve Design Review No. 22-064.

3. And adopt Resolution No. PC 2024-_____and forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance approving Development Agreement (AGR) No. 24-002.

APPLICANT:

Prologis
17777 Center Court Drive N., Ste 100
Cerritos, CA 90703
LOCATION:

The project site is located at 11115 Hemlock Avenue (APNs: 0237-131-25, 0237-131-26, and -27).

REQUEST:

Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-012 (TPM No. 20710) - A request to consolidate three (3 parcels comprised of approximately 40.01 acres into one parcel for the development of the project.

Design Review (DRP) No. 22-064 - A request for review of the architecture, site design and associated improvements for an industrial warehouse commerce center building totaling 881,826 square feet, including 40,000 square feet of office and mezzanine space on a site comprised of City of Fontana Page 1 of 5 Printed on 3/13/2024
powered by Legistar™1048 351
File #: 21-2905 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
Agenda #: PH-D Category: Public Hearing
square feet, including 40,000 square feet of office and mezzanine space on a site comprised of approximately 40.01 acres.

Development Agreement (AGR) No. 24-002 - A request for approval of a development agreement to provide for extended timing of entitlements measures in association with the new industrial commerce center.

PROJECT PLANNER:

Rina Leung, Senior Planner
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

A. Existing Land Use Designation:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

A. Site Area: Approximately 40 gross acres
B. FAR Ratio:

Building Maximum Allowed: .80
Provided: .54
C. Building Analysis:

Office/Mezzanine: 40,000 square feet
Warehouse/packing area 841,826 square feet
Total Area: 881,826 square feet
D. Landscaping
Required: 15 percent
City of Fontana Page 2 of 5 Printed on 3/13/2024
powered by Legistar™1049 352
File #: 21-2905 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
Agenda #: PH-D Category: Public Hearing
Provided 19.7 percent
ANALYSIS:

The applicant, Prologis, is requesting that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-012 (TPM No. 20710), and Design Review (DRP) No. 22-064 for development of a new 881,826 square foot industrial commerce center building and associated improvements on an approximately 40 gross acres site located between Beech Avenue and Hemlock Avenue, north of Jurupa Avenue. The applications include a development agreement to provide for extended timing of entitlements and added environmental enhancement measures in association with the project.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-012 (TPM No. 20710)
Tentative Parcel Map No. 20710 is a proposal to consolidate three parcels totaling approximately 40 acres for the development of an 881,826 square foot industrial commerce center building. As part of the project the developer will construct all on-site and off-site improvements per the City Standards.

Design Review (DRP) No. 22-064
The development will be comprised of an 881,826 square feet industrial commerce center building that includes 40,000 square feet of office/mezzanine area, approximately 726,826 square feet of warehouse area, a pick module area of 115,000 square feet and 40,000 square feet of office/mezzanine area storage of refrigerated goods may occur within 220,500 square feet of the warehouse building. The warehouse building would have 114 loading docks located on the east and west sides of the building. Project on-site improvements include parking, landscaping, lighting.

The building facades would incorporate architectural elements (e.g., windows, pillars, wall plane breaks) to minimize stretches of blank walls. All colors and materials would consist of gray tones with a dark green accent color. Large expanses of blank walls would be broken up with expansion joints, reveals, or changes in texture and color. The proposal provides a development that has been designed with modern features to enhance the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Grading / Walls
The subject site has a gradual slope the property and adjacent areas at a higher elevation to the north. Decorative 14-foot-high walls will provide screening for truck courts in conjunction with landscaped berms.

Site Access / Circulation /Parking
Access to and from the Project site will be provided via two (2) driveways along the southern portion of the site exclusively for passenger vehicles and two (2) driveways along the north exclusively for trucks, which accommodates truck cueing and provides access to both loading dock areas.

Therefore, truck movements would occur along the north driveways and within the truck court and be separated from passenger vehicle areas.

Development Agreement (AGR) No. 24-002
The application includes a development agreement to provide for extended timing of entitlements measures in association with the new industrial commerce center building. The Development Agreement requires City Council approval after recommendation by the Planning Commission; a separate Planning Commission resolution related to the Development Agreement recommendation is City of Fontana Page 3 of 5 Printed on 3/13/2024
powered by Legistar™1050 353
File #: 21-2905 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
Agenda #: PH-D Category: Public Hearing
attached.

Environmental:

The Draft Subsequent EIR (DSEIR) for the Hemlock Warehouse Development Project (SCH No. 2009091089) was made available for the public review at the City’s website:
https://www.fontanaca.gov/2137/Environmental-Documents and reviewed by the Planning Commission at the November 7, 2023 regular meeting.

Subsequent to the preparation and distribution of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (NOP), the DSEIR was prepared for the project. The environmental analysis contained in the Draft Subsequent EIR is based in part on specific studies and assessments undertaken for the City by qualified environmental scientists, specialists, and consultants. This analysis addresses air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation.

These technical studies are contained in the Technical Appendices document of the Draft Subsequent EIR and are made available for the public review. The Draft and Final Subsequent EIR and Technical Appendices can be viewed at the following URL:
https://www.fontanaca.gov/2137/Environmental-Documents
The Final Subsequent EIR describes the environmental impacts of the project and the mitigation measures to help minimize the project impacts on the environment. The scope of this Final Subsequent EIR includes analysis of minimize the project impacts on the environment. The scope of this Final Subsequent EIR includes analysis of environmental issues identified and raised in response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) and during the DEIR comment period.

The Final Subsequent EIR determined that eighteen (18) of environmental effects for the project would have impacts found not to be significant. These 18 categories are Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Transportation, Utilities and Services Systems, and Wildfire. The potential impacts from the aforementioned topical areas are fully addressed in the IS/DSEIR.

The analysis in the Final Subsequent EIR and supporting studies found that, even with incorporation of proposed mitigation measures, impacts to Air Quality/Green House Gases would remain significant and unavoidable. As a result of the proposed project having an impact that is significant and unavoidable, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOC) by the Planning Commission is required.

Alternatives
As required by CEQA, an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project which meets the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The proposed alternatives for this project include “No Project” and “Reduced Project” and “SWIP Buildout Alternative”.

City of Fontana Page 4 of 5 Printed on 3/13/2024
powered by Legistar™1051 354
File #: 21-2905 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
Agenda #: PH-D Category: Public Hearing
Circulation
The project DSEIR was circulated for the 45-day public review period beginning on October 10, 2023, and ending originally on November 27, 2023. However, this review period was extended until December 11, 2023. The document was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for notification to State agencies for their possible comment. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the DSEIR on November 7, 2023, the City received comments on the DSEIR from the following public agencies, organizations, and individuals:

Letter Date Received Organization/Name
1 SCAQMD October 17, 2023,
2 SCAQMD October 18, 2023
3 SCAQMD November 22, 2023

4.Blum Collings & Ho, LLP December 11, 2023
The City along with the environmental consultant, has reviewed and provided responses to the letters/comments above; these are included in the Final SEIR. The Final SEIR along with errata has been included with the environmental documentation.

After the review period of the circulation of DEIR period mentioned above from October 10, 2023, to December 11, 2023, that included an extension had ended, the city received correspondence from Mr. Andrew Graf of Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo on January 19, 2024 that cited concerns about the DEIR. Attachment No. 3 includes a memorandum with the letter along with response to the concerns cited in the January 19, 2024, letter from Mr. Andrew Graf of Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo.

To approve the project, the Planning Commission must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations indicating that the project benefits override or outweigh the project identified unavoidable environmental impacts.

MOTION:

Approve staff’s recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Vicinity Map

2. Project Plans

3. February 29, 2024, Memorandum

4. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2024- Project approval

5. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2024- Certification of the EIR and MMRP

6. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2024- Recommendation approval for DA

7. Notice of Determination

8. Public Hearing Notice
City of Fontana Page 5 of 5 Printed on 3/13/2024
powered by Legistar™1052 355
ATTACHMENT NO. 1

VICINITY MAP
DATE: March 5, 2024
CASE: MCN No. 22-143
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 23-012;
Design Review (DRP) No. 22-064
Development Agreement (AGR) No. 23-085

CITY OF FONTANA PLANNING

DEPARTMENT
1053 356
1054 357
1055 358
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
EXIT
ENTER
ENTER
EXIT
ENTER
/ EXIT
ENTER
/ EXIT
ENTER
/ EXIT
ENTER
/ EXIT
SHEET:

SHEET TITLE

RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

COPYRIGHT
CHK'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

CAD FILE NAME:

OWNER PROJECT NO:

RGA PROJECT NO:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION
SD
DD
PC
BID
CD

CONSULTANT

PROFESSIONAL SEALS
RGA
Office of Architectural Design
15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
T 949-341-0920
FX 949-341-0922

SITE PLAN
CS
MG
00000.00
A1-1P

HEMLOCK AVENUE

DEVELOPMENT
11115 HEMLOCK AVENUE

CITY OF FONTANA, CA
22118-00-A1-1P
22118-00
3546 CONCOURS STREET
SUITE 100
PHONE: 949-836-0692
CONTACT: JOHN CARTER
[email protected]

BERMING AT SCREENWALL
2 A4-1P
1 A4-1P
90 OUTSIDE SWEPT PATH

PATH OF FRONT WHEEL

INSIDE SWEPT PATH
ATTEMP
90 OUTSIDE SWEPT PATH

PATH OF FRONT WHEEL

INSIDE SWEPT PATH
ATTEMP
30'-0" WIDE FIRE LANE
30'-0" WIDE FIRE LANE
30'-0" WIDE FIRE LANE 30'-0" WIDE FIRE LANE
30'-0" WIDE FIRE LANE 30'-0" WIDE FIRE LANE
30'-0" WIDE FIRE LANE
30'-0" WIDE FIRE LANE 30'-0" WIDE FIRE LANE 30'-0" WIDE FIRE LANE R=19'
R=19'
R=19'
R=19'
R=19'
R=19'
R=19'
R=19'
7 9
17 17
17 17
17 17
16 17
6 12
17 17 17 17 17 11
17 17 17 17 17 11
16 12
5 12
6 412 STALL POSITIONS
N89°47'24"E 1320.32'
N89°47'02"E 1320.35'
N00°13'52"E 2774.21'
N00°13'48"E 2763.36'

SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1"=60'-0"

B E E C H A V E N U E

H E M L O C K A V E N U E
323'-7 1/4" 680'-0" 185'-0" 1,083'-0" 154'-1 3/4" 83'-4 3/4" 30'-0" 50'-0"
50'-0"
40' 40'-0"
40'-0"
50'-0"
50'-0"
40'-0"

RAMP UP RAMP UP

PRIMARY

OFFICE AREA

PRIMARY

OFFICE AREA
BUILDING FOOTPRINT:
746,826 SF
57 DOCK DOORS
57 DOCK DOORS
168 TRAILER POSITIONS
61 TRAILER POSITIONS
67 TRAILER POSITIONS
7/7/23 SCHEMATIC DESIGN
PROVIDED 1680' LENGTH OF TRAILER STAGING LANES

RAMP UP RAMP UP

PROJECT DATA
GROSS SITE AREA:

NET SITE AREA:

BUILDING AREA:

FIRST FLOOR OFFICE

SECOND FLOOR OFFICE

WAREHOUSE AREA

PICK MOD MEZZ AREA
TOTAL
LOT COVERAGE: (55% MAX)
F.A.R.: (60% MAX)
PARKING REQUIRED: (WAREHOUSE USE)
OFFICE - 40,000 SF @ 1/250 SF (LESS THAN 10%)
WAREHOUSE -1/1,000 SF FIRST 20K
WAREHOUSE - 1/2,000 SF NEXT 20K
WAREHOUSE - 1/5,000 SF ABOVE 40K

TOTAL STALLS REQUIRED
PARKING PROVIDED:

STANDARD STALLS

ACCESSIBLE STALLS

CARPOOL STALLS

EV STALLS
TOTALS
REQUIRED BIKE SPACES:

REQUIRED SITE LANDSCAPE AREA: (882,495 SF)
(SITE AREA MINUS BUILDING FOOTPRINT)
PROVIDED SITE LANDSCAPE AREA:

PAVED AREA:

TRAILER PARKING REQUIRED: (185 DOCK DOORS)
1 TRAILER PER 4 DOCK DOORS
1,742,846 SF / 40.01 AC
1,629,321 SF / 37.40 AC
20,000 SF
20,000 SF
726,826 SF
115,000 SF
881,826 SF

45.83 %

54.12 %
0 STALLS
20 STALLS
10 STALLS
169 STALLS
199 STALLS
311 STALLS
9 STALLS
50 STALLS
42 STALLS
412 STALLS
10 BIKE SPACES
132,375 SF

15.00 %
174,497 SF / 19.77 % OF TOTAL SITE
707,998 SF / 43.45 % OF TOTAL SITE
47 TRAILERS REQUIRED
296 TRAILERS PROVIDED

GENERAL PROJECT INFO
GENERAL PLAN:

ZONING:

ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (I-G)
(SWIP) SLOVER CENTER MANUFACTURING DISTRICT - SPECIFIC PLAN 0237-131-27, 0237-131-25, 0237-131-26

GENERAL NOTES

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE LAND REFERRED TO IN POLICY IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

REAL PROPERTY IN TEH CITY OF FONTANA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL 1:

PARCEL A AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LLA NO. 98-01, AS EVIDENCE BY DOCUMENT RECORDED APRIL 01, 1998 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19980121425 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

ALL OF LOT 964 OF MAP SHOWING SUBDIVISION OF LANDS BELONGING TO THE SEMI-TROPIC LAND AND WATER COMPANY, ON FILE IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS AT PAGE 12, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

PARCEL 2:

PARCEL B AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LLA NO. 98-01, AS EVIDENCE BY DOCUMENT RECORDED APRIL 01, 1998 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19980121425 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

ALL OF LOT 965 OF MAP SHOWING SUBDIVISION OF LANDS BELONGING TO THE SEMI-TROPIC LAND AND WATER COMPANY, ON FILE IN BOOK 11 OF MAPS AT PAGE 12, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

1. ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES ONSITE ARE TO BE DEMOLISHED.

2. ALL PROPOSED NEW ONSITE UTILITY SERVICES SHALL BE UNDERGROUND.

3. CONCRETE BANDS, 24" IN WIDTH, SHALL BE PROVIDED AT LANDSCAPE FINGERS.

4. DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER CITY STANDARD PLANS.

5. STATE OF CALIFORNIA "GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NPDES PERMITS AND WDID NUMBERS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO PERMIT.

6. PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS: 9'W X 17'D WITH A 2'-0" OVERHANG - DOUBLE STRIPED PER CITY REQUIREMENTS, NO WHEEL STOPS ARE ALLOWED. CLEAN AIR / CARPOOL PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED PER CALGREEN REQUIREMENTS AND CITY OF FONTANA.

7. FIRE DEPT. APPROVED KNOX LOCKS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL GATES.

8. FIRE DEPT. ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED PER STANDARDS:

ACCESS LANE WIDTH: 30'-0"
ACCESS LANE HEIGHT: 14'-6"
INSIDE TURN RADIUS: 19'-0"

9. ALL ELECTRICAL SWITCH GEAR AND PANELS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE BUILDING. ALL TRANSFORMERS SHALL BE SCREENED WITH LANDSCAPE.

10. ALL TRASH ENCLOSURES WILL REQUIRED CANOPY TOP.

11. LANDSCAPING TO BE PROVIDED TO BLOCK CAR HEADLIGHTS FROM CREATING LIGHT GLARE.

12. ALL PAVED AREA TO BE CONCRETE SURFACES.

13. ALL LANDSCAPE WILL BE SEPERATED WITH A 6" CURB ALONG DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING AREAS.

14. ALL DOWNSPOUTS SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING WHEN VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC STREETS.

15. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES APPROVED, OR EQUAL.

16. A CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED AT TIME OF PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL.

17. PROVIDE COLORED CONCRETE PAVING AT ALL DRIVEWAY ENTRIES.

18. ALL ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE SCREENED WITH DENSE LANDSCAPE

19. PROVIDE ANTI- GRAFFITI PAINT ON EXTERIOR EXPOSED SCREEN WALLS UP TO 8'-0" HIGH
OWNER:

PROLOGIS
3546 CONCOURS STREET, SUITE 100
ONTARIO, CA 91764
ATTN: JOHN CARTER
PH: 949-836-0692
APPLICANT:

ARCHITECT:

RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, INC.
15231 ALTON PARKWAY, SUITE 100
IRVINE, CA 92673
ATTN: MIKE GILL
PH: 949-341-0920

PROLOGIS
3546 CONCOURS STREET, SUITE 100
ONTARIO, CA 91764
ATTN: JOHN CARTER
PH: 949-836-0692

VICINITY MAP
SITE LEGEND:

ON-SITE LANDSCAPED AREA

OFF-SITE LANDSCAPED AREA

DECORATIVE AUTO / TRUCK DRIVEWAYS - NATURAL COLOR

SITE PROPERTY LINES

CITY CURB AND GUTTER LINES

STREET CENTERLINES

ON-SITE CURB LINES

ON-SITE PARKING AND TRAILER STRIPPING

LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED

PROJECT

SITE AREA

TRASH TRASH
AUTO

DRIVEWAY
ONLY
AUTO

DRIVEWAY
ONLY
TRUCK

DRIVEWAY
ONLY
TRUCK

DRIVEWAY
ONLY
80'
70' 126'
116.5'

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV

CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP

CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP

CP CP CP CP CP

ELECTRICAL ROOM

FIRE CONTROL ROOM

FIRE PUMP HOUSE

SECURITY GUARD SHACK FUTURE SECURITY

GUARD SHACK

GATE GATE

GATE GATE EMERGENCY GATE ACCESS ONLY EMERGENCY GATE ACCESS ONLY 1,234.312'
8'-0" HIGH TUBE STEEL FENCE, PAINTED BLACK
1,234.284'
8'-0" HIGH TUBE STEEL FENCE, PAINTED BLACK
125'-8"
14'-0" HI. CONCRETE

SCREENWALL
877'-6"
14'-0" HI. CONCRETE SCREENWALL
14'-0" HI. CONCRETE

SCREENWALL
185'-11"
1,052'-6"
14'-0" HI. CONCRETE SCREENWALL
323.637'
14'-0" HI. CONCRETE SCREENWALL
263.628'
14'-0" HI. CONCRETE SCREENWALL 12' 12' 12' 12' 12'
53' 60' 53' 45' 112' 132' 53' 12' 12' 12'
25' 19' 31.787' 9' 108' 9' 153' 9' 153' 9' 153' 9' 153' 9' 153' 9' 99' 9' 36' 19' 59.5' 11' 19' 26' 19' 6' 19' 30' 19' 6' 49'

ACCESSIBLE STALLS
63'

ACCESSIBLE STALLS
T T

TRANSFORMERS
27'
3'3'
27'
20' 25' 9.8' 49'-0" 21.2' 56'-0"
9' 9' 9' 9'

8.4'

18.1'
R=45'
R=35'
R=35'
R=35'
R=35'
R=45'
R=35'
R=35'

BIKE RACK / PATIO BIKE RACK / PATIO
34'
26' 8'
52'
12' 40'
27'
3'3'
27'

ALL LOADING AND TARILER PARKING AREAS TO BE PAVED ALL LOADING AND TARILER

PARKING AREAS TO BE PAVED
2' 5' 2' 2' 5' 2'

RESTROOM / DRIVERS LOUNGE

BERMING AT SCREENWALL

BERMING AT SCREENWALL BERMING AT SCREENWALL

BERMING AT SCREENWALL

BERMING AT

SCREENWALL

BERMING AT SCREENWALL

BERMING AT

SCREENWALL
ALIGN
10' WIDE SEWER/ DRAINAGE EASEMENT 10' WIDE SEWER/ DRAINAGE EASEMENT

NEW FENCE LINE NEW FENCE LINE NEW FENCE LINE

NEW FENCE LINE NEW FENCE LINE NEW FENCE LINE

DENSE LANDSCAPE

DENSE LANDSCAPE
1056 359
RGA
Office of Architectural Design
15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
T 949-341-0920
FX 949-341-0922
SHEET:

SHEET TITLE

RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

COPYRIGHT
CHK'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

CAD FILE NAME:

OWNER PROJECT NO:

RGA PROJECT NO:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION
SD
DD
PC
BID
CD

CONSULTANT

PROFESSIONAL SEALS
7/7/23 SCHEMATIC DESIGN

FLOOR PLAN
MG
DR
00000.00
A2-1P
22118-00-A2-1P
22118.00

HEMLOCK AVENUE

DEVELOPMENT
3546 CONCOURS STREET
SUITE 100
PHONE: 949-836-0692
CONTACT: JOHN CARTER
[email protected]
11115 HEMLOCK AVENUE

CITY OF FONTANA, CA
KEYNOTES 000

1. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP WAREHOUSE / OFFICE / MANUFACTURING FACILITY.

