INITIAL STUDY CHERRY/SANTA ANA AVENUE WAREHOUSE PROJECT CITY OF FONTANA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 CITY OF FONTANA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA March 21, 2018

2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3 CITY OF FONTANA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: City of Fontana Community Development Department, Planning Division 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, California (909) /(909) Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, California (951) Project No. CFN1701 March 21, 2018

4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS... iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE INTRODUCTION PURPOSE INTENDED USE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE INITIAL STUDY PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT INFORMATION... 3 Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan... 3 Past Uses of the Site PROJECT DESCRIPTION METHODOLOGY REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS TECHNICAL STUDIES PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AESTHETICS AGRICULTURE RESOURCES AIR QUALITY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY AND SOILS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY LAND USE AND PLANNING MINERAL RESOURCES NOISE POPULATION AND HOUSING i

6 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES RECREATION TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE REFERENCES APPENDICES A: AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS B: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT C: CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT D: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION E: PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT F: PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN G: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FIGURES Figure 1: Regional and Project Location... 5 Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan... 9 Figure 3: Site Photos TABLES Table A: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting... 3 Table B: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions Table C: Long-Term Regional Emissions Table D: Construction LST Emissions Table E: Long-Term LST Emissions Table F: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table G: Project Trip Generation Table H: Existing (2017) Intersection Levels of Service/with Improvement Table I: Opening Year (2018) Intersection Levels of Service ii

7 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB 52 Assembly Bill 52 amsl above mean sea level APN Assessor s Parcel Number AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMP Best Management Practice CBC California Building Code CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Fontana CMP Congestion Management Program DIF Development Fee EIR Environmental Report ESA Environmental Site Assessment FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FPD Fontana Police Department FTA Federal Transit Administration FWC Fontana Water Company GBMI-KN Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation GHG Greenhouse Gas gpm gallons per minute HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency I-10 Interstate 10 I-15 Interstate 15 IS Initial Study JND Jurupa North Research and Development District LOS Level of Service LST Localized Significance Threshold MGD million gallons per day MLD Most Likely Descendant MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MRF Materials Recycling Facility MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NAHC Native American Heritage Commission ND Negative Declaration NOI Notice of Intent iii

8 NPDES RTP/SCS RP RWQCB SBCTA SBLI SCAG SCAQMD SCCIC SCD SMBMI SRA SWIP SWPPP SWQMP TIA TMDCI UBC UWMP WDR WQMP National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Regional Water Recycling Plant Regional Water Quality Control Board San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Southern California Association of Governments South Coast Air Quality Management District South Central Coastal Information Center Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Source Receptor Area Southwest Industrial Park Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Storm Water Quality Management Plan Traffic Analysis Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Uniform Building Code Urban Water Management Plan Waste Discharge Requirement Water Quality Management Plan iv

9 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 1.1 INTRODUCTION Section 1.0 of this Initial Study (IS) describes the purpose, environmental authorization, the intended uses of the IS, documents incorporated by reference, and the processes and procedures governing the preparation of the environmental document. Pursuant to Section of the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), the City of Fontana (City) is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City has primary responsibility for compliance with CEQA and consideration of the Cherry/Santa Ana Warehouse Project (project or proposed project). The Initial Study is organized as follows: Section 1.0 Section 2.0 Section 3.0 Section 4.0 Appendices Introduction and Purpose provides a discussion of the Initial Study s purpose, focus, legal requirements. Project Description provides a detailed description of the proposed project. Environmental Checklist includes a checklist and accompanying analyses of the project s effect on the environment. For each environmental issue, the analysis identifies the level of project s environmental impact. References details the references cited throughout the document. Include the technical material prepared to support the analyses contained in the IS. 1.2 PURPOSE CEQA requires that the proposed project be reviewed to determine the environmental effects that would result if the project is approved and implemented. The City is the Lead Agency and has the responsibility for preparing and adopting the associated environmental document prior to consideration of the approval of the proposed project. The City has the authority to make decisions regarding discretionary actions relating to implementation of the proposed project. This IS has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section et seq.); the CEQA Guidelines, 1 and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the City. The objective of the Initial Study is to inform City decision-makers, representatives of other affected/responsible agencies, the public and interested parties of the potential environmental consequences of the project. As established in CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c), the purposes of an IS are to: Provide the Lead Agency (City of Fontana) with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND); Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for an ND or MND; 1 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections through

