HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum to Southridge Village Specific Planf
ADDENDUM TO SOUTHRIDGE VILLAGE
SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NO. 81-3
FOR THE HEIGHTS
AT SOUTHRIDGE PROJECT
Lead Agency:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335
Project Applicant:
NH Southridge LLC 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570
Newport Beach, CA 92660
CEQA Consultant:
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612
April 2023
This page left intentionally blank.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
1
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................................. 4
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................. 5
1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION............................................................................... 6
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................................... 8
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE .............................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE .................................. 8
2.4 SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ................................................... 8
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 27
3.1 PROJECT SITE PLANNING AND CEQA BACKGROUND ................................................................... 27
3.2 SVSP FINAL EIR ASSUMPTIONS FOR PROJECT SITE ........................................................................ 27
3.3 PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ 27 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................... 27 Project Features ....................................................................................................................................... 27 Off-Site Improvements ............................................................................................................................ 30 Construction and Phasing ........................................................................................................................ 30 General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments ....................................................................................... 31 Discretionary Approvals, Permits, and Studies ..................................................................................... 32
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ...................................................................................................... 69
4.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 69
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .................................................................. 70
4.3 DETERMINATION: ...................................................................................................................................... 70
4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................. 71 Terminology Used in the Checklist ......................................................................................................... 72
5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 73
5.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................................. 73 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 83 5.3 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................................... 86 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................ 95 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 102 5.6 ENERGY ...................................................................................................................................................... 107 5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................................ 111
5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................ 118
5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...................................................................................... 123
5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................. 129
5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING................................................................................................................... 138
5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 146
5.13 NOISE .......................................................................................................................................................... 148
5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING .............................................................................................................. 171
5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................... 173
5.16 RECREATION ............................................................................................................................................. 179
5.17 TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................................. 182
5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................... 187
5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 190
5.20 WILDFIRE ..................................................................................................................................................... 197
5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................... 204
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
2
6 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS......................................................................... 207
7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 208
Tables
TABLE 2-1: SURROUNDING EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS.......................................................................................... 9
TABLE 3-1: SVSP CAPACITY AT BUILDOUT ............................................................................................................................................... 27
TABLE 3-1: UNIT BREAKDOWN ................................................................................................................................................................. 28
TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ..................................................................................................................................................... 31
TABLE AES-1: CONSISTENCY WITH SVSP DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS .................................................................................................... 78
TABLE AQ-1: SCAQMD REGIONAL DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS ...................................................................................................... 88 TABLE AQ-2: REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 89 TABLE AQ-3: PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ................................................................................................................. 90
TABLE AQ-4: SP BUILDOUT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ................................................................................. 90
TABLE AQ-5: REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (ORIGINAL SP AND PROPOSED PROJECT) .............................................................. 90
TABLE AQ-6: LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES .............................................................................................................. 92
TABLE E-1: PROPOSED PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................. 108
TABLE E-2: PROPOSED PROJECT ANNUAL NET OPERATIONAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 109
TABLE GHG-1: PROPOSED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS ............................................................................................. 119
TABLE GHG-2: PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS ................................................................................................. 120 TABLE GHG-3: BUILDOUT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS .............................................................................................. 120 TABLE GHG-4: COMPARISON OF BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AND ORIGINAL SVSP NET GHG EMISSIONS ........................................ 120 TABLE LU-1: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN ................................................................................................................... 140
TABLE LU-2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SVSP POLICIES ................................................................................................................... 144
TABLE N-1: EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................................................ 149
TABLE N-2: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS ....................................................................................................................................... 152
TABLE N-3: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 152
TABLE N-4: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS ............................................................................................................. 156
TABLE N-5: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ........................................................................................................................ 157 TABLE N-6: ROCK CRUSHING CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS ............................................................................................. 157 TABLE N-7: ROCK CRUSHING CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY ............................................................................ 160
TABLE N-8: PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 160
TABLE N-9: DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ...................................................................................... 161
TABLE N-10: ON-SITE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL)......................................................................................................................... 162
TABLE N-11: EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES ......................................................................................................... 162
TABLE N-12: CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS ................................................................................................................... 163
TABLE N-13: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS .............................................................................................................. 164
TABLE PS-1: SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BETWEEN 2017-2018 AND 2020-2021 .................................................................................. 175 TABLE PS-2: CITY PARKS WITHIN ONE MILE ........................................................................................................................................... 176 TABLE T-1: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON .......................................................................................................................................... 183
TABLE UT-1: FONTANA WATER COMPANY PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY (AF) ....................................................................................... 193
TABLE UT-2 FONTANA WATER COMPANY PROJECTED WATER DEMAND (AF) ...................................................................................... 194
Figures
FIGURE 2-1: REGIONAL LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 2-2: LOCAL VICINITY .................................................................................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 2-3: AERIAL .................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 FIGURE 2-4A: SITE PHOTOS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17
FIGURE 2-4B: SITE PHOTOS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 2-4C: SITE PHOTOS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 21
FIGURE 2-5: SVSP PLANNING AREA MAP ............................................................................................................................................... 23
FIGURE 2-6: SURROUNDING USES ............................................................................................................................................................ 25
FIGURE 3-1: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ....................................................................................................................................................... 33
FIGURE 3-2: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ....................................................................................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 3-3: TRACT MAP .......................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
3
FIGURE 3-4A: CLUSTER PLAN 1 ELEVATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 39
FIGURE 3-4B: CLUSTER PLAN 2 ELEVATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 41 FIGURE 3-4C: CLUSTER PLAN 3 ELEVATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 43 FIGURE 3-4D: STUB DRIVE PLAN 1 ELEVATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 45
FIGURE 3-4E: STUB DRIVE PLAN 2 ELEVATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 47
FIGURE 3-4F: STUB DRIVE PLAN 3 ELEVATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 49
FIGURE 3-5: PARKING PLAN ..................................................................................................................................................................... 51
FIGURE 3-6: CONCEPTUAL OPEN SPACE PLAN ........................................................................................................................................ 53
FIGURE 3-7: CENTRAL RECREATION AREA ................................................................................................................................................. 55
FIGURE 3-8: TRAILHEAD PARK ................................................................................................................................................................... 57
FIGURE 3-9: LAND SWAP EXHIBIT ............................................................................................................................................................. 59 FIGURE 3-10: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ........................................................................................................................................ 61 FIGURE 3-11: ROCKFALL BARRIER ............................................................................................................................................................. 63
FIGURE 3-12: WALL AND FENCE PLAN .................................................................................................................................................... 65
FIGURE 3-13: OFF-SITE DISTURBANCE AREA ............................................................................................................................................ 67
FIGURE 5-1: VIEW LOT EXHIBIT ................................................................................................................................................................ 75
FIGURE 5-2: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS..................................................................................................................................... 150
FIGURE 5-3: RECEIVER LOCATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 154
FIGURE 5-4: ROCK CRUSHING ACTIVITY AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS ..................................................................................................... 158
FIGURE 5-5: BLASTING ACTIVITIES AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS ............................................................................................................... 166 FIGURE 5-6: FUEL MODIFICATION EXHIBIT .............................................................................................................................................. 199
Appendix
Appendix A. Operational Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum
Appendix B. Construction Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Memorandum
Appendix C. General Biological Assessment
Appendix D. Arborist Report
Appendix E. Cultural Resource Study
Appendix F. Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix G. Rock Fall Investigation
Appendix H. Paleontological Resources Assessment Appendix I. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix J. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Appendix K. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix L. Preliminary Hydrology Study Appendix M. Noise Impact Analysis Appendix N. Traffic Analysis Appendix O. Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Evaluation Appendix P. Fuel Modification Plan
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
4
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This document is an Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report No. 81-
3 (SVSP Final EIR) certified by the City of Fontana (City) in December 1981. The SVSP Final EIR, in conjunction
with this Addendum, serve as the environmental review for the proposed Heights at Southridge Project
(“proposed Project”, “Project”). The Project proposes development of a 37.32-acre site, including construction
of 255 single-family residences, landscape, common use amenities, including a public park and trails, and
site improvements (proposed Project).
The Southridge Village Specific Plan (SVSP) was adopted by the City of Fontana in 1981 as a tool for
providing development standards, design theme, and administrative procedures necessary to implement
policies of the City of Fontana General Plan Amendment 12-2 (GPA 12-2). The SVSP divided the Specific
Plan area into 136 distinct Planning Areas.
The Project site is located within Planning Areas 56, 66A and 66C of the SVSP. The original SVSP designates
Planning Area 56 as Community Park (CP) and Planning Areas 66A and 66C as Quarry (Q). Throughout
various amendments to the SVSP, described further below, Planning Area 56 was redesignated from CP to
Bird Farm (BF) and Planning Area 66A was assigned an approved residential overlay allowing up to 92
residential units. The SVSP allowed for development of a total of 8,800 residences within the Specific Plan
area. Since the adoption of the SVSP, 18 amendments to the SVSP have been processed and a total of
7,836 residential units have been approved.
SVSP Amendment No. 10 was approved on August 18, 1987, through the adoption of Ordinance No. 887.
SVSP Amendment No. 10 amended the SVSP Land Use Map and the statistical list of Planning Unit Areas to
redesignate Planning Area 56 from Community Park (CP) to Bird Farm (BF). The Bird Farm designation was
intended to allow for use of Planning Area 56 as a bird farm which includes aviaries, parking, outdoor
seating, food and beverage stands, and restrooms. However, the statistical summary from Amendment No.
18 shows Planning Area 56 as CP again, although no prior amendment or other actions by the City appears
to have changed the land use from BF back to CP.
SVSP Amendment No. 15 was approved on December 19, 1995, through the adoption of Ordinance No. 1173. SVSP Amendment No. 15 established a residential overlay on various parcels designated “Quarry” and “Buffer” and redesignated various “Commercial” and Subregional Commercial” parcels to residential uses. Amendment No. 15 approved a residential overlay on Planning Area 66A allowing up to 92 residential units to be constructed on the parcel. The Project evaluated herein involves a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel
Map, Tentative Tract Map, and Design Review for construction and operation of 255 single-family residential
units on an approximately 37.32-acre site located southeast of the Live Oak and Village Drive intersection
within the City of Fontana.
Development within the SVSP area is subject to mitigation measures identified in the SVSP Final EIR, the
development regulations in the SVSP, and the City’s municipal code. Pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21167.2, the SVSP Final EIR must be conclusively presumed to be valid with regard to its use for
later activities unless any of the circumstances requiring supplemental review exist.1
1 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.2; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1130 (“[a]fter certification, the interests of finality are favored”); Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th 689, 705-706.)
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
5
This environmental checklist provides the basis for an Addendum to the previously certified Final EIR and serves as the appropriate level of environmental review of the proposed Project, as required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines. This Checklist confirms that the Project is within the scope of the SVSP analyzed in the SVSP Final EIR, and the Addendum augments the analysis in the SVSP Final EIR as provided in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164 and provides the basis for the City’s determination that no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required to evaluate the proposed Project. Environmental analysis and mitigation measures from the SVSP Final EIR have been incorporated into this Addendum, and applicability of each has been described. In cases where mitigation measures from the SVSP Final EIR have been revised or satisfied by studies prepared for Addendum, it is noted.
Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City, as the Lead Agency, is charged
with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed Project. As part of the decision-
making process, the City is required to review and consider the potential environmental effects that could
result from construction and operation of the proposed Project. The analysis in this document discusses the
impacts identified within the SVSP Final EIR for buildout of the SVSP and compares them with the impacts
that would result from implementation of the proposed Project.
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) and Project Design Features (PDFs)
Throughout the analysis of this document, reference is made to requirements that are applied to all
development on the basis of federal, state, or local law. Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies are collectively
identified in this document as PPPs. Where applicable, PPPs are listed to show their effect in reducing
potential environmental impacts. The Project incorporates various measures that serve to reduce potentially
significant impacts. These measures are referred to as Project Design Features (PDFs), which are required to
be incorporated into the Project. Additionally, applicable Mitigation Measures from the SVSP Final EIR are
included herein and will be incorporated into the Project. As shown throughout the analysis, the Project does
not result in any new impacts and no additional mitigation measures are required. All references to mitigation
measures relate only to those from the original SVSP Final EIR and to those from the Focused EIR for
Amendment #15.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City’s review of the Checklist and Addendum will
determine if approval of the requested discretionary actions and subsequent development could cause a
change in the conclusions of the certified Final EIR and disclose any change in circumstances or new
information of substantial importance that would substantially change the conclusions of the SVSP Final EIR.
This environmental Checklist and Addendum provide the City with information to document potential impacts
of the proposed Project.
Pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be
prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one
or more of the following conditions are met:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous
EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; or
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
6
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the
previous EIR.
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible
and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
d) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the
previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but
the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared “if some
changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for
preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.”
In reviewing this Addendum, the question before City decision-makers is not whether the SVSP Final EIR
complies with CEQA, but only whether one of the events triggering the need for subsequent environmental
review has occurred. (A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1773;
Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32.)
This Addendum and the technical studies in support of the analysis review the proposed Project and any
changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the SVSP Final EIR was certified. It also reviews
any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with
exercise of reasonable diligence at the time that the SVSP Final EIR was certified. It further examines whether,
as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent EIR may be required. This examination
includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of
the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the proposed Project. This Addendum relies on use of
the Environmental Analysis provided herein, which addresses environmental issues on a section-by-section
basis and provides a comparison to the findings in the SVSP Final EIR.
On the basis of the findings of the certified SVSP Final EIR and the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines,
the City as the Lead Agency determined that, as documented in this Addendum to the previously certified
Final EIR, no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required to review the proposed Project.
1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
As directed by CEQA, this Addendum relies on the environmental analysis in the SVSP Final EIR. A summary
of the previous environmental documentation and how it relates to the proposed Heights at Southridge
Project (proposed Project) is provided below.
The SVSP was adopted by the City of Fontana in 1981 as a tool for providing development standards,
design theme, and administrative procedures necessary to implement the policies of the City of Fontana
General Plan Amendment 12-2 (GPA 12-2) and the Jurupa Hills Redevelopment Project. The SVSP Final EIR
evaluated buildout of the SVSP area pursuant to SVSP design criteria and residential and non-residential
allowances. The SVSP Final EIR analyzed the development of 8,800 residential dwelling units within the entire SVSP area. Since 1981, 18 amendments to the SVSP have been processed and a total of 7,836 residential units have been allocated. The SVSP Final EIR identified that the SVSP would have significant and unavoidable environmental effects related to 10 topic areas.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
7
The SVSP Final EIR also identified 9 environmental impact areas for which mitigation measures were required to reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation, and Utilities and Service Systems. This Addendum incorporates by reference the SVSP Final EIR and the technical documents that relate to the proposed Project or provide additional information concerning the environmental setting of the proposed Project. The information within in this Addendum is based on the following technical studies and/or planning documents:
• Southridge Village Specific Plan (https://www.fontana.org/1296/Southridge-Village-Specific-
Plan)
• Southridge Village Specific Plan 5 Addendum Final Environmental Impact Report No. 81-3
• Amendment No. 10 to the Southridge Village Specific Plan
• Amendment No. 15 to the Southridge Village Specific Plan
• Southridge Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 15 Focused EIR
• City of Fontana Municipal Code
(https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances)
• City of Fontana General Plan (https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---
2035)
• Technical studies, personal communications, and web sites listed in Section 6, References
In addition to the websites listed above, all documents are available for review at the City of Fontana
Planning Department, located 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
8
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The 37.32-acre Project site is located within the southern portion of the City of Fontana. The Project site is
located southeast of the intersection of Live Oak Avenue and Village Drive. Regional access to the Project
site is provided via Interstate 10 (I-10), located approximately 1.7-miles north, Interstate 15 (I-15), located
approximately 4-miles west, and State Route 60, located approximately 1-mile south, as depicted on Figure
2-1, Regional Location. Local access is provided by Live Oak Avenue and Village Drive as shown in Figure
2-2, Local Vicinity.
2.2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE
The Project site is comprised of two parcels (APNs: 0237-411-13 and -14), as well as off-site improvements
on APN 0237-411-15. The site was previously part of a quarry. The Project site is currently undeveloped
and primarily consists of plants from the coastal sage scrub community along with non-native weeds and
grasses. Additionally, an oak tree is present along with pine, cedar and eucalyptus within the site area.
Topographically, the Project site slopes from south to north with a component sloping east to west. Elevations
range from approximately 995 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 925 feet above msl. The Project site’s
existing conditions are show in Figure 2-3, Aerial View and Figure 2-4, Site Photos.
2.3 EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE
The Project site has a General Plan designation of Open Space (OS) and Recreational Facilities (P-R). The
OS designation includes natural areas, publicly owned areas with slopes of 20% or greater or subject to
wildfire, uses including quarries, flood control channels, ground water percolation basins and agriculture. The
P-R designation includes regional and local parks, and any recreational facility operated by a public or
quasi-public agency.
The Project is located within the Southridge Village Specific Plan (SVSP) and is within Planning Areas 56,
66A and 66C). The SVSP designates Planning Area 56 as Bird Farm (BF) and Planning Areas 66A and 66C
as Quarry (Q). Planning Area 66A includes an approved residential overlay allowing for development of
up to 92 residential units.
The Applicant, NH Southridge LLC, owns 27.37 acres and the City owns 9.96 acres of the site. The majority
of the Applicant-owned portion of the Project site (24.5 acres) is located in Planning Area 66A, which includes
an approved residential overlay allowing up to 92 residential units. The remaining 2.83 acres are in Planning
Area 66C, which is zoned for open space/Quarry. The City-owned portion of the site is located in Planning
Area 56 (See Figure 2-5 SVSP Planning Area Map).
Although designated as Bird Farm (BF), Planning Area 56 is undeveloped with no existing park improvements.
2.4 SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The Project site is located within a developed and urbanized area. Land uses surrounding the Project site
are described in Table 2-1 and shown in Figure 2-6, Surrounding Areas.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
9
Table 2-1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations
Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation SVSP Designation
North
Live Oak Road and Village Drive followed by single-family
residences
General Commercial (C-G), Residential Planned
Community (R-PC)
Southridge Village Specific Plan Single-Family
South Single-family residences
Residential
Planned
Community (R-PC)
Southridge Village
Specific Plan
Townhomes (12
units/acre)
West Southridge Park Recreational
Facilities (P-R)
Southridge Village
Specific Plan
Community Park (CP),
Sub-Regional Center
(SRC)
East Vacant and
undeveloped land Open Space (OS) Southridge Village
Specific Plan
Open Space (OS),
Quarry (Q)
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
10
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure 2-1Southridge
City of Fontana
Regional Location
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
12
This page intentionally left blank.
Local Vicinity
Figure 2-2Southridge
City of Fontana
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
14
This page intentionally left blank.
Aerial View
Figure 2-3
Project site
Southridge
City of Fontana
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
16
This page intentionally left blank.
Southridge
City of Fontana
Figure 2-4A
Site Photos
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
18
This page intentionally left blank.
Site Photos
Figure 2-4BSouthridge
City of Fontana
View from the north side of site on Village Dr.
Looking southeast from Live Oak Ave and Goldenrain Dr.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
20
This page intentionally left blank.
Site Photos
Figure 2-4CSouthridge
City of Fontana
Eastbound view from the entrance of Southridge Park off of Live Oak Ave.
The site can be seen past the trees.
View of the south side of the site from Rockridge Ln as seen behind
residential structures.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
22
This page intentionally left blank.
Southridge
City of Fontana
Figure 2-5
SVSP Planning Area Map
66A56
65
67
72 70 69
73
78 82
80
76
74 & 79
77A
77B
HE
M
L
O
C
K
A
V
E
15
10
32 9
8
33 34
50
49
4 51
45
44 46
47
7
6
5
16
17
2 3
37
20
212223
41
42
43
40
64
62
61
60 63
55
57
12
13
11
14
24
26
19
18
25
27
28
29
30 1
CH
E
R
R
Y
A
V
E
31
39
35
54
53 52
RE
D
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
AL
M
O
N
D
A
V
E
BA
N
A
N
A
A
V
E
MU
L
B
E
R
R
Y
A
V
E
66C
66B
48
59 58
LIV
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
JURUPACA
L
A
B
A
S
H
A
V
E
68
83
81
86
97
87 88
97A 96
116
116A
115 114 113
118
117
119
119A
120
127
112
98
123 122
128
71
111
111A
121
125126
124
124A
132
130
131 125A
132A
129
134
108
110
106
105 102
103
104
107
103A
10110099
89 90 91 92
109
BE
E
C
H
A
V
E
EL
M
A
V
E
PO
P
L
A
R
A
V
E
CA
T
A
W
B
A
A
V
E
CI
T
R
U
S
A
V
E
OL
E
A
N
D
E
R
A
V
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
JU
N
I
P
E
R
A
V
E
SIE
R
R
A
A
V
E
JURUPA
6
7
85
135 9495
84
AVE AVE
MARLAY AVE
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
24
This page intentionally left blank.
Figure 2-6Southridge
City of Fontana
Surrounding Areas
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
26
This page intentionally left blank.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
27
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROJECT SITE PLANNING AND CEQA BACKGROUND
As previously discussed, the 37.32-acre Project site is located in the original Southridge Village Specific Plan
(SVSP). The 1981 SVSP Final EIR analyzed the development of 8,800 residential units within the entire SVSP
area. Since 1981, 18 amendments to the SVSP (Approved SPA #18) have been processed and a total of
7,836 residential units have been allocated, as shown in Table 3-1. With the exception of the Project site
and Planning Area 66B, which includes an overlay allowing self-storage uses, the SVSP is built out.
Table 3-1: SVSP Capacity at Buildout
Units
Specific Plan 8,800
Approved with 18 SPAs 7,836
Remaining Capacity per Original EIR 964
3.2 SVSP FINAL EIR ASSUMPTIONS FOR PROJECT SITE
The Project site is located within Planning Areas 56, 66A and 66C of the SVSP. The SVSP designates Planning
Area 56 as Bird Farm (BF) and Planning Areas 66A and 66C as Quarry (Q). Planning Area 66A includes an
approved residential overlay allowing for development of up to 92 residential units. The SVSP allowed for
development of a total of 8,800 residences within the Specific Plan area. Since the adoption of the SVSP,
18 amendments to the SVSP have been processed and a total of 7,836 residential units have been allocated
and built and 964 units remain unassigned.
3.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Overview
The 37.32-acre Project site is separated into four proposed parcels. The Project proposes the development
of the four parcels with 255 single-family residences along with parking, landscape, and common use
amenities, a public park, and public trails as shown in Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan. The proposed Project
is within the remaining development capacity of SVSP. Of the 255 units, 92 units were assumed to occur on
the site and 163 would be transferred from the overall remaining capacity, which is permitted by the SVSP.
Therefore, buildout of the SVSP as modified by the Project is assumed to be 7,999 units.
The Project also proposes development of a public park on the 1.74-acre parcel and dedication of a 3.41-
acre parcel for a public trail. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment,
Tentative Parcel Map, Tentative Tract Map, and a land swap with the City of Fontana.
Project Features
The Project includes construction and operation of 255 two-story, single-family residential units on 32.17
acres of the site, after the dedications of open space and parks to the City, which would result in a density
of 7.9 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
Tentative Maps
Tentative Parcel Map 20565 is shown on Figure 3-2, Tentative Parcel Map, and is proposed to divide two
existing parcels into four parcels to accommodate the residential development, neighborhood park, and
public trail. Tentative Tract Map No. 20568, shown as Figure 3-3, Tract Map, is proposed to divide one
existing lot into two lots to accommodate the 255 dwelling units as well as the water quality basin.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
28
Building Summary The proposed residential units would include a total of 255 two-story, single-family units that would range in size from 1,710 SF to 2,307 SF as shown in Table 3-1 below. Of those, 147 would be Cluster Homes and 108 would be Stub Drive Homes. Table 3-1: Unit Breakdown
Unit Name Unit Type Square Footage Number of Units
Cluster Plan 1 3-Bedroom/2.5 Bath 1,936 SF 40
Cluster Plan 2 3-Bedroom/2.5 Bath/Loft 1,990 SF 70
Cluster Plan 3 3-Bedroom/2.5 Bath/Loft 2,307 SF 37
Stub Drive Plan 1 3-Bedroom/2.5 Bath 1,710 SF 29
Stub Drive Plan 2 3-Bedroom/2.5 Bath/Loft 1,791 SF 52
Stub Drive Plan 3 3-Bedroom/2.5 Bath/Loft 1,927 SF 27
Total Units 255
The proposed residences would consist of a mixture of Spanish, Italian, and Craftsman style architecture with
stucco exteriors, tile roofs, decorative shutters, and decorative exterior light figures, as shown in Figures 3-
4a-f, Example Building Elevations.
The maximum height of proposed buildings, including the architectural projections and parapet walls, would
be 26 feet and three inches.
The Project has been designed to follow the natural topography of the Quarry parcel by terracing the
property from the highest elevation at the toe of slope on the east property boundary to the lowest elevation
at the existing Southridge Park and Live Oak Avenue to the West. The Project was designed to maximize
views with approximately 34 percent (86) of the homes having scenic views of the hills to the south or the
City to the southwest and west. Many of the homes that are not included in the 34 percent calculation above
would also have views of the Southridge Village Open Space hills and preserve to the east of the property.
Access and Parking
Access to the site would be provided via two 44-foot-wide driveways from Live Oak Road. Onsite streets
and drive aisles would provide residents and guest access to guest parking spaces and residential garages.
A 26-foot-wide fire access lane would be provided from Old Live Oak Avenue/Southridge Park Parking
Lot.
The Project would provide a total of 684 parking spaces. Each residence would have an attached two-car
garage with direct access to the unit, resulting in a total of 510 garage parking spaces. Additionally, 174
guest parking spaces, including 6 handicapped spaces, would be dispersed throughout the Project site.
Additionally, the Project would provide approximately 60 additional public parking spaces to the existing
Southridge Park parking lot and approximately 14 additional parking spaces in the new public park at the corner of Lone Oak and Village Drive. The site’s access and parking distribution is shown on Figure 3-5, Parking Plan.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
29
The Project would also realign the existing driveway on Live Oak with the existing commercial development across the road. The existing driveway would be moved approximately 100 feet southwest to line up with the driveway of the commercial development. Recreation, Open Space, and Land Swap The Project proposes approximately 20 acres of public and private open space, as shown in Figure 3-6, Conceptual Open Space Plan. The Project would include 9.88 acres (430,492 SF) of common open space including a main common area with a pool and spa, outdoor patio, clubhouse, cabanas, BBQ’s, shade structures, tot-lot, tricycle track, benches, and a lawn area. Additional open space areas include multiple private pocket parks, and a circuit
training loop. The Project also proposes 5.2 acres (226,512 SF) of private open space within patios and
private yards. Open space areas would be landscaped and paved. The private open space amenities are
shown in Figure 3-7, Central Recreation Area.
The Project includes a 1.74-acre public neighborhood park (Trailhead Park) with 14 parking spaces,
enhanced paving, trees for shade, trash receptacles, a shade structure, pickleball courts, and outdoor seating
for small social events and group gatherings, as shown in Figure 3-8, Trailhead Park. Additionally, community
trail access is provided through dedication of trails connecting Southridge Park and the new Neighborhood
Park to the Southridge Village Open Space Reserve. A natural trail would be provided around the eastern
and southwestern perimeter of the site, with connections throughout the open space areas, totaling
approximately 3.41-acres. Trailhead Park would provide public access to the natural trail.
The Applicant (NH Southridge LLC) has proposed a land exchange (see Figure 3-9, Land Swap Exhibit) with
the City of Fontana as part of the proposed Project that would include the transfer of the Bird Farm parcel
(Planning Area 56) (approximately 9.6 acres) from the City of Fontana to the Applicant to be developed
as part of the proposed residential development. In exchange, the Applicant would transfer of a portion
Planning Area 66A to the City of Fontana, along with a portion of the adjacent parcel (Planning Area 66B).
The portion of Planning Area 66A being transferred from the Applicant to the City of Fontana includes
approximately 3.4 acres of open space/trail dedication (Parcel 3 of Tentative Parcel Map 20565) and a
1.74-acre neighborhood park (Trailhead Park, Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 20565). The open
space/trail parcel (Parcel 3) would allow for legal public access from the City’s Southridge Community Park
to the Southridge Village Open Space Reserve for the first time since inception of the Specific Plan.
Additionally, the Applicant would build the proposed Trailhead Park (Parcel 2) and dedicate the Park to
the City of Fontana upon completion of all improvements.
A portion of the adjacent Planning Area 66B (approximately 5.46 acres) (Parcel 4 on Land Swap Summary
exhibit) would also be dedicated to the City of Fontana for additional open space/trail dedication that
would provide access from the newly proposed Neighborhood Park at the Corner of Live Oak and Village
Drive to the Southridge Village Open Space Reserve, which is currently not legally accessible to the public
from this location. In total, the exchange of property includes approximately 9.96 acres being transferred
from the City of Fontana to the Applicant and approximately 10.3 acres being transferred from the
Applicant to the City of Fontana.
Landscaping
The Project would install new drought tolerant ornamental landscaping throughout the Project site and enhanced landscape treatments along the site boundaries, which would include 36-inch and 24-inch box trees. In addition, a variety of 15-gallon trees and ornamental shrubs, vines, and groundcover would be installed throughout the Project site. Landscaping and park areas are shown in Figure 3-10, Conceptual Landscape Plan. Lighting
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
30
The Project would install new exterior lighting onsite for security, to accent landscaping, and to light signage, walkways, and parking areas. Walls and Fences The Project includes the installation of approximately 2,100 linear feet of flexible rockfall barriers along the base of the eastern side of the site, to stop or control potential rockfalls. The approximate location of the barriers is shown in Figure 3-11, Rockfall Barrier. The barriers would be anchored to the ground using rock or soil anchors and consist of steel posts and a flexible-net supported by wire rope. The barriers would be approximately 5 to 12 feet tall and would have energy ratings which vary between 100- Kilojoule (kJ) and 5,000-kJ.