2. PRIMARY ENTRANCE.

3. PAINTED 9' X 10' DOCK HIGH METAL TRUCK DOORS.

4. PAINTED 12' X 15' GRADE LEVEL METAL TRUCK DOORS.

5. PAINTED 3' X 7' METAL ACCESS MAN DOORS.

6. STRUCTURAL BUILDING COLUMN.

7. STOREFRONT: GLAZING SET IN CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM 2" X 4 1/4" MIN. OFF-SET GLAZING SYSTEM.

MAIN
ENTRY
NEW

WAREHOUSE / MANUFACTURING

FACILITY
(40'-0" CLEAR INSIDE HEIGHT)

PRIMARY

OFFICE AREA
MAIN
ENTRY

RAMP UPRAMP UP

RAMP UP

RAMP UP

BUILDING PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
1,083'-0"
35'-6" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 39'-6" 680'-0"
60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 1,083'-0"
35'-6" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 39'-6" 800'-0"
60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 1 2
2 3 4
3 4
4 3
4 3
5 5
5 5
6 7
7 7
7 7
7 ELECTRICAL ROOM

FIRE CONTROL ROOM

FIRE PUMP ROOM
ENTRY
DOOR
ENTRY
DOOR
UNISEX
GENDER

DRIVERS
LOUNGE
1057 360
RGA
Office of Architectural Design
15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
T 949-341-0920
FX 949-341-0922
SHEET:

SHEET TITLE

RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

COPYRIGHT
CHK'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

CAD FILE NAME:

OWNER PROJECT NO:

RGA PROJECT NO:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION
SD
DD
PC
BID
CD

CONSULTANT

PROFESSIONAL SEALS
7/7/23 SCHEMATIC DESIGN

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
MG
DR
00000.00
A3-1P
22118-00-A3-1P
22118.00

HEMLOCK AVENUE

DEVELOPMENT
3546 CONCOURS STREET
SUITE 100
PHONE: 949-836-0692
CONTACT: JOHN CARTER
[email protected]

WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"

NORTH ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"

PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"

S I G N A G E

S I G N A G E S I G N A G E
1 3 2 4 1
5 TYP
6 7 8
10 9
11 63'-0"
4' 55'-0"
56'-0" 5' 2'

SOUTH ELEVATION
6 S I G N A G E S I G N A G E
11115 HEMLOCK AVENUE

CITY OF FONTANA, CA
57'-0"

1. PRIMARY ENTRANCE.

2. PAINTED 12' WIDE X 15' HIGH LEVEL VERTICAL LIFT TRUCK DOOR.

3. PAINTED 9' WIDE X 10' HIGH VERTICAL LIFT TRUCK DOOR.

4. 3' X 7' PAINTED METAL MAN DOOR.

5. 2" WIDE X 3/4" DEEP HORIZONTAL / VERTICAL REVEAL.

6. REFLECTIVE GLASS IN BLACK STOREFRONT FRAME SYSTEM .

7. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP EXTERIOR WALL CONSTRUCTION.

8. PROPOSED FUTURE TENANT SIGNAGE LOCATION (FOUR LOCATIONS).

9. 8' HIGH BLACK TUBULAR STEEL ROLLING GATE - TYP. AT YARD ENTRANCES. SEE SITE PLAN.

10. TYP. PAINTED CONCRETE SCREENWALL ELEVATION W/ ACCENT REVEALS AND PAINTED ACCENTS TO MATCH BUILDING ARCHITECTURE.

11. METAL CLAD CANOPY STRUCTURE, BLACK IN COLOR TO MATCH WINDOW MULLIONS KEYNOTES 000 FINISH SCHEDULE

1. FIELD COLOR - PLD-9 PURE WHITE - SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7005

2. ACCENT COLOR - PLD-7 LIQUORICE TINT - SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7016

3. ACCENT COLOR - PLD-10 FIRST STAR - SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7646

4. ACCENT COLOR - PLD-6 SABLE - SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7015

5. PROLOGIS ACCENT COLOR - PLD-5 - NEW DARK GREEN - SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 6762

6. VISION GLAZING - PILKINGTON EVERGREEN U-FACTOR 0.47, SHGC 0.40, VLT 59% 1" INSULATED GLASS UNIT W 1/2" AIRSPACE AND (2) 1/4" LITES. SEE KEYNOTES FOR LOCATIONS OF INSULATED UNITS. STOREFRONT SYSTEM TO BE BLACK.
1058 361
RGA
Office of Architectural Design
15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
T 949-341-0920
FX 949-341-0922
SHEET:

SHEET TITLE

RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

COPYRIGHT
CHK'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

CAD FILE NAME:

OWNER PROJECT NO:

RGA PROJECT NO:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION
SD
DD
PC
BID
CD

CONSULTANT

PROFESSIONAL SEALS
7/7/23 SCHEMATIC DESIGN

SCREENWALL ELEVATIONS
MG
DR
00000.00
A4-1P
22118-00-A4-1P
22118.00

HEMLOCK AVENUE

DEVELOPMENT
3546 CONCOURS STREET
SUITE 100
PHONE: 949-836-0692
CONTACT: JOHN CARTER
[email protected]
11115 HEMLOCK AVENUE

CITY OF FONTANA, CA
134.167' 26' 130' 26' 130' 26' 130' 26' 130' 26' 130' 26' 112.167'

1. PRIMARY ENTRANCE.

2. PAINTED 12' WIDE X 15' HIGH LEVEL VERTICAL LIFT TRUCK DOOR.

3. PAINTED 9' WIDE X 10' HIGH VERTICAL LIFT TRUCK DOOR.

4. 3' X 7' PAINTED METAL MAN DOOR.

5. 2" WIDE X 3/4" DEEP HORIZONTAL / VERTICAL REVEAL.

6. REFLECTIVE GLASS IN STOREFRONT FRAME SYSTEM.

7. PAINTED CONCRETE TILT-UP EXTERIOR WALL CONSTRUCTION.

8. PROPOSED FUTURE TENANT SIGNAGE LOCATION (FOUR LOCATIONS).

9. 8' HIGH BLACK TUBULAR STEEL ROLLING GATE - TYP. AT YARD ENTRANCES. SEE SITE PLAN.

10. TYP. PAINTED CONCRETE SCREENWALL ELEVATION W/ ACCENT REVEALS AND PAINTED ACCENTS TO MATCH BUILDING ARCHITECTURE.

11. METAL CLAD CANOPY STRUCTURE.

KEYNOTES 000 FINISH SCHEDULE

1. FIELD COLOR - PLD-9 PURE WHITE - SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7005

2. ACCENT COLOR - PLD-7 LIQUORICE TINT - SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7016

3. ACCENT COLOR - PLD-10 FIRST STAR - SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7646

4. ACCENT COLOR - PLD-6 SABLE - SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7015

5. PROLOGIS ACCENT COLOR - PLD-5 - NEW DARK GREEN - SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 6762

6. VISION GLAZING - PILKINGTON EVERGREEN U-FACTOR 0.47, SHGC 0.40, VLT 59% 1" INSULATED GLASS UNIT W 1/2" AIRSPACE AND (2) 1/4" LITES. SEE KEYNOTES FOR LOCATIONS OF INSULATED UNITS.

EAST / WEST SCREENWALL ELEVATION
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"

PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"

S I G N A G E

S I G N A G E S I G N A G E
3 2 4 1
5 TYP
6 7 8
11 4' 55'-0"
56'-0" 5' 2'
6 14'
15'
14'
15'

SIMILAR SITE LIGHTING STYLE
SCALE: N.T.S. 2 SIMILAR ENTRY LIGHTING STYLESCALE: N.T.S. 1 8'-0"
13" 6'-3" 8"

TYPICAL TUBE STEEL FENCE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

TUBE STEL FENCE PER DETAIL, BLACK IN COLOR

TYPICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN LINE OF SIGHT PROPERTY LINE

LINE OF SIGHT
SCALE 1" = 30'-0"
NOTE: LINE OF SIGHT TAKEN FROM 6'-0" ABOVE FINISH GRADE

FINISH FLOOR

PROPOSED PACKAGE UNIT

BUILDING PARAPET HEIGHT

TILT-UP BUILDING
CL. OF HEMLOCK AVENUE
55'-0"
T.O.P.
34' 20' 318.67'
HALF STREET SETBACK TRUCK COURT PARKING / LOADING AREA 14'

TYPICAL ENTRY CORNER

TYPICAL ENTRY CORNER
BEECH A9EN8E
HEMLOCK A9EN8E
CIT< OF FONTANA
11115 HEMLOCK A9EN8E
4150 CONCO8RS, ONTARIO, CA 91764
PHONE: (909) 989-9789 FA;: (909) 989-9660

EQJLQHHULQJ GHRVSDWLDO LDQG PODQQLQJ

CROSS SECTIONS
BEECH A9EN8E & HEMLOCK A9EN8E
EL. 983.0
EL. 978.0
EL. 974.0
2 TYPICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN LINE OF SIGHT

PROPERTY LINE

LINE OF SIGHT
SCALE 1" = 30'-0"
NOTE: LINE OF SIGHT TAKEN FROM 6'-0" ABOVE FINISH GRADE

FINISH FLOOR

PROPOSED PACKAGE UNIT

BUILDING PARAPET HEIGHT

TILT-UP BUILDING
CL. OF BEECH AVENUE
55'-0"
T.O.P.
185' 25' 40'
TRUCK COURT PARKING / LOADING AREA SETBACK HALF STREET 14' EL. 986.0 EL. 989
EL. 993.0
1 12'

LINE OF SIGHT
1059 362
RGA
Office of Architectural Design
15231 Alton Parkway, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
T 949-341-0920
FX 949-341-0922
SHEET:

SHEET TITLE

RGA, OFFICE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

COPYRIGHT
CHK'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

CAD FILE NAME:

OWNER PROJECT NO:

RGA PROJECT NO:

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION
SD
DD
PC
BID
CD

CONSULTANT

PROFESSIONAL SEALS
6' 6' 6'
8/30/23 SCHEMATIC DESIGN

SITE SECTIONS
MG
DR
00000.00
A5-1P
22118-00-A5-1P
22118.00

HEMLOCK AVENUE

DEVELOPMENT
3546 CONCOURS STREET
SUITE 100
PHONE: 949-836-0692
CONTACT: JOHN CARTER
[email protected]
11115 HEMLOCK AVENUE

CITY OF FONTANA, CA
14' 14' 14'
6' 6' 6'
14' 14' 14'
970.0
980.0
990.0
970.0
980.0
990.0
9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00
960.0
970.0
980.0
990.0
1000.0
960.0
970.0
980.0
990.0
1000.0
9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00
9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00
960.0
970.0
980.0
990.0
1000.0
960.0
970.0
980.0
990.0
1000.0
9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00
9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00
980.0
990.0
1000.0
980.0
990.0
1000.0
9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00
970.0
980.0
990.0
1000.0
1010.0
970.0
980.0
990.0
1000.0
1010.0
9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00
9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00
970.0
980.0
990.0
1000.0
1010.0
970.0
980.0
990.0
1000.0
1010.0
9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00
9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 BEECH AVE CENTERLINE PROPERTY LINE BEECH AVE CENTERLINE PROPERTY LINE BEECH AVE CENTERLINE PROPERTY LINE

HELMLOCK AVE

CENTERLINE

PROPERTY LINE

HELMLOCK AVE

CENTERLINE

PROPERTY LINE

HELMLOCK AVE

CENTERLINE

PROPERTY LINE
13+36.25
(995.64 ES)

PROPERTY LINE
13+37.07
(986.18 ES)

PROPERTY LINE
13+40.14
(983.76 ES)

PROPERTY LINE

TYPICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN LINE OF SIGHT PROPERTY LINE

LINE OF SIGHT
SCALE 1" = 30'-0"
NOTE: LINE OF SIGHT TAKEN FROM 6'-0" ABOVE FINISH GRADE

FINISH FLOOR

PROPOSED PACKAGE UNIT

BUILDING PARAPET HEIGHT

TILT-UP BUILDING
CL. OF HEMLOCK AVENUE
55'-0"
T.O.P.
34' 20' 318.67'
HALF STREET SETBACK TRUCK COURT PARKING / LOADING AREA 14' EL. 983.0
EL. 978.0
EL. 974.0
2 TYPICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN LINE OF SIGHT

PROPERTY LINE

LINE OF SIGHT
SCALE 1" = 30'-0"

FINISH FLOOR

PROPOSED PACKAGE UNIT

BUILDING PARAPET HEIGHT

TILT-UP BUILDING
CL. OF BEECH AVENUE
55'-0"
T.O.P.
185' 25' 40'
TRUCK COURT PARKING / LOADING AREA SETBACK HALF STREET 14' EL. 986.0 EL. 989
EL. 993.0
1 12'

LINE OF SIGHT
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
EXIT
ENTER
ENTER
EXIT
ENTER
/ EXIT
ENTER
/ EXIT
ENTER
/ EXIT
ENTER
/ EXIT
90 OUTSIDE SWEPT PATH

PATH OF FRONT WHEEL

INSIDE SWEPT PATH
ATTEMP
90 OUTSIDE SWEPT PATH

PATH OF FRONT WHEEL

INSIDE SWEPT PATH
ATTEMP
7 9
17 17
17 17
17 17
16 17
6 12
17 17 17 17 17 11
17 17 17 17 17 11
16 12
5 12
6 412 STALL POSITIONS
D-D
--
A-A
--
E-E
--
F-F
--
B-B
--
C-C
--

KEY PLAN

BUILDING FF
991.06'

BUILDING FF
991.42'

BUILDING FF
998.62'

BUILDING FF
988.61'

BUILDING FF
986.54'

BUILDING FF
987.15'
PROP. SCREEN WALL
322.97'
PROP. SCREEN WALL
267'
PROP. SCREEN WALL
PROP. SCREEN WALL
PROP. SCREEN WALL
185'
210.55'
13+95.46
984.62 FS
10+72.49
978.90 FS
10+17.84
975.35 FS
10+16.26
983.08 FS
10+70.91
984.49 FS
10+18.95
972.27 FS
10+73.59
974.68 FS
13+40.59
986.54 FS
10+21.61
987.06 FS
12+06.61
990.74 FS
10+22.43
984.61 FS
12+07.43
986.64 FS
12+85.11
986.36 FS
10+25.46
983.15 FS
12+88.18
983.57 FS
12+10.47
984.08 FS

SECTION A-A

SECTION B-B

SECTION C-C

SECTION D-D

SECTION E- E

SECTION F- F
1 --
2-2
--
185'
322.97'
1060 363

BUILDING

HEMLOCK AVENUE
BEECH AVENUE STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT NEW 18' WIDE SEWER EASEMENT EASEMENT 5' 5' 5' 16'-11" 39'-4" 8' 30' 81'-2" 25'-6" 343'-6"
10' 46'-3" 20' 100'-8" 29' 5'
17'-2" DENSE LANDSCAPE DENSE LANDSCAPE
18' 10' EXISTING 10' WIDE SEWER EASEMENT 36" Box 36" Box 36" Box 36" Box 36" Box Lantana montevidensis 1 Gal 36" O.C. Trailing Lantana GROUNDCOVER Drosanthemum floribundum 1 Gal 6' O.C. Rosea Ice Plant TREES Stone Pine 24" Box Pinus pinea 31 L Rhamnus californica Coffeeberry LL SYMBOL SIZE SPACING SHRUBS BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME PLANTING LEGEND SIZE QTY WUCOLS REMARKS WUCOLS SYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING WUCOLS REMARKS Cercidium praecox Sonoran Palo Verde Rhaphiolepis i. 'Clara' Indian Hawthorn Indian Hawthorn Rhaphiolepis i. 'Springtime' Quercus chrysolepis Canyon Live Oak Carissa grandiflora 5 Gal Natal Plum L 5 Gal M 5 Gal M 1 Gal L Elaeagnus pungens Silverberry 1 Gal M Blue Hibiscus Alyogyne huegelii 5 Gal ML 24" Box 50 Multi Standard 24" Box 29 L Street Tree 36" Box 27 M 3' OC 4' OC 3' OC 3' OC 3' OC 4' OC 2' from hardscape 2.5' from hardscape hardscape hardscape hardscape 2.5' from hardscape 2' from 2' from 2' from Standard Bottle Tree Brachychiton populneus 15 Gal 52 M Standard Baccharis p. 'Centenial' 1 Gal Coyote Bush L 4' OC 2.5' from hardscape Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia 5 Gal M 5' OC 3' from hardscape Peruvian Verbena Verbena peruviana 1 Gal 24" O.C. M Pennisetum setaceum 'Cupreum' Purple Fountain Grass 1 Gal L 3' OC hardscape 2' from ACCENTS SYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS REMARKS Coral Aloe Aloe striata 1 Gal L 50% - 15 Gal Provided = 134 40% - 24" Box Provided = 101 10% - 36" Box Provided = 32 Total Amount of Trees = 273 24" Box 18 15 Gal 41 15 Gal 20 NOTES: All landscaping shall be drought tolerant and to the extent feasible, specaily with low biogenic emissions. Palm trees shall not be utilized. Trees shall be installed in automobile parking area to provide at least 35% shade cover of parking area to provide at least 35% shade cover of parking aras within 15 years. 36" Box 3 36" Box 2 Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Fontana, California 22-139 10.17.22 11115 Hemlock Ave Prologis 0 30' 60' 120' HUNTER LANDSCAPE 711 FEE ANA STREET 714.986.2400 FAX 714.986.2408 PLACENTIA, CA 92870 N 01.27.23 04.17.23 07.06.23 12.04.23 1.11.24 364 1061

BEECH AVENUE

HEMLOCK AVENUE
BEECH AVENUE PARCEL 1 PARCEL B PARCEL A PARCEL C HEMLOCK AVENUE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20710 IN THE CITY OF FONTANA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFONRIA CIVIL ENGINEER OWNER/DEVELOPER UTILITY NOTIFICATIONSAPPLICANT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION VICINITY MAP LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS LEGAL DESCRIPTION TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20710 CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 1 11115 HEMLOCK AVENUE 1 PROJECT LAND USE EASEMENT DESCRIPTION 365 1062
CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 11115 HEMLOCK AVENUE 6 4150 CONCOURS, ONTARIO, CA 91764 PHONE: (909) 989-9789 FAX: (909) 989-9660 Engineering Geospatial Land Planning CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN RAW EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 2 SPECIAL NOTE RIDGE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 746,826 SF FFE = 986.41 - 991.82

BEECH AVENUE

HEMLOCK AVENUE HEMLOCK AVENUE BEECH AVENUE
366 1063
CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 11115 HEMLOCK AVENUE 6 4150 CONCOURS, ONTARIO, CA 91764 PHONE: (909) 989-9789 FAX: (909) 989-9660 Engineering Geospatial Land Planning CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN CONSTRUCTION NOTES 2 SPECIAL NOTE MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 1

RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE

BEECH AVENUE
HEMLOCK AVENUE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 746,826 SF FFE = 986.41 - 991.82 367 1064
CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 11115 HEMLOCK AVENUE 6 4150 CONCOURS, ONTARIO, CA 91764 PHONE: (909) 989-9789 FAX: (909) 989-9660 Engineering Geospatial Land Planning CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTIONS3 CONSTRUCTION NOTES SPECIAL NOTE SECTION D-D SECTION C-C SECTION A-A SECTION B-B SECTION E-E SECTION F-F 368 1065
CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 11115 HEMLOCK AVENUE 6 4150 CONCOURS, ONTARIO, CA 91764 PHONE: (909) 989-9789 FAX: (909) 989-9660 Engineering Geospatial Land Planning CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN LEGEND 4 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 5 SPECIAL NOTE BEECH AVENUE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 746,826 SF FFE = 986.41 - 991.82

HEMLOCK AVENUE
369 1066
CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 11115 HEMLOCK AVENUE 6 4150 CONCOURS, ONTARIO, CA 91764 PHONE: (909) 989-9789 FAX: (909) 989-9660 Engineering Geospatial Land Planning CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN 5 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 4 SPECIAL NOTE LEGEND

BEECH AVENUE

HEMLOCK AVENUE
370 1067

BEECH AVENUE

HEMLOCK AVENUE

BEECH AVENUE
HEMLOCK AVENUE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 746,826 SF FFE = 986.41 - 991.82 PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 746,826 SF FFE = 986.41 - 991.82

BEECH AVENUE
HEMLOCK AVENUE CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 11115 HEMLOCK AVENUE 6 4150 CONCOURS, ONTARIO, CA 91764 PHONE: (909) 989-9789 FAX: (909) 989-9660 Engineering Geospatial Land Planning TRUCK TURNING EXHIBIT 6 371 1068
Attachment No. 3
Date: February 29, 2024
Prepared by: Renee Escario, [email protected]
To: Rina Leung, [email protected]
Project: Hemlock Warehouse Development Project
Subject: Responses to Late Comments – Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA)
This memo contains responses to comments related to the Draft Subsequent EIR that the City of Fontana received on January 19, 2024, after close of the extended public review period for the Draft Subsequent EIR, which began October 10, 2023, and ended on December 11, 2023. It should be noted that the public review was originally scheduled to end on November 27, 2023, but was extended for an additional 14 days beyond the required 45-day public review period for a draft EIR to end on December 11, 2023.