10 Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required; Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; Provide a factual basis for finding in an ND or MND that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and Determine whether a previous prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1.3 INTENDED USE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY The City formally initiated the environmental process for the proposed project with the preparation of this Initial Study. The IS screens out those impacts that would be less than significant and do not warrant mitigation, while identifying those issues that require further mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. As identified in the following analyses, project impacts related to various environmental issues either do not occur, are less than significant (when measured against established significance thresholds), or have been rendered less than significant through implementation of mitigation measures. Based on these analytical conclusions, this IS supports adoption of an MND for the proposed project. CEQA 2 permits the incorporation by reference of all or portions of other documents that are generally available to the public. The IS has been prepared utilizing information from City planning and environmental documents, technical studies specifically prepared for the project, and other publicly available data. The documents utilized in the IS are identified in Section 4.0 and are hereby incorporated by reference. These documents are available for review at the City of Fontana, Planning Division. 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE INITIAL STUDY The IS and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an MND will be distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and other parties for a 30-day public review period. Written comments regarding this IS should be addressed to: Jon Dille, Associate Planner City of Fontana Community Development Department, Planning Division 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, California (909) jdille@fontana.org After the 30-day public review period, consideration of comments raised during the public review period will be taken into account and addressed prior to adoption of the MND by the City. 2 CEQA Guidelines Section

11 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes the development of a 103,333-square foot warehouse building (including 3,368 square feet of office space and 3,000 square feet of mezzanine space). Access to the site will be provided by two new drive entrances; one off of Santa Ana Avenue and one off of Cherry Avenue. 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The 4.5-acre site is located on the southeast corner of Santa Ana and Cherry Avenues within the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County. The project site is located approximately 0.6 miles south of Interstate 10 (I-10) and approximately 3.3 miles east of Interstate 15 (I-15). The project site consists of Assessor s Parcel Number (APN) Figure 1 details the regional and project location. 2.2 PROJECT INFORMATION Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan The project site as well as land uses to the north, east, and south are designated as Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD) under the SWIP. The SWIP designation to the west across Cherry Avenue is Jurupa North Research and Development District (JND). 3 Table A identifies the existing and surrounding land use, General Plan, and Zoning designations. Direction Project Site Existing Land Use Ornamental Trees; concrete stockpile Table A: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting General Plan Designation Specific Plan Zoning Designation General Industrial (I-G) North Vacant General Industrial (I-G) East South Thompson s Building Materials, including singlefamily residential Thompson s Building Materials General Industrial (I-G) General Industrial (I-G) West Warehouse Light Industrial (L-I) Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan (SWIP) Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan (SWIP) Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan (SWIP) Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan (SWIP) Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan (SWIP) Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD) Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD) Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD) Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD) Jurupa North Research and Development District (JND) The Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District is acres. Generally, it is situated south of Slover Avenue, east of Cherry Avenue, and west of Beech Avenue. The district is developed with warehousing, distribution, and other industrial uses. There are also multiple undeveloped areas (former agricultural parcels) throughout the district, with the majority of them concentrated at the northwest. Single-family residential uses are also located sporadically throughout the district, 3 Exhibit 2-3, SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation, Draft Program Environmental Report, October

12 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4

13 10 CHERRY AVENUE Project Location SANTA ANA AVENUE JURUPA AVENUE Los Angeles County!"a$ Regional Location San Bernardino County %&g(?l?q A»!"`$!"a$ A» Project Area Riverside County %&h(?q S!N %&l( Orange County !"a$ Miles %&h( FIGURE 1 S!N FEET SOURCE: GoogleEarth, 2016; ESRI Streetmap, I:\CFN1701\Reports\IS_MND\fig1_RegLoc.mxd (11/22/2017) Cherry/Santa Ana Warehouse Project Regional and Project Location