The Project would also construct 6-feet-tall block walls along the rear property line of each unit and on the
side of corner lots. Additionally, the Project would include 6-feet-tall wrought iron view fencing along the
perimeter of the water quality basin and continuing adjacent to the natural trail along the perimeter of the
site. Finally, the Project would provide 6-feet-tall vinyl fencing along interior property lines to provide
separation and privacy. The location of block wall, view fencing and vinyl fencing are shown in Figure 3-12,
Wall and Fence Plan.
Infrastructure Improvements
The proposed Project would construct onsite infrastructure including new internal streets, and storm drain
improvements, wet and dry utilities, and related infrastructure improvements.
Sidewalk Improvements
The Project would utilize existing sidewalks along Live Oak Road and Village Drive and construct new
sidewalks throughout the Project site.
Water and Sewer Improvements
The Project would construct private domestic water and sewer lines onsite that would connect to an existing
16-inch water and an existing 21-inch sewer line in Live Oak Avenue.
Drainage Improvements
The Project would install an onsite drainage system to convey runoff to a proposed retention/infiltration
basin located near the Live Oak Avenue entrance and to an infiltration trench located in the northwestern
portion of the site. Multiple catch basins would be installed to collect stormwater. Stormwater flows would
be treated through proposed CDS units prior to discharge to the basin. Stormwater overflows would outlet
into an existing 42-inch storm drain pipe in Live Oak Avenue.
Off-Site Improvements
In addition to the on-site improvements discussed above, the proposed Project also includes off-site
improvements that would take place on portions of Planning Area 66C (APN 0237-411-15). Off-site earth
disturbing activities would include scaling and/or blasting on a portion of Planning Area 66C to remove
unstable and/or dangerous boulders from the adjacent quarry slope. Scaling is the process of
removing/prying loose rock from a rockface to prevent future rockfalls. Blasting would only be implemented
when particular rocks cannot be removed via scaling. Potential areas of off-site disturbance are shown in
Figure 3-13, Off-site Disturbance Area. During Project construction, the scaling technician would access
Planning Area 66C via existing trails that are highly disturbed. Additionally, portions of the rockfall barrier
would be constructed within portions of Planning Area 66C as shown in Figure 3-12, Rockfall Barrier.
Construction and Phasing
Construction activities for the Project would occur over one phase and would include site preparation,
grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings, as shown in Table 3-2. Project construction
may also perform blasting and rock crushing during the grading phase to reduce the amount of import
material required. Construction is expected to occur over four years and would generally occur between
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
31
7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday to Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays, in accordance with Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63. Site preparation and grading activities are anticipated to occur over a period of approximately five months beginning in late 2023. Table 3-2: Construction Schedule
Activity Total Working Days
Site Preparation 30
Grading 75
Building Construction 740
Paving 55
Architectural Coating 55
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments
The Project site has a General Plan designation of Open Space (OS) and Recreational Facilities (P-R). The Project is located within the Southridge Village Specific Plan (SVSP) and is within Planning Areas 56, 66A and 66C. The site is designated by the SVSP as Bird Farm (BF) and Quarry (Q). The SVSP designates Planning Area 56 as Bird Farm (BF) and Planning Areas 66A and 66C as Quarry (Q). Planning Area 66A includes an approved residential overlay allowing for development of up to 92 residential units. General Plan Amendment The current General Plan Map designates Planning Area 56 as Recreation Facilities (P-R). SVSP Amendment No. 10 designated Planning Area 56 as BF, however, this change to the SVSP Land Use Map was never inadvertently made on the City’s land use map. Additionally, the statistical summary from SVSP Amendment No. 18 shows Planning Area 56 as CP again, although no prior amendment or action by the city appears to have changed the land use from BF back to CP. Nevertheless, the Project proposes to change the SVSP
designation from BF to Entry Estates. As such, the Project also proposes to change the General Plan land use
designation from P-R to R-M.
Additionally, throughout the various previous amendments made to the SVSP, multiple General Plan land use
changes were initiated and approved. However, some of these changes were inadvertently not carried
forward and are currently not reflected in the General Plan land use map. In order to clean up inconsistencies
between the SVSP land use designations and the General Plan land use map, the following General Plan
map clean up items are proposed for previously approved projects:
• Planning Area 66A: SVSP Amendment No. 15 designated Planning Area 66A as Quarry (Q) with a
Residential Overlay, however, this change was inadvertently not made on the currently adopted
General Plan Map. The current General Plan Map lists Planning Area 66A as OS. Therefore, the
Project proposes to change the designation of Planning Area 66A to Medium Residential (R-M).
• Planning Area 52: The current General Plan Map designates Planning Area 52 as General
Commercial (C-G). However, this parcel is planned for Fontana Fire Station #74. As such, the
proposed Project would change the current designation from C-G to Public Facilities (P-PF).
• Planning Area 66B: SVSP Amendment No. 15 designates Planning Area 66B as Mini Storage. The
current General Plan Map designates this parcel as OS. As such, the Project proposes to change the
General Plan designation from OS to C-G.
• Planning Area 71: The SVSP designated this parcel as Single Family Residential (SFR). The current
General Plan Map designates this parcel as OS. As such, the Project proposes to change the General
Plan designation from OS to Residential Planned Community (R-PC).
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
32
The above amendments are limited to General Plan map clean up items and do not include any proposed development or entitlement. As with any project within the City, any future development on those parcels would require additional, separate environmental review. Specific Plan Amendment A Specific Plan Amendment (SVSP Amendment No. 19) is proposed to change Planning Area 56 from Bird Farm (BF) and Planning Area 66A from Quarry (Q) to Entry Estates/Duplex, which is a Medium Density Residential land use category with a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. The Project proposes 7.9 dwelling units to the acre. According to the SVSP, the Entry Estates/Duplex zoning designation is intended for the development of detached or attached single-family units permitting one or more dwellings on any
one lot. Residential developments, except detached single-family dwellings, are subject to Design Review.
The Specific Plan Amendment also includes proposed text changes to SVSP Section 4.4.2 – Medium Density
Residential development standards. The proposed text changes include changing the minimum building site
area per unit from 3,500 SF at 8 units per acre to 2,000 SF and from 2,500 SF at 12 units per acre to
2,000 SF; reducing the allowed horizontal distance between principal structures from 10 feet to 8 feet; and
reducing the building setback from a private street or drive from 5 feet to 2 feet.
Section 5.11 of the SVSP discusses the procedures to amend the SVSP and notes that any change in land
use, including a transfer of dwelling units from one area of the plan to another area, requires an amendment
to the Specific Plan, which requires amending the Statistical Summary (SVSP Section 5.11) and Land Use
Map (SVSP Section 5.4) and requires approval from both the Planning Commission and City Council.
Discretionary Approvals, Permits, and Studies
The following discretionary approvals and permits are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of
the proposed Project:
City of Fontana
• Adoption of this Addendum;
• General Plan Amendment No. 22-008 to change the designation of the site from Recreational
Facilities (P-R) and Open Space (OS) to Medium Residential (R-M);
• Specific Plan Amendment No. 22-004 to change the SVSP designation from Bird Farm (BF) and
Quarry (Q) with residential overlay to Entry Estates/Duplex (Medium Density Residential), as well
as related text changes and an update to the statistical table;
• Tentative Parcel Map 20565 to divide two parcels into three for the Project Area, Neighborhood Park, and public trail;
• Tentative Tract Map No. 20568 to divide one lot into two for the proposed 255 dwelling units and
water quality basin;
• A Design Review for development of the 255 residential units with associated common areas, a
public park and public trails;
• A Tree Removal Permit to remove ornamental trees in compliance with Fontana Municipal Code
Section 28-64
• Approvals and permits necessary to execute the proposed Project, including but not limited to,
grading permit, building permits, etc.
Conceptual Site Plan
Figure 3-1Southridge
City of Fontana
337.322 Acres
32.177 Acres1.744 Acres3.411 Acres
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
34
This page intentionally left blank.
Southridge
City of Fontana
Figure 3-2 SOUTHRIDGE VILLAGEFONTANA, CA
PREPARED BY:UNITED CIVIL, INC.30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 215AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301PH: (818) 707-8648FAX: (818) 707-8649
NH SOUTHRIDGE LLC
DEVELOPER/APPLICANT:REVISION BLOCK
500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 570
TEL: (949) 344-2705NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92600
CONTACT: BRYAN AVILLA
CITY OF FONTANATENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20565
0 50 100 200
Site
JURUPA AVE
SANTA ANAAVE
VALLEY BLVD
SAN BERNARDINOFWY
SLOVER AVE
MU
L
L
B
E
R
R
Y
AV
E
CH
E
R
R
Y
A
V
E
LIV
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
HE
M
L
O
C
K
AV
E
BEE
C
H
A
V
E
CIT
R
U
S
A
V
E
CITRU
S
A
V
E
MUL
L
B
E
R
R
Y
AVE
SLOVER AVE
CHERRY AVE
VILLAGEDR
Tentative Parcel Map
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
36
This page intentionally left blank.
Southridge
City of Fontana
Figure 3-3
CITY OF FONTANA
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20568
0 50 100 200
Site
JURUPA AVE
SANTA ANAAVE
VALLEY BLVD
SAN BERNARDINOFWY
SLOVER AVE
MUL
L
B
E
R
R
Y
AVE
CH
E
R
R
Y
A
V
E
LIV
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
HE
M
L
O
C
K
AV
E
BEE
C
H
A
V
E
CIT
R
U
S
A
V
E
CITRU
S
A
V
E
MUL
L
B
E
R
R
Y
AVE
SLOVER AVE
CHERRY AVE
VILLAGEDR
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
SOUTHRIDGE VILLAGEFONTANA, CA
PREPARED BY:UNITED CIVIL, INC.30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 215AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301PH: (818) 707-8648FAX: (818) 707-8649
NH SOUTHRIDGE LLC
DEVELOPER/APPLICANT:REVISION BLOCK
500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 570
TEL: (949) 344-2705NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92600
CONTACT: BRYAN AVILLA
Tract Map
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
38
This page intentionally left blank.
So
u
t
h
r
i
d
g
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
F
o
n
t
a
n
a
Fi
g
u
r
e
3-
4
A
Cl
u
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
T.O
.
P
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
9'-1"8'-1"
9'-1"8'-1"
F.F
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
6'-8"
3'-0"
26'-3"
TO
P
O
F
T
I
L
E
F.G
.
1'-0"
1'-6"
1'-6"
8'-0"
8'-6"
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
T.O
.
P
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
9'-1"8'-1"
9'-1"8'-1"
F.F
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
6'-8"
26'-3"
TO
P
O
F
T
I
L
E
F.G
.
1'-6"
8'-0"
8'-0"
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
T.O
.
P
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
9'-1"8'-1"
9'-1"8'-1"
F.F
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
6'-8"
7'-0"
1'-0"HEEL3'-0"
6'-8"
6'-8"
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
T.O
.
P
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
9'-1"8'-1"
9'-1"8'-1"
F.F
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
3'-
0
"
6'-8"8'-0"
1'-6"
|
2
0
2
2
0
6
8
|
0
6
-
0
2
-
2
2
C
2
0
2
2
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
H
E
Z
M
A
L
H
A
L
C
H
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
d
b
a
W
H
A
.
SO
U
T
H
R
I
D
G
E
-
C
L
U
S
T
E
R
S
FO
N
T
A
N
A
,
C
A
0
2
4
8
DE
S
I
G
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
PL
A
N
1
A
|
S
P
A
N
I
S
H
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Fr
o
n
t
Re
a
r
Le
f
t
Ri
g
h
t
1.
3
EN
H
A
N
C
E
D
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
O
C
C
U
R
O
N
L
Y
A
T
LO
T
S
,
2
2
,
3
1
,
4
6
,
7
9
EN
H
A
N
C
E
D
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
O
C
C
U
R
O
N
L
Y
A
T
LO
T
7
9
10
-
0
7
-
2
2
NO
T
E
:
A
r
t
i
s
t
’
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
,
c
o
l
o
r
s
,
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
v
a
r
y
.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
40
This page intentionally left blank.
So
u
t
h
r
i
d
g
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
F
o
n
t
a
n
a
Fi
g
u
r
e
3-
4
B
Cl
u
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
2
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
T.O
.
P
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
9'-1"8'-1"
9'-1"8'-1"
F.F
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
6'-8"
3'-0"
26'-3"
TO
P
O
F
T
I
L
E
F.G
.
1'-0"
1'-6"
1'-6"
8'-0"
8'-6"
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
T.O
.
P
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
9'-1"8'-1"
9'-1"8'-1"
F.F
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
6'-8"
26'-3"
TO
P
O
F
T
I
L
E
F.G
.
1'-6"
8'-0"
8'-0"
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
T.O
.
P
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
9'-1"8'-1"
9'-1"8'-1"
F.F
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
6'-8"
7'-0"
1'-0"HEEL3'-0"
6'-8"
6'-8"
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
T.O
.
P
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
9'-1"8'-1"
9'-1"8'-1"
F.F
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
3'-
0
"
6'-8"8'-0"
1'-6"
|
2
0
2
2
0
6
8
|
0
6
-
0
2
-
2
2
C
2
0
2
2
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
H
E
Z
M
A
L
H
A
L
C
H
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
d
b
a
W
H
A
.
SO
U
T
H
R
I
D
G
E
-
C
L
U
S
T
E
R
S
FO
N
T
A
N
A
,
C
A
0
2
4
8
DE
S
I
G
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
PL
A
N
1
A
|
S
P
A
N
I
S
H
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Fr
o
n
t
Re
a
r
Le
f
t
Ri
g
h
t
1.
3
EN
H
A
N
C
E
D
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
O
C
C
U
R
O
N
L
Y
A
T
LO
T
S
,
2
2
,
3
1
,
4
6
,
7
9
EN
H
A
N
C
E
D
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
O
C
C
U
R
O
N
L
Y
A
T
LO
T
7
9
10
-
0
7
-
2
2
NO
T
E
:
A
r
t
i
s
t
’
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
,
c
o
l
o
r
s
,
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
v
a
r
y
.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
42
This page intentionally left blank.
So
u
t
h
r
i
d
g
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
F
o
n
t
a
n
a
Fi
g
u
r
e
3-
4
C
Cl
u
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
3
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
T.O
.
P
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
9'-1"8'-1"
9'-1"8'-1"
F.F
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
6'-8"
3'-0"
26'-3"
TO
P
O
F
T
I
L
E
F.G
.
1'-0"
1'-6"
1'-6"
8'-0"
8'-6"
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
T.O
.
P
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
9'-1"8'-1"
9'-1"8'-1"
F.F
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
6'-8"
26'-3"
TO
P
O
F
T
I
L
E
F.G
.
1'-6"
8'-0"
8'-0"
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
T.O
.
P
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
9'-1"8'-1"
9'-1"8'-1"
F.F
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
6'-8"
7'-0"
1'-0"HEEL3'-0"
6'-8"
6'-8"
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
T.O
.
P
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
9'-1"8'-1"
9'-1"8'-1"
F.F
.
T.O
.
P
.
F.F
.
/
T
.
O
.
C
.
3'-
0
"
6'-8"8'-0"
1'-6"
|
2
0
2
2
0
6
8
|
0
6
-
0
2
-
2
2
C
2
0
2
2
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
H
E
Z
M
A
L
H
A
L
C
H
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
d
b
a
W
H
A
.
SO
U
T
H
R
I
D
G
E
-
C
L
U
S
T
E
R
S
FO
N
T
A
N
A
,
C
A
0
2
4
8
DE
S
I
G
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
PL
A
N
1
A
|
S
P
A
N
I
S
H
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Fr
o
n
t
Re
a
r
Le
f
t
Ri
g
h
t
1.
3
EN
H
A
N
C
E
D
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
O
C
C
U
R
O
N
L
Y
A
T
LO
T
S
,
2
2
,
3
1
,
4
6
,
7
9
EN
H
A
N
C
E
D
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
O
C
C
U
R
O
N
L
Y
A
T
LO
T
7
9
10
-
0
7
-
2
2
NO
T
E
:
A
r
t
i
s
t
’
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
,
c
o
l
o
r
s
,
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
v
a
r
y
.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
44
This page intentionally left blank.
So
u
t
h
r
i
d
g
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
F
o
n
t
a
n
a
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
-
4
D
St
u
b
D
r
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
10
-
0
6
-
2
2
NO
T
E
:
A
r
t
i
s
t
’
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
,
c
o
l
o
r
s
,
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
v
a
r
y
.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
46
This page intentionally left blank.
So
u
t
h
r
i
d
g
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
F
o
n
t
a
n
a
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
-
4
E
St
u
b
D
r
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
2
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
10
-
0
6
-
2
2
NO
T
E
:
A
r
t
i
s
t
’
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
,
c
o
l
o
r
s
,
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
v
a
r
y
.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
48
This page intentionally left blank.
So
u
t
h
r
i
d
g
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
F
o
n
t
a
n
a
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
-
4
F
St
u
b
D
r
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
3
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
10
-
0
6
-
2
2
NO
T
E
:
A
r
t
i
s
t
’
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
,
c
o
l
o
r
s
,
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
v
a
r
y
.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
50
This page intentionally left blank.
Parking Plan
Figure 3-5Southridge
City of Fontana
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
52
This page intentionally left blank.
Conceptual Open Space Plan
Figure 3-6Southridge
City of Fontana
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
54
This page intentionally left blank.
Central Recreation Area
Figure 3-7Southridge
City of Fontana
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
56
This page intentionally left blank.
Trailhead Park
Figure 3-8Southridge
City of Fontana
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
58
This page intentionally left blank.
Southridge
City of Fontana
Figure 3-9
“BIRD FARM” PARCEL 9.96 Acres
N.H. REMAINDER
PARCEL B7.7 Acres
PARCEL 3OPEN SPACE/TRAIL DEDICATION
3.47 Acres
PARCEL 2 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
1.36 Acres
PARCEL 4OPEN SPACE/TRAIL DEDICATION
5.46 Acres
LAND SWAP SUMMARY
Gross Total Acreage50.49 Gross Acres
N.H. REMAINDER
PARCEL A22.54 Acres
City Transfer to N.H.9.96 Acre “Bird Farm” Parcel
9.96 Acres Total
N.H. Transfer to City1.36 Acre Neighborhood Park (Parcel 2)3.47 Acre Open Space/Trail Dedication (Parcel 3)5.46 Acre Open Space/Trail Dedication (Parcel 4)
10.3 Acres Total
N.H. Remainder Parcels
22.54 Acre Remainder (Parcel A)7.70 Acre Remainder (Parcel B)
30.24 Acres Total
Land Swap Breakdown
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
60
This page intentionally left blank.
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Figure 3-10Southridge
City of Fontana
20.1'
44.0'
18.0'
22.4'
42.0'
18.0'
18.0'
62.0'
34.0'
34.0'
18.0'
18.0'
EV
44.0'
R32.0'
26.1'
12.0'
26.0'
20.0'
22.0'
26.0'
R32.0'
26.0'
T
SDS
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
E
E
20.1'
44.0'
18.0'
22.4'
42.0'
18.0'
18.0'
62.0'
34.0'
34.0'
18.0'
18.0'
EV
44.0'
R32.0'
26.1'
12.0'
26.0'
20.0'
22.0'
26.0'
R32.0'
26.0'
5%
(SHRUB & GROUNDCOVERPLANTS NOT
SPECIFIED)
QUANTITIESWILL BE FINALIZED DURING FINALCONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTSPHASE.
NOTE:
PLANT NAME SIZE QTY WUCOLSTREESGinkgo bilobaMaidenhair Tree 36" BOX 11 L
Pistacia x 'Red Push'Red Push Pistache 24" BOX 112 M
Platanus racemosaCalifornia Sycamore 36" BOX 57 M
Lophostomon confertaBrisbane box 24" BOX 26 M
Quercus agrifoliaCoast Live Oak 36" BOX 47 L
Cercis occidentalisWestern Redbud 15 GAL 75 L
Podocarpus macrophyllusFern pine 15 GAL 30 M
Gleditsia triacanthos 'Sunburst'Sunburst Locust 24" BOX 174 L
SHRUBSRhus integrifoliaLemonade Berry 15 GAL -L
Heteromeles arbutifoliaToyon 15 GAL -L
Salvia g. 'Furman's Red'Furman's Red Autumn Sage 5 GAL -L
Elaeagnus pungensThorney Olive or Silveberry 15 GAL -L
Rhamnus californicaCoffeeberry 15 GAL -L
Lauris nobilisBay Tree 15 GAL -L
Rhus ovataSugar bush 15 GAL -M
Agave attenuataFoxtail Agave 5 GAL -L
Bougainvillea 'La Jolla'La Jolla Bougainvillea 5 GAL -L
Lantana montevidensisTrailing Purple Lantana 5 GAL -L
Aloe arborescensTree Aloe 5 GAL -L
Lavandula sppLavender 1 GAL -L
Agave 'Blue Glow'Blue Glow Agave 5 GAL -L
Phlomis fruticoseJerusalem sage 5 GAL -L
Distictis buccinatoriaScarlet Trumpet Vine 15 GAL -L
Macfadyena unguis-catiCat's Claw Vine 15 GAL -L
Ficus pumilaCreeping Fig 15 GAL -M
GROUNDCOVERSBaccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point'Dwarf Coyote Brush 1 GAL6' O.C.-L
Lantana ‘New Gold’New Gold Lantana 1 GAL36" O.C.-L
Trachleospermum jasminoidesStar Jasmine 1 GAL48" O.C.-M
Teucrium x lucidrysDwarf Germander 1 GAL36" O.C.-M
PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE
Landscaped areas to follow the City of Fontana guidelines.HOA Maintained (321,336 S.F.)
Private Landscaped areas to follow the City of Fontana guidelines.HOA Maintained (95,274 S.F.)
Turf HOA Maintained
Gravel at bottom of WQMP BasinCity Maintained
(15,867 S.F.)
Decomposed GraniteCity Maintained(5,584 S.F.)
Turf City Maintained(4,333 S.F.)
Landscaped areas to follow the City of Fontana guidelines.City Maintained (64,641 S.F.)
(21,557 S.F.)
ON-SITE LANDSCAPE AREAS CITY LANDSCAPE AREAS
(E) Natural Trail and SlopeCity Maintained(172,538 S.F.)
Email: fausto@landarq.comPhone: 909-259-9428Ontario, CA 917614345 E. Lowell St. Ste MLandArq, Inc.THE HEIGHTS AT SOUTHRIDGE- CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
Date: 03/20/2023
120'60'0'30'
SCALE: 1"=60'-0"N
Landscape Architect #4175Fausto A. Reyes
HOA MAINTAINED
WATER QUALITY BASINCITY/ CFD MAINTAINED
NATURALTRAIL W/VIEW FENCE
CITY/CFDMAINTAINED
H.O.A. MAINTAINED
MAIN ENTRY
SECONDARYENTRANCE
PUBLIC PARK-PICKLEBALL COURTS (3)W/ COVERS & BLEACHERS.
MAIN COMMONAREA W/ POOLAND AMENITIES
5-12 YEARS TOT LOT W/SHADE STRUCTURES &BIKE RACKS
2-5 YEARSTOT LOT
SLOPE PLANTING
EMERGENCYVEHICULARACCESS
-EXERCISE STATIONS.-CONNECTIVITY FORRESIDENTS TO ACCESS TRAIL.-MAINTENANCE ACCESS ROAD/VEHICULAR TURNAROUD.
NATURAL TRAIL CONNECTIONTHROUGHOUT THE PARK TOVILLAGE DR.
SLOPE PLANTING
SLOPEPLANTING
PARK PARKINGAREA
-PARKS W/ SHADE STRUCTURES-CIRCUIT WORKOUT STATIONS
LIV
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
N
U
E
VILLAGE D
R
I
V
E
LIVE
O
A
K
A
V
E
N
U
E
SO
U
T
H
R
I
D
G
E
P
A
R
K
(N
.
A
.
P
.
)
PARKS W/ SHADESTRUCTURES W/ TABLES
UNDERGROUNDWQMP BASIN
Live Oak Ave, Fontana, CA
SITE PLAN
Page 1 OF 7
PRECISION BLOCK WALL
TUBULAR STEEL FENCE/ VIEW FENCE
VINYL FENCE
PILASTERS
VEHICULAR GATE
PEDESTRIAN GATE
ROCK BARRIER
WALL/ FENCE LEGEND
A
B
C
D
E
F
GNATURAL TRAIL W/VIEW FENCE
SLOPE PLANTING
NATURAL TRAILCONNECTIVITY
CITY/CFD MAINTAINED
SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL (1-SIDED)
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
62
This page intentionally left blank.
Southridge
City of Fontana
Figure 3-11
Rockfall Barrier
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
64
This page intentionally left blank.
Wall and Fence Plan
Figure 3-12
20.1'
44.0'
18.0'
22.4'
42.0'
18.0'
18.0'
62.0'
34.0'
34.0'
18.0'
18.0'
EV
44.0'
R32.0'
26.1'
12.0'
26.0'
20.0'
22.0'
26.0'
R32.0'
26.0'
E
C
D
B
A
T
SD
S
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
E
E
20.1'
44.0'
18.0'
22.4'
42.0'
18.0'
18.0'
62.0'
34.0'
34.0'
18.0'
18.0'
EV
44.0'
R32.0'
26.1'
12.0'
26.0'
20.0'
22.0'
26.0'
R32.0'
26.0'5%
2
VINYLFENCEPILASTER
TUBULARSTEEL FENCE/VIEW FENCE
V- DITCH REFERTO CIVIL PLANSIDEWALK
2:1 SLOPE
229 230 231 232
RECONSTRUCT EX.PARKING LOT
EX. GROUND
4' HIGH MAX. RET. WALLREFER TO CIVIL PLAN
2:1 SLOPE
V- DITCHREFER TOCIVIL PLAN
GUTTER
SOUTHRIDGEPARK
OLDLIVE OAK AVE.
BLOCK WALL VINYL FENCE
SIDEWALK
BLOCKWALLVINYLFENCE
41 46 47
6' MAX. RET. WALLREFER TO CIVIL PLAN
2:1 SLOPE
BLOCKWALL
VINYL FENCE
6' MAX. RET. WALLREFER TO CIVIL PLAN
2:1 SLOPE
BLOCKWALL
VINYL FENCE
V- DITCH REFER TOCIVIL PLANV- DITCH REFER TOCIVIL PLAN
187 188
3' WIDE V- DITCHREFER TO CIVIL PLANEX. GROUND
2:1 SLOPEBLOCK WALLVINYL FENCE VINYLFENCE
100
5612" V- GUTTERREFER TO CIVILPLAN
TUBULAR STEELFENCE/ VIEW FENCE
VINYL FENCE
2:1SLOPE
6' MAX. RET. WALL.REFER TO CIVIL PLAN
LIVE OAK AVE.
SECTION A-AN.T.S.
SECTION B-BN.T.S.
SECTION C-CN.T.S.
SECTION D-DN.T.S.
SECTION E-EN.T.S.
Email: fausto@landarq.comPhone: 909-259-9428Ontario, CA 917614345 E. Lowell St. Ste ML andA rq, Inc.THE HEIGHTS AT SOUTHRIDGE- CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
Date: 03/20/2023
120'60'0'30'
SCALE: 1"=60'-0"N
Landscape Architect #4175Fausto A. Reyes
LIV
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
N
U
E
VILLAGE D
R
I
V
E
LIVE
O
A
K
A
V
E
N
U
E
SO
U
T
H
R
I
D
G
E
P
A
R
K
(N
.
A
.
P
.
)
Live Oak Ave, Fontana, CA
SITE PLAN
Page 7 OF 7
PRECISION BLOCK WALL
TUBULAR STEEL FENCE/ VIEW FENCE
VINYL FENCE
PILASTERS
VEHICULAR GATE
PEDESTRIAN GATE
ROCK BARRIER
WALL/ FENCE LEGEND
SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL (1-SIDED)
HOA MAINTAINED
WATER QUALITY BASINCITY/ CFD MAINTAINED
NATURALTRAIL W/VIEW FENCE
CITY/CFDMAINTAINED
H.O.A. MAINTAINED
MAIN ENTRY
SECONDARYENTRANCE
PUBLIC PARK-PICKLEBALL COURTS (3)W/ COVERS & BLEACHERS.
MAIN COMMONAREA W/ POOLAND AMENITIES
5-12 YEARS TOT LOT W/SHADE STRUCTURES &BIKE RACKS
2-5 YEARSTOT LOT
SLOPE PLANTING
EMERGENCYVEHICULARACCESS
-EXERCISE STATIONS.-CONNECTIVITY FORRESIDENTS TO ACCESS TRAIL.-MAINTENANCE ACCESS ROAD/VEHICULAR TURNAROUD.
NATURAL TRAIL CONNECTIONTHROUGHOUT THE PARK TOVILLAGE DR.
SLOPE PLANTING
SLOPEPLANTING
PARK PARKINGAREA
-PARKS W/ SHADE STRUCTURES-CIRCUIT WORKOUT STATIONS
PARKS W/ SHADESTRUCTURES W/ TABLES
UNDERGROUNDWQMP BASIN
NATURAL TRAIL W/VIEW FENCE
SLOPE PLANTING
NATURAL TRAILCONNECTIVITY
CITY/CFD MAINTAINED
20.1'
44.0'
18.0'
22.4'
42.0'
18.0'
18.0'
62.0'
34.0'
34.0'
18.0'
18.0'
EV
44.0'
R32.0'
26.1'
12.0'
26.0'
20.0'
22.0'
26.0'
R32.0'
26.0'
E
C
D
B
A
T
SD
S
D
S
D
D
D
D
D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
E
E
20.1'
44.0'
18.0'
22.4'
42.0'
18.0'
18.0'
62.0'
34.0'
34.0'
18.0'
18.0'
EV
44.0'
R32.0'
26.1'
12.0'
26.0'
20.0'
22.0'
26.0'
R32.0'
26.0'
5%
2
VINYLFENCE
PILASTER
TUBULARSTEEL FENCE/VIEW FENCE
V- DITCH REFERTO CIVIL PLANSIDEWALK
2:1 SLOPE
229 230 231 232
RECONSTRUCT EX.PARKING LOT
EX. GROUND
4' HIGH MAX. RET. WALLREFER TO CIVIL PLAN
2:1 SLOPE
V- DITCHREFER TOCIVIL PLAN
GUTTER
SOUTHRIDGEPARK
OLDLIVE OAK AVE.