As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments submitted by CARE CA indicate that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the Draft Subsequent EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.
1069 372
1070 373
1071 374
1072 375
1073 376
1074 377
1075 378
1076 379
1077 380
1078 381
1079 382
1080 383
1081 384
1082 385
1083 386
1084 387
1085 388
1086 389
1087 390
1088 391
1089 392
1090 393
1091 394
1092 395
1093 396
1094 397
1095 398
1096 399
1097 400
1098 401
1099 402
1100 403
1101 404
1102 405
1103 406
1104 407
1105 408
1106 409
1107 410
1108 411
1109 412
1110 413
1111 414
1112 415
1113 416
1114 417
1115 418
1116 419
1117 420
1118 421
1119 422
1120 423
Response to Comment Letter L1: Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy, dated January 19, 2024
Comment L1.1: This comment states that the commenter is writing on behalf of CARECA and provides a brief summary of the proposed Project. The comment concludes that the Project fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA. The comment states that the Project continues to have potentially significant air quality, transportation, and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts which the Final EIR fails to disclose and mitigate and that the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan.

Response L1.1: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of any significant environmental issue.

The comment is introductory in nature and does not provide specific detailed comments related to the Draft Subsequent EIR analysis in which to respond to. Responses related to transportation, GHG, and General Plan consistency are discussed below in Responses L1.2 through L1.31.

Comment L1.2: This comment provides a statement of interest from CARECA and states that the commenter has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development. The comment also states that environmental degradation can cause construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth.

Response L1.2: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific significant environmental issue with the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR evaluation or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Comment L1.3: The comment states that the two primary purposes of CEQA are to inform decisionmakers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project and requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when feasible. The comment also states that the ultimate inquiry, as provided by case law, is whether the Subsequent EIR includes enough detail to enable who did not participate in its preparation to understand and consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed Project.

Response L1.3: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific significant environmental issue with the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR evaluation or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Comment L1.4: The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to include an accurate, complete, and stable project description and states that the environmental analysis under CEQA is limited. The comment also states that this would minimize the Project’s impacts and undermine a meaningful public review. The comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR’s transportation section relies on the assumption that the Project will operate as a high-cube warehouse and does not consider reasonably foreseeable uses for the Project that would result in significantly greater traffic intensive uses of the site. The comment also states that the Draft EIR fails to reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure as required by CEQA.

Response L1.4: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact and relies on speculation. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is not credible, and evidence of social and economic impacts does not constitute substantial evidence. The Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis, included as Appendix F to the Draft Subsequent EIR, trip generation used the trip rates provided by Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (“ITE”) Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021 for warehousing and high-cube cold storage warehouse and truck splits provided in the SCAQMD Warehouse Truck Trip Study, 2017, which is consistent with the proposed high cube warehouse building that are the reasonably foreseeable uses of the 1121 424
Project site. The City of Fontana Public Works Department also reviewed and approved the trip generation and vehicle splits and concurred that they are consistent with the proposed Project and valid for use in the evaluation of the Project. Thus, consistent with the comment, high cube warehouse uses were evaluated in the traffic analysis and warehouse land use designation is also consistent with previously used City methodology for similar projects.

As substantiated by CEQA case law, (High Sierra Rural Alliance v. County of Plumas (2018) 29 CA 5th 102, 126) an analysis of speculative worst-case scenario is not required. The Project analysis utilizes appropriate ITE trip generation rates that are specific to the proposed warehouse and cold storage areas and are consistent with other industrial projects in the Fontana area. Therefore, the warehousing trip generation for the Hemlock Warehouse Development Project is a reasonable representation of the potential Project impacts and complies with CEQA. The Project analysis utilizes ITE which is recognized and used nationwide as a source and is consistent with other industrial projects in the Fontana area and required by the adjacent jurisdiction. The City’s operational/occupancy permitting process ensures that the Project is consistent with projects as approved. In addition, the City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft Subsequent EIR does not include an accurate and complete Project Description. A specific tenant is not required to be included in an EIR project description, and a project description may allow for flexibility to respond to changing conditions, such as various tenants. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the Project Description “should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for the evaluation and review of the environmental impact”. The details of the proposed Project are identified by the Project Applicant’s application for the Project and the allowable uses pursuant to the SWIP, City’s zoning code, which are detailed in the Draft Subsequent EIR. Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft Subsequent EIR provides a description of the Project sufficient pursuant to the requested entitlements to meet CEQA’s informational requirements under CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. Thus, no further response is warranted.

Comment L1.5: The comment states that Draft Subsequent EIR transportation section’s assumption that the Project would operate as a general warehouse with some cold storage as opposed to alternate land uses which would produce a much greater traffic intensive use. The comment claims that the Project site zoning and General Plan designation do not put any restrictions on the intensity of land use on the Project site and therefore the potential future tenant could utilize the site as one of the more intensive uses. Additionally, the comment states that other warehouse Projects in the vicinity are occupied by higher intensity uses. The comment also states that the Draft EIR fails to reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure as required by CEQA.

Response L1.5: As discussed above in Response L1.4, the comment does not provide substantial evidence of any significant environmental issue or impact and relies on speculation. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is not credible, and evidence of social and economic impacts does not constitute substantial evidence. The Draft Subsequent EIR evaluates the Project as proposed; and if approved, would be verified through the City’s development review and permitting process that would ensure consistency with the approved Project. The Project specific facts to support the analysis assumptions are provided by the conceptual site plan, elevations, and landscaping plans that are provided as Figures 3-4 through 3-6 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, which are consistent with the Applicant’s Project submittals to the City. The Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis, included as Appendix F to the Draft Subsequent EIR, trip generation used the trip rates provided by Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021 for Warehousing and high-cube cold storage warehouse, which are consistent with the proposed building uses, and truck splits provided in the SCAQMD Warehouse Truck Trip Study, 2017. The City of Fontana Public Works Department also reviewed and approved the trip generation and vehicle splits. In addition, studies in the Fontana area have previously used the vehicle splits that are used in the Hemlock Warehouse Development Project trip 1122 425
generation. Thus, the traffic analysis and warehouse land use designation is consistent with previously used methodology. As substantiated by CEQA case law, (High Sierra Rural Alliance v. County of Plumas (2018) 29 CA 5th 102, 126) an analysis of speculative worst-case scenario is not required. The Project analysis utilizes appropriate ITE trip generation rates that are consistent with the proposed Project and other industrial projects in the Fontana area. Therefore, the warehousing trip generation for the Hemlock Warehouse Development Project is a reasonable representation of the potential Project impacts and complies with CEQA. The Project analysis utilizes ITE which is recognized and used nationwide as a source and is consistent with other industrial projects in the Fontana area and required by the adjacent jurisdiction. Should a future tenant propose operations onsite that would result in additional vehicle trips, further entitlements and CEQA review would be necessary. Thus, no further response is warranted.

Comment L1.6: The comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR lacks substantial evidence to conclude that VMT impacts area less than significant. The comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR used the SWIP SP expected trip rate instead of the existing traffic volumes and also utilized a low trip generation rate to assess the Project’s VMT.

Response L1.6: Refer to Responses L1.4 and L1.5, regarding the trip generation for the Project, which provides a reasonable representation of the potential Project impacts and complies with CEQA. As detailed previously, the proposed Project would be less than the allowable onsite density that was anticipated by the SWIP FEIR, and the Project would not result in an increase of anticipated trips and related VMT from the site. Draft Subsequent EIR Table 5.4-2 (page 5.4-10) provides a comparison of the proposed Project’s trip generation and the trip generation identified for the site from the SWIP SP EIR traffic analysis. The comparison shows that the proposed Project would generate 1,368 fewer ADT, with 216 fewer AM peak hour trips and 217 fewer PM peak hour trips than previously anticipated from buildout of the site. Therefore, because the Project would not generate a net increase of more than 500 ADT, it would satisfy the requirements for Screening Criteria 4 – Net Daily Trips less than 500 ADT. Thus, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to VMT.

The Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment details that VMT analysis applies to projects that have the potential to increase the average VMT per service population (e.g. population plus employment). As the proposed Project would not generate an increase in unplanned growth and the jobs generated by the Project would be positions that are anticipated to be filled by people who would already be living within the City and surrounding communities.

As detailed in Draft Subsequent EIR Section 5.6, Mandatory Findings of Significance, the City of Fontana has had unemployment rates ranging between 3.6 and 9.5 percent over the last 5 years and the County’s unemployment has been slightly higher between 3.9 and 9.7 percent. Providing jobs in the area is a benefit of the proposed Project because providing new labor and office jobs for local residents would help to reduce vehicle miles traveled and the related emissions from motor vehicles.

Comment L1.7: This comment suggests that the Draft Subsequent EIR used an erroneous baseline and would result in the exceedance of 15% below the County’s baseline or 28.3 VMT per service population and fails to incorporate mitigation measures for the significant VMT impact that was determined by the commenter.

The comment suggests using mitigation from the California Air Pollution Control Office Association (CAPCOA) to reduce the VMT impacts. The comment states that SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2d does not require employer sponsored vanpools.

Response L1.7: The Draft Subsequent EIR did not use an erroneous baseline related to VMT. As detailed on page 5-2 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, when a project is within the scope of a Program EIR (such as the SWIP SP FEIR), the effective baseline is the previously approved and analyzed project for which the Program EIR 1123 426
was certified (Sierra Club v. City of Orange [2008] 163 Cal.App.4th 523). “When a lead agency is considering whether to prepare a Subsequent EIR, it is specifically authorized to limit its consideration of the later project to effects not considered in connection with the earlier project.” (Temecula Band of Luiseño Mission Indians v. Rancho Cal. Water Dist. [1996] 43 Cal.App.4th 425, 437). As detailed previously in Response L1.6, the proposed Project would result in 1,368 fewer ADT, with 216 fewer AM peak hour trips and 217 fewer PM peak hour trips than previously anticipated from buildout of the site by the SWIP.

Therefore, because the Project would not generate a net increase of more than 500 ADT, it would satisfy the requirements for Screening Criteria 4 – Net Daily Trips less than 500 ADT. Thus, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to VMT, and a recirculation Draft Subsequent EIR is not required.

The comment’s methodology related to exceedance of the County’s baseline VMT occurs for projects that do not meet any of the screening thresholds, as detailed on page 5.4-7 of the Draft Subsequent EIR. Because the proposed Project meets the requirements for Screening Criteria 4, impacts would be less than significant, further VMT analysis is not required, and no mitigation measures are required. It should also be noted that air quality and GHG related mitigation measures for the proposed Project include trip reduction programs, such as suggested by the comment, which include incentivizing transit (SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measures 4.2- 2a, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2g), incorporation of food service (SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2e) and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program (SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure

4.2-2k) that would be consistent with Municipal Code Section 30-512, Trip Reduction Measures.

Comment L1.8: The comment states that the VMT generated from trucks is based on an estimated 40 miles traveled per truck trip and does not account for the distance that trucks must travel to serve the Project. The comment states that the distance should be based on the distance of the Project to the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. The comment states that the estimated distance traveled by trucks need to be corrected, as well as the trip distribution rate.

Response L1.8: As detailed on page 45 of the Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix B of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Draft Subsequent EIR analysis was completed pursuant to SCAQMD’s recommended methodology and utilized the average trip length for light-heavy (15.3-miles), medium-heavy (14.2-miles) and heavy-heavy trucks (39.9-miles) which is based on SCAQMD’s recommendations outlined in their implementation of the Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) adopted in 2021.

These trip lengths represent averages and therefore would include local trips as well as potential trips that may occur to the ports. The comment’s recommended trip lengths are not supported by any substantial evidence provided by the SCAQMD. As such, because it would be speculative to assume that all Project truck trips would extend to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and because the percentage of truck trips that would extend to the ports is not known at this time, it is appropriate to be consistent with SCAQMD’s recommended methodology, which is based on actual data from similar facilities in the region.

Comment L1.9: This comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR fails to comply with SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2k.

Response L1.9: SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2k is included in the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the TDM program would be crafted to be applicable to the Project tenant, which is currently unknown. As detailed in Chapter 4 of the Final Subsequent EIR, SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2k would be implemented as part of the tenant permitting process. The City Planning Department will obtain and review Project employment to implement a TDM program prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The TDM program would be required to be consistent with Municipal Code Section 30-512, Trip Reduction Measures, that requires:
1124 427
 Bicycle racks or lockers be provided at a rate of one bicycle parking space per 20 automobile parking spaces;
 On-site pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths shall be provided between the proposed building, public streets, and sidewalks or transit stops;
 Preferential parking spaces signed and striped for vanpools and carpools shall be provided at a minimum rate of ten percent of employee vehicle parking;  A passenger loading area equivalent to a minimum of three parking spaces shall be provided close to the main building entrance;
 Parking to accommodate vanpool vehicles;
 Locker, shower, and changing room facility(ies) accessible to both men and women shall be provided for employees bicycling or walking to work; and,
 An information area easily accessible to employees that offers information on available transportation alternatives, such as: Metrolink service schedules, transit route schedules and maps, rideshare matching services, available employees or customer incentives and air quality information.

Therefore, the Project would not fail to comply with SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2k. In addition, as described in Response L1.7, the proposed Project includes other trip reduction programs that include incentivizing transit (SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2g) and incorporation of food service (SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2e).

Comment L1.10: This comment states the Projects implementation of SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2- 2k is mitigation deferral as it does not identify the types of actions that may achieve compliance with performance standards regarding NOx emissions.

Response L1.10: As described in the previous response SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2k is included in the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and would be crafted to be applicable to the Project tenant, which is currently unknown. As detailed in Chapter 4 of the Final Subsequent EIR, SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2k would be implemented as part of the tenant permitting process. The City Planning Department will obtain and review Project employment to implement a TDM program prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. As detailed in SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2k, information to craft an effective TDM program would be obtained from the number of full or part‐time employees at a worksite for a consecutive six‐month period calculated as a monthly average. This employment data is tenant specific, and therefore, is appropriate to be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permits. However, the TDM program would be required to be consistent with Municipal Code Section 30-512, Trip Reduction Measures, that includes operational actions, standards, and requirements for facilities and programs (listed previously in Response L1.9) to reduce employee vehicle trips. Therefore, WIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure

4.2-2k does not consist of deferred mitigation. In addition, as detailed previously, other TDM related mitigation measures are included that incentivize transit (SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2f,

4.2-2g) and incorporate food service (SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2e). Overall, the Draft Subsequent EIR does identify and discuss mitigation measures available to mitigate the Project’s operational NOx emissions. Specifically, Draft Subsequent EIR page 5.1-26 states that the Project would implement the SWIP Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2c through 4.2-2g, and 4.2-2j and 4.2-2ki to reduce the operational NOx emissions; however, these measures would not be sufficient enough to reduce the NOx emissions to below the SCAQMD thresholds.
1125 428
Comment L1.11: This comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential significant air quality and GHG impacts. It also states that the Draft Subsequent EIR specifically fails to identify and discuss feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions from all operational sources, including non-mobile sources.

Response L1.11: The emissions from the Project site would be consistent with what is analyzed for the Project site in the SWIP FEIR. The proposed Project would include SWIP Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2c through

4.2-2g, and 4.2-2j, and 4.2-5a to reduce NOx and GHG emissions. These include measures to provide alternate modes of transportation and encourage carpooling, using energy efficient appliances, and installing solar infrastructure in compliance with Municipal Code. As described previously in Response L1.9:

SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2k is included in the Project’s MMRP along with other Project specific mitigation measures. The TDM program would be implemented pursuant to Municipal Code Section 30-512, Trip Reduction Measures, that includes specific criteria.

In addition, the Project would occur pursuant to the requirements of the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards, that require the proposed building to install rooftop solar panels that supply 100 percent of the power need for non-refrigerated building space; and install electric plug-ins at all loading dock positions that would be utilized by trucks fitted with transport refrigeration units (TRUs). It also requires onsite cargo handling would to be zero emissions. These measures were detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR and would reduce emissions from area sources, energy sources, transportation refrigeration units, and potential emergency engines. Further, the Project would be permitted to be in compliance with CalGreen requirements for efficient use of water, reuse of wastewater and recycling of solid waste. The measures listed by the comment are included in the Project through the mitigation measures and implementation of existing regulations.

CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze all possible mitigation measures or combinations of general strategies (Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. City of Santa Clarita). Rather, lead agencies must identify and implement reasonable and feasible measures to reduce the impact. The reasonable and feasible measures are included as mitigation and compliance with existing regulations, as detailed previously. As the large majority of the NOx (88%) and GHG (78%) emissions are related to vehicle and truck emissions that cannot be controlled by the Project applicant or City, there is no nexus for further mitigation measures that would not significantly reduce the Project impacts beyond what has already been mitigated. An EIR may decline to propose a mitigation measure that would not effectively address a significant impact (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 CA4th 342, 365).