14 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 6

15 Several commercial uses exist within this area, and include a gas station, restaurant, and a nursery. A dog boarding facility (on-site) has previously been removed from the site. Past Uses of the Site The northern portion of the site has been developed with residential structures with associated barns/ sheds through 2017, while the southern portion has been developed with agricultural uses from 1938 to at least In approximately 1985, the southern portion of the project site was developed as an animal hospital and dog boarding facility. Remaining portions of the facility were developed in The residential structures and animal hospital were demolished in PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a 103,333-square foot warehouse on 4.5 acres. The project includes 5,000 square feet of future office space. The project site is located on the southeast corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Cherry Avenue in the southwestern portion of Fontana. The project site consists of APN Figure 2 depicts the proposed project site plan. An animal hospital and dog boarding facility as well as residential structures with associated barns/sheds previously occupied the site; however, these facilities have been demolished (2017) and the site is vacant. Seven ornamental trees are located on the northern boundary of the site, while one tree is located approximately 50 feet south of Santa Ana Avenue. A block wall is located along the western boundary of the site, adjacent to Cherry Avenue. A block wall, approximately 7 feet in height, is located along the eastern boundary of the project site and will remain in place. An informational sign is currently located on the northwest corner of the site. Surrounding land uses include Thompson Building Materials located to east and south; a mix of truck storage facility/parking lot and single-family residential units located to the east; an industrial warehouse to the west across Cherry Avenue; and vacant land to the north across Santa Ana Avenue. Figure 3 contains site photographs. The site has a 1.4 percent slope to the southeast with the northwest corner at 979 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and the southeast corner at 970 amsl. Access to the project site will be provided by two driveways; one off Santa Ana Avenue and one off of Cherry Avenue. The project will connect to existing utility lines along Cherry Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue. Existing water lines are located along Cherry Avenue (8-inch) and Santa Ana Avenue (2-inch). Existing gas lines are located along line is along Santa Ana Avenue (2-inch) and Cherry Avenue (4-inch). The project includes 12 docking doors located on the east side of the building. Landscaping will be provided along the Cherry Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue frontages. Required improvements to Cherry Avenue consist of a driveway removal and installation, sidewalk infill, the relocation of an existing catch basin, streetlight, and fire hydrant, and the addition of a truncated dome to the existing handicap ramp at the corner. Required improvements for Santa Ana Avenue include pavement infill, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and driveway, striping, as well as landscaping and irrigation. Parkway improvements will include streetlights, a fire hydrant, and signage. The City s General Plan designates the project site as General Industrial (I-G). The site is identified as the Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD) under the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan. The vast majority of developments within the Specific Plan are oriented toward the transportation industry (trucking facility, warehousing/distribution centers, automobiles, and/or truck storage lots). 7

16 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 8

17 FIGURE 2 N FEET SOURCE: HPA Architecture, 2018 Cherry/Santa Ana Warehouse Project Conceptual Site Plan I:\CFN1701\G\Site_Plan.cdr (2/19/2018)

18 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 10

19 Photograph 1: View looking southeast from the northern central boundary of the site toward residence. Photograph 2: View looking south from the northern central boundary of the site toward Thompson's Building Supplies. Photograph 3: View Looking south from the northwestern corner of the site along the western boundary of the project site (east side of Cherry Avenue). FIGURE 3 Cherry/Santa Ana Warehouse Site Photographs I:\CFN1701\Reports\IS_MND\fig3_SitePhotos.cdr (01/02/2018)