BLOCK WALL VINYL FENCE
SIDEWALK
BLOCKWALLVINYLFENCE
41 46 47
6' MAX. RET. WALLREFER TO CIVIL PLAN
2:1 SLOPE
BLOCKWALL
VINYL FENCE
6' MAX. RET. WALLREFER TO CIVIL PLAN
2:1 SLOPE
BLOCKWALL
VINYL FENCE
V- DITCH REFER TOCIVIL PLANV- DITCH REFER TOCIVIL PLAN
187 188
3' WIDE V- DITCHREFER TO CIVIL PLANEX. GROUND
2:1 SLOPEBLOCK WALLVINYL FENCE
VINYLFENCE
100
5612" V- GUTTERREFER TO CIVILPLAN
TUBULAR STEELFENCE/ VIEW FENCE
VINYL FENCE
2:1SLOPE
6' MAX. RET. WALL.REFER TO CIVIL PLAN
LIVE OAK AVE.
SECTION A-AN.T.S.
SECTION B-BN.T.S.
SECTION C-CN.T.S.
SECTION D-DN.T.S.
SECTION E-EN.T.S.
Email: fausto@landarq.comPhone: 909-259-9428Ontario, CA 917614345 E. Lowell St. Ste M
L andA rq, Inc.THE HEIGHTS AT SOUTHRIDGE- CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
Date: 03/20/2023
120'60'0'30'
SCALE: 1"=60'-0"
N
Landscape Architect #4175Fausto A. Reyes
LIV
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
N
U
E
VILLAGE
D
R
I
V
E
LIVE
O
A
K
A
V
E
N
U
E
SO
U
T
H
R
I
D
G
E
P
A
R
K
(N
.
A
.
P
.
)
Live Oak Ave, Fontana, CA
SITE PLAN
Page 7 OF 7
PRECISION BLOCK WALL
TUBULAR STEEL FENCE/ VIEW FENCE
VINYL FENCE
PILASTERS
VEHICULAR GATE
PEDESTRIAN GATE
ROCK BARRIER
WALL/ FENCE LEGEND
SPLIT FACE BLOCK WALL (1-SIDED)
HOA MAINTAINED
WATER QUALITY BASIN
CITY/ CFD MAINTAINED
NATURALTRAIL W/VIEW FENCE
CITY/CFDMAINTAINED
H.O.A. MAINTAINED
MAIN ENTRY
SECONDARYENTRANCE
PUBLIC PARK-PICKLEBALL COURTS (3)W/ COVERS & BLEACHERS.
MAIN COMMONAREA W/ POOLAND AMENITIES
5-12 YEARS TOT LOT W/SHADE STRUCTURES &
BIKE RACKS
2-5 YEARSTOT LOT
SLOPE PLANTING
EMERGENCYVEHICULARACCESS
-EXERCISE STATIONS.-CONNECTIVITY FORRESIDENTS TO ACCESS TRAIL.-MAINTENANCE ACCESS ROAD/VEHICULAR TURNAROUD.
NATURAL TRAIL CONNECTIONTHROUGHOUT THE PARK TOVILLAGE DR.
SLOPE PLANTING
SLOPE
PLANTING
PARK PARKINGAREA
-PARKS W/ SHADE STRUCTURES-CIRCUIT WORKOUT STATIONS
PARKS W/ SHADESTRUCTURES W/ TABLES
UNDERGROUNDWQMP BASIN
NATURAL TRAIL W/VIEW FENCE
SLOPE PLANTING
NATURAL TRAILCONNECTIVITY
CITY/CFD MAINTAINED
Southridge
City of Fontana
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
66
This page intentionally left blank.
Off-site Disturbance Area
Figure 3-13Southridge
City of Fontana
Project site
Area of potential off-site disturbance
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
68
This page intentionally left blank.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
69
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
4.1 BACKGROUND
Date: April 2023
Project Title:
The Heights at Southridge Project
Lead Agency:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Project Location:
The 37.32-acre Project site is located southeast of the intersection of Live Oak Avenue and Village Drive,
in the southern portion of the City of Fontana. The Project site is comprised of two parcels (APNs: 0237-
411-13 and -14), as well as off-site improvements on APN 0237-411-15.
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
NH Southridge LLC
500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Land Use and Zoning Designation:
The Project site has a General Plan designation of Open Space (OS) and Recreational Facilities (P-R).
The Project is located within the Southridge Village Specific Plan (SVSP) and is currently designated by
the SVSP as Bird Farm (BF) and Quarry (Q) with Residential Overlay.
Project Description: The Project proposes to develop the 37.32-acre site with 255 single-family residences along with parking, landscape, and common use amenities, a public park, and public trails. A more detailed description of
the proposed Project is provided in Section 3, Project Description.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The Project site is within a suburban environment, mostly consisting of residential uses.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
None
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
70
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The Project has been reviewed and no new or more severe impacts were identified. None of the subject
areas below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified
effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances
or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following
pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forest
Resources ☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
4.3 DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation
☐ No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects. Also, there is no “new information of substantial importance” as that term is used in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND or MND or previously
certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project without modification.
☒ The Checklist/Addendum concludes that none of the conditions or circumstances that would require
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exists in connection with the design of the Project. No substantial changes have been proposed to the project described in the Final EIR that require major revisions to Final EIR. No new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental effects would occur. The Checklist/Addendum also indicates that there have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the project site, including the project, would be undertaken that would require major revisions to the Final EIR. The Checklist/Addendum concludes
that no substantial changes with respect to circumstances under which the project is undertaken
have occurred that have not already been accounted for. The Checklist/Addendum also concludes that no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the Final EIR was certified, shows that the project would cause or substantially worsen significant environmental impacts discussed in the Final EIR, that mitigation
measures or alternatives found infeasible in the Final EIR would in fact be feasible, or that
different mitigation measures or alternatives from those analyzed in the Final EIR would
substantially reduce one or more significant environmental effects found in the Final EIR.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
71
☐ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
previous ND, MND or EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is “new
information of substantial importance,” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section
15162(a)(3). However, all new potentially significant environmental effects or substantial
increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects are clearly reduced to below
a level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project
applicant. Therefore, a Subsequent MND is required.
☐ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is “new information of substantial importance,” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, only minor changes or additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project in the changed situation. Therefore, a Supplemental EIR is required.
☐ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3) such as one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. Therefore,
a SUBSEQUENT EIR is required.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Signature Date
___________________________________________________________________________________
Printed Name For
4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The evaluation of environmental impacts in this addendum summarizes conclusions made in the SVSP Final
EIR and focused EIR for Amendment No. 15 and compares them to the impacts of the proposed Heights at
Southridge Project. Mitigation measures referenced are from the Mitigation Monitoring Final adopted as
part of the SVSP Final EIR and focused EIR for Amendment No. 15 and are described as either being
previously implemented, applicable to the proposed Project, or not applicable.
This comparative analysis has been undertaken pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines, to provide the factual basis for determining whether the proposed Project, or any new
information that has come to light that permits or requires the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental
EIR.
The analysis herein follows the outline and format, and applies the impact thresholds of, the SVSP Final EIR,
as required by CEQA. (Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788.)
As discussed previously in Section 1.2 Environmental Procedures, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162, when an EIR has been previously certified that includes the scope of development of a site or area,
no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that
one or more of the following three conditions are met: 1) the project would result in new or substantially
more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR; 2) changes in the circumstances surrounding the
project result in new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR; or 3) new
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
72
information has come to light showing that new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in
the previous EIR will occur.
Terminology Used in the Checklist
For each question listed in the Environmental Checklist, a determination of the level of significance of the
impact is provided. Impacts are categorized in the following categories:
Substantial Change in Project or Circumstances Resulting in New Significant Effects. A Subsequent
EIR is required when 1) substantial project changes are proposed or substantial changes to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken have occurred, and 2) those changes result in new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects.2
New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than Previous EIR. A Subsequent EIR is required
if new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with
the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified, shows 1) the project will have one
or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; or 2) significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the EIR.3
New Information Identifying New Mitigation or Alternative to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined.
A Subsequent EIR is required if new information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified shows 1) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible (or new mitigation measures or alternatives are considerably different) and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.4
With regard to the foregoing three categories, a Supplement to an EIR can be prepared if the criterion for a Subsequent EIR is met, and only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the EIR
adequately apply to the proposed Project.5
Minor Technical Changes or Additions. An Addendum to the EIR is required if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary and none of the criteria for a subsequent EIR is met.6
No Impact. A designation of no impact is given when the proposed Project would have no changes in
the environment as compared to the original project analyzed in the EIR.
2 CEQA Guidelines. California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, § 15162, as amended.
3 CEQA Guidelines. § 15162.
4 CEQA Guidelines. § 15162.
5 CEQA Guidelines. § 15163.
6 CEQA Guidelines. § 15164.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
73
5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. The section briefly
summarizes the conclusions of the SVSP Final EIR, and then discusses whether or not the proposed Project is
consistent with the findings contained in the SVSP Final EIR, or if further analysis is required in a supplemental
or subsequent EIR. Mitigation measures referenced herein are from the SVSP Final EIR.
5.1 AESTHETICS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial Change in Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in New Significant Effects
New Information Showing
Greater
Significant Effects than Previous EIR
New Information Identifying
New
Mitigation or Alternative to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor Technical Changes
or
Additions
No New Impact/
No
Impact
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) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of
the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR did not analyze impacts related to aesthetics. The SVSP Final EIR determined that
development of the SVSP area would lead to visual alteration of 2,560 acres of undeveloped land, rural
residential uses, quarry uses, and passive open space into a variety of urbanized uses.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Minor Technical Changes or Additions. The SVSP Final EIR analyzed development of up to 92 single-family
residences on the Project site. As discussed previously, the Project would transfer units from other Planning Areas to this site. Ultimately the Project would result in development of 255 single-family residences on the Project site. Scenic vistas consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly valued visual features that are seen from public viewing areas. This definition combines visual quality with information about view exposure to describe the level of interest or concern that viewers may have for the quality of a particular view or visual setting. A scenic vista can be impacted in 2 ways: a development project can have visual
impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or
“vista” of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether the proposed Project would block
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
74
scenic vistas include the Project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and
travel corridors.
The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The Project is located in a partially developed area
with commercial uses, recreational uses, and single-family residences. The Fontana General Plan describes
that in addition to scenic corridors, scenic resources include natural landmarks and prominent or unusual
features of the landscape; however, the General Plan does not designate specific scenic resources. Views of
the Jurupa Hills are available from public vantage points on Live Oak Avenue and Village Drive.
The proposed single-family residences would be approximately 26 feet and three inches in height and would
be the same height as existing single-family residences to the north and south. The Project has been designed
to follow the natural topography of the Quarry parcel by terracing the property from the highest elevation
at the toe of slope on the east property boundary to the lowest elevation at the existing Southridge Park and Live Oak Avenue to the West. The Project was designed to maximize views with approximately 34 percent (86) of the homes having scenic views of the hills to the south or the City to the southwest and west. Many of the homes that are not included in the 34 percent calculation above would also have views of the Southridge Village Open Space hills and preserve to the east of the property.
The Project includes the installation of approximately 2,100 linear feet of flexible rockfall barriers (or catch fences) along the base of the eastern side of the site, to stop or control potential rockfalls. The location of the barriers is shown in Figure 3-8, Rockfall Barrier. The barriers would be anchored to the ground using rock or soil anchors and consist of steel posts and a flexible-net or mesh panels supported by wire rope. The barriers would be approximately 6 to 12 feet tall and would consist of mesh wire panels, which afford a high level of visibility and transparency. Therefore, the rockfall barriers would not interrupt homes having scenic views of the Southridge Village Open Space hills and preserve to the east of the site, as shown in
Figure 5-1, View Lot Exhibit.
Thus, redevelopment of the Project site with single-family residences would not obstruct, interrupt, or diminish
a scenic vista; and impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. While the proposed Project would increase the residential
density of the Project site from what was analyzed in the SVSP Final EIR, it would not increase the overall
density analyzed in the SVSP Final EIR and impacts from the proposed Project would generally be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
View Lot Exhibit
Figure 5-1Southridge
City of Fontana
CITY/CFD
MAINTAINED
PARK W/SHADE
STRUCTURES & BBQS
NATURAL
TRAIL W/
VIEW FENCE
SLOPE PLANTING
2-5 YEARS TOT LOT
MAIN COMMON
AREA W/ POOL
AND AMENITIES
-PARKS W/ SHADE
STRUCTURES & BBQ'S -CIRCUIT WORKOUT
STATIONS
5-12 YEARS TOT LOT W/
SHADE STRUCTURES &
BIKE RACKS
HOA MAINTAINED
UNDERGROUND
WQMP BASIN
NATURAL TRAIL
CONNECTIVITY
SLOPE PLANTING
NATURAL TRAIL CONNECTION
THROUGH THE PARK TO
VILLAGE DR.
PUBLIC PARK
-PICKELBALL COURTS (3)
W/ COVER & BLEACHERS
PER CITY STANDARDS & PARK DESIGN STANDARDS
SECONDARY ENTRANCE
SLOPE PLANTING
WATER QUALITY
BASIN
MAIN ENTRY
PARK PARKING
AREA
EMERGENCY VEHICULAR
ACCESS
H.O.A. MAINTIANED
-EXERCISE STATIONS
-CONNECTIVITY FOR
RESIDENTS TO ACCESS TRAIL
-MAINTENANCE ACCESS ROAD/ VEHICULAR TURNAROUND
CITY/CFD MAINTAINED
NATURAL TRAIL W/ VIEW FENCE
SLOPE PLANTING
19 View Lots
35 View Lots
8 View Lots
24 View Lots
86 View Lots Provided
(34% of Total Project)
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
76
This page intentionally left blank.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
77
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The Project site is not located within view of a state scenic highway, as there are no
designated state scenic highways within the vicinity of the site. The nearest officially designated state scenic
highway is State Route 91, located approximately 15.3 miles southwest of the Project site. The Project would
not result in impacts to trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore,
no impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR and Amendment No. 15 focused EIR analyzed development of up to
92 single-family residences on the Project site. As discussed above, the Project would transfer units from other Planning Areas, which have been fully developed, and would result in development of 255 single-family residences on the Project site.
As described previously, the Project site is located within a mostly urbanized area and is surrounded by
roadways, single-family residences, commercial uses, and a park. The existing character of the Project site
and surrounding area is neither unique nor of special aesthetic value or quality. The proposed Project would
develop 255 single-family residences on the site, which was formerly used as a quarry.
Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would occur in the following stages: (1) site
preparation, (2) grading, (3) building construction, (4) paving, and (5) architectural coating/striping.
Construction-related impacts would be short-term and temporary, lasting only as long as the four-year
construction period. However, during construction, equipment and staging areas would be set up within the
Project site which would temporarily alter the visual character of the site and surrounding area. As such,
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1 would be incorporated into construction documents to relieve
the visual distractions typically associated with construction activities commonly encountered in developed
areas. Mitigation Measure AES-1 would require construction documents to include language that requires all
construction contractors to strictly control the staging of construction equipment and the cleanliness of
construction equipment stored or driven beyond the limits of the construction work area. With implementation
of General Plan Mitigation Measure AES-1, impacts related to visual distractions related to construction
would be less than significant.
Operation
Impacts to visual resources from buildout of the Project site would be less than significant with compliance
with the SVSP Development Standards, the City’s General Plan, and the Fontana Municipal Code. As detailed
in Table AES-1, upon approval of the Specific Plan Amendment to change the SVSP designation from Bird
Farm (BF) and Quarry (Q) to Entry Estates/Duplex, a medium density residential land use category with a
density allowing up to 8 dwelling units to acre, the Project would be consistent with the SVSP standards for
the Entry Estates/Duplex designation. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable zoning
regulation related to scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
78
Table AES-1: Consistency with SVSP Development Standards
Development Feature SVSP Code Section Entry Estates/Duplex (Medium Density Residential)
Provided
Minimum Building Site
Area
SVSP 4.4.2 6a
MDR8- 3,500 SF
(8 du/ac)
MDR12- 2,500 SF
12 du/ac
The Project proposes a
text amendment to SVSP
Section 4.4.2 – Medium
Density Residential Site
Development Standards
which would change the
minimum building site area
requirement from 3,500
SF at 8du/ac to 2,000 SF
at 8du/ac and from
2,500 SF at 12du/ac to 2,000 SF at 12du/ac.
Consistent. Project density
is 7.9 units per acre. The
minimum site area for each
proposed lot is 2,000 SF.
The proposed Project would
be consistent with this
standard following approval
of the proposed text
amendments to Section 4.4.2
– Medium Density Residential
Site Development Standards.
Building Height SVSP 4.4.2 6b
35 feet Consistent. 2 story, 26 feet
and three inches
Maximum Building Site
Coverage
SVSP 4.4.2 6c 60% Consistent. 30%
Building Setbacks SVSP 4.4.2 6d The minimum building
setback from any public
street right-of-way line
shall be 10 feet, except that the point of entry to any garage shall be a minimum of 20 feet from any public street right-of-way line unless the garage is equipped with an automatic door opener,
in which case it shall not be
more than 5 feet.
Consistent. Over 25 feet
from Live Oak Avenue.
Consistent: The proposed Project includes a minimum building setback of 2 feet from private drive aisle. The proposed Project would be consistent with this standard following
approval of the proposed
text amendments to Section
4.4.2 – Medium Density
Residential Site
Development Standards.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
79
Development Feature SVSP Code Section Entry Estates/Duplex
(Medium Density
Residential)
Provided
From any private street or
drive: 5 feet minimum
provided that enclosed
garages situated within
20 feet shall be equipped
with automatic garage
door openers.
The Project proposes a
text amendment to the
Section 4.4.2 – Medium
Density Residential Site Development Standards which would change the minimum required setback from a private street or drive from 5 feet to 2 feet.
Consistent: The proposed
Project includes a minimum
building setback of 2 feet
from private drive aisle.
The proposed Project would
be consistent with this
standard following approval
of the proposed text
amendments to Section 4.4.2
– Medium Density Residential
Site Development Standards.
The minimum side yard
setback for each dwelling
unit and/or accessory
structure shall be 0 feet.
Consistent. Minimum of 4
feet.
Minimum rear yard
setback for each dwelling
unit and/or accessory
structure shall be 10 feet.
Consistent. Minimum of 10
feet.
The minimum horizontal
distance between
principal structures shall
be 10 feet.
The Project proposes a
text amendment to the
Section 4.4.2 – Medium
Density Residential Site Development Standards which would change the minimum required horizontal distance between structures from 10 feet to 8 feet.
Consistent. The proposed
Project includes a minimum
of 8 feet between
principal structures.
The proposed Project would
be consistent with this
standard following
approval of the proposed text amendments to Section 4.4.2 – Medium Density Residential Site Development Standards.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
80
Development Feature SVSP Code Section Entry Estates/Duplex
(Medium Density
Residential)
Provided
The minimum horizontal
distance between
accessory structures shall
be 5 feet.
N/A
The minimum setback from any exterior boundary line of the project abutting a low-density residential use shall be 10 feet. The minimum setback from any exterior boundary line of
the project abutting a non-
residential use shall be 5
feet for principal
structures and 0 feet for
accessory structures.
Consistent. Minimum of 10 feet.
Projections into Required
Setbacks
SVSP 4.4.2 6e No attached or detached
covered patio shall be
located any closer than 3
feet to a property line
except the street-side
property line of a corner
lot, in which case a
minimum distance of 10
feet shall be maintained.
Consistent. Minimum of 9
feet. No corner lots.
Eaves, cornices, chimneys,
balconies, and other
similar architectural features shall not project more than 4 feet into any required front, rear, or side setback.
N/A
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
81
Development Feature SVSP Code Section Entry Estates/Duplex
(Medium Density
Residential)
Provided
Trash Storage and
Collection Areas
SVSP 4.4.2 6f Any residential
development proposing
more than 2 dwellings on
any one lot shall provide
adequate and convenient
trash storage area(s)
shielded from view by an
enclosed building or wall
no less than 6 feet in
heigh.
N/A
Project would provide
individual trash containers
for each residential unit.
Parking Requirements SVSP 4.4.2 6g A minimum of 2 covered
spaces plus .5 uncovered
space shall be provided
for each dwelling unit. All
required guest parking
spaces shall be located
off-street. (638 spaces
required)
Consistent. 510 garage
spaces, 113 parallel
spaces, and 61 head in
parking spaces are
included for a total of 684
parking spaces – which
does not include any
driveway parking spaces
(76 spaces total).
In addition, the Project also complies with the City’s Design Guidelines for single-family projects, including
providing articulated massing, enhanced paving at entries, and walkways linking dwellings, common areas,
and sidewalks. The architecture reflects a contemporary design with architectural features, such as awnings
that create variation in the building plane as well as variation in the color scheme for each building elevation.
The architecture and building materials were reviewed and approved by the City’s design review process.
The Project would develop the site with single-family uses, which is consistent with the land uses adjacent to
the site and would be visually compatible with the surrounding uses. Thus, the Project would not conflict with
applicable SVSP criteria and other regulations governing scenic quality, nor would the Project degrade the
visual character of the site and surrounding area. Impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The Project would introduce new
sources of light from new building lighting, exterior lighting, interior lights shining through building windows,
and headlights from nighttime vehicular trips generated by the Project. However, the Project would only
slightly increase lighting and glare compared to the existing condition of the area surrounding the site, and
new landscaping would be provided throughout the Project site that would limit impacts from new sources of
light and glare. For example, perimeter landscaping, including trees, would limit the spill of light onto
adjacent properties. Also, as a standard condition of Project approval, the proposed Project would be
required to comply with lighting standards detailed in the City’s Municipal Code, which would require Project
lighting to be shielded, diffused, or indirect to avoid glare to both on off-site residents, pedestrians, motorists.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
82
Compliance with the Municipal Code would be implemented through the construction permitting and plan
check process. Therefore, impacts associated with new lighting would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding aesthetics. There have not been 1) changes
related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the
previous Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP) None. Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project:
MM AES-1: For future development associated with the project located in or adjacent to residentially zoned
property, the following General Condition of Approval shall be imposed: Construction documents shall
include language that requires all construction contractors to strictly control the staging of construction
equipment and the cleanliness of construction equipment stored or driven beyond the limits of the construction
work area. Construction equipment shall be parked and staged within the project site to the extent practical.
Staging areas shall be screened from view from residential properties with solid wood fencing or green
fence. Construction worker parking may be located off-site with approval of the City; however, on-street
parking of construction worker vehicles on residential streets shall be prohibited. Vehicles shall be kept clean
and free of mud and dust before leaving the project site. Surrounding streets shall be swept daily and
maintained free of dirt and debris.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
83
5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether
impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,
including the Forest and Range Assessment Project
and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the
forest carbon measurement methodology provided
in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
Substantial Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New Significant
Effects
New Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than Previous EIR
New Information
Identifying
New Mitigation or Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is Declined
Minor Technical
Changes
or Additions
No New
Impact/
No Impact
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR did not analyze impacts related to agriculture and forest resources.
a) 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 non-agricultural use?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The Project site is currently unimproved, with a portion formerly used for quarry activities.
The site is not designated as Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (CDC 2022). A small
portion of the site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land and the larger portion is designated as Grazing
Land. 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.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
84
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act of 1965) restricts the use of
agricultural and open space lands to farming and ranching by enabling local governments to contract with
private landowners for indefinite terms in exchange for reduced property tax assessments. The Project site
is not zoned for agricultural use or located within an Agricultural Resource Area. Additionally, the Project
site does not have a Williamson Act contract. As such, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with an Agricultural Resource Area or Williamson Act contract, and no impacts would occur. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. 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))? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The Project site is currently unimproved, with a portion formerly used for quarry activities.
The site does not contain forest land and there are no forestland resources in the vicinity of the Project site.
It is not designated or zoned as forest land or timberland or used for timberland production. As a result, the
Project would not result in impacts on timberland resources.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As discussed previously, there are no forest or timberland resources on or in the vicinity of
the Project site. The proposed Project would not convert forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, there
would be no impacts related to the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
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?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As previously stated, the Project site is currently unimproved, with a portion formerly used
for quarry activities. The site is not used for agricultural purposes and is not designated or zoned for forest
land. The proposed Project would not convert farmland to a nonagricultural use or convert forest land to a
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
85
non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and 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.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding agriculture and forest resources. There have not been 1) changes related development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site undertaken that require major revisions of the previous Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP) None.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe agriculture and forest resources impacts would result from the
proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for agriculture and forest
resources.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
86
5.3 AIR QUALITY Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or Additions
No
New
Impact/
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) 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)?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
The discussion below is based on the Operational Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum, prepared
by Urban Crossroads, which is included as Appendix A, and the Construction Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, which is included as Appendix B7. Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR The SVSP Final EIR analyzed programmatic impacts from buildout of the SVSP related to air quality in Chapter 6.2.8. The SVSP Final EIR found that development of individual projects would result in a significant and unavoidable short-term air quality impact from construction and long-term air quality impact during
operations due to increased auto usage.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
By providing relatively affordable housing in close proximity to planned major industrial employment areas,
the Southridge Village Specific Plan will help to hold down commuting distances, with resulting beneficial
effects on the regional pattern of automobile travel/air quality relationships.
The Specific Plan proposes an extensive system of trails for pedestrian and bicycle use. These trails will
provide for convenient and safe non-vehicular access between residential areas and schools, parks, shopping
centers, and other community facilities. To the extent that these trails encourage non-vehicular travel, both
automobile travel and related vehicular exhaust emissions will be reduced.
Measures to control dust during earth-moving activities could reduce particulate air pollution emissions during
construction operations.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
7 Note: The Operational Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum and the Construction Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Memorandum modeled the Project using a previous version of the site plan in which the proposed site area totaled 39.2 acres. Thus, the analysis contained herein is more conservative than the proposed Project's 37.54-acre site area.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
87
No New Impact. The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdictional
boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and state Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The AQMP details goals,
policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin. In preparation of the AQMP, SCAQMD and
SCAG use land use designations contained in General Plan documents to forecast, inventory, and allocate
regional emissions from land use and development-related sources.
As described in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(1993), a project would conflict with the AQMP if a proposed project would have a development density
and vehicle trip generation that is substantially greater than what was anticipated in the General Plan. On
the other hand, if a project’s density is consistent with the General Plan, its emissions would be consistent with
the assumptions in the AQMP, and the project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans. In addition,
the SCAQMD considers projects consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the
frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation.
The SVSP Final EIR found that although implementation of the SVSP would be consistent with the AQMP,
buildout of the SVSP in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects would
contribute to degradation of regional air quality and would result in significant and unavoidable regional
construction and operational air quality impacts despite implementation of applicable mitigation measures.
However, it is worth noting that air quality has improved dramatically in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB)
since the certification of the SVSP Final EIR in 1981 as a result of increasingly stringent air quality standards.
Thus, the emissions associated with projects built today are less than what they would have been at the time
the SVSP Final EIR was certified.
The current 2022 AQMP (adopted in December 2022) is based on buildout of the land use designations
including those in the City of Fontana General Plan, which designates the Project site as Recreational Facilities
(P-R) and Open Space (OS). However, SVSP and the Final EIR analyzed development of up to 8,800
residential units within the plan area. As discussed previously, the Project would result in development of a
total of 255 single-family residences on the Project site but would result in a total SVSP unit count of 7,999
or 801 fewer units than analyzed for the overall area in the SVSP EIR. Using the SVSP EIR average persons
per household factor of 2.75 persons per unit, 801 fewer units would generate 2,203 fewer residents.
Therefore, the overall density of the SVSP is consistent with the General Plan land use assumptions for the
SVSP. Furthermore, as shown under threshold b) below, the proposed Project would result fewer total vehicle
trips and emissions of the criteria pollutants than would the project analyzed in the SVSP Final EIR. In addition,
emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed Project would not exceed applicable
SCAQMD thresholds. Thus, although the land use designation on the Project site would change, the emissions
generated would be consistent with the AQMP the Project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment
plans.
As described in the analysis below, the emissions from the Project would be less than those anticipated by
the SVSP Final EIR, and the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air
quality violations or cause a new violation. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with the AQMP from the
proposed Project would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. b) 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)?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
88
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR found that buildout of the SVSP would result in cumulatively considerable
net increases of pollutants during construction and operation, and impacts would be significant and
unavoidable despite implementation of applicable mitigation measures.
The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in a non-attainment status for federal ozone standards, federal carbon
monoxide standards, and state and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB,
including the proposed Project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. The methodologies
from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating Project impacts. SCAQMD has
established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ-1. Should
construction or operation of the proposed Project exceed these thresholds a significant impact could occur;
however, if estimated emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant.
Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds
Pollutant Construction
(lbs/day)
Operations
(lbs/day)
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Source: Regional Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015 Construction Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following: (1) site preparation, (2) grading, (3) blasting, (4) rock crushing, (5) building construction, (6)
paving, and (7) architectural coating. The quantity of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary,
depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring. In addition, the Project would
generate a need for construction worker vehicle trips to and from the Project site during the estimated 4-
year construction period.
The Project may require blasting and it is anticipated that up to two blasting events could occur per day.
While the need for blasting is not known at this point, the CalEEMod modeling conducted for the Project
included analysis of blasting. Blast emissions are based on a maximum of 1-ton ammonium nitrate/fuel oil
(ANFO) per day for CO, NOx, SO2, and PM emissions estimates. Since the exact location of blasting activities
is not known, emission estimates from blasting conservatively assume the entire 37.32-acre site as the blast
area. Blasting is anticipated to result in 67 pounds of CO, 17 pounds of NOx, 2 pounds of SO2, 1.8 pounds
of PM10, and 1.0 pounds of PM2.5. These emissions have been added to the appropriate phase of construction
in Table AQ-3.