Comment L1.12: The comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR fails to implement potential mitigation measures to lessen potentially significant impacts on NOx and GHG emissions, which is a violation of CEQA that requires the Project to explore all feasible mitigation and alternatives or give reason why mitigation may be infeasible.

Response L1.12: As discussed detailed in the previous response and in Section 5.1, Air Quality, NOx emissions would be over the allowable threshold set by SCAQMD due to the emissions from employee vehicles and trucks accessing the site that neither the Project applicants nor the City have the ability to reduce emissions from. The emissions from the Project site would be consistent with what is analyzed for the Project site in the SWIP FEIR. The proposed Project would include SWIP Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2c through

4.2-2g, and 4.2-2j, and 4.2-5a to reduce NOx and GHG emissions. In addition, the Project would occur pursuant to the requirements of the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial Commerce 1126 429
Centers Sustainability Standards, that require the proposed building to install rooftop solar panels that supply 100 percent of the power need for non-refrigerated building space; and install electric plug-ins at all loading dock positions that would be utilized by trucks fitted with transport refrigeration units (TRUs). As the impact is related to vehicle emissions that cannot be controlled by the Project applicant or City, there is no nexus for additional mitigation measures as they would not significantly reduce the Project impacts beyond what has already been mitigated.

Comment L1.13: This comment states that additional feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce operational NOx emissions and includes a list of measures.

Response L1.13: The Project would implement existing regulations and the SWIP FEIR mitigation measures related to air quality and GHG emissions, many of which are consistent with the comment’s recommended measures. The Table below compares the comment’s recommended measure with the measures currently applied to the Project. As detailed below, many of the recommended measures are required to be implemented by existing regulations and/or are included in SWIP SP Final EIR mitigation measures. The measures that are not included are either not applicable to the Project, not required as Project impacts related to the recommended measure would not occur, or because the Project applicant and the City do not have the authority to require the measure, as detailed below.

Comment’s Recommended Measure Project Inclusion/Applicability Contractual language in tenant lease agreements
that requires future tenants to exclusively use zeroemission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans.

As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent
EIR, the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section
V: Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability
Standards, requires onsite motorized operational
equipment to be zero emissions. Thus, the Project is
consistent with this recommended measure.

Include contractual language in tenant lease
agreements that requires all heavy-duty trucks
entering or on the project site to be model year
2018 or later, expedite a transition to zeroemission vehicles, and be fully zero emission beginning in 2023. A list of commercially available
zero-emission trucks can be obtained from the
Hybrid and Zero-emission Truck and Bus Voucher
Incentive Project. Additional incentive funds are
available from the Carl Moyer Program and
Voucher Incentive Program.

The Project applicant and the City do not have the
authority to require all heavy-duty trucks entering
or on the project site to be of a certain model year
or engine type; or require future tenants and
vendors to utilize heavy-duty vehicles for trips to
and from the site that are zero-emissions. Thus, this
measure is infeasible.

Include contractual language in tenant lease
agreements that requires the tenant to be in, and
monitor compliance with, all current air quality
regulations for on-road trucks including the
California Air Resources Board’s Heavy-Duty
(Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation,
Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, Periodic Smoke
Inspection Program, and the Statewide Truck and
Bus Regulation.

The Project’s operational permitting may require
CARB compliance training and vehicle record
keeping to demonstrate compliance with existing
regulations. This determination is part of the City’s
development review and operational permitting
process. This consists of ensuring compliance with
existing regulations and does not consist of a
mitigation measure.
1127 430
Comment’s Recommended Measure Project Inclusion/Applicability Include contractual language in tenant lease
agreements restricting trucks and support
equipment from idling longer than two minutes
while on site. Such a measure goes beyond the
City’s municipal code which only requires the
posting of signage to restrict idling for no more than
3 minutes. It also goes beyond SWIP SP FEIR
Mitigation Measure 4.2-2c, which only require that
signs be posted requiring that trucks not be left
idling more than 5 minutes.

As detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent
EIR, the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section
V: Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability
Standards, prohibits idling for more than three
minutes, which is more restrictive than existing CARB
regulations that allow 5 minutes of idling. Due to the
onsite security gates, the need for hydraulic lifting,
and the time needed to secure a loading dock
position while carrying refrigerated goods,
implementation of a two-minute idling limit may be
infeasible and unenforceable.

Ensure that any check-in point for trucks is well
inside the Project site to ensure that trucks do not
que outside the facility.

As detailed on Figure 3-4 of the Draft Subsequent
EIR, the truck check-in gates are well within the
Project site to ensure that trucks do not que in the
street. Thus, the Project is consistent with this
recommended measure.

Establish overnight parking within the industrial
building where trucks can rest overnight.

The Project includes 308 truck/trailer parking
spaces on the east and west sides of the building,
which would adequately accommodate overnight
parking on the site. Thus, the Project is consistent with this recommended measure.

Establish area(s) within the Project site for repair
needs.

The Project includes two parking lots that include
308 truck/trailer parking spaces on the east and
west sides of the building, which could be used for
repair needs. In addition, the Project includes 4
ramp up dock doors that would allow portions of
the proposed building to be used for repair needs.

Thus, the Project is consistent with this recommended
measure.

Limit the number of trucks allowed at the Project site
based on the levels analyzed in the Draft
Subsequent EIR.

The Draft Subsequent EIR evaluates full
occupation/capacity of the proposed building and
identifies truck trips at full occupancy of the
proposed building and the maximum daily emissions
that would occur from both construction and
operation of the Project. Thus, the Project would not
exceed the number of daily truck trips that was
evaluated in the Draft Subsequent EIR. Should there
be future proposed changes to the Project, such as
an increase in square footage, that may have the
potential to increase vehicle trips, truck trips, or
other sources of air quality emissions, a CEQA
analysis would be required, prior to project
operational permitting, to evaluate the potential
impacts related to the increase. Should additional
1128 431
Comment’s Recommended Measure Project Inclusion/Applicability potential impacts be identified, new mitigation
measures would be applied.

Comment L1.14: This comment states that implementation of CAPCOA transportation measures that reduce VMT also improve air quality and that the measures recommended previously should be considered. The comment also states that the Draft Subsequent EIR must incorporate additional VMT mitigation measures as well as measures for non-operating emissions sources in order to reduce the significant NOx emissions impact.

Response L1.14: As detailed previously in Response L1.5, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to VMT; and therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Response L1.13 details the feasibility of each of the recommended measures. As detailed in previous responses, the existing SWIP FEIR mitigation measures that would be implemented for the Project include incentivizing transit (SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2g), incorporation of food service (SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2e) and implementation of a TDM program (SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2k), which are consistent with CAPCOA transportation measures for reducing VMT and air quality emissions. Also, the 2022 CALGreen standards include requirements for bicycle racks and other end-of-trip bicycle facilities. As detailed previously, the Project would implement the SWIP Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2c through 4.2- 2g, and 4.2-2k to reduce the operational NOx emissions; however, these measures would not be sufficient to reduce the NOx emissions to below the SCAQMD thresholds because over 88 percent of the NOx emissions are generated by vehicle and truck trips. Thus, impacts related to NOx were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Neither the Project applicant nor the City have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions. Thus, no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce these emissions that are generating the significant impact to levels that are less-than-significant. Furthermore, the potential limited and temporary use of an emergency generator or fire pump would be limited to emergency situations and would not result in the vehicle and truck emissions that would result in a significant impact. An EIR may decline to propose a mitigation measure that would not effectively address a significant impact (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 CA4th 342, 365). However, the City would reduce non-mobile emissions through compliance with the City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards, that requires the proposed building install rooftop solar panels that supply 100 percent of the power need for non-refrigerated building space; and install electric plug-ins at all loading dock positions that would be utilized by trucks fitted with TRUs, and other similar measures.

Also, the code requirement would potentially reduce mobile emissions by requiring that at least 10% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces be EV ready.

Comment L1.15: The comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR does not adequately implement feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emission impacts, and that additional measures such as end-of-trip bicycle facilities and other CAPCOA measures can reduce GHG emissions. The comment also states that the Project should include a TDM program, require solar offset of 100% of the Project’s energy emissions, divert 75% of waste from landfills, and require landscape equipment to be electric.

Response L1.15: As detailed in previous responses, the proposed Project would include EV ready parking spaces, bicycle racks, and other end-of-trip bicycle facilities pursuant to the CalGreen and Municipal Code Section 30-512 requirements for the proposed use; and would implement other transportation measures to reduce emissions that include incentivizing transit and transit information (SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measures

4.2-2a, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2g), incorporation of food service (SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2e), and implementation of a TDM program (SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-2k) per Municipal Code Section 1129 432
30-512 criteria. In addition, the Project would occur pursuant to the requirements of the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards, that require the proposed building to install rooftop solar panels that supply 100 percent of the power need for non-refrigerated building space (including landscaping); require onsite motorized operational equipment to be zero emissions, and install electric plug-ins at all loading dock positions that would be utilized by trucks fitted with TRUs. It should be noted that these are the same measures that are included in the Cherry Commerce Center Project that is identified by the comment. The Cherry Commerce Center Project does not include any refrigerated warehouse space. Thus, both Projects install rooftop solar panels to supply 100 percent of the power need for non-refrigerated building space.

As detailed on page 119 of the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft Subsequent EIR), AB 341 requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste from landfills, which is done through onsite recycling programs and the solid waste hauler that would service the Project. Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with these regulations, as ensured through the City’s permitting process. Therefore, each of the recommended measures has been evaluated for feasibility and are included in the proposed Project.

Comment L1.16: This comment states that the Statement of Overriding Considerations must consider whether the Project provides employment opportunities for highly trained workers.

Response L1.16: Section 21081 of the CEQA Statute states that lead agencies may not approve a Project with significant impacts unless, “Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.” While provisions for highly trained workers may override a significant impact, provisions for highly skilled workers are not a CEQA requirement for overriding considerations. Thus, as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Project would implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts. While there remains significant and unavoidable impacts, as discussed in this Final Subsequent EIR, the Project would bring socioeconomic benefits that outweigh those significant impacts. As detailed in Draft Subsequent EIR Section

5.6 Mandatory Findings of Significance, the Project would implement roadway, pedestrian, and infrastructure improvements that would provide social and transportation benefits to the City’s residents. The Project provides additional jobs that are within SCAG growth projections in an environmentally sustainable manner by providing job opportunities for nearby residents near regional transportation that would reduce vehicle miles traveled. The City of Fontana has had unemployment rates ranging between 3.6 and 9.5 percent over the last 5 years. The Project would provide new employment opportunities for people living in Fontana and the surrounding cities. Most of the new labor and office jobs that would be created by the proposed Project would be positions that are anticipated to be filled by people who would already be living within Fontana and surrounding communities. These include employment opportunities for both untrained and highly trained workers, which is typical for industrial warehousing development projects. Thus, the City has considered employment opportunities of highly trained workers.

Per Public Resources Code § 21002.1 (a),”… the purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.” Therefore, the Draft Subsequent EIR is not intended to serve as the basis for the approval or denial of the Project, but to disclose the environmental consequences of approving the Project. Through the public hearing process, the decisionmakers within the City will take into consideration the environmental impacts caused by the Project, as well as the Project’s benefits.
1130 433
The comment does not raise a specific significant environmental issue with the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR as a disclosure document for environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Comment L1.17: The comment states that until the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised and recirculated the City may not lawfully approve the Project.

Response L1.17: As substantiated by the responses above and below and those contained in the Final Subsequent EIR, none of the conditions arise which would require recirculation of the Draft Subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the Draft Subsequent EIR is not fundamentally inadequate or conclusory in nature.

Comment L1.18: This comment states that at the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Clark and Associates has reviewed the Draft EIR. This comment provides a summary of the Project description and provides figures of the Project site aerial and conceptual site plan.

Response L1.18: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specificsignificant environmental issue with the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Comment L1.19: The comment states that there are 43 different projects in vicinity of the proposed Project and that the Draft Subsequent EIR only analyzed them qualitatively. The comment also states that the Draft Subsequent EIR states the Project does not require mitigation against air quality impacts which conflicts with the conclusions of the Draft Subsequent EIR.

Response L1.19: This comment incorrectly claims that the Draft Subsequent EIR states that no mitigation is required to avoid air quality impacts. As discussed in Response L1.12, while the Project would result in NOx emissions above SCAWMD thresholds, the Project would implement all feasible mitigation measures, including SWIP Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2c through 4.2-2g, 4.2-2j, and 4.2-5a, which includes measures to provide alternate modes of transportation and encourage carpooling, providing onsite meal program, and installing solar infrastructure in compliance with Municipal Code. The conclusion of the Draft Subsequent EIR is not in conflict with the facts provided in the document.

Comment L1.20: The comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR fails to provide all the feasible mitigation measures in order to reduce NOx emissions and includes a list of mitigation measures to include.

Response L1.20: This comment is the same as Comment L1.13. See Response L1.13. In addition, as detailed on page 3-10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 9, Section V: Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards, requires signs and pavement markings to clearly identify truck routes.

Comment L1.21: This comment states that using the High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse results in 1.81 trips per 1,000 square feet, while using Fulfillment Center Warehouse-Sort rates 1131 434
results in 6.44 trips per 1,000 square feet. The comment states that in the 2016 SCAQMD study, a value of

1.432 daily trips per 1,000 SF is pulled from a large dataset of transload and short-term storage highcube warehouses, but does not produce an acceptable level of correlation to develop a fitted curve equation.

The comment provides data from the 2019 WSP Study for WRCOG and states that the value for number of daily trips per day utilized by the City is not supportable. The comment states that the City should reevaluate the Project’s operational emissions using the 2019 WRCOG rate of 2.13.

Response L1.21: As substantiated by CEQA case law (High Sierra Rural Alliance v. County of Plumas (2018) 29 CA 5th 102, 126), an analysis of speculative worst-case scenario is not required. Since the Project does not propose a sort fulfillment center, the TUMF rates would incorrectly yield higher rates when applied to a regular high-cube warehouse. The comment also references the 2016 AQMD study. The 2016 AQMD study formed the basis of the ITE 11th Edition trip rates for High-Cube Warehouse land use. The ITE high-cube transload and short-term storage warehouse, land use 154, is validated through 91 surveys and provides enough data points to average the daily rates for the land use with a straight line equation and does not need a fitted curve equation. The Project analysis utilizes the 2021 ITE which is the most recent and is recognized and used nationwide as a source and is consistent with other industrial projects in Fontana; thus, is appropriate to use for the proposed Project. The proposed Project is consistent with the warehousing and high-cube cold storage warehousing ITE land uses that are used to estimate Project trips. Therefore, the trip generation used in the Draft Subsequent EIR and supporting analyses is a reasonable representation of the potential Project impacts and complies with CEQA.

Comment L1.22: This comment states that guidance from SCAQMD does not require a 40-mile truck trip and provides a discussion from SCAQMD’s Final Environmental Assessment and Adoption of Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (WAIRE). The comment states that the County’s assumption that the 40-mile truck trip should be used is unsupported and insufficient to allow vehicles to travel to ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach. The comment states that this truck trip length is also inconsistent with other trip lengths assumed in County CEQA documents for similar warehouse projects, such as the Alabama/Palmetto Warehouse, which uses a truck trip length of 77 miles.

Response L1.22: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence of a significant environmental issue. As detailed above in Response L1.8 the truck trip length of 40 miles per trip was based on a scientific report prepared by the SCAQMD and provides for a reasonable estimate of truck trip lengths within the Air Basin.

Comment L1.23: The comment states that the Project could result in unmitigated significant impacts and the City should prepare a revised Draft Subsequent EIR.

Response L1.23: As substantiated by the responses above and below, none of the conditions arise which would require recirculation of the Draft Subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the Draft Subsequent EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.

Comment L1.24: This comment states that at the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Smith Engineering and Management has reviewed the Draft EIR with respect to transportation considerations. The comment also provides the qualifications of the reviewer. 1132 435
Response L1.24: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR, any significant environmental issue, or raise any other CEQA concerns. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Comment L1.25: This comment states that the reviewer agrees with Dr. Clark’s assessment that the Project’s trips generation was underestimated by using the High Cube Warehouse land use. The comment recommends the use of more intense land uses that generate additional trips to analyze the Project, which would also result in the Project no longer screening out of VMT analysis.

Response L1.25: Refer to Responses L1.4 and L1.5.

Comment L1.26: This comment states that the Project would result in potentially significant impacts to VMT and should incorporate additional mitigation measures in order to reduce impacts.

Response L1.26: Potentially significant impacts related to VMT, which would require implementation of mitigation would not occur from the proposed Project. Refer to previous Responses L1.6 and L1.15.

Comment L1.27: This comment concludes the letter by stating that the Project should not be considered a small project and would result in a significant VMT impact.

Response L1.27: The Subsequent EIR does not assert that the Project is considered a small Project. However, as detailed previously in Response L1.6, the proposed Project would not generate a net increase of more than 500 ADT, and it would satisfy the requirements for Screening Criteria 4 – Net Daily Trips less than 500 ADT. Thus, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to VMT.

As substantiated by the responses above and those contained in the Final Subsequent EIR, none of the conditions arise which would require recirculation of the Draft Subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the Draft Subsequent EIR is not fundamentally inadequate or conclusory in nature. 1133 436
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
1 of 33
RESOLUTION PC NO. 2024-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
FONTANA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23-012 (TPM
20710) AND DESIGN REVIEW NO 22-064 TO CONSOLIDATE THREE

PARCELS INTO ONE PARCEL AND TO DEVELOP AN INDUSTRIAL

COMMERCE CENTER BUILDING CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY
881,826 SQUARE FEET ON A PARCEL OF APPROXIMATELY 40.01

ACRES PURSUANT TO THE CERTIFIED SUBSEQUENT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) (STATE CLEARING HOUSE NO. 2009091089) AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE A NOTICE OF
DETERMINATION.

WHEREAS, on June 19, 1964, Assessor Parcel Numbers (“APNs”) 0237-131-25, 0237-131-26, 0237-131-27 totaling approximately 40 acres were annexed from San Bernadino County into the City of Fontana (“Project Site”); and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2012, the Southwest Industrial Park (“SWIP”) Specific Plan Update was approved and adopted by the City of Fontana (“City”) pursuant to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”); and WHEREAS, the Project Site is located within the General Industrial (I-G) General Plan Land Use designation and within the Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD) of the SWIP; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2022, the City received Tentative Parcel Map Application No. 23-012 (TPM 20710) and Design Review Application No. 22-064 (DRP No. 22-064) from Prologis (“Applicant”), for the consolidation of three parcels into one and for site plan and architectural review of an industrial commerce center building and associated improvements at the Project Site; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft SEIR was circulated for at least a 45-day public review and comment period from October 10, 2023 to December 11, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a FEIR consisting of the comments received during the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), written responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft EIR, and an errata making minor, non-substantive changes to the FEIR. For the purposes of this Resolution, the “EIR” shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the FEIR, together with the other sections of the FEIR; and
WHEREAS, the information contained in FEIR (State Clearing House No. 2009091089) prepared for the project has been circulated for the project and has been submitted with the inclusion of a Statement of Overriding Consideration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (“MMP”); and
1134 437
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
2 of 33
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution PC No. 24-____, the Planning Commission adopted environmental findings, a Statement Of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA, certified the EIR, adopted the Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program (“MMRP”), and approved the project; and
WHEREAS, the Conditions of Approval have been prepared and are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B” for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-012 (TPM 20710) and DRP No. 22-064, respectively; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2024, a notice of the public hearing was published in the San Bernardino Sun newspaper, 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 notices required by statute and the Fontana Municipal Code have been given as required; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2024, a duly noticed public hearing on the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-012 (TPM 20710), and DRP No. 22-064 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. 23-012 (TPM No. 20710) and DRP No. 22-064; 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:

Section1. Recitals. The above recitals are true, correct and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. CEQA. Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2009091089) was prepared for development. Per Resolution PC No. 24-____, the Planning Commission adopted environmental findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA, certified the EIR, which analyzed Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-012 (TPM 1135 438
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
3 of 33
20710), and DRP No. 22-064, adopted the MMRP, and approved the Project. Planning Commission has certified the EIR 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. 23-012, (TPM 20710) pursuant to Section 30-284 of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code, and in accordance with Section 26-218(d) “Processing of application” of the Fontana Municipal 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. 23-012 (TPM 20710) is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for the Project Site, which is I-G.