20 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 12

21 2.4 METHODOLOGY INITIAL STUDY The analysis in this IS/MND provides an environmental review of the project pursuant to CEQA. The details of this proposed warehouse project and associated actions have been characterized in this section and are also addressed in detail throughout Section 3.0 of this IS/MND. If the project is approved, the proposed warehouse would be allowed without further discretionary approval, so long as the development complies with the City s regulations and project-specific mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval. 2.5 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS The City is expected to use this IS/MND in consideration of the proposed warehouse use and associated actions. These actions may include, but are not limited to, the following: Design Review No (Site Approval). The following approvals from other regulatory agencies may also be required: State Water Resources Control Board: Applicant must submit a Notice of Intent to comply with the General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Utility Providers: Connection permits. 2.6 TECHNICAL STUDIES PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Initial Study is based on the following technical studies which are located in the IS appendices on CD-ROM. Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Memorandum for the Proposed Cherry/Santa Ana Warehouse Project, LSA, January 4, Biological Resources Assessment Survey for the Cherry/Santa Ana Avenues Warehouse Project, Fontana, California, LSA, November 7, Summary of Archaeological Resources Due Diligence for the Cherry/Santa Ana Avenues Warehouse Project, LSA, October 24, Geotechnical Investigation for the Cherry/Santa Ana Avenues Warehouse Project, NorCal Engineering, March 8, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Cherry/Santa Ana Avenues Warehouse Project, Professional Environmental Consulting, Inc., February 17, Appendix F: Storm Water Quality Management Plan, Thienes Engineering, Inc., May 24, Appendix G: Traffic Analysis for the Cherry/Santa Ana Avenues Warehouse Project, LSA, November

22 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 14

23 3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 1. Project Title: Cherry/Santa Ana Avenue Warehouse Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Fontana Community Development Department, Planning Division 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, California Contact Person and Phone Number: Jon Dille, Associate Planner (909) Project Location: Assessor s Parcel Number (APN) The 4.5-acre site is located on the southeast corner of Cherry and Santa Ana Avenues in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County. 5. Project Sponsor s Name and Address: Larry D. Cochrun LDC INDUSTRIAL REALTY Paseo de Alicia, Suite 120 Laguna Hills, California General Plan Designation: General Industrial (I-G) 7. Zoning: Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District 8. Description of Property: An animal hospital and dog boarding facility as well as residential structures with associated barns/ sheds occupied the project site until recently On-site structures were demolished in Seven ornamental trees are located on the northern boundary of the site, while one tree is located approximately 50 feet south of Santa Ana Avenue. A block wall is located along the western boundary of the site, adjacent to Cherry Avenue. An approximately 7-foot high block wall is located along the eastern boundary of the project site and will remain in place. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses include Thompson Building Materials located to east and south; a mix of truck storage facility/parking lot and single-family residential units located to the east; an industrial warehouse to the west across Cherry Avenue; and vacant land to the north across Santa Ana Avenue. 15

24 10. Required Actions: The City is expected to use this IS/MND in consideration of the proposed warehouse use and associated actions. These actions may include, but are not limited to, the following: Design Review (Site Approval). The following approvals from other regulatory agencies may also be required: State Water Resources Control Board: Applicant must submit a Notice of Intent to comply with the General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Utility Providers: Connection permits. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section ? If so, has consultation begun? Please refer to Checklist Section 3.17 (Tribal Cultural Resources). Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code Section ) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code Section and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code Section (c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 16

25

26 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except No answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Report (EIR) is required. 4. Negative Declaration: Less Than With Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially to a Less Than. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Earlier Analyses, as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. s Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less than with Mitigation Measures Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 18