In addition, the Project may utilize rock crushing to reduce the amount of import required during the grading
phases. It is anticipated that all rock crushing activities would occur during the grading phase, which provides
a conservative estimate of emissions. To provide a conservative analysis, the modeling assumed that
approximately 57,853 tons of rock would be crushed during the grading phase, which represents
approximately 771 tons per day. Rock crushing is anticipated to result in 7.29 pounds per day of PM10
emissions and 1.63 pounds of PM2.5 emissions per day. These emissions were added to the grading phase in
Table AQ-3.
It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for
controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements
include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible
dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible,
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
89
utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before
vehicles exit the proposed Project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a
freeboard height of 12-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule
403 is included as PPP AQ-1.
In addition, implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113, which governs the volatile organic compound (VOC)
content in architectural coating, paint, thinners, and solvents is included as PPP AQ-2. As shown in Table AQ-
3, CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by rock crushing, blasting, and construction
of the 255-unit proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, construction
activities would result in a less than significant impact.
Table AQ-2: Regional Construction Emissions Summary
Source
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM-10 PM-2.5
Summer
2023 38.20 58.90 149.90 2.06 14.60 5.92
2024 1.80 13.60 22.50 0.03 1.98 0.85
2025 1.66 12.70 21.80 0.03 1.91 0.79
2026 1.57 11.90 21.20 0.03 1.85 0.73
Winter
2023 38.20 47.10 82.40 0.06 8.42 5.07
2024 1.77 13.70 20.60 0.03 1.98 0.85
2025 1.63 12.70 20.00 0.03 1.91 0.79
2026 59.20 20.40 32.80 0.05 2.64 1.16
2027 59.10 19.60 32.30 0.05 2.57 1.09
Maximum Daily
Emissions 59.20 58.90 149.90 2.06 14.60 5.92
SCAQMD Regional
Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 and PM2.5 = particular matter; ROG = reactive organic gasses; SOx = sulfur oxides
Source: Construction Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Memorandum (Appendix B)
As such, potential pollutant emissions from construction of the proposed Project would be less than those
analyzed in the SVSP Final EIR.
Operation
Occupancy of the 255 residential units would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products. However, operational vehicular emissions would generate a majority of the emissions generated from the Project. As discussed above under threshold 3(a), the emissions from the Project would be less than those anticipated by the SVSP Final EIR. As detailed previously, the General Plan and SVSP allowed for quarry and bird farm uses on the Project site. However, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to change the designation to Entry Estates/Residential Medium Density and develop the site with 255 dwelling units. The
proposed amended SVSP would generate 8,122 fewer daily trips vehicle trips than the Specific Plan
buildout evaluated in the SVSP Final EIR (refer to discussion in Section 5.17, Transportation).
Operational emissions associated with buildout of the proposed Project were modeled using CalEEMod are
presented in Table AQ-3. Note that the buildout emissions listed below are based on new calculations and
not based on the emissions calculations that are included in the SVSP Final EIR.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
90
Table AQ-3: Proposed Project Operational Emissions
Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 17.40 6.59 63.00 0.16 5.55 1.07
Area Source 13.00 3.95 16.10 0.02 0.31 0.31
Energy Source 0.10 1.70 0.75 0.01 0.14 0.14
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 30.50 12.24 79.82 0.19 6.00 1.52
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Winter
Mobile Source 16.90 7.07 53.30 0.15 5.55 1.07
Area Source 11.71 3.81 1.62 0.02 0.31 0.31
Energy Source 0.10 1.70 0.72 0.01 0.14 0.14
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 28.70 12.58 55.64 0.18 6.00 1.52
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Operational Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum (Appendix A)
As shown in Table AQ-3, operation of the proposed Project would not exceed any of the SCAQMD air
quality thresholds. Operational emissions associated with buildout of the SVSP were remodeled using
CalEEMod and were compared to those of buildout of the SVSP with the proposed Project as presented in
Table AQ-4.
Table AQ-4: SP Buildout with Proposed Project Operational Emissions
Land Use Quantity
Units
Emissions
(pounds/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Existing Single Family Detached 7,062 DU 886.26 362.80 2356.70 5.74 179.18 45.22
Existing Multifamily
(Low-Rise) Residential 754 DU 62.79 29.87 191.95 0.45 13.79 3.62
Proposed Project 255 DU 30.50 12.12 79.82 0.19 6.00 1.52
Total Units with Proposed Project 979.55 404.91 2628.47 6.38 198.97 50.36
Winter
Existing Single Family
Detached 7,062 DU 833.26 372.80 1667.60 5.42 179.03 45.03
Existing Multifamily (Low-Rise) Residential 754 DU 57.69 30.57 127.14 0.42 13.77 3.60
Proposed Project 255 DU 28.70 12.58 55.64 0.18 6.00 1.52
Total Units with
Proposed Project 919.65 415.95 1850.38 6.02 198.80 50.15
Source: Operational Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum (Appendix A)
Table AQ-5 summarizes total emissions at buildout of the Specific Plan with implementation of the proposed
Project.
Table AQ-5: Regional Operational Emissions (Original SP and Proposed Project)
Land Use VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Summer
With Proposed Project 979.55 404.91 2628.47 6.38 198.97 50.36
Original Specific Plan 1071.51 442.47 2876.95 6.99 217.81 55.09
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
91
Comparison (Original SP – With Proposed Project) -91.96 -37.56 -248.48 -0.61 -18.84 -4.73
Winter
With Proposed Project 919.65 415.95 1850.38 6.02 198.80 50.15
Original Specific Plan 1008.41 455.17 2027.24 6.60 217.62 54.85
Comparison (Original SP – With
Proposed Project) -88.76 -39.22 -176.86 -0.58 -18.82 -4.70
Source: Operational Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum (Appendix A) As shown in Table AQ-5, the proposed Project would result in fewer long-term regional emissions of the
criteria pollutants as compared to buildout of the Original SVSP. Furthermore, the Project shall comply with
SCAQMD rule 445 (PPP AQ-4) prohibiting use of wood burning fireplaces. Therefore, the Project’s
operational emissions would not exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the emissions
generated by the proposed Project would be less than those identified by the SVSP Final EIR.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR found that buildout of the SVSP could potentially expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; however, impacts would be less than significant with
implementation of applicable mitigation measures.
The nearest sensitive receptors are existing single-family residences located north, west, and south of the
Project site. The distance between the Project site boundary and the closest existing residence is 43 feet
south of the Project site.
Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not
expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5
pollutants for each source receptor area (SRA) and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The Project
site is located in SRA 34 (Central San Bernardino Valley). Sensitive receptors can include uses such as
residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers,
and retirement homes.. The nearest LST sensitive receptors to the Project site are the existing residences that
are 43 feet to the south of the site.
The SCAQMD LST Methodology provides Look-Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location
and size of the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. The Look-Up Tables include site
acreage sizes of one-, two-, or five-acre sites, and distances of sensitive receptors for 25 to 500 meters.
SCAQMD details that the site acreage should be based on the maximum number of acres disturbed on the
peak day of construction that is calculated on the construction equipment list utilized in the CalEEMod model.
The closest sensitive receptor from the Project is a residence 43 feet (13 meters) south of the site; therefore,
the most restrictive (25 meter) thresholds were used.
Construction
Localized Significance Analysis. Construction of the proposed Project may expose nearby residential
sensitive receptors to airborne particulates as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants
(i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). The localized thresholds were developed for use on projects that are less than or equal to 5-acres in size or have a disturbance of less than or equal to 5 acres daily and were used to evaluate LSTs. As shown in Table AQ-6, with implementation of SCAQMD Rules 403
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
92
and 1113 (included as PPP AQ-2 and PPP AQ-3), the maximum daily construction emissions from the
proposed Project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST thresholds.
Table AQ-6: Localized Construction Emission Estimates
Onsite Emissions
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM-10 PM-2.5
Site Preparation
Project Maximum Daily Emissions 47.00 38.00 8.19 5.02
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 222 1,405 11 6
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Grading
Project Maximum Daily Emissions 58.80 147.80 7.01 4.22
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 287 2,443 12 7
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: Construction Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Memorandum (Appendix B)
As such, potential pollutant emissions from construction of the proposed Project would be less than those
analyzed in the SVSP Final EIR. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in a greater impact than what
was identified in the SVSP Final EIR which determined construction emissions would have a significant and
unavoidable impact on air quality.
Operation
Localized Significance Analysis. Operation of the proposed Project would include emissions from vehicles
traveling to the Project site and from vehicles in the parking lots and loading areas. According to SCAQMD
LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the project includes
stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site
(e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The proposed Project does not include such uses, and thus,
due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold
analysis is needed. As such, impacts from operation of the Project to sensitive receptors would be less than
significant.
CO Hotspots. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These
pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of
9 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse
into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an
analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic
congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds.
With the turnover of older vehicles and introduction of cleaner fuels, electric vehicles, and vehicles with stop-
start systems (where the engine shuts down when the vehicle is stopped and restarts when the brake pedal
is released), as well as implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the
South Coast Air Basin and the state have steadily declined.
The analysis of CO hotspots compares the volume of traffic that has the potential to generate a CO hotspot
(exceedance the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm) and the volume
of traffic with implementation of the proposed Project. In 2003, the SCAQMD estimated that a project would
have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to exceed state standards
and generate a CO hot spot.
As detailed in Section 5.17, Transportation, shown on Tables T-1 and T-2, the Project would generate only 1,836 total daily trips, and the buildout of the SVSP with the proposed Project would generate 617 fewer
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
93
vehicle trips (154 fewer inbound trips and 463 fewer outbound trips) during the AM peak hour than the
project analyzed in the SVSP Final EIR. During the PM peak hour, the Project would generate net 848 fewer
vehicle trips (543 fewer inbound trips and 304 fewer outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the Project is
forecast to generate approximately 8,122 fewer daily trips than what was analyzed for buildout of the
SVSP by the SVSP Final EIR. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in traffic volumes at
a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical
and/or horizontal air does not mix and would not generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, impacts related to CO
hotspots from operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR found that development of individual projects would result in significant construction related impacts. The proposed Project does not contain land uses typically associated with
emitting objectionable odors. The Project site is not located near existing agricultural uses. Potential odor
sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the
application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities. However, any construction odors would be temporary in nature. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction, such as odors associated
with diesel-powered equipment, materials from demolition activities and asphalt during paving. The
construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon
completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. Project-
generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance
with the City’s solid waste regulations. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to implement
California Air Resources Board (CARB) Rule 2485 regulations that limit idling to 5 minutes (13 CCR, Chapter
10 Section 2485), which would reduce odors from the smell of truck exhaust. The proposed Project would
also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (PPP AQ-1), which prohibits any persons from
discharging air contaminants or other materials that may cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to
the public, to prevent occurrences of public nuisances associated with odors. Therefore, odor impacts
associated with the proposed Project’s construction and operations would not be significant compared to
what was previously analyzed and determined in the SVSP Final EIR.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding air quality. There have not been 1) changes
related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which development of the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the
previous Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
94
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP AQ-1: Rule 402. The construction plans and specifications shall state that the Project is required to
comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The Project
shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which
cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or
which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or
have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
PPP AQ-2: SCAQMD Rule 403. The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph
per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project
are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage
of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon,
and after work is done for the day.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced
to 15 miles per hour or less.
PPP AQ-3: SCAQMD Rule 1113. The following measure shall be incorporated into construction plans and
specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113. The Project shall only use “Low-Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC)” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113.
PPP AQ-4: SCAQMD Rule 445. The following measure shall be incorporated into construction plans and
specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 445. Wood burning stoves and fireplaces shall not be
included or used in the new development.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe air quality impacts would result from the proposed Project;
therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for air quality.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
95
5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or Additions
No
New
Impact/
No Impact
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,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands (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?
This section was completed using the General Biological Assessment prepared September 2022 by
Hernandez Environmental Services (HES 2022) and included as Appendix C and the Arborist Report
prepared July 2022 by Rico Ramirez (Ramirez 2022) and included as Appendix D.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR analyzed impacts from buildout of the SVSP related to biological resources in Section
6.2.4. The SVSP Final EIR noted that existing vegetative communities consist of agriculture, windbreaks,
coastal sage scrub, and riparian communities and that no threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant or
animal species were found within the study area. According to the SVSP Final EIR, past agricultural activities
within the SVSP area have adversely impacted the abundance and diversity of wildlife in the area. The
SVSP Final EIR notes that onsite impacts include the conversion of then existing open areas into urban uses
and would result in the removal of vegetation and the destruction or displacement of wildlife which uses the
onsite habitat, including nesting raptors. Impacts were determined to be less than significant with the
implementation of the Landscape Master Plan.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
96
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
The Landscape Master Plan presented in Section 3.8 of the SVSP Final EIR provides for extensive and varied
streetscape and other landscape planting within the planned community. While intended primarily to serve
design and aesthetic purposes, the landscape planting will provide habitat values for a limited range of
wildlife adapted to urban conditions. Tree species, such as pine, eucalyptus, jacaranda, magnolia, and oak,
will be included in urban landscaping areas. Animal species that are tolerant of man’s presence can be
expected to return to Southridge Village as construction activities are completed for the various development
phases. These species may include squirrels, rabbits, blackbirds, crows, and sparrows. As landscaping
matures and diversifies, a broader range of small mammals and songbirds are expected to return to the
urban areas.
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?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that no endangered, threatened or special status species were identified within the SVSP area, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
A General Biological Assessment (GBA) was prepared for the proposed Project, which included two field
surveys conducted on May 24, 2021, and April 8, 2022 (Appendix C). The GBA described that the Project site consists of Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat, developed habitat dominated by ornamental vegetation, and disturbed habitat consisting of graded walking trails. According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), a total of 64 special-status plant species, 59 special-status wildlife species have the
potential to occur on or within the vicinity of the Project area. These include those species listed or candidates
for listing by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS). All habitats with the potential to be used by sensitive
species were evaluated during the field survey for their presence or potential presence.
Sensitive Plant Species
A total of 16 plant species are listed as state and/or federal Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate
species; are 1B.1 listed plants on the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory; or have been found to have a potential to
exist within the Project region. Of the 16 plant species, only the Chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa
var. aurita) was identified as having suitable habitat present on the Project site. No special-status plants
were observed on the Project site during the field investigation. Additionally, based on habitat requirements
for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined no special-status
plant species would be impacted by implementation of the proposed Project (HES 2022).
Sensitive Animal Species
According to the CNDDB, a total of 24 animal species that are listed as state or federally Threatened,
Endangered, or Candidate have the potential to occur within the Project region. Of the 24 animal species,
only one was observed during the field investigation: Cooper’s hawk. However, during the field investigation,
it was also found that the Project site contains potentially suitable habitat for the following species: Southern
California rufous-crowned sparrow, California glossy snake, bell’s sage sparrow, coastal whiptail, San Diego
black-tailed jackrabbit, and the coast horned lizard. Therefore, General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-
2 is incorporated into the Project to require Project compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
With implementation of General Plan EIR MM BIO-2, impacts to nesting bird species (including Cooper’s
hawk, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, and Bell’s sage sparrow) would be less than significant.
In addition, as required by General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-3, the recommendations of the Project-
specific General Biological Assessment conducted by Hernandez Environmental Services (HES 2022) include
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
97
monitoring during ground disturbing activities to ensure no direct impact or indirect take of the California
glossy snake, San Diego blacktailed jackrabbit, coastal whiptail, and coastal horned lizard; these
recommendations are incorporated and would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Additionally, the east side of the Project site is within federal critical habitat for the coastal California
gnatcatcher. However, focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher that were completed from
April 27 to June 3, 2021, did not identify evidence of any coastal California gnatcatchers on the site (HES
2022).
The proposed Project would include scaling and/or blasting on the rock faces east of the Project site (Planning
Area 66C) in order to remove or stabilize any potential rock hazards. To determine if the scaling or blasting
activities could have any impacts to bat or raptor species, during the field survey conducted on April 8,
2022, the area at the base of the hill was walked and binoculars were used to scan the hillside. No special status species were identified. No crevices or caves capable of supporting bat species were observed. Furthermore, no large cliff ledges or nests were observed on the rock faces, which suggests it is not used as nesting habitat by raptors (HES 2022). Therefore, scaling or blasting activities would not impact bat or raptor species.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to biological
resources with implementation of mitigation measures.
Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. Sensitive natural communities
are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, known to provide
habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, or known to be important wildlife corridors.
As described above, the Project site consists of disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat, developed habitat
consisting of ornamental woodland vegetation, and disturbed habitat characterized by graded walking
paths. No riparian habitat exists on the site. As discussed above, the east side of the Project site is within
federal critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. However, focused surveys for the coastal
California gnatcatcher that were completed from April 27 to June 3, 2021, did not identify evidence of any
coastal California gnatcatchers on the site (HES 2022). Therefore, no significant impacts related to riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans would result from proposed
Project implementation, and no mitigation is required.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
98
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to biological
resources with implementation of mitigation measures.
As described previously, the Project site consists of disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat, developed habitat
consisting of ornamental woodland vegetation, and disturbed habitat characterized by graded walking
paths. No natural hydrologic features or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act occur onsite, and the Project site does not meet the Army Corps of Engineers criteria for
wetlands and waters of the U.S. (HES 2022). Therefore, no direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption
of a wetland area would occur with development of the Project site.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. 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?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to biological
resources with implementation of mitigation measures. The Project site is not located within a designated wildlife corridor (HES 2022). The Project site is bordered by urban development to the north, west and south. As such, the site does not have potential to function as a wildlife corridor (HES 2022). Therefore, no impacts to wildlife corridors would occur.
The Project site includes ornamental trees that would be removed as part of the Project. Tree removal and/or
indirect impacts from construction activity could result in the disturbance of nesting migratory species covered
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Therefore, any proposed vegetation removal during nesting
bird season, as required by General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures BIO-2, would require a preconstruction
nesting bird survey to be conducted prior to vegetation removal to ensure compliance with the MBTA. With
the implementation of General Plan EIR MM BIO-2, impacts to nesting bird species would be less than
significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to biological
resources with implementation of mitigation measures.
Fontana Municipal Code Section 28-63 provides guidance for the removal of protected species of trees. As
discussed in the GBA (Appendix C), the Project site contains ornamental vegetation, including trees,
throughout the site. An arborist report and tree survey were conducted to document protected trees on the
Project site (Appendix D). The tree survey identified three trees of protected species present on the Project
site. According to the arborist study, preservation of the trees is not feasible due to their location within the
proposed Project area. As such, the trees would be removed and mitigated elsewhere per Section 28-67 of
the City's Municipal Code. As described in PPP BIO-1, if any protected trees as defined in Sections 28-63
of the Fontana Municipal Code are to be removed, the Project would require a tree removal permit and
would have to replace the trees according to guidelines listed in Municipal Code Section 28-67. Thus, the
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
99
proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
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?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR did not analyze impacts related to any Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved type of habitat conservation plan. The GBA prepared for the proposed Project found that the Project site is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, and therefore, 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. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding biological resources. There have not been
1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the
SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP BIO-1: Tree Removal Permit. Fontana Municipal Code Section 28-67 states that in the event a certified
arborist determines a heritage, significant, or specimen tree cannot feasibly be transplanted, a tree removal
permit must first be issued by the city. In the event that a permit is issued by the city for the removal of any
heritage, significant or specimen tree as provided in Municipal Code Sections 28-64 and 28-68, such trees
removed shall be replaced with a species designated by the staff according to the Municipal Code Section
28-67, unless the staff determines that replacement is inappropriate.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project:
None.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
100
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project:
Revisions to General Plan mitigation measures are identified in bold underline and deletions are identified in
strikethrough.
MM-BIO-2 To avoid impacts to nesting birds and to comply with the MBTA, clearing of vegetation and
removal of trees should occur between non-nesting (or non-breeding) season for birds (generally, September
1 to January 31). If this avoidance schedule is not feasible, the alternative is to carry out such activities under
the supervision of a qualified biologist. This shall entail the following:
1. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey no more than 3 14 days
prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. The survey will consist of full coverage of the
proposed disturbance limits and up to a 500-foot buffer area for raptors and 200-foot buffer
for songbirds, determined by the biologist and taking into account the species nesting in the area and the habitat present.
2. If no active nests are found, no additional measures are required.
3. If “occupied” nests are found, their locations shall be mapped, species documented, and, to the degree feasible, the status of the nest (e.g., incubation of eggs, feeding of young, near fledging) recorded. The biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around each active nest. The buffer area will be determined by the biologist based on the species present, surrounding
habitat, and type of construction activities proposed in the area.
4. No construction or ground disturbance activities shall be conducted within the buffer until the
biologist has determined the nest is no longer active and has informed the construction supervisor
that activities may resume.
Status: Applicable to Project. Note the Project specific GBA prepared September 2022 by Hernandez
Environmental Services clarifies that if active nests are found during nesting bird surveys, they shall be
flagged, and a 200-foot buffer for songbirds and 500-foot buffer for raptors, shall be fenced around the
nests. Additionally, pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to
initiating ground disturbance activities (see Appendix C).
MM-BIO-3: The City of Fontana Planning Division shall require that all future project applicants prepare a
Biological Assessment in conjunction with a project-level analysis. The Biological Assessment shall include a
vegetation map of the proposed project area, analysis of the impacts associated with plant and animal
species and habitats, and conduct habitat evaluations for burrowing owl, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, San
Diego pocket mouse, western mastiff bat, western yellow bat, and San Diego desert woodrat. If any of
these special status species are determined to be present, then coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and/or California Department of Fish and Game shall be concluded to determine what, if any,
permits or clearances are required prior to development.
Each project-level Biological Assessment shall include an analysis of potential impacts to rare plants and rare
natural communities in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Game’s November 2009
guidance for Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and
Natural Communities. For those projects located in the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Recovery Unit, the
project-level Biological Assessment shall include focused surveys. The Biological Assessment shall prescribe
actions necessary to mitigate the impacts identified for a particular project. Such actions shall include either
avoidance of a sensitive resource, or payment of in-lieu fees that shall be used to purchase off-site
replacement habitat. In instances where transplantation/relocation, off-site preservation, or fee payment is
selected, habitat mitigation ratios shall be a minimum of 1:1, unless a greater ratio is required by a state or
federal wildlife agency. The requirements of the Biological Assessment shall be a condition of approval of
the individual development project.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
101
Status: Satisfied by Project-specific General Biological Assessment conducted by Hernandez Environmental
Services (HES 2022) included as Appendix D. In compliance with MM-BIO-3, In order to minimize potential
impacts to the California glossy snake, San Diego blacktailed jackrabbit, and coastal horned lizard, as a
condition of approval, the City shall require that a qualified biological monitor be present on the project site
during all ground disturbing activities in undeveloped areas to ensure no direct or indirect take of these species.
MM-BIO-9: Any development that results in the potential take or substantial loss of occupied habitat for any
threatened or endangered species shall conduct formal consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency
and shall implement required mitigation pursuant to applicable protocols. Consultation shall be on a project-
by-project basis and measures shall be negotiated independently for each development project.
Status: Applicable to Project.
No new impacts nor substantially more severe biological resources impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for biological resources.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
102
5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes or Additions
No New
Impact/
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The discussion below is based on the Cultural Resource Study, prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates,
March 2022, (BFSA 2022) which is included as Appendix E.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR analyzed impacts to cultural resources in Section 6.2.5. The SVSP Final EIR noted that a cultural resources survey identified eight archaeological sites within the SVSP area, one of which is on the National Register of Historic Places as the “Fontana Put and Grove Petroglyph Site”. The SVSP Final EIR also noted that historical resources identified in the SVSP area includes ruins of the Pagliuso Family Chapel, the Old Spanish Road, ruins of Declezville, and ruins of the Le Vesu home and winery. The SVSP Final EIR determined that implementation of the SVSP would directly impacts two archaeological sites: ARMC #1 which contains metate fragments, whole manos, mano fragments, flake-scrapers, choppers, scraper-planes, and flakes and ARMC #2 which features hammerstones and cones in addition to similar remnants identified
on ARMC #1. The SVSP Final EIR also notes that the project may impact the CA-SBr-1632 site as well as the
historical resource sites discussed previously. With implementation of mitigation measures, impacts were
considered less than significant.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
In order to mitigate impacts resulting from development, it is recommended that logical collections and testing
be conducted by a qualified archaeologist for sites ARMC #1, ARMC #2, and CA-SBr-1632. If cultural
deposits are discovered on sites ARMC #1 and ARMC #2, the significant remains should be salvaged. If
artifacts are found at site CA-SBr-1632, they also may be salvaged, or, alternatively, the site may be
preserved as an unimproved area within easement.
It is recommended that the City and landowners and developers within Southridge Village cooperate with
the Fontana Historical Society for the purpose of preserving any resources determined to be of historical
significance. Of particular importance in this regard is the Historical Society’s plans to relocate the Pagliuso
Family Chapel.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
103
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that implementation of the SVSP could cause adverse impacts
to archaeological and historic resources. With implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be less
than significant.
According to the State CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource is defined as something that meets one or more
of the following criteria: (1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical
Resources; (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC)
Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of
PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) determined to be a historical resource by the Project’s Lead Agency.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as there are no eligible
historical resources on the Project site.
The California Register of Historical Resources defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important
to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. A Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted for the proposed Project to locate and record any cultural resources that may be present within the Project site (Appendix E). As part of the Cultural Resources Assessment, an archaeological records search was conducted through the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton and the Eastern Information Center at University of California, Riverside. The results of the records search indicated
that 19 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within a half-mile of the Project site, five of
which intersect the Project site. The previous studies indicate that one resource (P-36-060221, a prehistoric
isolate described as “1/2 of a schist metate slab”) has been recorded within the Project site boundaries. This
resource was previously found in an area of dumped quarry material but was not able to be located during
the Cultural Resources Assessment for the Project. Eight additional resources have been recorded within a
half-mile of the site boundaries. In addition to the records search, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was
requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on March 10, 2022 (Appendix E). The
NAHC responded on April 26, 2022, stating the SLF search was negative for previously known tribal cultural
resources or sacred lands within one mile of the Project site. Further, a field survey of the Project site was
conducted on March 9, 2022 and did not identify the presence of any historical resources as defined by
CEQA. Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical
resource and impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that implementation of the SVSP would cause adverse impacts
to archaeological and historic resources. With implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be less
than significant.
As discussed above, the records search indicated that one resource (P-36-060221, a prehistoric isolate) has
been recorded within the Project site boundaries. The Project site has been previously disturbed; therefore,
there is reduced potential for the Project to impact archeological resources. However, due to the previously
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
104
identified archaeological resource onsite, the Project site may still have potential to yield archaeological
resources that may have been obscured by the previous clearing and use of the site (BFSA 2022). With
implementation of General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2 and MM CUL-3, which
require monitoring of ground disturbing activities and provide protocols in the event of inadvertent
archaeological resource or tribal cultural resources, impact would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR did not analyze impacts relating to the discovery of human remains.
The Project site has been previously disturbed, as described above, and has not been previously used as a
cemetery. It is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed Project would result in the disturbance of
human remains. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during earth removal or
disturbance activities, the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (included as PPP CUL-1)
requires that disturbance of the site shall halt until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the
circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and
disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or
her authorized representative. The Coroner would also be contacted pursuant to Sections 5097.98 and
5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. In the event the Coroner
determines the human remains to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC would then be required to contact the most likely
descendant of the deceased Native American, who would then serve as a consultant on how to proceed with
the remains. Compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98) would reduce potential impacts involving
disturbance to human remains would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate proposed Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding cultural resources. There have not
been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) PPP CUL-1: Should human remains be discovered during Project construction, the Project would be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further disturbance may occur in the vicinity of the body until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
105
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find
immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With
the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the
discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project:
None.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project MM-CUL-1: A qualified archaeologist shall perform the following tasks, prior to construction activities within project boundaries:
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for historic resources, a
field survey for historical resources within portions of the project site not previously surveyed for
cultural resources shall be conducted.
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for historic resources, the
San Bernardino County Archives shall be contacted for information on historical property records.
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for sacred land
resources, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted for information regarding
sacred lands.
• All historical resources within the project site, including archaeological and historic resources older
than 50 years, shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms and guidelines followed
according to the California Office of Historic Preservation’s handbook “Instructions for Recording
Historical Resources.” The archaeologist shall then submit two (2) copies of the completed forms to
the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for the assignment of trinomials.
• The significance and integrity of all historical resources within the project site shall be evaluated,
using criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines for important archaeological resources and/or 36
CFR 60.4 for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
• Mitigation measures shall be proposed and conditions of approval (if a local government action)
recommended to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique historical
resources, following appropriate CEQA and/or National Historic Preservation Act's Section 106
guidelines.
• A technical resources management report shall be prepared, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project site, following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a), December 1989. One copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, shall be submitted to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving.
• If human remains are encountered on the project site, the San Bernardino County Coroner’s Office
shall be contacted within 24 hours of the find, and all work shall be halted until a clearance is given
by that office and any other involved agencies.
• All resources and data collected within the project site shall be permanently curated at an
appropriate repository within the County.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
106
Status: Satisfied by Cultural Resource Study, prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, March 2022, (BFSA
2022) which is included as Appendix E.
In compliance with MM-CUL-1, in order to minimize potential impacts to historic or prehistoric resources that
may be exposed by earthwork, as a condition of approval, the City shall require that a qualified archaeological
monitor be present on the project site during all ground disturbing as described in Cultural Resource Study,
prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, March 2022, (BFSA 2022) which is included as Appendix E
MM-CUL-2 If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the
developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take appropriate
measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Fontana
shall:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification
without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new
developments, using their special qualities at a theme or focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the area's archaeological heritage.
• Proposal mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval (if a local government action)
to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources,
following appropriate CEQA guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and
proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report,
with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for
permanent archiving.
Status: Applicable to Project. MM-CUL-3: Where consistent with applicable local, State and federal law and deemed appropriate by the City, future site-specific development projects shall consider the following: In the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction for future development, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall
be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall project may continue during this period;
• Initiate consultation between the appropriate Native American tribal entity (as determined by a
qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards) and the City/project applicant;
Transfer cultural resources investigations to the appropriate Native American entity (as determined
by a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards) as soon as possible;
Utilize a Native American Monitor from the appropriate Native American entity (as determined by a
qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards) where deemed appropriate or required
by the City, during initial ground disturbing activities, cultural resource surveys and/or cultural resource
excavations.