The lot size with the consolidation will meet the lot standards of the Specific Plan. The tentative parcel map consolidates three (3) existing parcels (APNs: 0237-131-25, -26, -27) into one parcel for the construction of a concrete tilt-up industrial commerce building totaling approximately 881,826 square feet, which use is permitted in the General Plan.

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

Finding of Fact: The site design for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-012 (TPM 20710) is consistent with the General Plan. 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 Fontana Municipal Code 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 the zoning requirements of the SWIP Specific Plan/SCD zone. Improvements consist of public sewer, public storm drain, streets, gutter, sidewalks, drainage, and grading to provide a safe and well-designed project for the area.

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

Finding of Fact: The Project Site for the industrial commerce center building is approximately 40.01 acres, which is adequate in size to accommodate the development. The existing topography is conducive for the project and development of the site did not require setback variances; therefore, the site is suitable for this type of development. The lot size is consistent with surrounding developments.
1136 439
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
4 of 33
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. 23-012 (TPM 20710) is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. The area surrounding the Project Site has been developed with industrial use.

An EIR has been prepared for this project pursuant to CEQA and the 2019 Local Guidelines for Implementing CEQA. Based on the information in the EIR, the project does not represent significant effects on the environment as a result of project implementation. The mitigation measures established with the EIR along with Conditions of Approval will reduce any significant impacts to the surrounding area. The use is anticipated based on the Land Use Designation and the Zoning and Development Code.

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

Finding of Fact: The design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-012 (TPM 20710) will not cause public health problems. The development will comply with the Zoning and Development Code and General Plan. Improvements include connection to the public sewer, connection to the public storm drain, sidewalks, drainage and undergrounding of utilities and site grading to provide a safe and well-designed project for the area.

Therefore, the project shall promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community.

Finding No. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

Finding of Fact: The design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-012 (TPM 20710), and public improvements, will not conflict with access easements acquired by the public. Access to and from the Project Site would be provided from driveways on Hemlock Avenue and Beech Avenue.

Section 4. Design Review Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings for DRP No. 22-064 in accordance with Section 30-120 “Findings for approval” of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code:
1137 440
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
5 of 33
Finding No. 1: The proposal is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning and Development Code, and any applicable Specific Plan.

Finding of Fact: The General Plan Land Use designation of I-G is intended for employee-intensive uses, including business parking, research and development, technology center, corporate and support office uses, clean industry, supporting retail uses, truck and equipment sales and related services. The project is for the development of one (1) industrial commerce center building totaling approximately 881,826 square feet on 40.01 gross acres provides for consistent blend of well-designed industrial development in the immediate vicinity. The site and building design complies with the criteria contained in the design review section and development standards of the Fontana Zoning and Development Code and the SWIP Specific Plan.

Therefore, this industrial commerce center project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation and SWIP.

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.

Finding of Fact: The site and architectural design for the 881,826 square foot warehouse building has been designed with office space totaling 40,000 square feet. Secured gated entrances into a truck court with 114 loading docks on the east and west sides of the building, will result in screening from the public view. The use of glazing, parapets, accent colors and painted banding will add structural and visual interest to the building. Additionally, variations to the building face and roof lines with tower elements at max 55 feet will be architecturally pleasing. Access to and from the Project Site would be provided from driveways on Hemlock Avenue and Beech Avenue.

Landscaping would be ornamental in nature and include trees, shrubs, and drought-tolerant plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers. The project will be built pursuant to all applicable building, zoning, and fire codes, in addition to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B” and referenced herein. The project will include sidewalk and landscape improvements along Hemlock and Beech Avenue. The site
improvements (sewer and storm drain systems, site circulation, parking, landscaping, lighting and driveways) have been reviewed by the Fire, Building and Safety Engineering Departments and found there they comply with their requirements. Therefore, the project will 1138 441
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
6 of 33
promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding 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 industrial commerce center building has been designed with the use of glazing, parapets, accent colors and painted banding which will add structural and visual interest to the building. Additionally, variations to the building face and roof lines will be architecturally pleasing. Access to and from the Project Site would be provided from driveways on Hemlock Avenue and Beech Avenue. Landscaping would be ornamental in nature and include trees, shrubs, and drought-tolerant plants in addition to a variety of groundcovers. The project is designed to be compatible with the surrounding uses. The project will be constructed in accordance with applicable building, zoning and fire codes will make for a safe, attractive, and welldesigned project.

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

Findings of Fact: The development complies with the Zoning and Development Code standards and the newly adopted sustainability ordinance. The improvements include sewer and storm drain systems, site circulation, parking, landscaping, lighting, and driveways,. The project has been reviewed by the City’s Planning, Engineering, Building and Safety and Fontana Fire Prevention Departments for, sewer and storm drain systems, site circulation, parking, landscaping, lighting, and driveways, and found that they comply with requirements.

Section 5. Tentative Parcel Map Approval. Based on the findings in Section 3, and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto, as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein, the Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-012 (TPM No. 20710).

Section 6. Design Review Approval. Based on the findings in Section 4, and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto, as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein, the Planning Commission hereby approves DRP No. 22-064.

Section 7. Resolution Regarding Custodian of Record: The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been 1139 442
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
7 of 33
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 8. Certification. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

Section 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

Section 10. 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
1140 443
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
8 of 33
EXHIBIT “A”

CITY OF FONTANA

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: Master Case No. (MCN) 22-143 March 19, 2024
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 20710) No. 23-012
LOCATION: The project site is located at 11115 Hemlock Avenue and encompasses three (3) parcels comprised of approximately 40 acres (APNs) 0237-131-25, 0237-131- 26, and 0237-131-27.

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 all of the following have occurred:

A. All requirements of the Fontana Municipal Code shall be complied with.

B. All other Conditions of Approval imposed by this project have been fulfilled.

2. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, attorneys, and employees from any and all actual or alleged claims, actions or proceedings against the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, attorneys, or employees to attack, set aside, void, annul or seek monetary damages arising out of any challenge to the applicant’s proposed project or to any approvals of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning this project, including but not limited to actions challenging CEQA actions, permits, variances, plot plans, design plans, maps, licenses, and amendments. The City of Fontana shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City of Fontana shall cooperate in the defense.

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 1141 444
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
9 of 33
be limited to, damages, fees, and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, the City and/or any parties bringing such forth.

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

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

3. Tentative Parcel Map No. 20710 (TPM No. 23-012) shall comply with all applicable development standards of, Chapter 26 (Subdivisions), Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan, Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development), Fontana Municipal Code (FMC), and the Subdivision Map Act. All provisions of Development Agreement No. 24-002 shall be adhered. No later than 10 days after the Effective Date, the Owner shall record with the Office of the San Bernardino County Recorder, Development Agreement No.24-002 against the Property.

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

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

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

7. Tentative Parcel Map No. 20710 (TPM No. 23-012) shall become null and void two (2) years from the date of approval, unless the appropriate permits have been obtained and construction, defined as permit obtainment, commencement of construction of the primary building on site, and successful completion of the first Building and Safety Division inspection, has commenced within this project.

8. In the event that one or more of the Conditions of Approval for this project needs to be amended and/or deleted 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 1142 445
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
10 of 33
City Council at the next available meeting for City Manger’s decision. The noticing of such City Council meeting for possible ratification shall be pursuant to Section No. 30-23 of the Municipal Code.

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

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

10. The applicant shall meet all requirements identified in the Industrial Commerce Sustainability Ordinance (Chapter 9, Article V of the Fontana Municipal Code).

11. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the Trip Reduction Measures of the Zoning and Development Code (Section 30-962).

BUILDING & SAFETY:

General Conditions

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

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

13. The applicant shall install an automatic fire suppression system, which is required in all new construction per FMC Chapter 11 Article II. Design and type of system shall be based upon the requirements of the Building Code, Fire Code and the requirements of the Fontana Fire Prevention District.

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

15. The applicant shall verify that any temporary building, trailer, commercial coach, etc. installed and/or used in connection with a construction project complies with FMC Chapter 5 Article XIV.
1143 446
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
11 of 33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The relationship between the proposed finished on-site grade elevations and the existing adjacent property grade elevations (Indicate any additional drainage water that may come from an adjacent property.); and
1144 447
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
12 of 33

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

3. All proposed drainage structures; and

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

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

19. The applicant is required to obtain permits for the removal and/or demolition of structures.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

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

A. Precise grading plans shall be approved
B. Rough grading completed
C. Compaction certification

1. Pad elevation certification
Rough grade inspection signed off by a City Building Inspector

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

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

Specific Conditions:

23. Project must comply with City of Fontana’s warehouse sustainability ordinance. For more information related to Building & Safety, please visit our web page at https://www.fontana.org/136/Building-Safety
1145 448
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
13 of 33
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL:

Prior to Certificate of Occupancy or Permit Approval:

24. All industrial facilities shall submit an Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit application to Environmental Control. (FMC 23-218) To obtain or submit an application, please contact Sal Romero at 909-428-8809 or [email protected].

25. All commercial facilities conducting activities listed below shall submit an Industrial Discharge Permit application to Environmental Control. (FMC 23-218) To obtain or submit an application, please contact Sal Romero at 909-428-8809 or [email protected].

26. Any facility maintained for the servicing, washing, cleaning or repair of vehicles, construction equipment, industrial transportation or power equipment. (FMC 23-218).

27. All restaurants or other food processing facilities. (FMC 23-218)

28. All facilities maintained for the processing, filtering, softening or conditioning of water. (FMC 23-218).

29. Any facility which has a projected wastewater discharge that exceeds 25,000 gallons of water per day, or which may be categorized as a Federal Categorical discharger, or which is requesting a permit to discharge to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) Non-Reclaimable Wastewater Line (NRW) shall submit a Uniform Industrial Wastewater Survey and Permit Application to IEUA and Environmental Control. (FMC 23-216) To obtain or submit an application, please contact Sal Romero at 909-428-8809 or [email protected].

Prior to the Issuance of Construction Permits:

30. Any facility proposing the discharge of non-domestic wastewater to the sanitary sewer shall demonstrate in the plan check process, through the submittal of detailed plans showing pretreatment facilities and operating procedures, that the user will pretreat wastewater to a level required to comply with FMC 23-136 - Concentration Limitations and/or FMC 23-138 – Applicability of Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards, and/or any other applicable standard as established. (FMC 23-186).

31. All commercial or industrial facilities within the following categories must install a gravity separation interceptor to comply with the requirements of the Fontana Municipal Code (FMC Section 23-190) unless the requirement is modified by a variance issued by the Public Works Manager.

32. All commercial or industrial facilities within the following categories must install a gravity separation interceptor to comply with the requirements of the Fontana Municipal Code (FMC Section 23-190) unless the requirement is modified by a variance issued by the Public Works Manager.
1146 449
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
14 of 33

33. Any facility maintained for the washing and/or cleaning of vehicles, construction equipment, industrial transportation or power equipment. The facility is required to have a designated covered area with all service bay doors protected by floor/trench drains connected to sand/oil separator to prevent the washout and/or discharge of liquids. (FMC 23-161).

34. Any facility maintained for the servicing of vehicles, construction equipment, industrial transportation or power equipment and has installed trench or floor drains in service bays is required to connect to a sand/oil separator. (FMC 23-161).

35. All restaurants or other food processing facilities (FMC 23-163). Conditional waivers for the grease interceptor requirement may be granted by the Public Works Manager in accordance with section 23-52 for those restaurants or food processing facilities determined not to have adverse effects on the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).

36. Any facility proposing the discharge of non-domestic wastewater to a septic system, holding tank, closed-loop system, or similar equipment, and is not connected to the sanitary sewer, is required to obtain written approval from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB).

37. Per the State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2012-0032 all Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems must be approved by the SARWQCB beginning May 13, 2018. A copy of the policy is available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/owts/index.shtml.

38. Submit drawings to the SARWQCB for approval. Provide a copy of the SARWQCB approval letter and their approved plans to the City of Fontana.

39. For more information, or to submit your plans, please contact Susan Beeson at [email protected] or 951-782-4902.

Storm Water
Upon Certificate of Occupancy or Permit Approval and during Occupancy:

40. All Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, and/or other facilities deemed to have the potential to discharge pollutants to the storm drain system shall implement source control and pollution prevention practices to prevent unauthorized, non-storm water discharges, at all times.

41. Vehicle, equipment and/or exterior washing activities are prohibited unless a wastewater recovery system is in place. All wastewater shall be recovered, stored and disposed of by proper and legal means through a waste disposal facility. Contractors hired for washing activities shall maintain a current City of Fontana Business License Tax Certificate to operate as a mobile washing business.
1147 450
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
15 of 33

42. Facilities that conduct regular and routine washing and/or cleaning of vehicles, construction equipment, industrial transportation or power equipment are required to have a designated wash rack area. (See Pretreatment Conditions above).

Prior to Business License and C of O approval:

43. All industrial / warehousing facilities are required to obtain coverage under the State Industrial General Permit and shall file with the State Board a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the terms of the General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity.

44. Applicants shall be required to provide a copy of the Waste Discharger Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Board as evidence of coverage under the Industrial General Permit to Sal Romero 909-428-8809 or [email protected]. (40 CFR, CA-WQCB Order No 2014-0057-DWQ, CA-RWQCB Order No. R8-2010-0036, FMC 23-520, SB205)
For further information about the Industrial General Permit, please visit the following website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/indusfaq.shtml FIRE DEPARTMENT:

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

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

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

SBCoFD Standard A-2.
1148 451
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
16 of 33

48. Water System Commercial: Prior to map recordation or lot line adjustment, all water supply systems shall be designed to meet the required fire flow for this development and shall be approved by the Fire Department. The required fire flow shall be determined by using Appendix BB of the California Fire Code. A minimum of one new six (6) inch fire hydrant assembly with two (2) two and one half (2 1/2) inch and one (1) four (4) inch outlet (4”x2.5”x2.5”) shall be provided. All fire hydrants shall be spaced no more than three hundred (300) feet apart as measured along vehicular travel-ways. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard W-2. The Fire Flow for this project shall be: 4,000 GPM for a two-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. Fire Flow is based on a 746,826 Square Foot structure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Fire Code Chapter 9.

55. Fire Extinguishers: Hand portable fire extinguishers are required. The location, type, and cabinet design shall be approved by the Fire Department. California Fire Code Chapter 9.
1149 452
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
17 of 33

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

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

58. Security Gates: In commercial, industrial, and multi-family complexes, all swing gates shall have an approved fire department Knox Lock. Where an automatic electric security gate is used, an approved Fire Department override switch is required. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-3.

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

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

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

62. San Bernardino County Fire Standards: Items not directly called out on these Conditions of Approval, shall also adhere to currently adopted San Bernardino County Fire Standards and California Fire Code.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:

63. The project shall be served by the City’s sanitary sewer system, all sewer facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the City Standards. Main trunk sewer line shall be in accordance with master sanitary sewer plan or as approved by the City Engineer.
1150 453
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
18 of 33

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

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

66. Left-turn ingress and/or egress at all access locations shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer and may be restricted in the future due to traffic operational or safety concerns. Alternatives to such restrictions may be considered.

67. At all driveway locations the 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. Per the AASHTO Green Book, current edition.

68. 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 turn-around.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT

69. The Applicant shall submit and gain approval of a complete Water Quality Management Plan report in accordance with the County of San Bernardino Technical Guidance Document and latest template.

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

PRIOR TO MAP RECORDATION

71. The Applicant shall provide a Land Improvement Agreement, with accompanying security. The agreement shall be executed on City provided forms.

72. The Applicant shall record a final map to dedicate an easement for public sewer, ingress and egress of service/maintenance purposes. The easement will vary (10 to 30 foot) in width and shall be located south of the north property line, and shall extend from west to east property line. The public sewer easement width shall be in 1151 454
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
19 of 33
accordance with the City of Fontana Standards Design Guidelines, Standard Plan No. 6004. Also, an easement for maintenance vehicular ingress and egress access through the fire lane as a City maintenance road purposes in favor of the City of Fontana, located on the north side of the proposed building, necessary for the existing sewer facility as approved by the City Engineering. The easement will require the City of Fontana to notify the property owner no less than 7 days prior to entering the property except in emergency situations.

73. The Applicant shall provide access to all City-maintained sewer facilities and easements for Public Works maintenance equipment. The Applicant shall provide access gates to be constructed of tubular steel fencing or approved alternate with a twelve (12’) foot minimum clear width for equipment to enter. Gates shall swing inward or (if sliding style) be equipped with rollers. Gates at each manhole shall be secured by a City-provided padlock.

74. Permanent structures shall not be built within the public sewer easement. Fencing may not be considered permanent, but if the fence is to remain in place or proposed within the easement: any repairs that need to be done to the sewer, the property owner will be responsible to remove and replace their facilities (landscape, asphalt and/or fencing) that are in the way at their cost.

75. Grass/landscape and/or asphalt, can be placed over the public sewer easement just not near the manholes. Trees shall not be planted within the easement area.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

76. The Applicant shall record all map’s, right-of-way dedications, easements, as required for the development.

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

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

78. The Applicant shall remove and replace existing asphalt concrete pavement in Hemlock Avenue and Beech Avenue from center line of the road to edge of gutter, and from northerly property line to southerly property line. Street pavement design shall take into account the sub-grade soil strength and the traffic index of 9 for Hemlock Avenue and 10 for Beech Avenue in accordance with the City of Fontana Standards Design Guidelines, Standard Plan No. 2012.

79. The Applicant shall install bio clean inlet filters at catch basins. 1152 455
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
20 of 33

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

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

81. Slurry seal (type II) 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.

82. 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.

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

84. 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).

85. 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.

86. 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.

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

END OF CONDITION
1153 456
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
21 of 33
EXHIBIT “B”

CITY OF FONTANA

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: Master Case No. (MCN) 22-143 March 19, 2024
Design Review (DRP) No. 22-064
LOCATION: The project site is located at 11115 Hemlock Avenue and encompasses three (3) parcels comprised of approximately 40 acres (APNs: 0237-131-25, 0237-131- 26, and 0237-131-27).

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 all of the following have occurred:

A. All requirements of the Fontana Municipal Code shall be complied with.

B. All other Conditions of Approval imposed by this project have been fulfilled.

2. 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.

3. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, attorneys, and employees from any and all actual or alleged claims, actions or proceedings against the City of Fontana or its agents, officers, attorneys, or employees to attack, set aside, void, annul or seek monetary damages arising out of any challenge to the applicant’s proposed project or to any approvals of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning this project, including but not limited to actions challenging CEQA actions, permits, variances, plot plans, design plans, maps, licenses, and amendments. The City of Fontana shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City of Fontana shall cooperate in the defense.
1154 457
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
22 of 33
In the event of any such third-party action or proceeding, the City shall have the right to retain its own separate legal counsel to defend the interests of the City. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for such legal fees and costs, in their entirety including actual attorneys’ fees which may be incurred by the City in defense of such action or proceeding. This indemnification shall also include, but not be limited to, damages, fees, and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney’s 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 site, and successful completion of the first Building and Safety Division inspection, has commenced within this period.