27 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 19

28 3.1 AESTHETICS Would the project: INITIAL STUDY a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Less than with Mitigation Incorporated a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Less than No Discussion of Effects: There are a number of scenic resources within the City including the Jurupa Hills, San Bernardino Mountains, and the San Gabriel Mountains. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains are available to people traveling north on Cherry Avenue; however, those views will not be obstructed with the development of the project. The project proposes a 30-foot building landscaped setback along Cherry Avenue, consistent with the minimum setback identified in Slover Central District (SCD) of the SWIP. Views to the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains from the one-story single-family residence to the east of the project site would not be obstructed with development of the project. The Jurupa Hills are located approximately 1.3 miles south of the project site. Views to the Jurupa Hills while traveling east/west on Santa Ana Avenue will be obstructed due to the height of the project. The maximum structure height within the SCD is 100 feet; the proposed warehouse will be 36.5 feet at its highest point, well below the 100 foot maximum height; therefore, the project is consistent with the required height within the SWIP. 4 A 20-foot building setback is proposed along Santa Ana Avenue with associated landscaping. Development of the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur related to scenic vistas and no mitigation is warranted. 4 SWIP Specific Plan Update and Annexation, Public Review Draft Program EIR, October

29 b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Discussion of Effects: The project site and surrounding area does not contain a designated scenic highway. 5 The proposed project is not located along or within view of a scenic boulevard, parkway, or special boulevard as designated by the City s General Plan. Therefore, the project will not affect any scenic resources within a State scenic highway. No impact related to this issue would occur. No mitigation is required. c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Discussion of Effects: The project proposes the construction of a 103,333-square foot warehouse building. The response to Checklist Question 3.1.a demonstrates why the proposed project would not have significant impacts on the existing visual character of the site or surrounding urban area, and no mitigation is required. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Less than Discussion of Effects: The project will not result in a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. Currently, nighttime lighting is produced by adjacent industrial properties to the west, single-family residential units to the east, and the Thompson s Building Materials operation to the east and south. Additional sources of lighting at night include vehicular traffic along Cherry Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue as well as street-lighting along Cherry Avenue. The proposed project will include exterior and parking lot lighting at entrances, exists, pathways, and loading areas that will incrementally increase ambient nighttime illumination in the area. The proposed on-site structure will be constructed primarily of tilt-up concrete panels with a color scheme similar to surrounding areas and will not utilize high gloss or reflective materials that would cause glare or reflection. Through adherence to applicable City standards, 6,7 the project would not generate excessive light or glare; therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. No mitigation is required A State Scenic Highway is defined as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way, that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Eligible and Officially Designated Routes, California Department of Transportation Scenic Highway, website accessed December 27, Section Light and Glare, City of Fontana Municipal Code, Updated October 25, Ibid. 21

30 3.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. 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))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. 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? Potentially Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less than No a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Discussion of Effects: The project site has been previously graded and developed. In addition, the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) 8 designates the project site as Urban and Built-Up Land. Neither the site, nor adjacent properties are designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, no impact to farmland would occur and no mitigation is required. 8 California Important Farmland Finder, Department of Conservation. (Accessed November 10, 2017). 22

31 b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Discussion of Effects: The City does not maintain any agricultural zones. No Williamson Act contract is in effect in the City. 9 Therefore, there will be no impacts in this regard and no mitigation is required. c. 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))? No Discussion of Effects: The site has been previously developed with impervious surfaces (e.g., building and parking lots). There is no timberland or timberland production land or property zoned for forest land on site or within the City. Therefore, no conflict or impact to such a use would occur and no mitigation is required. d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Discussion of Effects: As outlined in response to Checklist Question 3.2.c above, the proposed development will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, there is no impact and no mitigation is required. e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Discussion of Effects: As outlined in response to Checklist Questions 3.2.a and b, there is no farmland located on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to nonagricultural use and there is no impact. No mitigation is required. 3.3 AIR QUALITY Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less than No 9 San Bernardino County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016, California Department of Conservation,