Status: Applicable to Project.
No new impacts nor substantially more severe cultural resources impacts would result from implementation
of the proposed Project; therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for cultural resources.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
107
5.6 ENERGY Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes or Additions
No New
Impact/
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The discussion below is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum, prepared by Urban
Crossroads, Inc., prepared June 2022, which is included as Appendix A.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The 37.32-acre Project site is located in the original Southridge Village Specific Plan (SVSP). The 1982 SVSP
Final EIR (Original Specific Plan) analyzed the development of 8,800 residential units within the entire SVSP area. Since 1983, 18 amendments to the SVSP (Approved SPA #18) have been processed and a total of 7,836 residential units have been allocated. With the exception of the Project site and Planning Area 66B, which includes an overlay allowing self-storage uses, the SVSP is built out.
The SVSP Draft EIR analyzed energy consumption in Section 6.2.10, Public Services and Utilities. The SVSP Draft EIR described that the development of 8,800 units would result in consumption of approximately 1.2 million cubic feet of natural gas per year and 70 million kilowatt hours per year. Mitigation measures for natural gas and electricity were included, which require future developers to work directly with the gas and
electricity providers prior to project implementation in order to ensure that energy utility facilities are
constructed as needed. Additionally, Section 6.7, Energy Conservation, discusses energy conservation
measures in place at the time the SVSP was written, which includes implementation of Title 24 standards. It
was estimated that the new housing constructed in compliance with Title 24 would save about 50 percent of
the energy consumed by pre-1975 housing constructed before the regulations were in effect. The SVSP Final
EIR ultimately concluded that build out under the Specific Plan would result in a substantial demand for
energy that would require expanded supplies, and even with implementation of mitigation, impacts were
determined to be significant and unavoidable.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
Natural Gas: The specific locations of gas lines to serve the Southridge Village community will be determined
at the tentative tract level of planning. Developers should work directly with gas company planners to ensure
that facilities are constructed as needed.
Electricity: As tentative tracts and site plans are designed, developers should work directly with Edison
Company planners to designate the specific location and configuration of electrical lines and facilities to
best serve the Southridge Village community.
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
108
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact.
Construction
During construction of the proposed Project would consume energy in three general forms:
1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project
site, construction worker travel to and from the Project site, as well as delivery truck trips;
2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and
3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and
manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.
Under the SVSP, specific construction-related energy demands were not calculated. However, construction
activities related to redevelopment of the site for new residential uses would be permitted to require
compliance with existing fuel standards, machinery efficiency standards, and CARB requirements that limit
idling of trucks, such as California Air Resources Board (CARB) Rule 2485 regulations that limit idling to 5
minutes (13 CCR, Chapter 10 Section 2485). Through compliance with existing standards the Project would not result in demand for fuel greater on a per-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the State. Therefore, construction-related fuel consumption by the Project would not be anticipated to result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation The proposed Project intends to develop 255 units on the site. Of the 255 proposed units, 92 units were assumed to occur on the site and 163 would be transferred from the overall remaining SVSP capacity, which is permitted by the SVSP (SVSP Section 5.11). Therefore, buildout of the SVSP as modified by the Project is
assumed to be 7,999 units, or 801 fewer units compared to the assumptions in the SVSP Final EIR. Once
operational, the Project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline for fuel
tanks. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of the residences, water heating,
operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances, parking lot and outdoor lighting, and the transport
of electricity, natural gas, and water to the areas where they would be consumed. This use of energy is
typical for urban development, and no operational activities or land uses would occur that would result in
extraordinary energy consumption. As detailed in Table E-1, operation of the proposed Project would use
approximately 59,212,660 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year of electricity, approximately 241,505,888
thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year of natural gas, and 8,765,489 gallons of gasoline annually.
Table E-1: Proposed Project Annual Operational Energy Requirements
Energy Usage Proposed Project Consumption
Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours per Year) 59,212,660
Natural Gas (Thousands British Thermal Units) 241,505,888
Gallons of Gasoline Fuel 8,765,849
Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix A)
Table E-2 details the proposed Project’s consistency with the previously approved buildout of the SVSP EIR.
As shown, operation of the proposed Project would use approximately 5,547,414 fewer kilowatt-hour (kWh)
per year of electricity, approximately 22,810,203 fewer thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year of
natural gas, and 882,595 fewer gallons of gasoline annually when compared to the full buildout under the
previously approved SVSP.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
109
Table E-2: Proposed Project Annual Net Operational Energy Requirements
Operational Source Energy Usage
Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours per Year)
Proposed Project Buildout 59,212,660
Approved Buildout 64,760,074
Consistent? Yes
Natural Gas (Thousands British Thermal Units)
Proposed Project Buildout 241,505,888
Approved Buildout 264,316,091
Consistent? Yes
Petroleum (gasoline) Consumption
Annual VMT Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
Proposed Project Buildout 230,025,419 8,765,849
Approved Buildout 253,185,669 9,648,444
Consistent? Yes Yes
Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix A)
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards through
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new
building permits are issued by the City. The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review
of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which
ensures that all requirements are met. In complying with the Title 24 standards, Project impacts related to
peak energy usage periods would be minimized and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would
be reduced. The previously approved SVSP Final EIR identified that all new projects would be consistent with
Title 24 standards; however, Title 24 standards have been modified since approval of the EIR to be more
stringent, further reducing energy consumption of proposed land uses. Typical Title 24 measures include
insulation; use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); energy-
efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; and requirements to install solar and be Electric Storage System
(ESS) ready, etc. Thus, operation of the Project would not use large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful
manner, and no operational energy impacts would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are designed to ensure new and existing buildings achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These measures (Title 24, Part 6) are listed in the California Code of Regulations. The California Energy Commission is responsible for adopting, implementing and updating building energy efficiency. Local city and county enforcement agencies have the authority to verify compliance with applicable building codes, including energy efficiency. All development is required to comply with the adopted California Energy Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 6), which is ensured through the City’s development permitting process
included as PPP GHG‐1.
As previously stated, the Project would be consistent with Title 24 standards, which have been modified to be more stringent than previously identified and analyzed under the original SVSP Final EIR. No new or
substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
110
those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those
identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate proposed Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding energy. There have not been 1)
changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the
SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
PPP GHG‐1: Title 24 Standards. The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Manager, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. The 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency standards for residential
uses require that solar photovoltaic electricity be installed equal to the amount used annually.
PPP GHG-2: California Air Resources Board (CARB) Rule 2485. Project construction shall comply with CARB
Rule 2485, which minimizes truck engine idling to 5 minutes and requires 2008 and newer model year heavy-
duty diesel engines to be fitted with automatic engine shutdown systems or to meet other specified idling
emission standards.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe energy impacts would result from implementation of the
proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for energy.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
111
5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or Additions
No
New
Impact/
No Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
The discussion below is based on the Feasibility/Due Diligence-Level Geotechnical Assessment for the Live
Oak Project, prepared by Petra Geosciences Inc. on June 22, 2021 (Appendix F); Rockfall Analysis for the
Live Oak Project, prepared by KANE Geotech, Inc. on July 30, 2021 (Appendix G); and the Paleontological
Assessment for the Southridge Project, prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. on March 21, 2022
(Appendix H).
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Draft EIR discussed impacts related to geology and soils in Section 6.2.2, Geology and Soils, and
6.4, Unavoidable Adverse Impact. The SVSP Draft EIR described that the SVSP area lies at the perimeter of
the Chino Basin, a deep geologic structure formed by alluvial sediments, and is underlain by six distinct rock
types: man-made fill, younger alluvium, older alluvium, quartz monzonite basement rock, quartz diorite
basement rock, and foliated gneiss, a metamorphic rock. There were no known faults identified onsite, with
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
112
the three nearest faults being the San Jacinto fault (9 miles to the northeast), the Cucamonga fault (9 miles
to the north), and the San Andreas fault (13.5 miles to the northeast). Existing steep natural slopes within the
mountainous portions of the study area were described as covered with large bedrock exposures and rock
fragments. At the time the Draft EIR was written, no landslides or large surficial soil failures had been
identified onsite. Detailed geotechnical evaluations were not conducted for the steeper Jurupa Mountains
since no blasting or grading was proposed in this area at the time the SVSP Draft EIR was written.
The site was identified as susceptible to ground shaking; however, liquefaction, landslides, and soil failures
were not identified as representing a significant geological constraint onsite. Man-made fills and near-
surface alluvial deposits identified on the project site did not exhibit acceptable compaction characteristics
and would require removal and recompaction. Additionally, soils temporarily exposed during grading were
identified as subject to accelerated erosion until stabilization is implemented. Mitigation Measure Geology
and Soils 1 was included to ensure final grading plans would be accompanied by recommendations from a
geologist and soils engineer based on site-specific conditions.
The SVSP Final EIR found that the project would result in unavoidable adverse impacts related to geology and soils as a result of exposure to onsite ground shaking and incompatibility of onsite soils for recompaction purposes. All other impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation.
The SVSP Draft EIR did not evaluate whether the buildout of the SVSP would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
Geology and Soils 1. Final grading plans shall be accompanied by and shall reflect the recommendations
of an engineering geologist and soils engineer. Recommendations based on a detailed evaluation of subsurface conditions shall consider the removal and recompaction of unsuitable soils; foundation design; expansion potential; slope stability of proposed cut and fill areas; and/or other such items as determined to be necessary by the City Engineer.
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that buildout of the SVSP would not result in any significant
impacts in relation to a rupture of a known earthquake fault.
The Project site slopes generally from east to west and is bounded to the north by Village Drive, to the east
by an abandoned rock quarry and granitic hillside (Jurupa Mountains), to the west by an existing park
(Southridge Park), and to the south by existing residential tracts. The Project site is located nearest to San
Jacinto fault (9 miles to the northeast), the Cucamonga fault (9 miles to the north), and the San Andreas fault
(13.5 miles to the northeast). Therefore, the potential hazard of ground surface rupture at the site is
considered low (Petra Geosciences Inc. 2021). Because the Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault zone and the site does not include, or adjacent to a fault, impacts related to rupture of a
known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map are
considered less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
113
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Minor Technical Change. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to seismic ground shaking would
be significant and unavoidable.
The Project site is in a seismically active area of Southern California and will likely be subjected to very
strong seismically related ground shaking during the anticipated life span of the Project. According to the
USGS Unified Hazard Tool website and/or 2010 CGS Fault Activity Map of California, the San Bernardino
segment of the San Jacinto Fault zone, located approximately 15.9 kilometers east of the site, would
probably generate the most severe site ground motions and, therefore, is the majority contributor to the
deterministic minimum component of the ground motion models. This fault system is capable of producing a
magnitude 8.06 or larger event.
Structures within the Project site would therefore be designed and constructed to resist the effects of strong
ground motion in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC [California Code of Regulations, Title
24, Part 2]), included in the Municipal Code as Article III (PPP GEO-1). Compliance with the CBC would
ensure earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soils onsite, and the
probable strength of the ground motion. Compliance with the CBC would include 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 structures so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. Therefore, with CBC compliance, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death as a direct result of strong seismic ground shaking more than other developments in Southern California. The Project site is bounded to the north by Village Drive and to the east by an abandoned rock quarry and
granitic hillside (Jurupa Mountains). Originally the site was used as part of a granite stone and aggregate
quarry where quarry operations were begun as early as pre-1900. By the 1980s, quarrying was
abandoned. Random and large unstable blocks of rock remaining from past quarry blasting activities are
present and could lead to rockfall hazards. The area is seismically active and ground shaking due to seismic
activity can easily cause rockfall onto the Project site from the outcrops above the Project area. The larger
outcrops are predominately near the proposed construction limits, whereas the 2-foot to 6-foot boulders are
on the highest elevation of the ridge. Although landslides are unlikely, tonalite boulders present a rockfall
hazard (KANE 2021).
As specified in Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils 1 of the SVSP Draft EIR, final grading plans will be
accompanied by recommendations of an engineering geologist and soils engineer. Recommendations will be
based on a detailed evaluation of site conditions, including slope stability, and other items determined
necessary to be addressed, by the City Engineer. In compliance with Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils
1, the Project would include a 2,100 linear-foot long flexible rockfall barrier along the eastern boundary
of the Project site at the base of the slope as a Project design feature. Prior to the construction of the barrier,
a detailed rockfall study would be performed to determine the exact type, parameters, and locations of
the barriers. Other preventative measures that would be considered to reduce the size and scale of the
rockfall barrier include large rock removal by blasting or scaling with bars and/or air bags. The barrier
would prevent rockfall from impacting any structures or persons within the Project site in the event of seismic
ground shaking. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death as an indirect result of strong seismic
ground shaking more than other developments in Southern California.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
114
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly
graded fine-grained sands that lie below the groundwater table within approximately 50 feet below
ground surface. The SVSP Draft EIR concluded that liquefaction potential, landslides, and surficial soil failures
do not represent significant geotechnical constraints onsite. As discussed in the Feasibility/Due Diligence-
Level Geotechnical Assessment, San Bernardino County does not identify the subject property within a zone
of liquefaction potential. However, dry and unconsolidated undocumented fill materials encountered during
field exploration suggests the potential for seismically induced dynamic settlement. The SVSP Draft EIR
identified incompatible fill materials of the SVSP area as an unavoidable and adverse impact of the project.
The Project would be designed consistent with CBC standards (PPP GEO-1), as required by the City’s
Municipal Code, which would require the removal and/or replacement and recompaction of incompatible
soils and the implementation of stable foundational soil conditions with low potential for ground failure or liquefaction, suitable to support proposed land uses. Impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant with compliance with the CBC. Additionally, as required by Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils 1 of the SVSP Draft EIR, the Project must demonstrate compliance with the prepared geotechnical report, including geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Project prior to the issuance of grading permits. Compliance with the CBC and Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils 1 would reduce impacts related to liquefaction to less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. iv. Landslides?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The site exhibits gentle-sloping land that is not typically prone to landslides; however, the
off-site quarry slopes, and the Jurupa Mountains as a whole, are mapped by San Bernardino County as
moderately to highly susceptible to landslides. Under existing conditions of the Project site, landslides are
considered likely. However, as discussed above, the Project would include implementation of removal and/or
replacement and recompaction of undocumented fills in compliance with the CBC (PPP GEO-1) which would
reduce the potential of landslides. Additionally, the Project would include implementation of a rockfall
barrier, which would protect the Project site from potential falling rocks and/or landslides. Therefore, the
Project would result in less than significant impacts related to landslides.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. Under Section 6.4, the Draft EIR found that exposure of underlying soils due to grading
would increase susceptibility to erosion, and impacts would be considered unavoidable and adverse. The
proposed Project would involve excavation, grading, and construction activities that would disturb soil and
leave exposed soil on the ground surface. As such, the proposed Project would be required to comply with
the City’s grading standards and erosion control measures, as verified through the permitting and plan check
process. Additionally, the Construction General Permit (CGP; Order No. R8-2002-0011) issued by the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), regulates construction activities to minimize water pollution,
including sediment. The proposed Project would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit Order No. R8-2010-0036 for collective San Bernardino County MS4s within the
Region, which includes requirements, such as implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
115
(SWPPP) and associated best management practices (BMPs) during grading and construction, which would
be required during construction permitting of the Project. BMPs include, but are not limited to:
• Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering activities that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies;
• Following manufacturers’ recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products
used in construction;
• Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks;
• Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and
• Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.
Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from Project-related
grading and construction activities. After completion of construction, the Project site would be developed with
new residential buildings, streets, and landscape improvements, and would not contain exposed soil. Thus,
the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be low. In addition, the San Bernardino County
NPDES permit requires new development projects to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
including Low Impact Development BMPs to reduce the potential of erosion and/or sedimentation through
site design and structural treatment control street sweeping private streets and parking lots, storm drain
signage, and use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design. Implementation of the WQMP and
BMPs is verified through the City’s permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less
than significant impact related to soil erosion.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
c) 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? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to unstable geologic units and soil would be less than significant with compliance to regulatory requirements. However, Mitigation Measures Geology
and Soils 1 was included to require project-specific grading plans and evaluation of site conditions, which
include recommendations to address necessary safety and design geotechnical considerations.
As described above, the Project site is susceptible to landslides, subsidence, and liquefaction because of
subsurface conditions and surrounding topography. Based on the preliminary findings of the Feasibility/Due
Diligence-Level Geotechnical Assessment, lateral spreading is considered unlikely for the Project site.
Furthermore, the Project site is located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable; however, the Project itself
would not create slopes on the site or exacerbate conditions to become unstable as a result of the Project.
Thus, on or off-site landslides would not occur from implementation of the Project.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, pursuant to the CBC, the Project must comply with the geotechnical
report and its recommendations (PPP GEO-1). The report would provide CBC regulations for the proposed
development to reduce the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement to a less than significant level and
would be verified by the City through the building plan check and development permitting process, and
would reduce potential impacts related to liquefaction, settlement, and ground collapse to a less than
significant level. A rockfall barrier would be constructed as a design feature of the Project, which would be
consistent with Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Geology
and Soils 1 would reduce potential impacts related to landslides to a less than significant level.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
116
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR determined that site soils in areas of lesser slope were well suited for
grading and are non-expansive. No detailed geotechnical evaluations were completed for the steeper
Jurupa Mountain area; because, except for two proposed water reservoirs, no blasting or grading was
proposed in the area at the time the Draft EIR was prepared. Expansive soils contain certain types of clay
minerals that shrink or well 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 experiences, such as southern California, have a higher potential of expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture. Four borings were conducted, and fill materials were collected from depths ranging 2 to 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). Testing of samples collected included in-situ density and moisture content, maximum
density and optimum moisture content, expansion potential, and soil corrosivity. Results indicated that the
expansion index (EI) of the soils are in the Very Low EI range (0-20). In addition, as described previously, compliance with the CBC would be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval to ensure that Project structures would withstand the effects related to ground movement, including expansive soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
e) 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?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR did not evaluate impacts related to septic tanks.
The proposed Project would construct private domestic water and sewer lines onsite that would connect to
an existing 16-inch water and an existing 21-inch sewer line in Live Oak Avenue. No septic tanks are
proposed.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The proposed Project would construct new residential buildings on the site. Earthmoving
activities, including grading and trenching activities, would have the potential to disturb previously unknown
paleontological resources if earthmoving activities occur at depths below previously disturbed soils. A
paleontological analysis was conducted for the Project site that included a records search, a literature search,
a review of geological maps, and impact analyses that are documented in the following text. Geologic
mapping shows that the eastern portion is mapped as artificial fill deposits, consisting of quarry tailings of
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
117
waste rock and earthen materials derived from activities at the adjacent Declezville Quarry (Qaf) and the
western portion of the Project consists of Holocene and late Pleistocene young alluvial fan deposits of the
Lytle Creek fan (Qyfl). These alluvial deposits also likely underlie most or all the mapped artificial fill
materials at the Project’s eastern portion. Older Pleistocene-aged alluvial fan deposits (Qof2 and Qof1)
may also be present beneath the artificial fill, also consisting of coarse, cobbly and bouldery materials.
Given the coarse nature and young age of the alluvium, the proximity of the alluvial deposits to the mountain
source, the shallow depths proposed for construction, and an assignment of no paleontological potential for
surficial young alluvial deposits by the City’s General Plan, the Project has low sensitivity for paleontological
resources. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to paleontological
resources and unique geologic features.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project. Impacts
from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding geology and soils. There have not been 1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
GEO‐1 The Project shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the 2019 California Building Code
(CBC) Design Parameters, or the most current CBC adopted in the City’s Municipal Code.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe geology and soils impacts would result from implementation
of the proposed Project; therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for geology and soils.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project:
Geology and Soils 1. Final grading plans shall be accompanied by and shall reflect the recommendations
of an engineering geologist and soils engineer. Recommendations based on a detailed evaluation of
subsurface conditions shall consider the removal and recompaction of unsuitable soils; foundation design;
expansion potential; slope stability of proposed cut and fill areas; and/or other such items as determined
to be necessary by the City Engineer.
Status: As a result of this measure, site preparation shall follow the recommendations in the Feasibility/Due
Diligence-Level Geotechnical Assessment for the Live Oak Project, prepared by Petra Geosciences Inc. on June
22, 2021, and Rockfall Analysis for the Live Oak Project, prepared by KANE Geotech, Inc. on July 30, 2021,
as well as any additional future site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigations of the Project.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
118
5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes or Additions
No
New
Impact/No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR did not evaluate impacts related to generation greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) as the
threshold was not included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G at the time the SVSP Final EIR was written. Thus,
this addendum does not need to include a GHG analysis because the Final EIR was certified before GHG
emissions analyses were required to be prepared (A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993)
12 Cal.App.4th 1773, 1801). Although the CEQA Guidelines did not expressly address evaluation of GHG impacts until 2010, information regarding the potential impacts of GHGs has been widely known since the late 1970s. (See, e.g., Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 531 [discussing events including 1978 adoption of National Climate Program Act].) Because GHG impacts were known or should have been known at the time the SVSP Final EIR was certified, adoption of the requirement to analyze GHG does not constitute significant new information, requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR (Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320). Nonetheless, the following analyzes the Project’s GHG impacts
for informational purposes.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
The discussion below is based on the Operational Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum, prepared
by Urban Crossroads, which is included as Appendix A, and the Construction Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas
Memorandum, prepared by Urban Crossroads, which is included as Appendix B.
Explanation
Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical
role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface, which otherwise
would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate.
Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural
ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a
trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change.
Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with
industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
119
Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Transportation is responsible
for 37 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions of CO2
and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off-
gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the
atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean.
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding
greenhouse gases. GHG statutes and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO S-03-05, EO S-
20-06 and EO S-01-07. These regulations require the use of alternative energy, such as solar power. Solar
projects produce electricity with no GHG emissions and assist in offsetting GHG emissions produced by fossil-
fuel-fired power plants. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. Global climate change (GCC) describes alterations in weather features (e.g., temperature,
wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) that occur across the Earth as a whole. GCC is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact.
The principal GHGs of concern contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO2, CH4, N2O,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. GHGs are produced by both direct and
indirect emissions sources. Direct emissions include consumption of natural gas, heating and cooling of
buildings, landscaping activities and other equipment used directly by land uses. Indirect emissions include
the consumption of fossil fuels for vehicle trips, electricity generation, water usage, and solid waste disposal.
The large majority of GHG emissions generated from residential projects are related to vehicle trips.
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions; however, the SCAQMD
developed interim numeric GHG significance thresholds that are based on capture of approximately 90
percent of emissions from development, which is 3,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per
year (SCAQMD 2008). This approach is widely used by cities in the South Coast Air Basin, including the City
of Fontana. As such, this threshold is utilized herein to determine if GHG emissions from this Project would be
significant.
During construction, temporary sources of GHG emissions include construction equipment and workers’
commutes to and from the site. Additionally, the Project may utilize rock crushing and blasting activities which
would occur during the grading phase. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4,
and N2O. As shown on Table GHG-1, the Project has the potential to generate a total of approximately
79.91 MTCO2e per year from construction emissions amortized over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology.
Table GHG-1: Proposed Project Construction GHG Emissions
Year Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O R Total CO2E
2023 654.00 0.03 0.02 0.28 660.00
2024 559.00 0.03 0.02 0.39 567.00
2025 553.00 0.03 0.02 0.37 561.00
2026 599.00 0.02 0.02 0.35 607.00
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
120
2027 2.17 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 2.20
Total Construction Emissions 2367.17 0.11 0.08 1.39 2397.20
Amortized Emissions
(MTCO2e) 78.91 0.00 0.00 0.05 79.91
Source: Construction Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Memorandum (Appendix B)
During operations, the proposed residences would generate long-term GHG emissions from vehicular trips;
water, natural gas, and electricity consumption; and solid waste generation. Natural gas use results in the
emission of two GHGs: CH4 (the major component of natural gas) and CO2 (from the combustion of natural
gas). Electricity use can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combusting fossil fuel.
Table GHG-2 shows the Project’s operational GHG emissions. As shown in Table GHG-2, the Project would
generate approximately 2,988.09 MTCO2e per year, which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000
MTCO2e. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Table GHG-2: Proposed Project Operational GHG Emissions
Source Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O R Total CO2E
Area 2134.00 0.11 0.11 3.00 2172.00
Energy 59.20 <0.005 <0.005 0.00 59.30
Mobile 655.00 0.06 <0.005 0.00 658.00
Waste 63.60 0.35 0.01 0.00 75.00
Water 6.64 0.66 0.00 0.00 23.20
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59
Total CO3E (All Sources) 2,988.09
Screening Threshold
(CO2E) 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Source: Operational Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum (Appendix A)
Table GHG-3 shows the comparison of operational GHG emissions that would result from buildout of the
SVSP with the proposed Project versus buildout of the original SVSP. As shown in Table GHG-1, buildout of
the SVSP with the proposed Project would generate approximately 109,783.54 MTCO2e per year and
buildout of the original SVSP would generate approximately 120,735.75MTCO2e per year.
Table GHG-3: Buildout with Proposed Project GHG Emissions
Land Use Quantity Units Total CO2E
With Proposed Project
Single Family Detached 7,062 DU 100,055.30
Proposed Project 255 DU 2,988.09
Multifamily (Low-Rise) Residential 754 DU 6,740.15
With Proposed Project Total 109,783.54
DU = Dwelling Unit
Source: Operational Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum (Appendix A)
Table GHG-4 shows the difference in operational GHG emissions that would result from buildout of the
SVSP with the Proposed Project, compared to the original SVSP on the 37.32-acre Project site.
Table GHG-4: Comparison of Buildout with Project and Original SVSP Net GHG Emissions
Land Use
Emissions (MT/yr) Total
CO2E
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
121
Project Net Operational Emissions
With Proposed Project 109,783.54
Original Specific Plan 120,735.72
Comparison (Current –
Original) 10,952.21
Source: Operational Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum (Appendix A)
As seen in Table GHG-4, the buildout of the SVSP with the proposed Project would result in fewer MTCO2e
than the previously approved Project. In addition, as shown in Table GHG-2, the proposed Project would
emit less than the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e, and therefore, would have a less than significant
impact on GHG emissions.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact.
The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. As described in the previous response, the Project
would not exceed thresholds related to GHG emissions. In addition, the Project would comply with regulations
imposed by the state and the SCAQMD that reduce GHG emissions, as described below:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) is applicable to the Project because many of the
GHG reduction measures outlined in AB 32 (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, advanced clean car
standards, and cap-and-trade) have been adopted over the last 5 years and implementation
activities are ongoing. The proposed building would not conflict with fuel and car standards or cap-
and-trade.
• Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493) establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new (model year
2009-2016) passenger cars and light trucks. The Project would develop new residences that would
not conflict with fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.
• Title 24 California Code of Regulations (Title 24) establishes energy efficiency requirements for new
construction that address the energy efficiency of new (and altered) buildings. The Project is required
to comply with Title 24, which would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting
process.
• Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard [LCFS]) requires carbon content
of fuel sold in California to be 10 percent less by 2020. Because the LCFS applies to any
transportation fuel that is sold or supplied in California, all vehicle trips generated by the Project
would comply with LCFS.
• California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) provides requirements to
ensure water efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing
landscapes. The Project is required to comply with AB 1881 landscaping requirements, which would
be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting process.
• Emissions from vehicles, which are a main source of operational GHG emissions, would be reduced
through implementation of federal and state fuel and air quality emissions requirements that are
implemented by CARB. In addition, as described in the previous response, the Project would not
result in an exceedance of an air quality standard.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
122
The regulations, plans, and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions that are directly
applicable to the Project include the latest Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings (PPP GHG-1) and the Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) (PPP GHG-2). The Project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Standard at the
time of building permit issuance. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with any
applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases
and impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding greenhouse gas emissions. There have not
been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
PPP GHG‐1: Title 24 Standards. The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations
[CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, normally every three years, to incorporate improved
energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Manager, or designee shall ensure compliance
prior to the issuance of each building permit. The 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency standards for residential
uses require that solar photovoltaic electricity be installed equal to the amount used annually.
PPP GHG‐2: CALGreen Standards. Projects shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California
Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR 11). The Building Manager, or designee shall ensure
compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe greenhouse gas emissions impacts would result from
implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures with respect to
greenhouse gas emissions impacts are required.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
123
5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than Previous EIR
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative to Reduce Significant Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or Additions
No
New
Impact/
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
The discussion below is based on Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared January 2019 by Dudek
(Dudek 2019) and included as Appendix I and the Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared
June 2021 by Petra Geosciences (Petra 2021) and included as Appendix J.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR did not analyze impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
Existing Conditions
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) indicated that the Project site was previously developed
with a residence and used as a work and staging area during rock quarry activities of the former Declezville
Quarry. The Phase I ESA identified that two rail spurs were present onsite between the 1930s and 1980s.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
124
The Phase I ESA also noted that it is possible that a boiler, fueled by oil or coal, was used to power steam
drills used in quarry operations; however, there is no evidence that a boiler or any other fuel storage was
located on the subject property. The Phase I ESA concluded that no recognized environmental conditions
(REC) were identified for the site.
The Phase II ESA conducted a Limited Phase II Soil Residue Survey to evaluate the potential for detectable
concentrations of metal residues to exist onsite as a result of past uses. As part of the Phase II ESA, a stainless-
steel hand auger and trowel was used to excavate shallow test sample holes at six locations within the
Project site in proximity to the former railroad tracks. In addition, three samples were selected from the
geotechnical borings drilled on May 14, 2021. The Phase II ESA concluded that none of the soil samples
analyzed from the Project site contained detectable concentrations of Title 22 CAM Metals above the
applicable regulatory agency screening levels for residential soil use; however, arsenic levels detected on
the subject property exceeded the regional screening level (RSL) for inorganic arsenic of 0.68 mg/kg in all
samples and required further assessment (Petra 2021). Further investigation of arsenic levels at the site found that detected levels of arsenic on the subject property are considered within background concentrations. Therefore, no further assessment is required.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or
physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that regulatory agencies have a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if
released into the home, workplace, or environment. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal
because of their potential to damage public health and the environment.