5. All Conditions of Approval contained herein shall be incorporated into all applicable final construction plans and a copy of these condition shall be placed on a sheet in the final building or grading plans prior to issuance of any building or grading permits.

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

7. 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.

8. There shall be no refrigerated uses on site beyond what is analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); unless, a future tenant follows any applicable studies/memorandums to amend this Condition of Approval.

9. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the Trip Reduction Measures of the Zoning and Development Code (Section 30-962).
1155 458
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
23 of 33

10. All provisions of Development Agreement No. 24-002 shall be adhered. No later than 10 days after the Effective Date, the Owner shall record with the Office of the San Bernardino County Recorder, Development Agreement No.24-002 against the Property.

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

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

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

13. 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 or Holidays.

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

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

16. Historical Archaeological Resources
A. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place of 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 1156 459
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
24 of 33
be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, is 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 me 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.

17. The construction contractor shall use the following source controls at all times:
a. Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays unless it is approved by the building inspector for cases that are considered urgently necessary as defined in Section 18-63(b)(7) of the Municipal Code. b. For all noise-producing equipment, use types and models that have the lowest horsepower and the lowest noise generating potential practical for their intended use.
c. The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is properly operating (tuned-up) and lubricated, and that mufflers are working adequately.
d. Have only necessary equipment onsite.
e. Use manually adjustable or ambient sensitive backup alarms. When working adjacent to residential use(s), the construction contractor will also use the following path controls, except where not physically feasible, when necessary. f. Temporarily enclose localized and stationary noise sources, g. Store and maintain equipment, building materials, and waste materials as far as practical from as many sensitive receivers as practical.

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

19. All roof-mounted mechanical units shall be screened from view of adjacent streets by a parapet in height equal or greater to the installed unit, unless another method of visual screening is approved by the Director of Planning. 1157 460
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
25 of 33

20. The applicant/developer shall comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation (SCH No. 2009091089) Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as approved by the Planning Commission.

21. 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.

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

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

23. The current Development fees must be paid prior to issuance of building/construction permits.

BUILDING & SAFETY:

General Conditions

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

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

25. The applicant shall install an automatic fire suppression system, which is required in all new construction per FMC Chapter 11 Article II. Design and type of system shall be based upon the requirements of the Building Code, Fire Code and the requirements of the Fontana Fire Prevention District.

26. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (909-396-2000). SCAQMD requirements shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permit if hazardous materials are stored and/or used. 1158 461
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
26 of 33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. The grading plans shall, as a minimum, contain sections at all lot lines and/or permit boundary lines. These sections shall clearly indicate:
1159 462
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
27 of 33

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

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

3. All proposed drainage structures; and

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

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

31. The applicant is required to obtain permits for the removal and/or demolition of structures.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

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

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

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

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

35. Project must comply with City of Fontana’s warehouse sustainability ordinance. For more information related to Building & Safety, please visit our web page at https://www.fontana.org/136/Building-Safety
1160 463
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
28 of 33
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL:

Prior to Certificate of Occupancy or Permit Approval:

36. All industrial facilities shall submit an Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit application to Environmental Control. (FMC 23-218) To obtain or submit an application, please contact Sal Romero at 909-428-8809 or [email protected].

37. All commercial facilities conducting activities listed below shall submit an Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit application to Environmental Control. (FMC 23-218) To obtain or submit an application, please contact Sal Romero at 909-428-8809 or [email protected].

38. Any facility maintained for the servicing, washing, cleaning or repair of vehicles, construction equipment, industrial transportation or power equipment. (FMC 23-218).

39. All restaurants or other food processing facilities. (FMC 23-218)

40. All facilities maintained for the processing, filtering, softening or conditioning of water. (FMC 23-218).

41. Any facility which has a projected wastewater discharge that exceeds 25,000 gallons of water per day, or which may be categorized as a Federal Categorical discharger, or which is requesting a permit to discharge to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) Non-Reclaimable Wastewater Line (NRW) shall submit a Uniform Industrial Wastewater Survey and Permit Application to IEUA and Environmental Control. (FMC 23-216) To obtain or submit an application, please contact Sal Romero at 909-428-8809 or [email protected].

Prior to the Issuance of Construction Permits:

42. Any facility proposing the discharge of non-domestic wastewater to the sanitary sewer shall demonstrate in the plan check process, through the submittal of detailed plans showing pretreatment facilities and operating procedures, that the user will pretreat wastewater to a level required to comply with FMC 23-136 - Concentration Limitations and/or FMC 23-138 – Applicability of Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards, and/or any other applicable standard as established. (FMC 23-186).

43. All commercial or industrial facilities within the following categories must install a gravity separation interceptor to comply with the requirements of the Fontana Municipal Code (FMC Section 23-190) unless the requirement is modified by a variance issued by the Public Works Manager.

44. All commercial or industrial facilities within the following categories must install a gravity separation interceptor to comply with the requirements of the Fontana Municipal Code (FMC Section 23-190) unless the requirement is modified by a variance issued by the Public Works Manager.
1161 464
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
29 of 33

45. Any facility maintained for the washing and/or cleaning of vehicles, construction equipment, industrial transportation or power equipment. The facility is required to have a designated covered area with all service bay doors protected by floor/trench drains connected to sand/oil separator to prevent the washout and/or discharge of liquids. (FMC 23-161).

46. Any facility maintained for the servicing of vehicles, construction equipment, industrial transportation or power equipment and has installed trench or floor drains in service bays is required to connect to a sand/oil separator. (FMC 23-161).

47. All restaurants or other food processing facilities (FMC 23-163). Conditional waivers for the grease interceptor requirement may be granted by the Public Works Manager in accordance with section 23-52 for those restaurants or food processing facilities determined not to have adverse effects on the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).

48. Any facility proposing the discharge of non-domestic wastewater to a septic system, holding tank, closed-loop system, or similar equipment, and is not connected to the sanitary sewer, is required to obtain written approval from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB).

49. Per the State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2012-0032 all Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems must be approved by the SARWQCB beginning May 13, 2018. A copy of the policy is available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/owts/index.shtml.

50. Submit drawings to the SARWQCB for approval. Provide a copy of the SARWQCB approval letter and their approved plans to the City of Fontana.

51. For more information, or to submit your plans, please contact Susan Beeson at [email protected] or 951-782-4902.

Storm Water
Upon Certificate of Occupancy or Permit Approval and during Occupancy:

52. All Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, and/or other facilities deemed to have the potential to discharge pollutants to the storm drain system shall implement source control and pollution prevention practices to prevent unauthorized, non-storm water discharges, at all times.

53. Vehicle, equipment and/or exterior washing activities are prohibited unless a wastewater recovery system is in place. All wastewater shall be recovered, stored and disposed of by proper and legal means through a waste disposal facility. Contractors hired for washing activities shall maintain a current City of Fontana Business License Tax Certificate to operate as a mobile washing business.
1162 465
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
30 of 33

54. Facilities that conduct regular and routine washing and/or cleaning of vehicles, construction equipment, industrial transportation or power equipment are required to have a designated wash rack area. (See Pretreatment Conditions above).

Prior to Business License and C of O approval:

55. All industrial / warehousing facilities are required to obtain coverage under the State Industrial General Permit and shall file with the State Board a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the terms of the General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity.

56. Applicants shall be required to provide a copy of the Waste Discharger Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Board as evidence of coverage under the Industrial General Permit to Sal Romero 909-428-8809 or [email protected]. 40 CFR, CA-WQCB Order No 2014-0057-DWQ, CA-RWQCB Order No. R8-2010-0036, FMC 23-520, SB205)
For further information about the Industrial General Permit, please visit the following website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/indusfaq.shtml FIRE DEPARTMENT:

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

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

59. Fire Lanes: The applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for review and approval of all proposed signage and striping for all fire access roadways. All curbs adjacent to fire lanes shall be painted red and “No Parking, Fire Lane” signs shall be installed on public and private roads in accordance with approved standards. SBCoFD Standard A-2.

60. Water System Commercial: Prior to map recordation or lot line adjustment, all water supply systems shall be designed to meet the required fire flow for this 1163 466
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
31 of 33
development and shall be approved by the Fire Department. The required fire flow shall be determined by using Appendix BB of the California Fire Code. A minimum of one new six (6) inch fire hydrant assembly with two (2) two and one half (2 1/2) inch and one (1) four (4) inch outlet (4”x2.5”x2.5”) shall be provided. All fire hydrants shall be spaced no more than three hundred (300) feet apart as measured along vehicular travel-ways. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard W-2. The Fire Flow for this project shall be: 4,000 GPM for a two-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. Fire Flow is based on a 746,826 Square Foot structure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Fire Code Chapter 9.

67. Fire Extinguishers: Hand portable fire extinguishers are required. The location, type, and cabinet design shall be approved by the Fire Department. California Fire Code Chapter 9.
1164 467
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
32 of 33

68. Commercial (large facility) Addressing: Commercial and industrial developments in excess of 100,000 sq. ft. shall have the street address installed on the building with numbers that are a minimum twelve (12) inches in height and with a one and one half (1 ½) inch stroke. The street address shall be visible from the street. During the hours of darkness, the numbers shall be electrically illuminated (internal or external). Where the building is two hundred (200) feet or more from the roadway, additional non-illuminated contrasting six (6) inch numbers shall be displayed at the property access entrances. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard B1.

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

70. Security Gates: In commercial, industrial, and multi-family complexes, all swing gates shall have an approved fire department Knox Lock. Where an automatic electric security gate is used, an approved Fire Department override switch is required. California Fire Code Chapter 5 & SBCoFD Standard A-3.

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

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

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

74. San Bernardino County Fire Standards: Items not directly called out on these Conditions of Approval, shall also adhere to currently adopted San Bernardino County Fire Standards and California Fire Code.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:

75. All Conditions of Approval issued to the project no. MCN22-000143 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-012, (TPM 20710) shall apply.
1165 468
Resolution PC No. 2024-
Attachment No. 4
33 of 33

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

END OF CONDITIONS
1166 469
Attachment No. 5

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

FONTANA CERTIFYING THE HEMLOCK WAREHOUSE

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (SCH #22009091089) PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING

ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS. ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE PROJECT.

WHEREAS, the development is comprised of the one industrial high-cube logistics buildings (“Project”) which proposes to be located on one Project site and is evaluated in the Hemlock Warehouse Development Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”); and
WHEREAS, the Project consists of an approximately 40.01 acre property, located within the City of Fontana, (APN Nos. 0237-131-25, 0237-131-26 and 0237-131-27) located at 11115 Hemlock Avenue in the City of Fontana, and situated south of Santa Ana Avenue, north of Jurupa Avenue, east of Hemlock Avenue, and west of Beech Avenue ; and
WHEREAS, the Project requires approvals of a Tentative Parcel Map No. 23-012 (TPM No. 20710) and Design Review No. 22-064 for the plan, site improvements, and building elevations (architecture) for the approximately 881,826 square foot modern highcube logistics commerce center building (warehouse) with office space and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP No. 22-073); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of Fontana is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on February 23, 2023, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) stating that an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number #22009091089 would be prepared; and
WHEREAS, four (4) comment letters were received in response to the NOP during the public review period from February 23, 2023 to March 27, 2023; and 1167 470
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on March 6, 2023, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project and, additional comments were received; and WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“Draft SEIR”) was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR determined that mitigation measures and standard conditions were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Wildfire; and WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable operational impacts relating to Air Quality; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on October 10, 2023; and
WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City provided Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIR to the public at the same time that the City sent Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research, on October 10, 2023; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft SEIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection on the City’s website; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft SEIR was circulated for at least a 45-day public review and comment period from October 10, 2023 to December 11, 2023; and
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, the City received four written comment letters on the Draft SEIR; and 1168 471
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

WHEREAS, published a notice on March 8, 2024, in the Fontana Herald News, the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on March 19, 2024.

WHEREAS, on March 19, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Draft SEIR for the Project and solicited comments on the document.; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final SEIR on March 8, 2024; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2024, the City released the Final SEIR (“Final SEIR”), which consists of the Draft SEIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft SEIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft SEIR, written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft SEIR, and errata to the Draft SEIR and technical appendices; and
WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final SEIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft SEIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final SEIR); and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the SEIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the SEIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, the SEIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts and the SEIR analyzes a range of feasible alternatives capable of reducing these effects to an even lesser level of significance; and
WHEREAS, the City has made certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and written 1169 472
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the SEIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2.2 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the SEIR that are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures are described in Section 2.3 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the environmental impacts that are identified in the SEIR that are significant and unavoidable are described in Section 2.4 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City finds that applicable Cumulative Impacts are identified in the SEIR and are described in Section 2.5 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the potential significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed Project identified in the SEIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 2.6 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project identified in the SEIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 2.7 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the already less than significant environmental impacts are described in Section 2.8 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, a statement of overriding considerations is set forth in Section 3.0 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the SEIR and necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to a level of less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the SEIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
1170 473
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

WHEREAS, the SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the SEIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2024, the City conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully considered; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

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

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

Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby certifies the SEIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 3. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, after balancing the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts of the proposed Project against the benefits of the proposed Project, and which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091.

SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached 1171 474
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the SEIR or the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.

SECTION 5. Based upon the entire record before it, including the SEIR, Findings of Fact, and all written and oral evidence presented, the Planning Commission hereby approves the proposed Project.

SECTION 6. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City of Fontana Planning Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335. The custodian for these records is Rina Leung, Senior Planner. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

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

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of March, 2024.

READ AND APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
_______________________
Cathline Fort, Chairperson
1172 475
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

ATTEST:

I, Ricardo Quintana, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Fontana, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the actual resolution duly and regularly adopted by the City of Fontana at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 19th day of March 2024, by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Ricardo Quintana, Secretary
1173 476
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

EXHIBIT A
CEQA Findings of fact
1174 477
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT

FOR THE

HEMLOCK WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2009091089
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which would avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Agencies demonstrate compliance with section 21002’s mandate by adopting findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a).) The approving agency must make written findings for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project and must reach at least one of three permissible conclusions. • The first possible finding is that “[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(1).)
• The second permissible finding is that “[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding” and that “[s]uch changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(2).)
• The third potential conclusion is that “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(3).)
Agencies must not approve a project with significant environmental impacts if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures would substantially lessen the significant impacts.

Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” State CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds “legal” considerations as another indicium of feasibility (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565).

Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417.) Further, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA 1175 478
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) An agency need not, however, adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subds. (a), (b)). Further, environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347).

Notably, section 21002 requires an agency to “substantially lessen or avoid” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoid them, satisfy section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 (“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”); Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 309 (“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”).

CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subds. (a), (b). The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576).

The City of Fontana has determined that based on all the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the Final Subsequent EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings on the Project, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are either:
(1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; (2) potentially significant and each of these impacts would be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures.
1176 479
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

SECTION I

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Final Subsequent EIR includes the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated October 2023, written comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR that were received during the public review period, written responses to those comments, changes to the Draft Subsequent EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Fontana conducted an extensive environmental review of the Hemlock Warehouse Development Project that includes the following:
• Completion of an Initial Study (IS) by the City of Fontana, which concluded that a Subsequent EIR should be prepared, and the Notice of Preparation (NOP) released for a 30-day public review period from February 23, 2023, through March 27, 2023. The NOP was posted on the City’s website www.fontana.org on February 23, 2023, and was published in the February 23, 2023 issue of the San Bernardino Sun newspaper, a newspaper of general circulation. The NOP was posted to the State Clearinghouse’s ceqanet.opr.ca.gov for public review from February 23, 2023, through March 27, 2023. Copies of the IS were made available for public review and download via the City’s website at:
http://www.yourrialto.com/314/Current-Projects
Completion of a scoping process, in which agencies and the public were invited by the City of Fontana to participate. The public scoping meeting for the Subsequent EIR was held on March 6, 2023, virtually via Zoom. The notice of the public scoping meeting was included in the NOP distributed on February 23, 2023.

Preparation of a Draft Subsequent EIR by the City of Fontana was originally made available for a 45-day public review period (October 10, 2023 through November 27, 2023), which was extended for an additional 14 days; to end on December 11, 2023. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Subsequent EIR was sent to all persons, agencies and organizations on the interested persons list, published in the October 10, 2023 issue of the San Bernardino Sun newspaper, posted on the Project site, and filed with the County Clerk. The NOA for the extended public review period was also sent to all persons, agencies and organizations on the interested persons list on November 17, 2023, published on the City’s website, posted on the Project site, and filed with the County Clerk.

The NOA of the Draft Subsequent EIR was posted to the State Clearinghouse’s ceqanet.opr.ca.gov for public review from October 10, 2023 through December 11, 2023. The NOA was posted at the City of Fontana, Planning Department at 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335 and Fontana Lewis Library and Technology Center at 8437 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335 throughout the public review period. Copies of the Draft Subsequent EIR were made available for public review and download via the City’s website at:
https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-Documents.
1177 480
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

The Final Subsequent EIR contains comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft Subsequent EIR if any, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and appended documents. The Final Subsequent EIR was released 10-days prior to certification of the Final Subsequent EIR.

After considering the Subsequent EIR and in conjunction with making these findings, the City of Fontana hereby finds that pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines that approval of the Project will result in significant effects on the environment, however, the significant effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible and has determined that remaining significant effects are found to be acceptable under Section 15093.

The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby adopted to ensure implementation of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Subsequent EIR.

The City of Fontana finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable and shall be binding upon the City and affected parties.

The City of Fontana finds that the Project is in the public interest and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare.

The City of Fontana hereby certifies the Final Subsequent EIR in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15095, staff is directed as follows: a) copy of the Final Subsequent EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be retained in the Project files; b) copy of the Final Subsequent EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be provided to all CEQA "responsible" agencies.
1178 481
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

SECTION II

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City prepared an Initial Study that determined that potentially significant environmental effects could occur and that a Subsequent EIR should be prepared for the Project. The scope of the Subsequent EIR was determined based upon the Initial Study which is included as Appendix A to the Draft Subsequent EIR. Based upon the Initial Study, the City determined that the Project would have no new impact over and above those identified in the Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan Final EIR or a less than significant impact related to the following environmental topic areas and that no further analysis of these topics was required in the Subsequent EIR:

Aesthetics
Agriculture & Forest Resources
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “less than significant” where no mitigation is required. These findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Initial Study and Draft Subsequent EIR in this Section II. Thus, the City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and do not require the imposition of mitigation measures:

A. Aesthetics
Impact AE-1 Finding: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (Initial Study at p. 30). No impacts would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is located in an urban and industrially developed area that provides for development of light industrial and warehousing uses.

The site is in proximity to the I-10 and surrounded by trucking related uses industrial uses.

The Project site is adjacent to industrial uses to the north and south, and roadways followed by industrial uses to the east and west. The existing roadway corridors of Hemlock Avenue and Beech Avenue that are adjacent to the site provide the only view corridors at the Project site that show long distance background view scenic vistas.

The maximum allowable structure height within the Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD) is 100 feet. The proposed building would be within the allowed height and would have a maximum height of 60 feet (Figure 6: Proposed Project Conceptual Elevations). Because the proposed building would be well below the allowable building height and located between two existing buildings the proposed 1179 482
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

building structure’s height would not encroach into any scenic vistas. Also, the proposed building would be setback approximately 185 feet from Hemlock Avenue on the east side of the site and over 315 feet from Beech Avenue on the west side of the site. Thus, the Project would not encroach into roadway scenic corridors. Therefore, no impacts to scenic vistas would occur.