32 c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Discussion of Effects: The 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) incorporates current scientific, technological, and planning assumptions including the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and updated air pollution emission inventory methodologies for various air pollution source categories. The 2016 AQMP addresses new and changing Federal requirements, implements new technology measures to reduce air pollution, and continues the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) legacy of developing economically sound and flexible regulatory compliance approaches. The 2016 AQMP incorporates local General Plan land use assumptions and regional growth and population projections developed by SCAG to estimate stationary and mobile source emissions associated with projected population and planned land uses. If a new land use is consistent with the local General Plan and the regional growth projections adopted in the 2016 AQMP, then the added emissions are considered to have been evaluated, are contained in the AQMP, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional 2016 AQMP. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of General Industrial (I-G) and the designation of Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD) within the SWIP, which allows warehousing. Because the project is consistent with the City s General Plan, it is also consistent with the regional growth projections adopted in the 2016 AQMP. The project air quality is considered to have been evaluated in the AQMP and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional 2016 AQMP. A less than significant impact would occur with the development of the project. No mitigation is required. b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Discussion of Effects: The project will generate short-term and long-term emissions of air pollutants during construction and operation (respectively) of the proposed warehouse use. The impacts associated with these emissions are summarized as follows: Short-term Emissions: Short-term emissions will result from construction-related activities, such as excavation and grading, machinery and equipment emissions, vehicle emissions from construction employees, etc. As detailed in Table B, the daily regional air pollution emissions resulting from grading and 24

33 construction vehicular activity will not exceed threshold levels established by the SCAQMD. s are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. Table B: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions Total Regional Pollutant Emissions, lbs./day Construction Phase VOC NOx CO SOx PM 10 PM 2.5 Construction Year < SCAQMD Thresholds Emissions? No No No No No No Construction Year < SCAQMD Thresholds Emissions? No No No No No No Source: Table C - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis, LSA (January 2018) (Appendix A) CO = carbon monoxide lbs./day = pounds per day NOx = nitrogen oxides PM 2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size VOC = volatile organic compounds SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District SOx = sulfur oxides PM 10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size Long-term Emissions: The proposed project will result in an incremental increase in the generation of regional air pollution emissions during the operation of the proposed warehouse use. As detailed in Table C, the long-term daily regional air pollution emissions will not exceed threshold levels established by the SCAQMD. Long-term air quality impacts are, therefore, less than significant and no mitigation is required. Table C: Long-Term Regional Emissions Pollutant Emissions, lbs./day Category VOC NOx CO SOx PM 10 PM 2.5 Area Sources 2.0 <1 <1 0 <1 <1 Energy Sources <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Mobile Sources < <1 <1 3.5 <1 Off-road Sources < <1 <1 <1 Total Project Emissions < SCAQMD Thresholds ? No No No No No No Source: Table E - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, LSA (January 2018) (Appendix A) CO = carbon monoxide lbs./day = pounds per day NOx = nitrogen oxides PM 2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size VOC = volatile organic compounds SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District SOx = sulfur oxides PM 10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size Based on project-specific modeling of emissions, the project will not have short-term and/or long-term impacts associated with air quality. Air quality impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. 25

34 c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Discussion of Effects: In evaluating the cumulative effects of the project, Section 21100(e) of CEQA states that previously approved land use documents including, but not limited to, general plans, specific plans, and local coastal plans, may be used in cumulative impact analysis. In addressing cumulative effects for air quality, the AQMP utilizes approved general plans and specific plans and, therefore, the specific plan and the General Plan are the most appropriate document to use to evaluate cumulative impacts of the project. This is because the AQMP evaluated air quality for the entire South Coast Air Basin using a future development scenario based on population projections and set forth a comprehensive program that would lead the region, including the project, into compliance with all federal and State air quality standards. The project is a proposed 103,333-square foot warehouse building with associated parking and loading docks. As described in Response to Checklist Question 3.3a, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of General Industrial (I-G) and the Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial District (SCD). The cumulative air quality impacts resulting from development within the SWIP were evaluated in the SWIP EIR and were determined to be a significant; however, the proposed project is consistent with the SWIP and would not substantially alter the land use assumptions utilized in the development of the 2016 AQMP. The SCAQMD recommends that a project s potential contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed using the same significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts. If a project does not exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily regional emission thresholds, the project-specific impacts would also not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. Tables B and C in Checklist Response 3.3.b indicate that all emissions of criteria pollutants from the proposed project would be less than the applicable SCAQMD thresholds over both the short and long term. Therefore, no significant cumulative air quality impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Discussion of Effects: Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project that would not exceed air quality standards. LSTs are evaluated on the ambient concentrations of each pollutant within the project source receptor area (SRA) and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, hospitals, and similar uses that are sensitive to adverse air quality. Single-family residential units are located east of the project; the closest outdoor space of the residential unit is approximately 49 feet from the project boundary. 10 Additionally, Henry J. Kaiser High School is located at Almond Avenue approximately 1,100 feet southwest of the project site. 10 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, LSA, January 4,