Construction
The proposed construction activities would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking during construction activities. In addition,
hazardous materials would routinely 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 federal and state regulations that are implemented by the City during building
permitting for construction activities. Construction of the Project would not require the use of acutely
hazardous materials. As such, impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials is not expected. Therefore, impacts related to use of these materials
during construction would be less than significant.
Operation
The Project involves operation of new single-family residences, which involve routinely using hazardous
materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. These
types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities. The
normal routine use of these hazardous materials products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in
a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, operation of the
Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, and impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
125
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact.
Construction
Accidental Releases. The routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance
with applicable regulations during construction activities would not pose health risks or result in significant
impacts. To avoid an impact related to an accidental release, the use of best management practices (BMPs)
during construction are implemented as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required
by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (and included as PPP
HWQ-1). Implementation of an SWPPP would minimize potential adverse effects to workers, the public, and
the environment. Construction contract specifications would include strict on-site handling rules and BMPs that
include, but are not limited to:
• Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering activities
that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies;
• Following manufacturers’ recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products
used in construction;
• Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks;
• Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and
• Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.
Operation
As described previously, operation of the proposed 255 residential units includes use of limited hazardous
materials, such as solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. Normal
routine use of typical residential products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant
hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project. As a result, operation of the
proposed Project would not create a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR did not analyze impacts related to hazardous material use near schools.
The closest schools to the Project site are Canyon Crest Elementary School, located 0.34-mile west from the
site and Southridge Middle School, located 0.43-mile west of the site. As noted in Sections 5.9(a) and 5.9(b),
the proposed Project is a residential Project and is not anticipated to release hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing
or proposed school and impacts would be less than significant.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
126
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact.
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, which included a database search of local, regional, state, and
federal databases related to hazardous materials, determined that the Project site is not identified as a hazardous materials site. Furthermore, the Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact.
The Project site is located approximately 6.58 miles east of the Ontario International Airport (ONT) and is
within the Airport Influence Area of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
(ONTLUCP). The Project site is not within an ONTLUCP Safety Zone or Noise Impact Zone; however, the
Project site is located within the ONTLUCP Overflight Notification Zone for Real Estate Transaction Disclosures
and within the ONT Airspace Protection Zone for structural heights greater than 200 feet above grade.
The ONTLUCP requires notification for all projects within the Overflight Notification Zone for Real Estate
Transaction Disclosures. California state statutes (Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and Civil
Code Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353) require that, as part of many residential real estate transactions,
information be disclosed regarding whether the property is situated within an airport influence area.
Therefore, PPP HAZ‐1 is incorporated into the Project to require the Project Applicant notify prospective
Project occupants of the site’s proximity to the ONT and airport overflight in accordance with the ONTLUCP
and state law. With implementation of PPP HAZ‐1, impacts related to airport hazards for people residing
or working on the Project site would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
f) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
127
Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within
the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The
installation of new driveways and connections to existing and proposed infrastructure systems that would be
implemented during construction of the proposed Project would not require closure of Live Oak Avenue or
Village Drive. Any temporary lane closures needed for utility connections or driveway construction would be
required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate vehicle circulation, as included within construction
permits. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing
regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access or evacuation
impacts to a less than significant level.
Operation
Direct access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways on Live Oak Avenue. The Project driveways and internal circulation would be required through the City’s permitting procedures to meet the City’s design standards to ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation. The Project is also required to provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers). The Fire Department and Public Works Department would review the development plans as part of the permitting procedures 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), included as Municipal Code Section 5-425. Therefore, operation of
the proposed Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR did not analyze impacts related to wildland fires.
According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is within an area identified a
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CAL FIRE 2022). As a result, the proposed Project may
expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires. The proposed Project would be constructed in compliance with the California Fire Code (CFC)
and California Building Code (CBC). The safety measures under the California Fire Code include ignition-
resistant construction with exterior walls of noncombustible or ignition resistant material from the surface of
the ground to the roof system, and sealing any gaps around doors, windows, eaves and vents to prevent
intrusion by flame or embers. Development would also be required to meet California Building Code
requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire
exposure. CCR Title 14 sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel
modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing
wildfire hazards risk. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements for implementation of fire protection
measures (e.g., ignition-resistant construction materials and measures) would further reduce impacts
associated with wildfire spread. Impacts associated with exposure of people or structures to significant risk
involving wildland fires is less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
128
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding hazards and hazardous materials. There
have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that
require major revisions of the SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives
that were not known and could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) PPP HWQ-1: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. As listed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality.
PPP HAZ-1: Airport proximity disclosure information should be provided to future tenants in accordance with state law (Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and Civil Code Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353. See Section 6.4.4(b) Project Design Features (PDFs) None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe hazards and hazardous materials impacts would result from
the proposed Project; therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for hazards and hazardous
materials.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
129
5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes or Additions
No
New
Impact/No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) 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:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) 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; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
g) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
h) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
The discussion below is based on Preliminary WQMP prepared by NH Southridge, LLC, dated June 17,
2022, provided as Appendix K, and the Hydrology and Hydraulic Report, dated June 17, 2022, provided
as Appendix L.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to hydrology and water quality in Section 6.2.3, Hydrology.
Site erosion as a result of stormwater runoff was discussed under Section 6.2.1, Topography. The SVSP
Drainage Master Plan is included as Section 3.3, Drainage Master Plan. According to the SVSP Draft EIR,
the majority of the SVSP area drains to a broad and ill-defined intermittent stream, known as the Declez
Channel, which flows across the SVSP area and into Riverside County in a southwesterly direction. At the time
the SVSP Draft EIR was written, no runoff or flood control facilities had been constructed within the
undeveloped lands of the SVSP area. The Draft EIR referenced a comprehensive storm drain plan for the
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
130
south Fontana area that was developed by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD). The
County's plan recommended construction of flood control improvements within the Declez Channel to carry
the 100-year peak flood flows through the SVSP planning area. According to the SBCFCD plan, Declez
Channel improvements would begin at the San Bernardino County line on the southern boundary of the SVSP
area, extend upstream along the base of the Jurupa Mountains, and terminate near the northeastern corner.
The planned improvements included a series of collector storm drain systems throughout the site that connect
to the channel. The Drainage Master Plan included the following planned improvements for the SVSP area:
• Improvement of the Declez Channel to accommodate major storm flows;
• Construction of flood retarding basin(s) or other improvements to mitigate the effects of increased
runoff on downstream facilities;
• Construction of tributary storm drains to convey runoff to the Declez Channel; and
• Construction of bridges and related drainage structures.
The SVSP Draft EIR determined that implementation of the Drainage Master Plan would provide adequate
flood protection for the SVSP area in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal standards.
Implementation of the master plan would require a number of agreements and decisions regarding funding
sources and engineering design that would be executed as part of implementation of the SVSP.
Construction of SVSP buildout would require substantial ground disturbing activities, increasing potential for
site erosion and runoff. Additionally, development of the SVSP could result in decreased site infiltration,
increasing the rate and volume of runoff, as well as pollutant load due to new land uses introduced to the
drainage area. The State Water Department requested the following construction measures be taken within
the SVSP to minimize erosion and protect water quality: revegetating slopes as soon as possible, limiting
grading to dry months in order to minimize sediment transport during construction, providing at least one
route of ingress and egress to the development for use during a 100-year flood, and protecting structures
against a 100-year flood. Additionally, SCAG required in their Areawide Waste Treatment Management
Plan (April 1979) the following operational measures be taken to protect water quality: litter control
programs to reduce the entry of wastes to receiving waters; effective programs for catch basin, inlet basin,
and storm drain cleaning; and reduction of runoff volume and peak flows from developments via water
conservation methods.
The SVSP site overlies the Santa Ana River groundwater basin. Well data used for the Draft EIR indicated
the average depth to groundwater was approximately 200 feet. Groundwater quality underlying the site
was described as generally good. The Draft EIR determined that planned development of alluvial lands
within the SVSP area would result in significant adverse effects on groundwater recharge because of
reduced infiltration. Several measures were considered for the purpose of mitigating the reduced
groundwater recharge impacts of development, including increasing percolation through designing the proposed flood control channel to have an unlined bottom and implementation of runoff retention reservoirs; as well as continued use of RP No. 3 percolation basins for wastewater effluent disposal. The SVSP Draft EIR included several mitigation measures for hydrology and water quality. After implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the SVSP Draft EIR determined the project would result in adverse and unavoidable impacts related to sediment loading and site runoff for project construction and operation. Additionally, development of the SVSP area was anticipated to incrementally reduce regional
groundwater recharge.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
Water Quality and Hydrology 1. The Southern California Association of Governments in a report entitled
Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan (April 1979), recommends 'that the following measures be
taken to protect water quality: litter control programs to reduce the entry of wastes to receiving waters;
effective programs for catch basin, inlet basin, and storm drain cleaning; and reduction of runoff volume
and peak flows from developments via water conservation methods.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
131
These measures are implemented at the project-level through NPDES permitting programs, specifically, the San
Bernardino County and the incorporated cities of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Region, Regional
Water Quality Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036 (see PPP HWQ-1).
Water Quality and Hydrology 2. The State Department of Water Resources, in its response to the Notice of
Preparation for this [SVSP] EIR, recommends that measures to provide for adequate flood protection and
the conservation of natural runoff water supplies be provided where feasible. The measures recommended
include revegetating slopes as soon as possible, limiting grading to dry months in order to minimize sediment
transport during construction, providing at least one route of ingress and egress to the development for use
during a 100-year flood, and protecting structures against a 100-year flood.
These measures are implemented at the project-level through NPDES permitting programs, specifically, the San
Bernardino County and the incorporated cities of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Region, Regional
Water Quality Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036 (see PPP HWQ-1). Water Quality and Hydrology 3. Implementation of the Drainage Master Plan will provide adequate flood protection in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal standards. Implementation of this master plan will require a number of agreements and decisions regarding funding sources and engineering design.
Requirements and options for implementation are described in detail in Chapter 5.0 of this Specific Plan. Water Quality and Hydrology 4. Several measures should be considered for the purpose of mitigating the reduced groundwater recharge impacts of development. These include design of the channel to include an unlined bottom and runoff retention reservoirs, to promote runoff percolation; and continued use of the RP No. 3 percolation basins for wastewater effluent disposal, possibly with an upgraded level of treatment. The extent to which these options may be feasible depends on a number of factors, including engineering, cost, water quality, and sewage treatment facilities planning constraints.
*Note: Regional Recycling Plant No. 3 ceased operation approximately 30 years ago. Since June 2009, the
location has been used as a recharge basin (RP-3 Basin).
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that implementation of the SVSP would have the potential to
adversely impact water quality in downstream receiving waters through discharge of runoff that contains
various pollutants of concern.
The Project site is currently undeveloped. Topography depicts the site with multiple drainage paths which
drain to multiple subareas. The majority of the runoff from the Project site is discharged into an inlet in the
neighboring public park, which conveys runoff into a public storm drain line in Cherry Avenue. Runoff from
a portion of the site is conveyed into an existing curb inlet catch basin on Live Oak Avenue. The remaining
site runoff is conveyed into an existing curb inlet catch basin on Village Drive. There is off-site run-on from
the undeveloped neighboring property to the east.
Construction
Construction of the Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment, and
then have the potential to mix with surface water runoff and degrade water quality. Pollutants of concern
during Project construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet),
sanitary waste, and chemicals. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there
would be an increased potential for soil erosion and transport of sediment downstream compared to existing
conditions. During a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. In addition, construction-
related pollutants, such as chemicals, liquid and petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and
concrete-related waste, could be spilled, leaked, or transported via stormwater runoff into adjacent
drainages and into downstream receiving waters.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
132
These types of water quality impacts during construction of the Project would be prevented through
implementation of a SWPPP, which is required to identify all potential sources of pollution that are
reasonably expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site (see PPP
HWQ-1). Construction of the Project would disturb more than one acre of soil; therefore, the proposed
project would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm
Water Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing,
grading, and ground disturbances such as trenching, stockpiling, or excavation. The Construction General
Permit requires implementation of a SWPPP that is required to identify all potential sources of pollution that
are reasonably expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site. The
SWPPP would generally contain a site map showing the construction perimeter, proposed buildings,
stormwater collection and discharge points, general pre- and post-construction topography, drainage
patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways. The SWPPP would also include construction BMPs. The SWPPP would include a combination of erosion control measures to reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from Project-related grading and construction activities, such as fiber rolls, fencing, and watering. With adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the appropriate BMPs as ensured
through the City’s construction permitting process, which would ensure that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, potential water quality degradation associated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant. Operation
The proposed Project includes the operation of residential uses, 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 and trucks. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters and
result in degradation of water quality. However, the proposed Project would be required to incorporate a
WQMP with post-construction (or permanent) Low Impact Development (LID) site design, source control, and
treatment control BMPs (see PPP HWQ-2). Additionally, stormwater runoff capture and infiltration measures
would be implemented to capture and infiltration stormwater runoff from either the one inch, 24-hour rain
event; the 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event; and/or additional capacity as required by any applicable
local, regional, state or federal regulation.
The Project site would drain to a 42-inch storm drain in Live Oak Avenue, which discharges to receiving
waters Declez Channel, Santa Ana River Reach 3, Prado Basin, Santa Ana River Reach 2, Santa Ana River
Reach 1, and ultimately, the Pacific Ocean. Receiving waters are listed on the 303(d) list as impaired for
Pathogens, Copper, Lead, Pathogens, Nutrients, and Indicator Bacteria. The proposed LID would minimize
the introduction of pollutants that may result in water quality impacts; and treatment control measures that
would treat stormwater runoff. The proposed Project would install a drainage system that would divide the
Project site into two drainage areas, where the northerly portion drains to an infiltration trench (63’ L x 55’
W x 8’ H) and the southerly portion would drain to an open basin located near the Southridge Park entry
street. Overflow from the open basin would split into two outlets: a pipe outlet connecting to the existing
catch basin on Live Oak Avenue and a parkway drain outlet structure that would drain overflow to the park
parking lot.
With implementation of the operational source and treatment control LID that are outlined in the Preliminary
WQMP (Appendix K) that would be reviewed and approved by the City during the permitting and approval
process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the
proposed Project would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
133
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts to groundwater supplies would be significant
and adverse. Redevelopment of the Project site would increase the impervious surfaces on the SVSP area,
which would reduce infiltration and groundwater recharge, resulting in significant cumulative impacts.
The Project site is located within the service area of the Fontana Water Company (FWC), a division of the
San Gabriel Valley Water Company. FWC’s main water supply is from the following sources:
• Surface water diverted from Lytle Creek, treated at the Summit Plant;
• Untreated SWP surface water purchased from the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) and San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD), treated at the Summit Plant;
• Recycled water purchased from IEUA; and
• Groundwater pumped from FWC-owned and operated wells from the underlying Chino Basin,
Rialto-Colton/No Man’s Land Basins, and Lytle Basin.
Water supplies are anticipated to provide a capacity of 45,593 acre-foot per year from groundwater and
surface water resources (San Gabriel Valley Water Company 2021). With purchase of additional water
supplies and an increase in surface water and ground water usage from Lytle Creek and Chino Basin, FWC
is anticipated to have adequate water supplies for single and multiple dry years as well. Development of
the proposed Project would introduce 255 two-story, single-family units that would range in size from 1,710
SF to 2,307 SF, which would increase imperviousness of the Project site. The proposed Project is within the
remaining development capacity of SVSP. Of the 255 units, 92 units were assumed to occur on the site and
163 would be transferred from the overall remaining capacity. The FWC Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) identified single family residential units in 2020 and assumed a service population of 236,754 and
projected a service population of 246,665 for 2025, indicating an anticipated service population increase
of 9,911. Using the SVSP Final EIR’s average persons per household factor of 2.75 persons per unit. the
Project is anticipated to result in 701 new residents, which is within the anticipated population growth used
to project future water demand and supply.
Approximately 60 percent of the site would become impervious as a result of the Project. However, the
proposed Project would install an onsite storm drain system that would convey runoff to capture and
infiltration areas, include a proposed infiltration trench and basin. In addition, the Project includes 40 percent
of pervious area that would infiltrate stormwater onsite. Site infiltration standards would be applied
consistent with City requirements (see PPP HWQ-3). As a result, the proposed Project would not decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge; and the Project would not
impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Thus, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact. Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirement as identified above, and no mitigation is required. As a result, the proposed Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge; and the Project would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Thus, the proposed Project
would have a less than significant impact.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would:
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
134
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to runoff increases would be significant
and adverse.
Construction
As described previously, existing City regulations require the Project to implement a SWPPP during
construction activities, which would outline erosion control BMPs, such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel
bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding, that would be implemented during construction to
reduce the potential for siltation or erosion. With adherence to the existing requirements and implementation
of the appropriate BMPs as ensured through the City’s construction permitting process, potential erosion and
siltation onsite or off-site associated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be
less than significant. Operation The proposed Project would introduce additional impervious surfaces to the site. The pervious surfaces remaining on the site would be landscaped and would not generate soils that could erode. There would be no substantial areas of bare or disturbed soil onsite subject to erosion. In addition, the proposed drainage infrastructure would slow and retain stormwater, which would also limit the potential for erosion or siltation.
Finally, the Project is required by the City to implement a WQMP that would provide operational BMPs to
ensure that operation of the industrial warehouse would not result in erosion or siltation. As a result,
stormwater runoff and the potential for erosion and siltation would not increase with implementation of the
proposed Project. With implementation of these regulations, impacts related to erosion or siltation onsite or
off-site would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to runoff increases would be significant
and adverse.
As discussed in Section 5.10(a) above, during construction, a SWPPP would be implemented to control
drainage and maintain drainage patterns across the proposed Project. Also, as discussed in the Preliminary
WQMP prepared for the proposed Project (see Appendix K), drainage runoff from the Project site would
be adequately handled by the proposed Project’s drainage system. The Project would include onsite storm
drain lines to convey onsite runoff to an infiltration trench and basin to provide the appropriate design
capture volume, and the Project would not result in flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
iii. 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?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
135
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to runoff increases would be significant
and adverse. Impacts related to drainage and flood control were identified to be less than significant with
implementation of Water Quality and Hydrology 3 and 4.
According to the Flood Control and Storm Drain Facilities Alignment (Figure 1 of the SVSP Water Plan), there
were no drainages planned for the Project area. Additionally, proposed improvements would not conflict
and would be compatible with existing and proposed drainages in the Project vicinity, as identified in the
Project Hydrology and Hydraulic Study (Appendix L). Existing regulation require an onsite storm drain system
that would accommodate the 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event; and/or additional capacity as required
by any applicable local, regional, state or federal regulation in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code,
the County NPDES permit, and other City specifications (see PPPs HWQ-2 and 3). Development of the Project
site would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to runoff increases would be significant
and adverse. Impacts related to drainage and flood control were identified to be less than significant with implementation of Water Quality and Hydrology 3 and 4.
According to FEMA’s FIRM Flood Map 06071C8665H, the Project site is classified as Zone X, which includes
areas with a minimal or 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard. Therefore, the proposed Project would
not impede, or redirect flood flows and impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to drainage and flood control were
identified to be less than significant with implementation of Water Quality and Hydrology 3 and 4.
As discussed in Response 5.10(c)(iv), the Project site is not within a flood hazard area. Additionally, proper
storage requirements for hazardous materials, such as fuels and oils, would be followed in order to limit the
risk of release of pollutants due to site inundation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not risk
the release of pollutants due to inundation in a flood hazard zone. Also, the Project site is located over 35
miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and is not located within a tsunami zone. Thus, impacts related to tsunamis
would not occur.
A seiche is the sloshing of a closed body of water from earthquake shaking. Seiches are of concern relative
to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment
wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. As indicated
in the Geotechnical Report conducted for the Project (Appendix F), no major reservoirs are located up-
gradient within the near vicinity of the site. The potential for seiche is considered very low. Therefore, impacts
related to seiche would not occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
136
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that implementation of the SVSP would have the potential to
adversely impact water quality in downstream receiving waters through discharge of runoff that contains
various pollutants of concern. Impacts to water quality would be significant and unavoidable. Additionally,
SVSP impacts to groundwater recharge were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
As described previously, the Project would be required to have an approved SWPPP, which would include construction BMPs to minimize the potential for construction related sources of pollution. For operations, the proposed Project would be required to implement source control BMPs to minimize the introduction of pollutants; and treatment control BMPs to treat runoff. With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that would be required by the City during the 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.
There are no groundwater wells on the Project site, and no wells are proposed as part of the Project. As discussed in Checklist Response threshold 5.10a, the proposed Project would not involve direct withdrawals of groundwater, nor would it interfere with groundwater recharge such that it would result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table levels. The Project would comply with requirements of the County’s NPDES permit and City Municipal Code (PPP HWQ-1 and Mitigation Measure
Water Quality and Hydrology 1) to meet groundwater would ensure the Project site provides sufficient
groundwater recharge for the groundwater basin. Overall, the proposed Project would not conflict with or
obstruct a groundwater management plan, and no impacts would occur.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and no new substantial environmental impacts would
occur in comparison to the SVSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding hydrology and water quality. There have
not been 1) changes related to the development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major
revisions of the SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
PPP HWQ‐1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. If the demolition involves excavation or grading that
results in ground disturbance of one acre or greater, the project is subject to the State Construction General
Permit and is required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and obtain a Notice
of Intent from the State Water Board prior to issuance of a demolition permit.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
137
PPP HWQ‐2 Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the
Project Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department, the final
Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices
(BMPs) that address Pollutants of Concern in accordance with the City’s Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) Handbook (August 2021).
PPP HWQ-3 Stormwater management and rainwater retention. The Project would comply with the City’s
Municipal Code, Sec. 28-111, Stormwater management and rainwater retention, the Project. Measures
would be implemented to capture and infiltration stormwater runoff from either the one inch, 24-hour rain
event; the 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event; and/or additional capacity as required by any applicable
local, regional, state or federal regulation.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe hydrology and water quality impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for hydrology and water quality.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
138
5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or Additions
No
New
Impact/
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to land use on in Section 6.2.6, Onsite and Surrounding Land
Uses and determined impacts would be less than significant with mitigation
The SVSP Final EIR describes that existing onsite land uses included abandoned vineyards and fallow
agricultural land; a residential subdivision; the sewage treatment plant; Southern California Edison (SCE)
and Metropolitan Water District (MWD) easements; the Southern Pacific Railroad quarry and railway spur;
the Fontana Bird Park; a fertilizer/shaving plant and a recycling center; and several scattered rural
residences.
The SVSP Final EIR describes that several of the proposed land uses are incompatible with the existing land
uses and that the SVSP would cause those existing uses to become nonconforming. However, adoption of the
SVSP would encourage the conversion of the existing nonconforming land uses over time. The SVSP Final EIR
did not anticipate that property owners would be required to change their current land uses, with the
exception of properties that lie within the right-of-way for public facilities. The SVSP Final EIR determined
that the two existing uses that could present a compatibility issue was the Southern Pacific Rock quarry due
to blasting activities and the wastewater treatment plant due to odor. The SVSP Final EIR also notes that
implementation of the SVSP could create growth-inducing pressures to the mixed rural residential and
industrial uses to the north.
The SVSP Final EIR determined that development of the project may result in short-term incompatibility, less
than significant impacts, from new residential communities adjacent to existing industrial areas.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
Setbacks and landscape buffers, as described in SVSP Final EIR section 3.8, the Landscape Master Plan,
would create a transition zone between onsite urban uses and existing surrounding uses in south Fontana. The
proposed buffer zone with a landscaped median, landscaped earth berm, meandering sidewalks, and
building setback along Jurupa Avenue is specifically designed for visual and psychological screening
between Southridge Village and land uses to the north. The provisions for lawful nonconforming uses in the City’s zoning code will serve to mitigate impacts in those cases where existing uses within Southridge Village are not consistent with Specific Plan land use designations. The SVSP Final EIR presumed Southern Pacific Rock Quarry could continue in operation as a nonconforming use. It was recommended that concerns regarding compatibility with proposed adjacent urban uses should be addressed and resolved through implementation of the State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, and
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
139
through adoption of an ordinance to regulate mineral extraction, which was under consideration by the City
at the time the SVSP EIR was written. It was incumbent upon the owner of any land to ensure that operations
on the land do not create public nuisance or public safety hazard.
Buffering of the treatment plant site (RP-3) was proposed to be accomplished through construction of a
perimeter earth berm and intensive landscaping with large-scale trees and shrubs. The Specific Plan assumed
that, in accordance with the temporary wastewater discharge order, plant operations at the minimal level
of treatment would not continue indefinitely. Upgrading the level of treatment, conversion of the site to an
advanced water reclamation plant, modification of plant operations and/or enclosure of treatment facilities
would all serve to further reduce the existing odor problem.
*Note: The Southern Pacific Rock Quarry is no longer in operation. Further, Regional Water Recycling Plant
No. 3 ceased operation approximately 30 years ago and is now used as a recharge basin (RP-3 Basin). a) Physically divide an established community? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As stated previously, the Project site is currently undeveloped. The proposed Project would develop the site with a residential community consisting of 255 single-family detached units. No residential
uses currently occur on the site that would be impacted or divided by development of the proposed Project.
The Project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, south, and west, and open space to the east.
The proposed Project would be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the
Project would not divide or disrupt the physical arrangement of the existing adjacent residential
neighborhoods and would serve as an extension of existing residential area. Furthermore, access to the site
would be provided by two driveways off existing roadways (Live Oak Avenue). Thus, impacts related to
physically dividing an established community would not occur from the proposed Project.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
b) 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?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. With respect to regional planning, SCAG is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial counties. As the designated MPO, the federal government mandates SCAG to prepare plans for growth management, transportation, air quality, and hazardous waste management. In addition, SCAG reviews projects of regional significance for consistency with the existing regional plans, including the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and RTP/SCS. The Project is not of Statewide, regional, or area-wide
significance, as defined by Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. However, the Project would contribute
to new housing development in the City of Fontana, and thus contributes to the City’s RHNA housing goal of
17,519 new dwelling units between 2021 and 2029. Local plans and programs relevant to the Project and
the consistency of the proposed Project with these plans and programs are discussed below.
The City of Fontana General Plan, comprehensively updated in 2018, is the primary planning and policy
document of the City of Fontana. It provides the regulatory framework for the use and management of the
City’s resources and articulates policies related to public and private land use, design guidelines for
development and open spaces, housing conservation and new residential development, public services and
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
140
infrastructure, natural resources, economic resources, and policies to guard against natural and manmade
hazards. The City’s General Plan consists of sixteen elements including Vision and Principles; Trends for
Fontana’s Future; Engaging the Fontana Community; Community and Neighborhoods; Housing; Building a
Healthier Fontana; Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails; Public and Community Services; Community
Mobility and Circulation; Infrastructure and Green Systems; Noise and Safety; Sustainability and Resilience;
Economy, Education and Workforce Development; Downtown Area Plan; Land Use, Zoning, and Urban
Design; Stewardship and Implementation. An evaluation of the Project’s consistency with applicable goals
and policies of the General Plan is provide in Table LU-1.
Table LU-1: Project Consistency with General Plan
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Community and Neighborhoods
Goal 7: A diverse stock of quality housing serves Fontana residents across the range of incomes, household
types, and age groups.
Policy: Support a diversified housing stock that
includes new options ranging from larger-lot single family housing to “missing middle” housing types such as cottage developments, small-scale apartments and condos, and courtyard housing, as well as larger multifamily developments.
Consistent: The Project proposes the development of
255 single-family residential units which would contribute to the diversified housing stock offered in Fontana.
Conservation, Habitat and Urban Forest
Goal 3: Fontana has a healthy, drought-resistant urban forest.
Policy: Support tree conservation and planting that
enhances shade and drought resistance.
Policy: Expand Fontana’s tree canopy.
Consistent: As shown in Figure 3-3, Landscape Plan,
the Project would include planting of shade trees
and drought resistant vegetation throughout the
site.
Goal 5: All Fontana residents live within walking or biking distance of a public park, and there are
sufficient public parks to serve all areas of the city.
Policy: Establish park access by walking and biking
as a criterion for locating parks and for design of
active transportation networks.
Consistent: The proposed Project includes 10.4
acres of common open space and a public park that
is accessible to residents via walking and biking.
Additionally, the Project includes a public trail that
provides connection from Village Drive and
Southridge Park to the Southridge Village Open
Space Preserve.
Goal 6: All public parks are designed and maintained to a high standard.
Policy: Promote park designs that can serve
multiple types of users and provide aesthetic
benefits.
Consistent: The Project includes construction of
multiple landscaped park areas that provide a
variety of amenities such as a circuit training course,
walking trails, pickleball courts, benches and shade
structures, and playgrounds.
Goal 10: Trails in natural areas offer nature recreation experiences.
Policy: Support trail creation and maintenance in
natural areas.
Consistent: The Project includes a public trail around
the perimeter of the site that provides views of the
Southridge Village Open Space Preserve and the
Jurupa Hills.
Community Mobility and Circulation
Goal 4: The neighborhood streets of Fontana maintain a residential character and support a range of
transportation options.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
141
Policy: Balance neighborhood traffic circulation
needs with the goal of creating walkable and bike-
friendly neighborhoods.
Consistent: Pedestrian circulation would be
provided via sidewalks along Village Drive and
Live Oak Avenue, which would connect to the
Project’s internal sidewalks. The existing sidewalk
system within the Project vicinity provides direct
connectivity to the adjacent existing residential
communities and to public transit (i.e., Omnitrans
Route 82 which serves Rancho Cucamonga and
Sierra Lakes via Jurupa Avenue). Additionally, the
Project recognizes that the City’s Bikeway Master
Plan considers the needs of bicycle users and aims
to create a complete and safe bicycle network
throughout the City. Currently Class III bike lanes
are provided along Live Oak Avenue.
Infrastructure and Green Systems
Goal 3: The City continues to have an effective water conservation program.