Impact AE-2 Finding: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway (Initial Study at p. 31). No impact would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is not located within view of a state scenic highway, as there are no designated scenic highways within the vicinity. The proposed Project would not result in impacts to trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The nearest eligible state scenic highway is Route 38 at I-10, which is approximately 18 miles east of the Project site. Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources would occur.

Impact AE-3 Finding: The Project is located in an urban area and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Initial Study at p. 31).

Impacts would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: Consistent with the discussion in the SWIP SP Final EIR the Project site vicinity is highly industrialized in nature, primarily supporting heavy industrial and trucking/distribution-related uses. The Project site and surrounding area is void of valuable scenic resources. The Project site is currently occupied by Modular Space Corporation (ModSpace) for light industrial uses that includes leasing, storage, and refurbishing of modular trailers, offices, and storage bins. The Project site is developed with one building and three modular buildings, which total 11,590 SF. In addition, the site contains stored modular units, scrap metal and recycling collection bins, parking lots, and storage areas. The Project site ground surface is either paved with asphalt or gravel covered with limited areas of ornamental landscaping.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial degradation of the visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. The SWIP provides development regulations that set specific requirements for development intensity, lot dimensions, setbacks, structure heights, and accessory buildings that the proposed Project would adhere to. The SWIP also includes streetscape requirements that include landscaping design guidelines. Compliance with the existing regulations would be ensured through the City’s development and permit process.

As shown in Table AES-1 of the Initial Study, the proposed Project complies with the SWIP Specific Plan standards for the SCD which governs scenic quality at the Project site. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. No new impacts related to scenic quality would occur.
1180 483
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

Impact AE-4 Finding: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area (Initial Study at p. 32). Impacts would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed warehouse development would result in similar levels of new lighting as identified in the SWIP SP Final EIR that would generally occur from security lighting, building entrance lighting, and parking lot lighting. However, the Project would be required to comply with Municipal Code (Chapter 30), that provides standards for shielding of exterior lighting to prevent glare and undesirable illumination to adjacent properties or streets. Consistency with the Municipal Code lighting requirements that would be verified through the City’s development permitting process would ensure that potential impacts associated with light, would be less than significant, consistent with the SWIP SP Final EIR.

The proposed warehouse development would not use highly reflective surfaces, or glass sided buildings. Although the building would contain windows and glass doorway entrances, the windows and doorway areas would be separated by stucco and architectural elements, which would limit the potential of glare. In addition, as described previously, lighting would be required to be angled down and shielded, which would avoid the potential of Project lighting to generate glare. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate substantial sources of glare, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the SWIP SP Final EIR.

Aesthetics Cumulative Finding: The Project would not have a cumulatively adverse impact related to aesthetics. A less than significant impact would occur (Initial Study at p. 30 - 33).

Facts in Support of Findings: Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a coordinated development from implementation of the design guidelines and development standards that would be ensured through the City’s development permitting process.

Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Other cumulative development projects are located outside of the viewshed of the Specific Plan area. As shown on Figure 5-1 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the closest cumulative project (Projects 6) is located along Santa Ana Avenue, between Beech Avenue and Elm Avenue, which is within the viewshed of the proposed Project.

As evidenced by the General Plan and existing Specific Plan provisions, the City has long anticipated that this area would be developed for new urban uses. The cumulative change in visual condition that would result from the proposed Project, in combination with future nearby projects would not be considered adverse, because the proposed Project would implement the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and SWIP Specific Plan regulations as amended related to architecture, landscaping, signs, lighting, and other related items that are intended to improve visual quality. Thus, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant cumulatively considerable impact related to scenic quality. 1181 484
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

B. Agricultural & Forestry Resources
Impact AG-1 Finding: The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use (Initial Study at p. 35). No impacts would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The California Department of Conservation Important Farmland mapping identifies the Project site as Urban and Built-Up Land. No areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is located on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use.

Impact AG-2 Finding: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract (Initial Study at p. 35). No impacts would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is not under an active Williamson Act contract and is part of the SCD that does not include agricultural, forest, or timberland uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in impacts related to a Williamson Act contract or zoning for agricultural uses.

Impact AG-3 Finding: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) (Initial Study at p. 35). No impacts would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site contains a limited number of trees and does not include forestland or timberland. Additionally, the SWIP does not include areas zoned as forestland. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Thus, no impact would occur.

Impact AG-4 Finding: The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use (Initial Study at p. 35). No impacts would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would not result in the loss of forestland or the conversion of forestland to non-forest use. The Project site and adjacent area do not include forestland and has not historically been used as forestland. Thus, no impact would occur this topic.

Impact AG-5 Finding: The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use (Initial Study at p. 36). No impacts would occur.
1182 485
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site and adjacent area have no agricultural or forest resources and is not designated as Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance1. Therefore, the proposed Project would not convert Farmland to nonagricultural uses or forestland to non-forest use. Thus, no impact would occur.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources Cumulative Findings: The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to agricultural or forestry resources (Initial Study at p. 35 - 36).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project area does not contain agricultural or forest resources. Implementation of the Project would develop an area where no farmland, agricultural land, or forest land exists. Therefore, the Project would not result in any cumulative impacts to agricultural or forestry resources.

C. Air Quality
Impact AQ-3 Finding: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Draft Subsequent EIR at pp. 5.1-27). Impacts would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings:

CO Hotspots
An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the State’s one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. The 2003 AQMP estimated traffic volumes that could generate CO concentrations to result in a “hot spot”. As shown on Table 5.1-11 on page 5.1-27 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the busiest intersection had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, and the 1-hour CO concentration was 4.6 ppm. This indicates that, even with a traffic volume of 400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4= 18.4 ppm) would still not exceed the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm).

As summarized on Table 5.1-12 on page 5.1-27, the highest trips on a segment of road in the Project study area during AM and PM traffic is 4,013 vehicles per hour (vph) and 3,904 vph, respectively, on Cherry Avenue and the I-10 EB Ramps. Operation of the proposed Project would result in 1,598 trips per day, which includes 137 AM peak hour trips and 145 PM peak hour trips. These trips would not result in daily traffic volumes of 100,000 vehicles per day or more. As such, Project-related traffic volumes are less than the traffic volumes identified in the 2003 AQMP; and are not high enough to generate a CO “hot spot”. Therefore, impacts related to CO “hot spots” from operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts
Table 5.1-13 on page 5.1-28 of the Draft Subsequent EIR identifies the peak daily localized onsite emissions that are estimated to occur during construction of the proposed 1183 486
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

Project. As shown, emissions during the peak construction activity would not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds, and impacts would be less than significant.

Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts
As shown on Table 5.1-14 on page 5.1-28 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, emissions from operation of the proposed warehouse that would be 25 percent refrigerated for cold storage and utilize TRUs that would plug into outlets at the loading docks would not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds for any criteria pollutant at the nearest sensitive receptor (the residence 918 feet southeast of the Project site).

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to localized operational emissions.

Construction
The maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to construction DPM source emissions from the proposed Project is estimated at 0.06 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0.

As such, construction of the industrial development Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses. All other receptors during construction activity would experience less risk than what is identified for this location.

Operation
Residential Exposure. The Mobile Source Health Risk modeling identified the maximum incremental cancer risk at this location is estimated at 0.98 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. As such, operation of the proposed warehouse would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby residences and impacts would be less than significant.

Workers Exposure. At the maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW), the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is 0.69 in one million which is less than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of

1.0. As such, operation of the proposed Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers and impacts would be less than significant.

School Children Exposure. Due to its proximity to Project truck routes, Jurupa Hills High School (Location R7), located approximately 5,654 feet northeast of the Project site is the location of the maximally exposed individual school child (MEISC). At the MEISC, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact attributable to the Project is calculated to be

0.20 in one million, which is less than the significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks attributable to the Project were calculated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Therefore, impacts related to school locations would be less than significant. 1184 487
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

Impact AQ-4 Finding: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people (Initial Study at pp. 39). Impacts would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: Odors generated by the operation of warehousing uses are not expected to be significant or highly objectionable and would be required to be in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402, which would prevent nuisances to sensitive land uses.

During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people.

During operations of the proposed warehouse, all Project-generated solid waste would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations and would not generate objectionable odors. Therefore, impacts relating to both operational and construction activity odors would be less than significant.

D. Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1 Finding: The Project would not have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Initial Study at p. 45).

No impact would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is completely disturbed and paved with asphalt or gravel covered with limited areas of ornamental landscaping. The site is used for light industrial uses that include leasing, storage, and refurbishing of modular trailers, offices, and storage bins. The site does not include any natural areas for sensitive species. No State- and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species are documented and no USFWS-designated Critical Habitat occurs on-site due to lack of suitable habitat and ongoing site disturbances related to existing urban uses on and adjacent to the Project site. No impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species would occur from implementation of the proposed Project.

Impact BIO-2 Finding: The Project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. (Initial Study at p. 45). No impact would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is disturbed, paved, or gravel covered and does not include any natural areas. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities occur within the Project site. The Project site is also not included in any local or regional plans, policies, and regulations that identify the area as riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Therefore, no impact would occur. 1185 488
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

Impact BIO-3 Finding: The Project would not have substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal, pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (Initial Study at p. 45). No impact would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is disturbed, paved, or gravel covered and does not contain wetlands. Therefore, no impacts to wetlands would occur.

Impact BIO-5 Finding: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (Initial Study at p. 46). No impact would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: Although the Project site does not contain any heritage, significant, or specimen trees, the Project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 28-64, Permit Required for Removal of Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees, which specifies that no person shall remove or cause the removal of any heritage, significant, or specimen tree unless a Tree Removal Permit is first obtained. Impacts in this regard are considered less than significant following compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Compliance with the municipal code requirements would be verified as part of the City’s construction permitting process, which would ensure that the Project does not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting trees. As a result, there would be no impact.

Impact BIO-6 Finding: The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (Initial Study at p. 47). No impacts would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is not within the study area of an adopted Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

E. Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1 Finding: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Initial Study at p. 50). No impact would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Cultural Resources Study (Appendix A to the initial Study) describes that all structures on the site postdate year 2000 and, therefore, do not meet the age threshold (50 years) for consideration as historic resources under CEQA criteria. The site is developed with one modern industrial office building and three modular buildings, which total 11,590 SF. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Subsurface Investigation (Appendix B to the Initial Study) describes that the Project site was first developed with residential and agricultural uses from the 1920s through the 1940s, undeveloped or used for agriculture between the 1940s and 1980s; 1186 489
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

developed with a truck/transport and construction company on the northwest corner in the early 1990s; and developed with the current structures and modular unit storage yard in 2000. There are no historic resources on the Project site, and impacts would not occur.

F. Energy
Impact E-1 Finding: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation (Initial Study at p. 56). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed development and operation of the approximately 881,826SF warehouse on the Project site may result in an increase in energy usage. However, the proposed Project would be required to comply with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, the California Green Building Standards, and the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 9 regarding sustainability standards for warehouse projects. The Municipal Code Chapter 9 standards also include requirements for construction activities, such as use of electric powered tools, vehicles, and equipment; provision of a charging location and facilities; and use of highest rated CARB Tier technologies. The City’s development review and permitting process would ensure that these requirements are implemented through inclusion in plans, permitting, and compliance screening. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption.

Impact E-2 Finding: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (Initial Study at p. 57) No impact would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The State of California has established a comprehensive framework for the use of efficient energy. This occurs through the implementation of the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350), Assembly Bill (AB) 1007 (Pavley 2007), Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, and the California Green Building Standards. As described previously, the proposed Project would be designed and implemented pursuant to the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, the California Green Building Standards, and the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 9 regarding sustainability standards for warehouse projects that would be ensured through the City’s development review and permitting process. This includes electric vehicle charging stations, rooftop solar panels to supply 100% of the power needed to operate all non-refrigerated portions of the facility, and electric plug-in units for loading docks servicing the refrigerated space and require that the TRUs plug in. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Energy Cumulative Findings: The Project would not result in cumulative energy consumption which would be cumulatively wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary (Initial Study at p. 56 - 57). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: The geographic context for analysis of cumulative impacts regarding energy includes past, present, and future development within southern California because energy supplies (including electricity, natural gas, and petroleum) are generated and distributed throughout the southern California region. 1187 490
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

All development projects throughout the region would be required to comply with the energy efficiency standards in the Title 24 requirements. Additionally, some of the developments could provide for additional reductions in energy consumption by use of solar panels, sky lights, or other LEED type energy efficiency infrastructure. With implementation of the existing energy conservation regulations, cumulative electricity and natural gas consumption would not be cumulatively wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Petroleum consumption associated with the proposed warehouse would be primarily attributable to transportation, especially vehicular use. However, state fuel efficiency standards and alternative fuels policies (per AB 1007 Pavely) would contribute to a reduction in fuel use, and the federal Energy Independence and Security Act and the state Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan would reduce reliance on nonrenewable energy resources. For these reasons, the consumption of petroleum would not occur in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner and would be less than cumulatively considerable.

G. Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1i Finding: The Project would not 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 (Initial Study at p. 59). No impacts would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The closest fault is the Cucamonga Fault, which traverses through the northern portion of the City, approximately seven miles from the Project site.

Due to the distance to the fault, potential impacts related to fault rupture would not occur.

Impact GEO-1ii Finding: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking (Initial Study at p. 60). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: A major earthquake along the Cucamonga Fault or another regional fault could cause substantial seismic ground shaking at the site.

However, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2) that provides provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including building occupancy type, the types of soils onsite, and the probable strength of ground motion. Compliance with the CBC would require the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper building footings and foundations; and 3) construction of the building structure so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking.

The City’s permitting process would ensure that all required CBC seismic safety measures are incorporated into the building. Compliance with the CBC as verified by the City’s review process, would reduce impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level, which is consistent with the findings of the SWIP SP Final EIR. Thus, no new impact would result.
1188 491
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

Impact GEO-1iii Finding: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction (Initial Study at p. 60). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C to the initial Study) for the proposed Project did not identify ground water within the 30-foot-deep borings and describes that water levels, soils identified on the site, and geologic hazard mapping shows that liquefaction on or near the Project site would not occur. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the SWIP SP Final EIR, impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant.

Impact GEO-1iv Finding: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides (Initial Study at p. 61). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C to the Initial Study) for the proposed Project describes that there are no hills or substantial changes to topography on or adjacent to the site. The site generally slopes downward to the southwest at a gradient of 1 to 2± percent. Due to the lack of substantial slopes on or adjacent to the Project site, impacts related to landslides would not occur.

Impact GEO-2 Finding: The Project would not result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (Initial Study at p. 61). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to contribute to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Grading and excavation activities would be required that would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water. However, to reduce the potential for soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations to be developed by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer). The SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to specific grading and construction activities. The SWPPP is required to identify potential sources of erosion and sedimentation loss of topsoil during construction, identify erosion control BMPs to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil, such as use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding. With implementation of the SWPPP, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the SWIP SP Final EIR.

In addition, the proposed Project includes installation of landscaping, such that during operation of the proposed warehouse large areas of loose topsoil that could erode would not exist. The onsite drainage features that would be installed by the proposed Project have been designed to slow, filter, and infiltrate stormwater, which would also reduce the potential for stormwater to erode topsoil during operations. Furthermore, implementation of the proposed warehouse development requires City approval of a site- specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would ensure that appropriate operational 1189 492
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

BMPs would be implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil to occur. As a result, potential impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Impact GEO-3 Finding: The Project would not 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse (Initial Study at p. 62). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site has no potential for landslides and the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C to the Initial Study) describes that the site does not have potential for liquefaction; thus, the related lateral spreading and collapse potential would also not occur. In addition, the Geotechnical Investigation provides CBC design criteria to limit the potential for soils movement or collapse. Thus, consistent with the findings of the SWIP SP Final EIR implementation of existing regulations would reduce potential impacts related to landslide, collapse, liquefaction, subsidence, and lateral spreading to a less than significant level.

Impact GEO-4 Finding: The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property (Initial Study at p. 62). No impact would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or swell as the moisture content changes; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Arid or semiarid areas with seasonal changes of soil moisture experience, such as southern California, have a higher potential of expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture.

The Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C to the Initial Study) described that the soils within the Project site consist of fine to medium sands and silty sands, with varying gravel content that have been classified as very low to non-expansive. Therefore, no impacts related to expansive soils would occur.

Impact GEO-5 Finding: The Project would not 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 (Initial Study at p. 62). No impact would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The development of the Project site would not involve use of septic tanks or alternative methods for disposal of wastewater into subsurface soils. The proposed Project would connect to existing public wastewater infrastructure that is adjacent to the site, which includes an 8-inch sewer line in Hemlock Avenue and a 12-inch line sewer line in Beech Avenue. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal methods.

Geology and Soils Cumulative Finding: The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to geology and soils (Initial Study at p. 59 - 65). 1190 493
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

Facts in Support of Findings: Geotechnical impacts are site-specific rather than cumulative in nature. Direct and indirect impacts related to geology and soils would be mitigated through mandatory conformance with the CBC, Fontana Municipal Code, and site-specific geotechnical recommendations, which will be incorporated as part of future projects’ design and construction efforts. With the exception of erosion hazards, potential hazardous effects related to geologic and soil conditions are unique to each project site, and inherently restricted to the developments proposed. That is, issues including fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils would involve effects to (and not from) the development, are specific to conditions on the property, and are not influenced by or additive with 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 from the proposed industrial development project.

H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-2 Finding: The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (Draft Subsequent EIR at p. 5.2-14) Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project would include energy-efficient/energyconserving design features and operational procedures and would not interfere with the state’s implementation of AB 1279’s target of 85 percent below 1990 levels and carbon neutrality by 2045 because it does not interfere with implementation of the GHG reduction measures listed in CARB’s Updated Scoping Plan (2022), as demonstrated in Table 5.2- 4 of the Draft Subsequent EIR. CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan reflects the 2045 target of an 85 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-55-18, and codified by AB 1279.

The proposed Project is consistent with AB 32 and SB 32 through implementation of municipal code measures that address GHG emissions related to building energy, solid waste management, wastewater, and water conveyance, which would be verified by the City during the Project development review and permitting process.

Overall, the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

The Project would be implemented in compliance with state energy standards provided in Title 24, in addition to provision of the Municipal Code’s sustainable design requirements. The Project would not interfere with the state’s implementation of AB 1279’s target of 85 percent below 1990 levels and carbon neutrality by 2045 because it would be consistent with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, which is intended to achieve the reduction targets required by the state. In addition, the proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant City General Plan goal and policies. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and impacts would be less than significant.
1191 494
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

I. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1 Finding: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (Initial Study at pp. 71). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
The construction activities that would occur by the proposed Project would involve transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking. In addition, hazardous materials would be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by county, state, and federal regulations, which construction activities are required to strictly adhere to. As a result, the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities for the proposed Project would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the SWIP SP Final EIR.

Operation
The proposed Project includes operation of warehousing uses, which generally use and store limited hazardous materials, such as: cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, and aerosol cans. Normal routine use of these products would not result in a significant hazard to residents or workers in the vicinity of the Project site.