35 Tables D and E identify short-term (construction) and long-term project-related LST emissions. The tables reveal both short-term and long-term LST emissions are below the established SCAQMD thresholds. On-Site Emissions Sources Table D: Construction LST Emissions On-site Emissions (lbs./day) NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Construction Activities SCAQMD LST Threshold for 25 meters (85 feet) 247 1, Emissions? No No No No Source: Table D Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, LSA (January 2018) (Appendix A) Note: Source Receptor Area 34 Central San Bernardino Valley, 4.5 acre, 335-meter distance CO = carbon monoxide lbs./day = pounds per day LST = Localized Significance Threshold NOx = nitrogen oxides PM 2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM 10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Sources Table E: Long-Term LST Emissions On-site Emissions (lbs./day) NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 On-site Emissions <1 <1 SCAQMD LST Threshold for 25 meters (85 feet) 247 1, Emissions? No No No No Source: Source: Table F Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, LSA (January 2018) (Appendix A). Note: Source Receptor Area 34 Central San Bernardino Valley, 4.5 acre, 15-meter distance CO = carbon monoxide lbs./day = pounds per day LST = Localized Significance Threshold NOx = nitrogen oxides PM 2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM 10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District Because project emissions are below SCAQMD LST thresholds, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. s are less than significant and no mitigation is required. e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Discussion of Effects: Project construction will generate limited odors over the short term, mainly fumes from gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the project limits. The painting of buildings or the installation of asphalt surfaces may create odors. SCAQMD Rule 1113 outlines standards for paint applications, while Rule 1108 identifies standards regarding the application of asphalt. Adherence to the standards identified in these SCAQMD Rules would reduce temporary odor impacts to a less than significant level and no mitigation is required. Land uses generally associated with long-term objectionable odors include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The proposed warehouse use would not generate long-term objectionable odors; therefore, no significant impact would occur. No mitigation is required. 27

36 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Potentially Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less than No 28

37 a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Discussion of Effects: The proposed project site is highly disturbed. The Jurupa Recovery Unit (Jurupa Hills) which the federally endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis) is located approximately 2.0 miles southeast of the project site. Within the Recovery Unit, the fly population is protected under a conservation easement managed by County of San Bernardino ( Fontana Business Center Biological Opinion; FWS-SB*1788.9). 11 Although the site does contain two small areas of Delhi fine sand soils, the site has been previously developed and is highly disturbed and does not have connectivity to larger blocks of Delhi soils. There is no designated critical habitat within or adjacent to the project area. The project area has been previously developed and there is little foraging vegetation known to be used by this species. Therefore, a less than significant impact related to Delhi Sand flower-loving fly would occur and no mitigation is required. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Discussion of Effects: The site has been previously developed. No riparian or sensitive natural community is located on site; therefore, the development of the project would have no impact related to this issue and no mitigation is required. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Discussion of Effects: No wetlands, waters of the United States, or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) streambeds are present within the project site. 12 No impact would occur to protected wetlands; therefore, no mitigation is required. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Discussion of Effects: The project will not affect wildlife movement or nursery sites because the site is located within an urbanized area, separated from native habitat by development and roadways and with substantial human activity. The project site is bordered by walls that range from 6 to 8 feet in height Biological Resources Assessment, LSA, November 7, Wetland Mapper, National Wetlands Inventory V-2 database, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, October 26, (accessed November 13, 2017). 29