Policy: Support landscaping in public and private spaces with drought-resistant plants. Consistent: As shown in Figure 3-3, Landscape Plan, the Project would include planting of shade trees and drought resistant vegetation throughout the site.
Noise and Safety
Goal 1: Enhance public safety and the protection of public and private property.
Policy: Minimize the population exposed to
hazards by assigning land use designations and
density allowances that reflect site specific
constraints and hazards.
Consistent. Although the proposed Project is not
consistent with the existing General Plan land use
and Specific Plan designations for the site, as part
of the discretionary actions, a General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment are
proposed that would render the proposed Project
consistent with the plans.
Goal 3: The City of Fontana is a community that implements proactive fire hazard abatement strategies,
and as a result, is minimally impacted by wildland and urban fires.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
142
Policy: Require residential, commercial, and
industrial structures to adhere to applicable fire
codes for buildings and structures, fire access, and
other standards in accordance with Fire Hazard
Overlay District, California Fire Code, and City of
Fontana Municipal Code, encourage of retrofit of
non-conforming land uses.
Policy: Require adherence to fuel modification and
defensible space requirements to reduce wildfire
hazards; work with CAL FIRE to coordinate fuel
breaks in very high fire severity zones.
Policy: Ensure compliance with the Subdivision Map
Act requirements for structural fire protection and
suppression services, subdivision requirements for
on/off-site improvements, ingress and egress, street
standards, and other concerns.
Consistent: The proposed Project would be
constructed in compliance with the California Fire
Code (CFC) and California Building Code (CBC),
and final Project design would be subject to plan
check by the FFPD to verify compliance with
applicable fire prevention and protection
requirements.
Additionally, the proposed development includes
two 44-foot-wide access roads on Live Oak Avenue
that would connect to the primary drive aisles
running through the site. Additionally, a 26-foot-
wide emergency use road has been located at the
southwest corner of the site for emergency
ingress/egress to the Southridge Park parking lot.
Emergency vehicle access is provided via both
driveways and the emergency use road.
Additionally, the layout of the internal streets is
similar to the adjacent residential developments. All
access ways would be free and clear of any and
all structures including, but not limited to, utility
devices. The fire access roads would meet the
California Fire Code Section 503.1.1 and Fontana
Fire Protection District’s development standards for
location, width, and turning radii. All private streets
would provide adequate areas for maneuvering,
stacking of vehicles, and emergency vehicle access.
Further, as discussed in Section 5.20, Wildfire, the
Project includes a Fire Protection Plan (Appendix P)
that outlines ongoing fuel treatment and fire
protection measures that would be enforced by the
Project’s Home Owners Association (HOA).
Implementation of the fuel modification plan would
minimize any potential loss of life, homes, or personal property due to a wildland fire.
Goal 4: The City shall monitor development or redevelopment in areas where faults have been mapped
through the city
Policy: Enforce development requirements, such as seismic study analyses, project siting, and project design features for proposed development near active faults pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Act.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 5.7, Geology and Soils, the site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Act Zone. The Project includes a geotechnical investigation that includes recommendations for site design as it pertains to geotechnical safety.
Goal 5: The City shall continue to ensure that current geologic knowledge and peer (third party) review
are incorporated into the design, planning, and construction stages of a project and that site-specific data
are applied to each project.
Policy: Require adherence to the latest California
Building Code regulations; update codes and
ordinances periodically for latest advances.
Consistent: The proposed Project would be
constructed in compliance with the California
Building Code (CBC), and final Project design would
be subject to plan check by the City’s Engineer to
verify compliance with applicable building code
requirements.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
143
Policy: The Building Official shall require
development proposals to include a geotechnical
hazard analysis as applicable.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 5.7, Geology and
Soils, the Project includes a geotechnical
investigation that includes recommendations for site
design as it pertains to geotechnical safety.
Goal 8: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning through
2035
Policy: New sensitive land uses shall be prohibited
in incompatible areas.
Consistent: The Project site is surrounded by
residential uses to the north, west and south and by
open space to the east. The proposed residential
uses would be compatible with surrounding uses.
Policy: The following uses shall be considered
noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in excess
of 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent
Level): Residential Uses; Hospitals; Rest Homes;
Long Term Care Facilities; and Mental Care
Facilities.
Consistent: The Project would result in noise
associated with construction activities; however, as
discussed in Section 5.10, Noise, all construction
noise impacts would be temporary and less than
significant and all operational noise impacts would
be less than significant.
Goal 9: The City of Fontana provides a diverse and efficiently operated ground transportation system
that generates the minimum feasible noise on its residents through 2035.
Policy: Development that generates increased
traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient
noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses shall
provide appropriate mitigation measures.
Consistent: As detailed in Section 5.13, Noise, the
proposed residential uses would be consistent with
the surrounding existing development. All
operational noise was determined to be less than
significant.
Goal 10: Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover” noise
Policy: Construction shall be performed as quietly
as feasible when performed in proximity to
residential or other noise sensitive land uses.
Consistent: The Project would result in noise
associated with construction activities; however, as
discussed in Section 5.10, Noise, all construction
noise impacts would be temporary and less than
significant.
Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design
Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic prosperity
Policy: Promote interconnected neighborhoods with
appropriate transitions between lower-intensity
and higher-intensity land uses.
Consistent: The proposed Project is an infill
development consistent with the existing
surrounding residential and open space uses. The
Project would promote interconnectivity through the
proposed public trail that provides connection from
Village Drive and Southridge Park to the
Southridge Village Open Space Preserve.
Additionally, connectivity would be provided through the network of internal roads and sidewalks.
The documents regulating land use for the Project site include the SVSP, City’s General Plan, and the City’s
Municipal Code. The proposed Project’s relationship to these planning documents is described below.
General Plan. As discussed previously, the Project site is designated as Open Space (OS) and Recreational
Facilities (P-R) and would require a General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the site to Medium
Residential (R-M). Upon Project implementation, the residential uses would be similar to the surrounding uses
to the north, south, and west. As shown in Table LU-1 above, the Project is consistent with the General Plan
goals and policies. Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project includes multiple
General Plan clean up items in order to clean up inconsistencies between the SVSP land use designations
and the General Plan land use map. However, these amendments are limited to General Plan map clean up
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
144
items and do not include any proposed development or entitlement. As with any project within the City, any
future development on those parcels would require additional, separate environmental review.
SVSP. The Project site is designated as Bird Farm (BF) and Quarry (Q) with a residential overlay by the
SVSP. The Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would change the SVSP designation to Entry
Estates/Duplex. The Project would develop 255 units and would be consistent with the SVSP Goals as
outlined in Table LU-2, below.
Table LU-2: Project Consistency with SVSP Policies
SVSP Goals Project Consistency
To create a mix of residential densities in response
to housing market demands, housing affordability
goals, and the need for a diversity of lifestyles and
neighborhoods.
Consistent. The proposed Project would introduce
255 two-story detached single-family homes which
would include 147 cluster units and 108 stub drive
units that would contribute to the diversity of housing
types within the SVSP area.
To provide non-residential land uses and amenities
in the proper quantities and locations necessary to
support the vitality of residential neighborhoods
within an overall balanced community.
Consistent. As shown in figures 3-3 and 3-4, the
Project would include a central recreation area, a
public park and a public trail area that would be
used for recreational purposes.
To preserve the unique natural and aesthetic values of the Jurupa Mountains as permanent open space land, and to provide access to open space via
community-wide trail systems.
Consistent. No development is proposed on or near prominent ridgelines, thus aesthetic views of the hills would not be diminished by the Project.
Additionally, the Project would include a public trail
around the perimeter of the site to provide an
opportunity for viewing the adjacent hills and
ridgelines.
To create logical, efficient, and compatible
arrangements of different land uses in relation to
other land uses and the arterial/collector street
system.
Consistent. The Project would include a Specific Plan
Amendment to change the designation of the site
from Bird Farm (BF) and Quarry (Q) with a
residential overlay to Entry Estates/Duplex. The
Project would be consistent with the character and
intensities of the surrounding residential uses and
would be located within a residential area.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding land use and planning. There have not been
1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the
SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
145
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
None.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe land use and planning impacts would result from
implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required
regarding land use and planning.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
146
5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or Additions
No
New
Impact/
No Impact
a) 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?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR did not identify impacts related to mineral resources.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
a) 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?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR did not identify impacts related to mineral resources.
As previously discussed, a portion of the Project site was previously a part of the former Declezville Quarry
which produced tonalite for building purposes. However, the quarry ceased production in 1950 and no
extraction has occurred since (BFSA 2022). According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC),
the Project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which is defined as an area containing
known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance (DOC 2008). In
addition, although mining claims have been registered approximately one mile southwest of the Project area, no active mines or mining claims are located on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site (USGS 2018). Based on the above, the proposed 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. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final EIR. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
147
No New Impact. As described previously, the Project site is identified as within an MRZ-3 zone by the
California DOC. The site has an existing SVSP designation of Bird Farm (BF) and Quarry (Q) with a
residential overlay. The Project site is currently undeveloped and no portion of the Project would be used
for extraction of mineral resources, nor would extraction be consistent with the adjacent residential uses.
Additionally, the Project site is not delineated on the Fontana General Plan or within the SVSP as a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result
in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local plan,
and no impacts would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding mineral resources. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
None.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe mineral resources impacts would result from implementation
of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required regarding mineral
resources.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
148
5.13 NOISE Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project result in: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or Additions
No
New
Impact/
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
This section was prepared using the Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated
October 26, 2022 (Appendix M)
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
Impacts related to noise were analyzed in Section 6.2.9, Acoustic Environment, of the SVSP Final EIR. The
SVSP Final EIR determined that implementation of the project would result in a significant increase in noise
levels within and around the project area. The SVSP Final EIR noted that short-term noise would include
construction equipment noise and long-term noise would include roadway and traffic noise. Additionally, the
SVSP Final EIR notes that the SVSP is within the Ontario International Airport Influence Area, but is not within
the designated 65 CNEL contour for the airport.
The SVSP Final EIR concluded that future traffic volumes along arterials and most collector streets, both onsite
and off-site, would create noise levels that require mitigation for adjacent residential uses.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
Noise 1. Noise impact assessment and mitigation reports, prepared by qualified professional engineers,
should be required as a condition of approval for residential development projects in certain areas within
Southridge Village. Such reports should identify specific methods whereby noise impacts from street traffic
will be reduced to create an acceptable residential living environment. This requirement should apply to all
projects proposing residential development adjacent to Jurupa, Mulberry, Cherry, Live Oak, Citrus or Beech
Avenues. Existing Ambient Noise Levels
To assess the existing noise level environment, 24‐hour noise level measurements were taken at five locations
in the Project study area. The noise level measurements listed in Table N-1 show that ambient noise is between
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
149
approximately 46.0 dBA and 68.7 dBA. Noise levels in the Project area are dominated by transportation-
related noise. Figure 5-2 illustrates the location of each noise measurement.
Table N-1: Existing Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Location Description Energy Average Noise Level (dBA
Leq)
Daytime Nighttime
L1
Located north of the Project site near single-
family residence at 11511 Conifer Court.
61.3 54.4
L2
Located east of the Project site near single-
family residence at 11605 Teaberry Court.
57.3 57.9
L3
Located southeast of the Project site near single-
family residence at 15016 Long View Drive.
46.6 46.0
L4 Located south of the Project site near single-family residence at 11804 Aurora Court. 60.0 47.8
L5 Located west of the Project site near single-
family residence at 14799 Goldenrain Drive. 68.7 63.6
"Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
Noise Measurement Locations
Figure 5-2
Southridge Fontana Noise Impact Analysis
14713-05 Noise Study 25
EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Southridge Fontana Noise Impact Analysis
14713-05 Noise Study
25
EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Southridge
City of Fontana
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
151
This page intentionally left blank.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
152
City of Fontana Noise Standards
The City of Fontana noise control guidelines for determining and mitigating non‐transportation or stationary
noise source impacts from operations in neighboring residential areas are found in Development Code
Section 30‐649. The performance standards found in Section 30‐649 limit the exterior noise level to 65 dBA
Leq during the daytime and nighttime hours at sensitive receiver locations as shown on Table N-2.
Table N-2: Operational Noise Standards
Jurisdiction Land Use Noise Level Standards (dBA Leq)1
Daytime Nighttime
City of Fontana Residential 65 65
1 Leq represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Source: Section 30‐469 of the City of Fontana Development Code
The City of Fontana has not established numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at
potentially affected receivers, therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime
construction impacts. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a
reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land use (Appendix M).
Additionally, according to Fontana Municipal Code Section 18‐63(b)(7), construction activity is limited
between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM
on Saturdays except in the case of urgent necessity. Therefore, Project construction noise levels are considered exempt from municipal regulation if activities occur within the hours specified in the City of
Fontana Municipal Code. However, if activity occurs outside of these hours, the City of Fontana stationary‐
source (operational) noise level standards of 65 dBA Leq during the daytime and nighttime hours shall apply.
CEQA Noise Significance Criteria Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the applicable significance criteria listed in Table N-3 is exceeded as a direct result of the proposed Project. Table N-3: Significance Criteria Summary
Analysis Condition(s) Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
On-Site
Traffic1
Exterior Noise Compatibility Criteria 65 dBA CNEL
Interior Noise Level Standard 45 dBA CNEL
Off-Site Traffic
If ambient is < 60 dBA Leq 3 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase
If ambient is 60 - 65 dBA Leq 3 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase
If ambient is > 65 dBA Leq 3 ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase
Operational
Exterior Noise Level Standards2 70 dBA Leq 65 dBA Leq
If ambient is < 60 dBA Leq 3 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase
If ambient is 60 - 65 dBA Leq 3 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase
If ambient is > 65 dBA Leq 3 ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase
Construction Noise Level Threshold3 80 dBA Leq 65 dBA Leq
Vibration Level Threshold4 0.3 PPV (in/sec)
Blasting Noise Level Threshold5 133 dB
Vibration Level Threshold4 0.5 PPV (in/sec)
Rock Crushing Noise Level Threshold3 80 dBA Leq
1 Section 30-543 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code.
2 Sections 18-63(7) and 30-543 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code.
3 FICON Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.
5 International Society of Explosives Engineers 18th Edition Blasters’ Handbook
"Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
153
a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity
of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that short-term noise impacts would occur as grading,
infrastructure emplacement, and building construction occur and that traffic associated with the proposed
project will increase noise level along access routes. The SVSP Final EIR included mitigation measures to
reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Existing Sensitive Receptors The Project site is surrounded by residential uses that are located across Live Oak Avenue, Village Drive, and directly south, as close as 21 feet from the Project site. Figure 5-3, Receiver Locations, shows the closest receivers to the Project site.
Noise Receiver Locations
Figure 5-3
Southridge Fontana Noise Impact Analysis
14713-05 Noise Study 52
EXHIBIT 11-A:CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS
Southridge Fontana Noise Impact Analysis
14713-05 Noise Study 52
EXHIBIT 11-A:CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS
Southridge
City of Fontana
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
155
This page intentionally left blank.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
156
Construction Noise
Noise generated by construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete
mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. Construction is expected to occur
in the following stages: site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, paving. The
Project may also include blasting and rock crushing activities during the grading phase, which is expected to
create short‐term and intermittent high‐level noise conditions at nearby noise receivers.
The Project 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.
This construction noise analysis was prepared using reference noise level measurements published in the Road
Construction Noise Model (RCNM) by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which provides a
comprehensive source of reference construction noise levels. Table N‐4 provides a summary of the
construction reference noise level measurements expressed in hourly average dBA Leq using the estimated
FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) usage factors to describe the noise generated by typical
construction activities for each stage of Project construction. As shown on Table N-4, noise levels generated
by heavy construction equipment would range from approximately 76.2 to 82.9 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source. Table N-4: Typical Construction Reference Noise Levels
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)1
Composite
Reference Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation
Dozer 78.0
82.9 Front End Loader 75.0
Scraper 80.0
Grading
Backhoe 74.0
82.8 Compactor (ground) 76.0
Grader 81.0
Building
Construction
Crane 73.0
79.7 Generator 78.0
Generator (<25kVA) 70.0
Paving
Paver 74.0
77.8 Dump Truck 72.0
Roller 73.0
Architectural Coating
Man Lift 68.0
76.2 Compressor (air) 74.0
Generator (<25 kVA) 70.0
1 FHWA Road Construction Noise Model. Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
Construction activities are exempt from the City’s noise control standards pursuant to Municipal Code Section
18-63(7) which states that Project construction noise levels are considered exempt between 7:00 AM and
6:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays.
To evaluate whether the Project would generate potentially significant short‐term noise levels at nearest
residential receiver locations, a construction‐related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as
a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. As shown in Table N-5, the
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
157
construction noise analysis shows that the nearest residential receiver locations will satisfy the daytime 80
dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities. Therefore, noise impacts due to Project
construction noise are considered less than significant.
Table N-5: Construction Noise Level Compliance
Receiver Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels Threshold2 Threshold Exceeded?
R1 60.9 80 No
R2 48.8 80 No
R3 56.5 80 No
R4 67.1 80 No
R5 65.8 80 No
R6 65.2 80 No
R7 63.2 80 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 5-3.
2 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
Project construction may utilize rock crushing to reduce the amount of import required during grading.
Construction‐related noise impacts associated with rock crushing are expected to create short‐term and
intermittent high‐level noise conditions at nearby noise sensitive residential receivers surrounding the Project
site. Construction‐related noise impacts associated with blasting and rock were evaluated using reference
construction equipment noise levels from the FHWA published in the RCNM. Table N-6 provides a summary
of the reference average Leq noise levels used to describe rock crushing construction activities. The reference
noise level summary describes construction activity noise levels with multiple pieces of rock construction
equipment operating simultaneously and includes source noise levels for a hoe ram or breaker representing
a percussion hammer fitted to an excavator for breaking rock. Figure 5-4 below shows the location of the
planned rock crushing activity area in relation to the receiver locations.
Table N-6: Rock Crushing Construction Reference Noise Levels
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction
Activity
Reference Noise
Level at 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Combined Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Sound Power
Level (dBA Lw)
Rock Crushing
Rock Crusher 89
90 121.6 Front End Loader 75
Hoe Ram 83
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
Rock Crushing Activity and Receiver Locations
Figure 5-4
Southridge Fontana Noise Impact Analysis
14713-05 Noise Study 53
EXHIBIT 11-B: ROCK CRUSHING ACTIVITY AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS
Southridge Fontana Noise Impact Analysis
14713-05 Noise Study 53
EXHIBIT 11-B: ROCK CRUSHING ACTIVITY AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS
Southridge
City of Fontana
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
159
This page intentionally left blank.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
160
Project rock crushing construction noise level impacts at nearest sensitive receiver locations were calculated
using the reference RCNM construction equipment noise levels in Table N-6 and the CadnaA noise prediction
model (a computer model developed by Urban Crossroads, Appendix M). As shown on Table N-7, the rock
crushing construction noise levels are estimated to range from 44.8 to 54.5 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver
locations. As such, the noise levels associated with rock crushing would be below the 80 dBA Leq significance
threshold. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project rock crushing activities is considered less than significant.
Table N-7: Rock Crushing Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary
Receiver Location
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Rock Crushing
R1 51.0
R2 44.8
R3 49.6
R4 54.0
R5 54.5
R6 52.7
R7 53.7
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
As specified in Mitigation Measure Noise 1 of the SVSP Draft EIR, noise impact assessment and mitigation
reports, prepared by qualified professional engineers, should be required as a condition of approval for
residential development projects adjacent to Live Oak Avenue. In compliance with Mitigation Measure Noise
1, the Project Applicant/Developer would be required to follow the recommendations included in the Noise
Impact Assessments prepared for the proposed Project. If blasting is determined to be required during
excavation and grading, the Project would be required to implement recommendations from the Construction
Blasting and Rock Crushing Noise Analysis which includes measures to demonstrate any required blasting
activities comply with existing noise thresholds. With implementation of these measures, impacts related to
blasting noise would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise would be less
than significant. Consistent with the findings of the SVSP Final EIR, construction noise generated from the
proposed Project would be short-term and less than significant with compliance with the Noise Ordinance.
Operational Noise
Once the proposed Project is operational, noise would be generated from stationary equipment such as
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units that would be installed for the new residences; onsite
vehicular movements on streets and driveways; trash removal activity; and activity at outdoor gathering
areas. Noise generated from the Project would include air conditioning units, which averages 76.0 dBA and
parking lot vehicle movements, which averages 73.4 dBA. All of these averages were taken at a
standardized distance of 50 feet from the source (Appendix N). The operational source noise levels expected
to be generated at the Project site were calculated using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed
Project operations. Table N-8 shows that Project operational noise levels at the off‐site receiver locations
are expected to range from 26.9 to 45.0 dBA Leq during daytime hours and from 24.2 to 37.7 dBA Leq
during nighttime hours. Thus, operation of the Project would not generate significant effects relating to
operational noise. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Table N-8: Project Operational Noise Level Summary
Receiver
Location
Project Operational Noise
Levels (dBA Leq)
Noise Level Standards (dBA
Leq)1
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 34.0 31.3 70 65 No No
R2 27.3 24.6 70 65 No No
R3 35.4 32.7 70 65 No No
R4 48.2 45.5 70 65 No No
R5 45.1 42.4 70 65 No No
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
161
R6 40.4 37.6 70 65 No No
R7 43.2 40.5 70 65 No No
1 City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-543 (Appendix 3.1)
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined
with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby receiver locations potentially impacted
by Project operational noise sources. Table N-9 shows the daytime and nighttime noise level increases that
would result from Project operation.
Table N-9: Daytime and Nighttime Operational Noise Level Increases
Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level
Measurement
Location2
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels
Combined
Project and
Ambient
Project
Increase
Increase
Criteria
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
Daytime
R1 34.0 L1 61.3 61.3 0.0 3.0 No
R2 27.3 L2 57.3 57.3 0.0 5.0 No
R3 35.4 L3 46.6 46.9 0.3 5.0 No
R4 48.2 L4 60.0 60.3 0.3 1.5 No
R5 45.1 L4 60.0 60.1 0.1 1.5 No
R6 40.4 L4 60.0 60.0 0.0 1.5 No
R7 43.2 L5 68.7 68.7 0.0 1.5 No
Nighttime
R1 31.3 L1 54.4 54.4 0.0 5.0 No
R2 24.6 L2 57.9 57.9 0.0 5.0 No
R3 32.7 L2 57.9 57.9 0.0 5.0 No
R4 45.5 L3 46.0 48.8 2.8 5.0 No
R5 42.4 L4 47.8 48.9 1.1 5.0 No
R6 37.6 L5 63.6 63.6 0.0 5.0 No
R7 40.5 L4 47.8 48.5 0.7 5.0 No
1Refer to Figure 5-2 for Receiver Locations
2Refer to Figure 5-1 for Noise Measurement Locations Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
As indicated on Table N-9, the Project would generate an unmitigated daytime operational noise level
increase ranging up to 0.3 dBA Leq and an unmitigated nighttime operational noise level increase ranging
up to 2.8 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. As such, the Project-related operational noise level
increases would be within the noise level increase significance criteria. Therefore, the incremental Project
operational noise level increases are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.
Traffic Noise Impacts
On-Site Traffic Noise Impacts – Exterior
It is expected that the primary source of noise impacts to the Project site would be traffic noise from Live
Oak Avenue. Additionally, the Project would experience background traffic noise impacts from its internal
local streets, however, due to the distance, topography and low traffic volume/speed, traffic noise from
these roads would not make a significant difference to the existing noise environment.
Anticipated future exterior noise levels were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
traffic noise prediction model and the roadway parameters outlined in Tables 6-1 to 6-3 of Appendix M.
Table N-10 presents a summary of future exterior noise level impacts at the building facades of the
proposed residential dwelling units consistent with the standards of the City of Fontana General Plan Noise
Element.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
162
Table N-10: On-Site Exterior Noise Levels (CNEL)
Lot Location Roadway Unmitigated Exterior Noise Level (dBA CNEL)
1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 4th Floor
1 Live Oak Ave 62.3 62.2 61.8 61.4
2 Live Oak Ave 60.3 60.2 60.0 59.7
3 Live Oak Ave 54.8 54.8 54.8 54.7
32 Live Oak Ave 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0
33 Live Oak Ave 52.7 52.7 52.7 52.6
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
Table N-10 indicates that the Project will experience unmitigated on-site exterior noise levels ranging from
52.6 to 62.3 dBA CNEL at the first-floor elevation. As such, exterior noise levels would be consistent with the
City of Fontana noise standards for residential land uses (Table N-3).
On-Site Traffic Noise Impacts – Interior
The interior noise level is the difference between the predicted exterior noise level at the building façade
and the noise reduction of the structure. Typical building construction will provide a Noise Reduction (NR) of
approximately 12 dBA with "windows open" and a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed."
However, sound leaks, cracks and openings within the window assembly can greatly diminish its effectiveness
in reducing noise. Several methods are used to improve interior noise reduction, including: (1) weather-
stripped solid core exterior doors; (2) upgraded dual glazed windows; (3) mechanical ventilation/air
conditioning; and (4) exterior wall/roof assembles free of cut outs or openings (Urban 2022). The Noise Impact Analysis found that the proposed Project would utilize standard windows and sliding glass doors required by Title 24,which have minimum STC rating of 27 and would meet the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL.
Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts Off-site transportation noise level impacts associated with the proposed Project were developed using the Southridge Fontana Focused Traffic Analysis (included as Appendix N). Noise contours were used to assess the Project's incremental 24-hour dBA CNEL traffic-related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying Project traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels. The noise
contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient
noise levels. In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways,
they do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the Project study
area.
Existing exterior roadway noise levels without the proposed Project range from 59.0 to 69.9 dBA CNEL,
without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography (Urban 2022).
Table N-11 shows existing plus Project noise levels in the Project area.
Table N-11: Existing with Project Traffic Noise Increases
Road Segment Receiving
Land Use
CNEL at Receiving Land Use
(dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase Threshold
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
Live Oaks Ave w/o Cherry Ave Residential 59.0 59.0 0.0 5.0 No
Live Oaks Ave e/o Cherry Ave Residential 66.9 57.6 0.7 1.5 No
Live Oaks Ave n/o Driveway 1 Residential 67.0 67.7 0.7 1.5 No
Live Oaks Ave n/o Goldenrain Dr Industrial 66.8 67.0 0.2 1.5 No
Live Oaks Ave n/o Jurupa Ave Residential 59.2 59.4 0.2 5.0 No
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
163
Cherry Ave n/o Jurupa Ave Industrial/ Institutional 66.0 66.1 0.1 5.0 No
Cherry Ave s/o Jurupa Ave Residential 65.5 64.9 0.4 3.0 No
Cherry Ave s/o Live Oaks Ave Residential 65.5 65.6 0.1 1.5 No
Jurupa Ave w/o Cherry Ave Residential 69.5 69.5 0.0 1.5 No
Jurupa Ave e/o Cherry Ave Residential 68.3 68.3 0.0 1.5 No
Jurupa Ave e/o Live Oaks Ave Residential 69.9 70.0 0.1 1.5 No
1The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use.
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
Table N-11 shows that existing plus Project exterior noise level increases would range from 0.0 to 0.7 dBA
CNELA, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or consistent with the
significance criteria listed in Table N-3 and land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would
experience less than significant noise level increases due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR did not identify any impacts related to vibration.
Construction
Ground-borne vibration can be generated from construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and
operating heavy earthmoving equipment. Construction of the proposed Project would involve grading, site
preparation, rock crushing and blasting, and construction activities.
Typical construction related vibration would be generated by use of small and large bulldozers, loaded
trucks, and jackhammers. As listed on Table N-12, large bulldozers generated approximately 0.089 PPV
(in/sec) at 25 feet.
Table N-12: Construction Vibration Source Levels
Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loading Trucks 0.076
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
Table N‐13 shows the estimated Project related vibration levels at the nearest receiver locations. As shown,
at distances ranging from 21 to 2,807 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity
levels are estimated to range up to 0.12 PPV (in/sec). Table N-13 shows the estimated Project related
vibration levels at the nearest receiver locations. As shown, Project construction levels at all receiver locations
would be below the vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec) for older residential buildings. In addition, it is
unlikely that typical construction vibration levels at the nearest sensitive receiver locations would be sustained
during the entire construction period but rather would occur only during the times that heavy construction
equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site boundaries. Thus, construction of the Project would not
generate significant effects relating to construction vibration. Impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
164
Table N-13: Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Receiver Location Distance to Construction
Activity
(Feet)
Typical Construction Vibration Levels PPV (in/sec) Threshold PPV
(in/sec)
Threshold Exceeded? Small
Bulldozer
Jackhammer Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Highest
Vibration Level
R1 79’ 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.30 No
R2 2,807’ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 No
R3 351’ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 No
R4 21’ 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.30 No
R5 43’ 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.30 No
R6 24’ 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.30 No
R7 89’ 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.30 No
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix M)
Blasting Noise and Vibration Impacts The Project includes scaling and/or blasting on a portion of Planning Area 66C to remove unstable/dangerous boulders from the adjacent quarry slope to reduce size of future rockfall barrier. Blasting would only be implemented when particular rocks cannot be removed via scaling. The intensity of the noise and vibration impacts associated with rock blasting depends on location, size, material, shape of
the rock, and the methods used to crack it. Blasting activities generally include: the pre-drilling of holes in
the hard rock area; preparation and placement of the charges in the drilled holes; a pre-blast horn signal;
additional pre-blast horn signals immediately prior to the blast; and the blast itself. An additional horn signal
is sounded to indicate the “all clear” after the blast and the blasting contractor has inspected the blasting
area. Blasts typically occur for only a few seconds, depending on their design. It is important to note that no
other construction equipment will be operating during each blast in the blast area but will commence
operation once the blasting contractor indicates it is safe to do so.
If blasting is determined to be required during excavation and grading, the blasting contractor is required
to obtain blasting permit(s) from the County, and to notify City of Fontana Police/Fire Department within 24
hours of planned blasting events. The blasting contractor would be required to complete all blasting-related
activities in compliance with applicable regulations of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, the
U.S. Bureau of Mines, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OHSA), the Department
of Homeland Security, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Figure 5-5 below
shows the boundaries for typical blasting activities in relation to the nearby sensitive receiver locations.