Also, should any future business that occupies the proposed warehouse building or handle acutely hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) the business would require a hazardous materials permit from the Fire Department, as part of City operational permitting procedures. Such businesses are also required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to the Fire Department regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business. In addition, any business handling at any one time, greater than 500 pounds of solid, 55 gallons of liquid, or 200 cubic feet of gaseous hazardous material, is required, under Assembly Bill 2185 (AB 2185), to file a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan. A Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan 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. The intent of the Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan is to satisfy federal and state right-to-know laws and to provide detailed information for use by emergency responders. Therefore, if future 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, as verified by City operational permitting. Therefore, operational impacts associated with the disposal of hazardous materials and/or the potential release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
1192 495
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

Impact HAZ-3 Finding: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (Initial Study at p. 73). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: The nearest school to the Project site is Southridge Middle School, located at 14500 Live Oak Ave, Fontana, CA 92337, approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the Project site. The allowable uses by the SWIP in the proposed building do not include release of hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes in significant quantities. Construction activities associated with the Project would use a limited amount of hazardous and flammable substances/oils during heavy equipment operation for site excavation, grading, and construction. The amount of hazardous chemicals present during construction is limited and would be contained in compliance with existing government regulations. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within 0.25 mi of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur.

Impact HAZ-4 Finding: The Project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (Initial Study at p. 73). No impacts would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that was prepared for the proposed Project site, the area is not located on a federal Superfund site, State response site, voluntary cleanup site, school cleanup site, corrective action site, or tiered permit site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be located on a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65965.5.

Impact HAZ-5 Finding: The Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area (Initial Study at p. 74). No impact would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is not within an airport land use plan and is located over 6 miles to the west of the closest operating public airport or public use airport, which is the Ontario International Airport (ONT). Additionally, the proposed building would be a maximum of 60-feet high and would not be of a sufficient height to require modifications to the existing air traffic patterns at the airport and, therefore, would not affect aviation traffic levels or otherwise result in substantial aviation-related safety risks. Hence, the proposed Project would not result in impacts to an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, and would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area.

Impact HAZ-6 Finding: The Project would not impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Initial Study at p. 74). Impacts are less than significant.
1193 496
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Direct access to the proposed development would be provided by two driveway locations along Hemlock Avenue, and two driveway locations along Beech Avenue which are directly adjacent to the east and west sides of the site. Construction activities would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the site or adjacent areas. In addition, travel along Hemlock Avenue and Beech Avenue would remain open and would not interfere with emergency access in the site vicinity. The proposed Project and all other development projects within the City are required to design and construct internal access, and size and location of fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) to conform to the San Bernardino County Fire Department standards. The City Public Works and/or San Bernardino County Fire Department would review the development plans prior to approval to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9).

As such, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact HAZ-7 Finding: The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires (Initial Study at p. 74). No Impact would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site does not contain and is not adjacent to any wildland areas. According to the CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is not within an area identified as a Fire Hazard Area. As a result, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Cumulative Findings: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials (Initial Study at p. 72).

Facts in Support of Findings: Cumulative land use changes within the city would have the potential to expose future area residents, employees, and visitors to chemical hazards through redevelopment of sites and structures that may be contaminated from either historic or ongoing uses. The severity of potential hazards for individual projects would depend upon the location, type, and size of development and the specific hazards associated with individual sites. All hazardous material users and transporters, as well as hazardous waste generators and disposers, are subject to regulations that require proper transport, handling, use, storage, and disposal of such materials to ensure public safety.

Thus, if hazardous materials are found to be present on present or future project sites appropriate remediation activities would be required pursuant to standard federal, state, and regional regulations. Compliance with the relevant federal, state, and local regulations during the construction and operation of related projects would ensure that cumulative impacts from hazardous materials would be less than significant. 1194 497
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

J. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact WQ-1 Finding: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality (Initial Study at p. 80). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would be required through City permitting to implement of a grading and erosion control plan that is compliant with the Construction Activities General Permit (State Water Resources Board Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), which requires preparation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the appropriate BMPs per the permitting process would ensure that activities associated with construction would not violate any water quality standards. The proposed Project would be required to have an approved grading and erosion control plan and approval of a SWPPP, which would include construction BMPs to minimize the potential for construction related sources of pollution, which would be implemented during construction to protect water quality. As a result, impacts related to the degradation of water quality during construction activities would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed Project would operate a warehouse facility, which would introduce the potential for pollutants such as chemicals from cleaners, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters and result in degradation of water quality.

However, in accordance with State Water Resources Board Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 each development would be required to incorporate a WQMP with post-construction (or permanent) Low Impact Development (LID) site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs. The LID site design would minimize impervious surfaces and provide infiltration of runoff into landscaped areas.

The source control BMPs would minimize the introduction of pollutants that may result in water quality impacts; and treatment control BMPs that would treat stormwater runoff.

The proposed warehouse development would install two underground infiltration basins that would treat stormwater, which would remove coarse sediment, trash, and pollutants (i.e., sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria, and pesticides). With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that would be reviewed and approved by the City during the Project permitting and approval process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the proposed warehouse development would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Impact WQ-2 Finding: The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin (Initial Study at p. 82). Impacts are less than significant.
1195 498
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is largely covered with cement, asphalt, and other impervious surfaces. The Preliminary Hydrology Report (Appendix E) describes that stormwater currently sheet flows across the site to the catch basins in either Hemlock Avenue or Beech Avenue. Consistent with the SWIP SP Final EIR and pursuant to existing regulations, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required to be completed for the Project to demonstrate that runoff would be retained and infiltrated to the 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event. Thus, the potential for groundwater recharge onsite would not be substantially affected.

In addition, groundwater within the Project area is adjudicated, which manages groundwater pumping such that substantial depletion of groundwater supplies would not occur. The Fontana Water Company Division 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) describes that the Fontana Water Company draws the majority of its water supply from its wells that extract groundwater from the Chino Basin, Rialto-Colton Basin, and Lytle Basin. All three basins have been adjudicated and are managed for long term sustainability. Groundwater extractions and conditions are monitored and tracked annually by the Western-San Bernardino Watermaster. The proposed Project would not conflict with the groundwater basing adjudications. Also, a Water Supply Assessment is required for the Project to confirm that the water supplies needed for the Project are within those available pursuant to the UWMP; and therefore, groundwater would not be impacted. Impacts related to the groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

Impact WQ-3i Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 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 a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site (Initial Study at p. 82). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to contribute to soil erosion and siltation. Grading and excavation activities would be required that would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water.

However, the NDPES Storm Water Permit that all projects in the City are required to conform to. To reduce the potential for soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, a SWPPP is required by the RWQCB regulations to be developed by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer). The SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to specific grading and construction activities. The SWPPP is required to identify potential sources of erosion and siltation during construction, identify erosion control BMPs to reduce or eliminate the erosion and siltation, such as use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding. With implementation of the SWPPP, construction impacts related to erosion and siltation would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the SWIP SP Final EIR.

In addition, the proposed Project includes installation of landscaping, such that during operation of the proposed warehouse development large areas of loose topsoil that could erode would not exist. The onsite drainage features that would be installed by the proposed Project have been designed to slow, filter, and infiltrate stormwater, which would also reduce the potential for stormwater to erode soil during operations.

Furthermore, implementation of the proposed Project requires City approval of a site1196 499 Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

specific WQMP, which would ensure that appropriate operational BMPs would be implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation to occur. As a result, potential impacts related to substantial soil erosion or sedimentation would be less than significant.

Impact WQ-3ii Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site (Initial Study at p. 83). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: Runoff generated by the proposed Project would be conveyed to two underground infiltration basins that would be installed on site to filter and infiltrate into site soils. In addition, the proposed Project includes installation of landscaping that provides for infiltration of stormwater runoff. The proposed onsite drainage features that would be installed by the proposed Project have been designed to slow, filter, and infiltrate stormwater, such that a substantial increase in stormwater runoff would not occur. Furthermore, implementation of the proposed Project requires City approval of a site- specific WQMP, which would manage stormwater runoff. As a result, potential impacts related to an increase in stormwater runoff that could result in flooding would be less than significant.

Impact WQ-3iii Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (Initial Study at p. 84). Impacts would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: Runoff generated by the proposed Project would be conveyed to two underground infiltration basins that would be installed on site to filter and infiltrate into site soils. In addition, the proposed Project includes installation of landscaping that provides for infiltration of stormwater runoff. As described previously, the onsite drainage features that would be installed by the proposed Project have been designed to meet the 85th percentile storm water capture requirements that would be verified by a WQMP, required for development permitting. As a result, potential impacts related to an increase in stormwater runoff that could exceed the capacity of drainage systems or result in polluted runoff would be less than significant.

Impact WQ-3iv Finding: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows (Initial Study at p. 84). No impacts would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (06071C8665H), the Project site is not located within a flood hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed Project would not impede or redirect flood flows.
1197 500
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

Impact WQ-4 Finding: The Project would not risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation within a flood hazard zone (Initial Study at p. 84). No impacts would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Specific Plan area is not within a flood hazard area.

As such, the Project is not at risk of inundation during a storm event. Therefore, the proposed Project would not risk release of pollutants within a flood hazard area. No impacts would occur.

Tsunamis are generated ocean wave trains generally caused by tectonic displacement of the sea floor associated with shallow earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. The Specific Plan area is over 39 miles from the nearest ocean shoreline. Based on the inland location of the site, the Specific Plan area is not at risk of inundation from tsunami. Therefore, the proposed Project would not risk release of pollutants from inundation from a tsunami.

Seiching is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic ground shaking induces standing waves (seiches) inside water retention facilities (e.g., reservoirs and lakes). Such waves can cause retention structures to fail and flood downstream properties. The Project site is not located adjacent to any water retention facilities. For this reason, the Project is not at risk of inundation from seiche waves. Therefore, the proposed Project would not risk release of pollutants from inundation from seiche and impacts.

Impact WQ-5 Finding: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (Initial Study at p. 85). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: development projects are required to have an approved SWPPP, which would include construction BMPs to minimize the potential for construction related sources of pollution. Also, WQMPs with source control BMPs are required to minimize the introduction of pollutants and treatment control BMPs are included to treat runoff. With implementation of the WQMPs that are required by the City during the Project permitting and approval process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

Also as described previously, the SWIP area receives water from groundwater basins that are adjudicated. Thus, the allowable withdrawal of water from the basin by water purveyors is limited. Additionally, the proposed Project would not pump water and water supplies would be provided by the Fontana Water Company. Thus, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a groundwater management plan.

Hydrology and Water Quality Cumulative Findings: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality (Initial Study at p. 80 - 85).

Facts in Support of Findings: Related developments within the watershed would be required to implement water quality control measures pursuant to the same NPDES General Construction Permit that requires implementation of a SWPPP (for construction), a WQMP (for operation) and BMPs to eliminate or reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater discharges, reduce runoff, reduce erosion and sedimentation, and increase 1198 501
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

filtration and infiltration, in areas permitted. The NPDES permit requirements have been set by the SWRCB and implemented by the RWQCB to reduce incremental effects of individual projects so that they would not become cumulatively considerable. Therefore, overall potential impacts to water quality associated with present and future development in the watershed would not be cumulatively considerable with compliance with all applicable laws, permits, ordinances and plans. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to water quality would be less than significant.

K. Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1 Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community (Initial Study at p. 86). No impacts would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is a parcel of land that has been most recently used for light industrial uses and is adjacent to similar industrial uses to the north and south, and roadways followed by industrial uses to the east and west. Implementation of the proposed Project would develop site with a warehouse that would be consistent with the existing adjacent light industrial uses. The Project would utilize the existing street system.

The development of the site with a warehouse would not physically divide an established community. The new use would be similar to the existing industrial uses surrounding the site. In addition, the Project would not include new infrastructure (such as roadways) that would physically divide an established community. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the SWIP SP Final EIR, no impact would occur.

Impact LU-2 Finding: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (Initial Study at p. 87). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of General Industrial (I-G) and is within the SWIP Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD). The SCD provides for light and heavy manufacturing activities that are supported by trucking routes. The SCD allows for manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, processing, trucking, warehousing and distribution, equipment, automobile and truck sales and services uses.

Consistent with the General Plan and SWIP SCD, the Project includes development and operation of a warehouse facility. The use is consistent with the vicinity, which is highly industrialized in nature, primarily supporting heavy industrial and trucking/distributionrelated uses. The SWIP provides development regulations that set specific requirements for development intensity, lot dimensions, setbacks, structure heights, and accessory buildings that the proposed Project would adhere to. For example, the Project’s FAR of

0.543 is within the allowable FAR of 0.80, and the Project’s building height of 60 feet maximum is within the 100-foot allowable building height.

The proposed Project would be implemented in compliance with the SWIP and the City of Fontana Municipal Code. The SWIP is the main development implementation tool, and 1199 502
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

the Municipal Code applies in absence of a SWIP specification. The City’s development permitting process would ensure that the proposed Project would be implemented in compliance with these existing regulations. As such, the proposed Project would not result in conflicts with the City General Plan land use, SWIP, or Municipal Code, and impacts would be less than significant.

Land Use and Planning Cumulative Findings: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to land use and planning (Initial Study at p. 86 - 87).

Facts in Support of Findings: The geographic context for this cumulative analysis includes the City of Fontana in relation to the City’s General Plan. Cumulative development would be subject to site-specific environmental and planning reviews that would address consistency with adopted General Plan and Specific Plan policies, as well as with the City’s Municipal Code. As part of environmental review, projects would be required to provide mitigation for any inconsistencies with the General Plan and environmental policies that would result in adverse physical environmental effects. As the Project is consistent with the SWIP and the City’s municipal code, no cumulatively considerable impacts would occur from the proposed Project.

L. Mineral Resources
Impact MIN-1 Finding: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state (Initial Study at p. 88). No impacts would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: There are no known mineral resources within or adjacent to the Project site. The City’s General Plan Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails does not identify any mineral resources within the City. The Project site has not historically been used for mining. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a valuable known mineral resource.

Impact MIN-2 Finding: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan (Initial Study at p. 88). No impacts would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: No known valuable mineral resources exist on or near the Project site. The Project site is not designated for mineral recovery uses but is designated for urban uses. Therefore, no impacts related to the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan, would occur as a result of the Project.

Mineral Resources Cumulative Findings: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to mineral resources (Initial Study at p. 88 - 89).

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project area has not historically included mineral extraction, nor does the Project area currently support mineral extraction or have identified mineral resources. Thus, implementation of the Project would not result in significant impacts to mineral resources and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
1200 503
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

M. Noise
Impact NOI-1 Finding: The Project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (Draft Subsequent EIR at p. 5.3-14). Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
Section 18-63(b)(7) of the City’s Municipal Code allows construction noise to exceed the City noise standards provided that construction the activities do not take place between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays or 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays, or on Sundays or federal holidays. Construction noise would be temporary in nature as the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the construction day, and equipment would be turned off when not in use. The typical operating cycle for a piece of construction equipment involves one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. The construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators.

As shown on Table 5.3-5 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, construction noise from the Project at the nearest receiver locations shown in Figure 5.3-3 of the Draft Subsequent EIR would range from 54.1 to 55.6 dBA Leq, which would not exceed the 80 dBA Lmax daytime construction noise level threshold at sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

In addition to regular construction activities, nighttime concrete pouring activities may occur as a part of Project building construction activities. Nighttime concrete pouring activities are often used to support reduced concrete mixer truck transit times and lower air temperatures than during the daytime hours and are generally limited to the actual building pad area. Concrete pour noise sources include concrete mixer truck movements and pouring activities, concrete paving equipment, rear mounted concrete mixer truck backup alarms, engine idling, air brakes, generators, and workers communicating. As shown on Table 5.3-6 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the noise levels associated with the nighttime concrete pour activities (paving) are estimated to range from 39.4 to 40.9 dBA Leq and would not exceed the nighttime exterior construction noise level threshold of 70 dBA Leq. Therefore, impacts related nighttime concrete pour activities would be less than significant.

Operation
The onsite noise sources are expected to include: loading dock activity, truck movements (including truck backup alarms), roof-top air conditioning units, and parking lot vehicle movements, and trash enclosure activity. The operational noise analysis includes the planned 14-foot-high screen walls surrounding the western and eastern loading dock areas, as shown on Figure 5.3-4 of the Draft Subsequent EIR.

The Noise Impact Analysis calculated the operational source noise levels that would be generated by the proposed Project and the noise increases that would be experienced at the closest sensitive receptor locations. Table 5.3-7 of the Draft Subsequent EIR shows 1201 504
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

that the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. are expected to range from 40.3 to 42.7 dBA Leq. Table 5.3-8 of the Draft Subsequent EIR shows the operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the sensitive receptor locations would range from 40.3 to 42.7 dBA Leq.

Operational Noise Municipal Code Compliance. As shown in Table 5.3-9 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, these operational noise levels would not exceed the City’s exterior noise level standards at all nearby sensitive receiver locations. Thus, operational impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Operational Noise Level Increases. As shown in Tables 5.3-10 and 5.3-11 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Project would generate daytime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 0.1 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations, which would not exceed the threshold. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Off-Site Traffic Noise. Table 5.3-12 of the Draft Subsequent EIR shows that in the opening year (2024) traffic noise would range from 70.7 to 79.9 dBA. With Project conditions, noise would range from 70.5 to 80.0 dBA CNEL. Thus, with implementation of the Project, offsite traffic noise levels would increase by 0.0 to 2.7 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Based on the FICON guidance for impacts related to a permanent increase in baseline ambient noise levels, noise level increases of 5 dBA are readily perceptible and 3 dBA increases are barely perceptible. As the 2.7 dBA CNEL increase in ambient noise would not exceed the 3 dBA increase, impacts related to ambient traffic noise increases would be less than significant.

Impact NOI-2 Finding: The Project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (Draft Subsequent EIR at p. 5.3-23).

Impacts are less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings:

Construction
Excavation and grading activities are required for implementation of the Project and can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Based on the reference vibration levels provided by the FTA, a large bulldozer represents the peak source of vibration with a reference velocity of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet, as shown in Table 5.3-13 of the Draft Subsequent EIR. Table 5.3-14 of the Draft Subsequent EIR shows the Project related vibration levels at the closest receiver locations. At distances ranging from 918 to 1,107 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.000 to 0.001 in/sec PPV. Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec), impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
1202 505
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5

Operation of the proposed warehouse would include heavy trucks for loading dock activities, deliveries, and moving trucks, and garbage trucks for solid waste disposal.

Truck vibration levels are dependent on vehicle characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. However, typical vibration levels for heavy truck activity at normal traffic speeds would be approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV, based on the FTA’s Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. Truck movements onsite and on Hemlock Avenue, Beech Avenue, and other roadways to the freeway entrance would be travelling at very low speeds, so it is expected that truck vibration at nearby sensitive receivers would be less than the threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV, and therefore, would be less than significant.

Impact N-3 Finding: The Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, 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 (Initial Study at p. 91). No impacts would occur.

Facts in Support of Findings: The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not located within two miles of a private or public use airport. The Project site is located over 6 miles west of the Ontario International Airport. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels related to airports, and no impacts would occur.

Noise Cumulative Findings: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to noise (Draft Subsequent EIR at pp. 5.3-24).

Facts in Support of Findings: Cumulative noise and vibration assessments consider development of the proposed Project in combination with ambient growth and other development projects within the vicinity of the Project area (as shown on Figure 5-1, Cumulative Projects). As noise and vibration are localized phenomena, and drastically reduce in magnitude as distance from the source increases, only projects and ambient growth in the nearby area could combine with the proposed Project to result in cumulative noise and/or vibration impacts. Therefore, the cumulative study area for noise impacts is the general vicinity of the Project site.

Buildout of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects would result in an increase in construction-related and traffic-related noise. However, Municipal Code, Section 18-63(b)(7), limits construction noise to between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Also, construction noise and vibration are localized in nature and decreases substantially with distance. Consequently, in order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise and vibration levels, more than one source emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be in close proximity to proposed Project construction activity, and those noise sources would need to result in a noise standard exceedance or substantial increase in ambient noise at a sensitive receptor. 1203 506
Resolution No. PC 2024- _____
Attachment No. 5