There are specific blasting regulations and standards that have been designed to ensure that adverse
impacts would not result from blasting operations such as notifying property owners within one-quarter mile
of the blasting activities within 24 hours, limiting the hours that blasting activities may occur and complying
with all applicable State and federal laws governing the use and storage of explosives (see full list of
blasting regulations and standards below). However, as there is no specific information on how much blasting
would occur, the Project’s compliance with such federal and state regulations cannot be verified in this
analysis. Therefore, if blasting is required, in accordance with SVSP EIR Mitigation Measure Noise-1, the
Project would implement mitigation measures recommended in the Noise Impact Analysis to ensure that any
required blasting activities would comply with applicable regulations and standards.
Operation
Operation of the proposed residential uses would include heavy trucks for residents moving in and out of
the residential units 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 the heavy
truck activity at normal traffic speeds would be approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV, based on the FTA Transit
Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. Truck movements on site would be travelling at very low speed, so
it is expected that truck vibration at nearby sensitive receivers would be less than the vibration threshold of
0.08 in/sec PPV for fragile historic buildings and 0.04 in/sec PPV for human annoyance, and impacts would
be less than significant.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
165
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
Blasting Activities and Receiver Locations
Figure 5-5
Southridge Fontana Noise Impact Analysis
14713-05 Noise Study 54
EXHIBIT 11-C:BLASTING ACTIVITY AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS
Southridge Fontana Noise Impact Analysis
14713-05 Noise Study 54
EXHIBIT 11-C:BLASTING ACTIVITY AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS
Southridge
City of Fontana
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
167
This page intentionally left blank.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
168
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to airport noise would be less than
significant.
Ontario International Airport is located approximately 6.58 miles west of the Project site. The Project site is
within the Ontario International Airport Influence Area, however, the site is not within a noise impact zone.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, and impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding noise. There have not been 1) changes
related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the
SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
PPP N-1: Municipal Code Section 18-63(7) (Scope, enumeration of prohibited noises). The erection
(including excavating), demolition, alteration or repair of any building or structure shall only occur between
the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on
Saturdays, except in case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety, and then only with
a permit from the building inspector, which permit may be granted for a period not to exceed three days
or less while the emergency continues and which permit may be renewed for periods of three days or less
while the emergency continues. If the building inspector should determine that the public health and safety
will not be impaired by the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or structure or the
excavation of streets and highways within the hours of 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM, and if the building inspector
shall further determine that loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest, the building inspector
may grant permission for such work to be done on weekdays within the hours of 6:00 PM and 7:00 AM,
upon application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during the progress of the
work.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
169
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
Noise 1. Noise impact assessment and mitigation reports, prepared by qualified professional engineers,
should be required as a condition of approval for residential development projects in certain areas within
Southridge Village. Such reports should identify specific methods whereby noise impacts from street traffic
will be reduced to create an acceptable residential living environment. This requirement should apply to all
projects proposing residential development adjacent to Jurupa, Mulberry, Cherry, Live Oak, Citrus or Beech
Avenues.
Status: Satisfied through Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by prepared by Urban Crossroads, on October 26,
2022. In compliance with the requirements of SVSP Mitigation Measure Noise 1, specific methods for noise mitigation from blasting activities have been developed and will be included as a condition of approval for the proposed Project. These include: Project grading and construction activities shall follow the recommendations in the Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads. Where blasting is required, the following measures should be employed:
1) Blasting will be conducted only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays only. Explosives will not be detonated on weekends or the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.
2) All blasting will be done by a licensed blaster.
3) Pursuant to 30 CFR Ch. VII, §816.67(b)(1)(i) of U.S. Bureau of Mines publication RI8485, airblasts shall not exceed 133 dB at the location of any dwelling, public building, school, church, or community or institutional building.
4) Pursuant to 30 CFR Ch. VII, §816.67(d)(2)(i) of U.S. Bureau of Mines publication RI8508, the
maximum ground vibration shall not exceed the limits in said section at the location of any dwelling,
public building, school, church, or community or institutional building outside the permit area.
5) Blasting Notification
a) All owners of non-vacant property within ¼ mile of the blast location will be notified at least 24
hours prior to blasting.
b) Notify the County of San Bernardino Sherriff’s Department, City of Fontana Fire Department and
City of Fontana Building Department at least 24 hours prior to blasting.
6) A record of notifications will be maintained and will be available for inspection by the County of San
Bernardino.
7) All persons who conduct blasting operations will comply with all applicable State and federal laws
governing the use and storage of explosives.
8) Blasting will be conducted in a manner that prevents injury to persons and damage to public or private
property outside the project area.
9) A record of each blast will be made and provided to the County of San Bernardino within one week of
the blast. The record is to be completed by the end of the workday during which the blast occurred,
including the seismograph reading, if available, and will contain the following:
a) Name of operator conducting the blast.
b) The location, date and time of the blast.
c) Name, signature and license number of the licensed blaster.
d) Type of material blasted.
e) Number of holes, burden and spacing.
f) Diameter and depth of holes.
g) Type of explosives used.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
170
h) Total weight of explosives used.
i) Weight of explosives per hole.
j) Maximum weight of explosives detonated within any eight (8) millisecond period.
k) Maximum number of holes or decks detonated within any eight (8) millisecond period.
l) Initiation system, including number of circuits and the time interval, if sequential timer is used.
m) Type and length of stemming (deck and top).
n) Type and detonator and delay periods used, in milliseconds.
o) Distance and scaled distance to the closest protected structure.
p) Maximum peak particle velocity will not exceed limits as set by U.S. Bureau of Mines 8507 Report
at the location of any dwelling, public building, school, church or community or institutional building
outside the blast area.
10) All blasting will be done with small charges and with the following protective best management practices,
whenever feasible:
11) Two to four feet of rippable material will be left over the solid material to be blasted to serve as a
cover to prevent excessive fly rock. Blasting mats may be used if overburden is not available. The
blasting mats must be of suitable size and material to dampen noise and contain blasted materials.
12) The size of the shot will be limited by sound and vibration control levels and amount of area that can
be blasted with good results.
13) Small diameter drilling with high-speed equipment will be used to reduce the amount of explosives used in each hole.
14) The use of delay blasting techniques will be used to reduce vibrations associated with the blast.
15) Material stockpiles will be placed, if available to help block blasting and material processing noise transmission off-site.
16) Blasting shots will be designed to minimize ground vibration and air blast.
17) Blasting will not occur during adverse weather conditions, such as high winds, unless a loaded charge
must be detonated before the end of the day for safety reasons.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
171
5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes or Additions
No
New
Impact/No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to population and housing in Section 6.5. The SVSP Final EIR
discuses that the SVSP is located in the regional planning area known as Regional Statistical Area (RSA) 28.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projected that the RSA 28 would grow to approximately 674,800 persons by the year 2000. The SVSP Final EIR assumed that buildout of the 8,800 units at an average 2.75 persons per household would result in a population of approximately 24,200 persons. The SVSP Final EIR determined that the population project was within the growth projections for RSA 28 and the City and impacts related to population and housing growth would be less than significant. SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that the SVSP’s population, housing, and employment growth
are within overall SCAG projections for the City of Fontana, and impacts would be less than significant.
The SVSP Final EIR analyzed development of up to 8,800 residential units within the plan area. As discussed
previously, the Project would result in development of a total of 255 single-family residences on the Project
site but would result in a total SVSP buildout of 7,999 units or 801 fewer units than analyzed in the SVSP
Final EIR. Using the SVSP Final EIR average persons per household factor of 2.75 persons per unit, 801 fewer
units would generate 2,203 fewer residents. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.
Furthermore, the proposed Project is located in an urbanized area of Fontana and is surrounded by
residential uses. The proposed Project does not propose to expand surrounding utility infrastructure (e.g.,
water, electricity, cell tower, gas, sanitary sewer, and stormwater drains) in the Project vicinity. All onsite
systems would be provided and maintained by the property owner, as well as connect to existing and
planned infrastructure within adjacent roadways.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
172
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to displacement of housing would be less than significant. The existing Project site consists of undeveloped land. Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace a substantial number of existing people and would also provide 255 new residential units on the Project site. With construction of the additional housing units, replacement housing would not need to be constructed elsewhere. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the displacement of substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, and impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding population and housing. There have not
been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
None.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe population and housing impacts would result from
implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for
population and housing.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
173
5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative to Reduce Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or Additions
No
New
Impact/
No Impact
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
Impacts related to public services were analyzed on pages 6-22 through 6-30 of the SVSP Final EIR. The
SVSP Final EIR noted that development of the SVSP would create the need for additional fire services. The
SVSP Final EIR identifies that the development of the proposed fire station on Live Oak Avenue would reduce
project specific impacts to a less than significant level. Development within the Project area would adversely
impact the level of police services provided. According to the proposed plan, approximately 34 additional
police officers would be needed to serve the project area. The SVSP Final EIR identifies that the development of the proposed police contact office to be constructed in conjunction with the fire station on Live Oak Avenue would reduce project specific impacts to a less than significant level. The SVSP Final EIR noted that the SVSP would increase enrollment beyond current capacities of the six schools that served the SVSP area. Based on the Fontana Unified School District’s (FUSD) generation factors, 6,431 students would be generated which includes elementary, middle school, and high school students. The SVSP Final EIR concludes that the development of the planned six elementary school and one junior high, and the expansion of Fontana High School would be sufficient to accommodate students generated by the SVSP. The residential development
proposed by the SVSP may additionally increase the use and demand of the San Bernardino County Library
System Branch that serves the SVSP. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that expansion of the library would reduce
impacts to a less than significant level. The SVSP was not anticipated to adversely impact hospital services
but concludes that the SVSP would require approximately 60 to 70 hospital beds as a result of buildout.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
Fire Protection
A new fire station will be located in the quasi-public use area located adjacent to Live Oak Avenue and ‘C’
Street. Refer to the Community Facilities Master Plan in section 3.6 of this report for additional information
regarding the Southridge Village fire station. Implementation requirements and options are described in
Chapter 5.0 of the SVSP Final EIR.
Police Protection
The Specific Plan designates two quasi-public sites adjacent to Live Oak Avenue, one of which will include a
police “contact office” centrally located to serve the community. Additional information is provided in section
3.6 of this report, the Community Facilities Master Plan. Implementation requirements and options are
described in Chapter 5.0 of the SVSP Final EIR.
Schools
Agreement regarding funding and phasing of school facilities construction must be negotiated among the
school districts, the City, and developers. Refer to Chapter 5.0 of the SVSP Final EIR for a discussion of
implementation requirements and options.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
174
Library Service
Land designed for quasi-public uses in the Village Center could accommodate a new branch library facility,
should county library funds be available for construction.
a) Fire Protection and Emergency Services
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with the construction
of the fire station on Live Oak Avenue. The fire station and contact office referenced in SVSP mitigation
measures has since been constructed and is located at 11500 Live Oak Avenue, adjacent to the Project site.
The San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) provides fire protection, fire prevention, and emergency services to the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) for the City of Fontana and the Project site. The FFPD operates seven stations within the City and has a response time goal of less than five-minutes within the District 90 percent of the time (City of Fontana 2021). There are currently 3 FFPD stations located within 3.5 miles of the Project site. Fire Station 47, which is located at 11500 Live Oak Avenue, adjacent to the Project site, is the first responding unit. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would increase demands for fire protection and emergency medical services. As described previously, the proposed Project would generate 2,203 fewer residents than what was assumed in the SVSP Final EIR. The residential uses are expected to create the typical range of service calls to FFPD.
Because the Project site is within 3.5 miles of three existing fire stations and the Project site is within a
developed area that is served by these stations, the Project would not result in the requirement to construct
a new fire station. The Project would comply with the California Fire Code, adopted as Chapter 5-425 of
the Fontana Municipal Code. In addition, development impact fees included as PPP PS-1 would be paid for
fire suppression facilities, as required by Chapter 11-2 of the Fontana Municipal Code.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
b) Police Protection
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts to police services would be less than significant
with the addition of a contact office within the SVSP area.
Police protection services are provided by the Fontana Police Department (FPD). The FPD headquarters is
located at 17005 Upland Ave, approximately 4.8 miles from the Project site.
The proposed Project would generate a demand for police services during construction and operation of the
proposed Project. Although response time to service calls may vary, the FPD’s average response time to
Priority One calls between 2020 and 2021 was 4 minutes and 36 seconds (City of Fontana 2021). The
targeted response time goal for Priority One calls in 2021 to 2022 is 4 minutes and 20 seconds (City of
Fontana 2021). The FPD also operate the Southridge Contact Station at 11500 Live Oak Avenue. The contact
station is used by officers for reporting but is not staffed. The FPD currently has 188 sworn staff (City of
Fontana 2022). The incremental demand for the new onsite residents is not anticipated to increase FPD
response times to the Project site or surrounding area. Thus, the Project would not require any additional
officers at the FPD. In addition, the Project would comply with Section 5-8 of the City’s Municipal Code,
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
175
included as PPP PS-2, which requires the payment of development impact fees for police facilities. Therefore,
with existing personnel at the FPD, law enforcement personnel are anticipated to be able to respond in a
timely manner, and within set standard response times, to emergency calls in the Project area.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
c) School Services
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts to schools would be less than significant with the
development of the planned six elementary school and one junior high, and the expansion of Fontana High School. The Project site is located within the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD), which serves grades K-12. The schools that serve the site are listed below:
• Southridge Middle School located at 14500 Live Oak Avenue located 0.5 roadway miles from the
Project site.
• Oak Park Elementary School located at 14200 Live Oak Avenue located 1.1 roadway miles from
the Project site.
• Canyon Crest Elementary School located at 11851 Cherry Avenue which is located 1.2 roadway
miles from the Project site.
• Shadow Hills Elementary School located at 14300 Shadow Drive located 1.8 roadway miles from
the Project site.
• Chaparral Elementary School located at 14000 Shadow Drive located 2.1 roadway miles from the Project site.
• Kaiser High School located at 111155 Almond Ave located 3.5 roadway miles from the Project site.
The Project proposes the development of 255 residences, which would bring additional students to the area
that would be served by the existing schools. Student generation rates for FUSD are identified as 0.28
elementary school-age child per single-family dwelling, 0.10 middle school-age child per single-family
dwelling, and 0.20 high school age child per single-family dwelling (FUSD 2020). Using these generation
factors, the proposed 255 residences would generate 71 elementary school students, 26 middle school
students, and 51 high school students. Additionally, the applicant would be required to pay developer fees
to the school districts pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, included as PPP PS-3.
Per Government Code § 65996, payment of such development fees is deemed to provide full and complete
school facilities mitigation. As shown in Table PS-1, below, school enrollment for all schools has steadily
declined or stayed relatively consistent since 2021. Based on the steady or declining enrollment rates, local
schools would have the capacity to serve the increase in students generated by the proposed Project. Thus,
the Project would not generate the need for new or physically altered school facilities and the 148 new
students would be accommodated by existing facilities. As such, impacts related to school services would be
less than significant.
Table PS-1: School Enrollment between 2017-2018 and 2020-2021
School 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021
Canyon Crest Elementary School 533 514 487 449
Shadow Hills Elementary School 432 416 422 424
Oak Park Elementary School 526 478 471 420
Chaparral Elementary School 349 375 343 312
Southridge Middle School 1,123 1,092 1,088 1,016
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
176
Kaiser High School 2,267 2,228 2,226 2,190
Source: California Dept. of Education
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
d) Parks
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR did not analyze impacts related to parks. The City of Fontana has over 40 parks and public recreation facilities totaling approximately 1,621 acres (Fontana 2018). This includes City-owned community and neighborhood parks, a large regional park, public open space areas/parks, and recreation facilities (Fontana 2018). There are four public parks with 32.9
acres of within one miles of the Project site, as shown in Table PS-2.
Table PS-2: City Parks within One Mile
Name Address Distance from
Site Amenities Acres
Southridge Park 14501 Live Oak Ave. Adjacent to
site
Ball Fields, Barbecue Areas,
Basketball, Picnic Tables,
Playground, Restrooms, Snack
Bar, Soccer Field, and Tennis
Courts
15
Shadow Park 14250 Shadow Ave. 0.72 mile
Ball Fields, Barbecue Areas,
Baseball Fields, Picnic Shelter, Picnic Tables, Playground, Restrooms, Tennis Courts, and Trails
5.9
Oak Park 14224 Live Oak Ave.
0.92
Ball Fields, Barbecue Areas,
Basketball Court, Picnic
Shelters, Picnic Tables,
Playground, and Restrooms
3.4
Chaparral Park 11415 Rancherias Dr.
1.0 miles
Ball Fields, Baseball Field,
Barbecue Areas, Picnic
Shelters, Picnic Tables,
Playground, Restrooms, and
Trails
8.6
Total 32.9
Residents are expected to utilize the onsite open space to a greater degree than off-site facilities due to
convenience and proximity. In this way, the Project’s provision of open space would reduce the use of area
parks by residents. Nevertheless, some Project residents would be anticipated to utilize other public
recreational facilities.
Although the Project would develop 255 single-family homes and 9.88 acres of common open space
recreation area on the site for use by residents, compared to the SVSP Final EIR, the project would result in
2,005 fewer residents within the SVSP. The Project would include approximately 9.88 acres (430,492 SF)
of common open space throughout the site. The Project would include a main common area with a pool and
spa, outdoor patio, clubhouse, cabanas, BBQ’s, shade structures, tot-lot, and a lawn area. Additional open
space areas include multiple private pocket parks, a circuit park and a 1.74-acre public neighborhood park
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
177
with enhanced paving, trees for shade, trash receptacles, a shade structure, pickleball courts, and outdoor
seating for small social events and group gatherings. In addition to the open space within the residential
area of the Project, the Project would also include a natural trail around the perimeter of the site with
connections throughout the open space areas. Amenities provided as part of the Project are shown in Figure
3-3, Conceptual Open Space Plan. Due to the provision of onsite open space and recreational amenities, the
availability of 32.9 acres of parkland within one mile of the site, and the overall reduction in residents upon
buildout of the SVSP, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or expanded park facilities.
In addition, the impacts associated with the development of the proposed 9.88 acres of common open space
and recreation areas on the site are considered part of the impacts of the proposed Project as a whole and
are analyzed throughout the various sections of this EIR Addendum. For example, activities such as
excavation, grading, and construction as required for the park are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation Sections. As such, impacts related to parks would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. e) Other Public Facilities Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR determined development fees would help fund a library expansion and
reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The San Bernardino County Library provides library services
through 32 libraries located throughout the County. The closest library is the Kaiser Branch Library located
at 11155 Almond Avenue approximately 1.3 roadway miles from the Project site. As discussed previously,
the proposed Project would generate 2,203 fewer residents than what was anticipated in the SVSP Final
EIR. Therefore, the limited addition of new residents would not result in the need for construction of new or
expanded library facilities. In compliance with Chapter 5-9 of the Fontana Municipal Code and PPP PS-4,
the proposed Project would contribute development impact fees that would ensure adequate library services
are provided. As such, impacts related to other public facilities would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding public services. There have not been 1)
changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the
SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP PS-1: Fire Protection Fees. Prior to the issuance of either a certificate of occupancy or final building
approval, the Project Applicant/Developer shall pay the required development impact fees for fire
suppression facilities, as required by Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 11-2.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
178
PPP PS-2: Police Protection Fees. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy or final building permit
approval, the Project Applicant/Developer shall pay required development impact fees for police facilities
as required by Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 5-8.
PPP PS-3: School Fees. Prior to the issuance of either a certificate of occupancy or prior to building permit
final inspection, the applicant shall provide payment of the appropriate fees set forth by the applicable
school districts related to the funding of school facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq.
PPP PS-4: Library Fees. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy or final building permit approval,
the Project Applicant/Developer shall pay required library development impact fees as required by Fontana
Municipal Code Chapter 5-9.
Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe public services impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for public services.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
179
5.16 RECREATION Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR discusses parks and recreation in Section 3.7, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan.
The document assumed approximately 906 acres of land (35 percent of total SVSP area) would be
preserved for regional park and natural open space uses. The SVSP EIR assumed that based on an expected population of approximately 24,200 persons, the plan would provide about 37 acres of regional park/open space land per 1,000 population. Impacts related to parks and recreation were considered less than significant. a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to parkland would be less than
significant.
The Project would develop 255 single-family residences and 9.88 acres of common open space recreation
area on the site for use by residents. While most residents would primarily use onsite amenities, residents
are also anticipated to utilize local neighborhood and regional parks. The City parks within one mile of the
Project site are described in Table PS-2 above in Section 5.15, Public Services. In addition to nearby parks,
the Project would provide a new park and a natural trail along the eastern and southern perimeter of the
site with connections throughout.
As discussed previously, the Project would result in development of a total of 255 single-family residences
on the Project site but would result in a total SVSP of 7,999 or 801 fewer units than analyzed in the SVSP
Final EIR. Using the SVSP Final EIR average persons per household factor of 2.75 persons per unit, 801 fewer
units would generate 2,203 fewer residents. Due to the limited increase in population from implementation
of the Project, provision of onsite open space and recreational amenities, and the amount of existing
recreation facilities near the site, impacts related to the increase in the use of existing parks and recreational
facilities, such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated would be less than significant.
The Project proposes 9.88 acres of common open space area throughout the site. Thus, the Project would
contribute to maintenance of citywide recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project would not substantially
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
180
increase the use of existing neighborhood, regional parks or other recreational facilities and a less than
significant impact is anticipated.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
b) Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to parkland would be less than
significant. As described above, the Project includes a new 1.74-acre public park, as well as approximately 9.88 acres of private common open space area to be utilized by the residents. The impacts of development of the onsite amenities are considered part of the impacts of the proposed Project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of this addendum. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the recreation area are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation sections. As discussed previously, although the Project would develop 255 single-family homes and 9.88 acres of common open space recreation area on the site for use by residents, compared to the SVSP Final EIR, the project would result in 2,203 fewer residents within the SVSP. The Project would include a main common area with a pool and spa, outdoor patio, clubhouse, cabanas, BBQ’s, shade structures, tot-lot, and a lawn
area. Additional open space areas include multiple private pocket parks, a circuit park and a 1.74-acre
public neighborhood park with enhanced paving, trees for shade, trash receptacles, a shade structure,
pickleball courts, and outdoor seating for small social events and group gatherings. The Project would also
include a natural trail around the perimeter of the site with connections throughout the open space areas.
Amenities provided as part of the Project are shown in Figure 3-3, Conceptual Open Space Plan. Due to the
provision of onsite open space and recreational amenities, and the availability of 32.9 acres of parkland
within one mile of the site, the overall reduction in residents within the SVSP, the Project would not require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
In addition, the impacts associated with the development of the proposed 9.88 acres of common open space
and recreation areas on the site are considered part of the impacts of the proposed Project as a whole and
are analyzed throughout the various sections of this addendum. For example, activities such as excavation,
grading, and construction as required for the park are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Noise, and Transportation Sections. As such, impacts related to parks would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent
with those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding recreation. There have not been 1) changes
related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the
SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
181
the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
None.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe recreation impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for recreation.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
182
5.17 TRANSPORTATION Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or Additions
No
New
Impact/
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
This section was prepared using the Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated June 15, 2022,
and included as Appendix N and the Southridge Fontana Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Evaluation
prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated October 13, 2022, and including as Appendix O.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to transportation and circulation in Section 6.2.7. The traffic analysis for the SVSP forecasts the number of trips per day generated by the project. The SVSP was anticipated to generate a total of 100,390 total daily trips (78,180 external trips and 22,210 internal trips). The traffic analysis estimated that the cumulative total of project and non-project traffic would be 248,000 trips per day. According to the SVSP Final EIR development of the SVSP would result in the greatest traffic volume impacts to Jurupa Avenue and Cherry Avenue. The traffic analysis for the SVSP determined
the majority of arterial street intersections within the SVSP would require signalization as future development
occurs. Further, the traffic analysis determined that all intersections on the perimeter of the project area
would require signalization, except for the Marlay and Mulberry intersection. The SVSP Final EIR concluded
that implementation of the Circulation Master Plan would reduce major traffic-related impacts to a less than
significant level.
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that buildout of the SVSP would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts related to traffic, however, implementation of the Circulation Master Plan would reduce
traffic-related impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposed Project involves the construction of 255 dwelling units. The primary patrons of the proposed
development would be residents and their visitors. Due to amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, as further
discussed below, automobile delay is no longer considered a significant impact. Thus, the following
information is provided solely for informational purposes. The Project trip generation was calculated using
trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 11th Edition, as well as other sources.
The 1982 SVSP Final EIR (Original Specific Plan) analyzed the development of 8,800 residential units within
the entire SVSP area. Since 1983, 18 amendments to the SVSP (Approved SPA #18) have been processed
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
183
and a total of 7,836 residential units have been approved. The proposed Project intends to develop 255
units on the site. Of the 255 proposed units, 92 units were assumed to occur on the site and 163 would be
transferred from the overall remaining SVSP capacity, which is permitted by the SVSP (SVSP Section 5.11).
Therefore, buildout of the SVSP as modified by the Project is assumed to be 7,999 units, or 801fewer units
compared to the 8,800 analyzed in the SVSP Final EIR. Table T-1 presents a trip generation comparison
between of the original SVSP and the proposed Project.
As shown in Table T-1 below, the proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately net 8,122 fewer
daily trips, including 617 fewer vehicle trips (154 fewer inbound trips and 463 fewer outbound trips) during
the AM peak hour and 848 fewer vehicle trips (543 fewer inbound trips and 3047 fewer outbound trips)
during the PM peak hour. Therefore, Project-related decreases in vehicular trips associated with the transfer
of units and change in land use from Community Park and Quarry to Entry Estates/Duplex uses on the site
would likely result in a corresponding improvement in LOS levels at intersections surrounding the site. Table T-1: Trip Generation Comparison
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Original Specific Plan:
Single Family Detached 8,046 DU 1,464 4,168 5,632 4,765 2,798 7,563 75,874
Multifamily (Low Rise) Residential 754 DU 72 229 301 242 142 384 5,082
Original SP Total 1,536 4,397 5,933 5,007 2,940 7,647 80,956
Proposed Project:
Single Family Detached 6,990 DU 1,272 3,621 4,893 4,139 2,431 6,570 65,916
Proposed: Southridge Fontana 255 DU 38 84 122 83 63 145 1,836
Multifamily (Low Rise) Residential 754 DU 72 229 301 242 142 384 5,082
SP with Proposed Project Total 1,382 3,934 5,316 4,464 2,636 7,099 72,834
Trip Generation Comparison (Proposed – Original) -154 -463 -617 -543 -304 -848 -8,122
1DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Source: Traffic Analysis (Appendix N)
Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via two public driveways on Live Oak Avenue.
Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local
roadways that currently serve the Project area. The proposed Project would construct internal roadways that would provide resident access to residential units and driveways. In addition, final design plans would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. As such, the proposed Project would not introduce any new roadways or land uses that would interfere with adopted plans, programs, ordinances, or policies regarding roadway facilities. Alternative Transportation Live Oak Avenue and Village Drive are classified as Collector Streets with two lanes and sidewalks on both
streets. Live Oak Avenue has a Class III bicycle lane separated by striping. The proposed Project is 0.3 mile
east of Omnitrans Route 82 which serves Rancho Cucamonga and Sierra Lakes via Jurupa Avenue. The
Project would not conflict with any bicycle facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would also not conflict
with pedestrian facilities. Overall, Project impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less
than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
184
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR did not evaluate impacts related to conflicts or inconsistencies with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.2, subdivision (b) as the threshold was not included in CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G at the time the SVSP Final EIR was written. CEQA analysis of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
went into effect July 1, 2020, and therefore was not a CEQA consideration in 1981, when the SVSP Final
EIR was certified.
This addendum does not need to include a VMT analysis because the SVSP Final EIR was certified before
VMT analyses were required to be prepared (A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12
Cal.App.4th 1773, 1801). Also, because at the time the SVSP Final EIR was certified, VMT impacts were known or should have been known, adoption of the requirement to analyze VMT does not constitute significant new information, requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR (Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320). Further, the Project proposes fewer units than what was analyzed in the SVSP Final EIR, thus impacts related to VMT can be assumed to be less than significant. Nonetheless, the following discussion regarding the Project’s potential VMT impacts is included for informational purposes.
Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which
require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS)
as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went
into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December of 2018) (Technical
Advisory). Based on OPR’s Technical Advisory and its specific procedures for complying with the new CEQA
requirements for VMT analysis, the City of Fontana adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle
Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (City Guidelines).
The City Guidelines describe specific “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a proposed
land use project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact without conducting a more detailed
project level VMT analysis. The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool
(Screening Tool) was used to determine the Project’s consistency with screening criteria. Consistent with City
Guidelines, a land use project needs only to satisfy one of the four screening thresholds to result in a less
than significant impact. Screening thresholds are described in the following four steps:
• Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening
• Step 3: Low (Local Serving) Project Type Screening
• Step 4: Project net daily trips less than 500 ADT (average daily trips)
As discussed above, the Project is estimated to generate a net reduction of 8,122 daily vehicle trips as
compared to the SVSP. As such, the Project would not exceed the City’s screening threshold of 500 daily
vehicle trips and this screening criteria is met.
Therefore, since the Project would generate fewer than 500 ADT and is consistent with the City’s screening
criteria, the Project is presumed have a less than significant impact on VMT.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
185
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Circulation Master Plan would
reduce impacts to the circulation system to be less than significant level. Vehicular access to the Project site
would be provided via two ingress and egress driveways connecting to Live Oak Avenue. The Project would
realign the existing driveway on Live Oak Avenue with the existing commercial development across the road.
The existing driveway would be moved approximately 100 feet southwest to line up with the driveway of
the commercial development. Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network
of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project area.
The proposed Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict
with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Additionally, design of the proposed Project, including
the internal circulation, is subject to the City’s development standards and SVSP design guidelines. The Project
design would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire
code standards. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final EIR. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact.
Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within
the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The
installation of driveways, connections to existing infrastructure systems, and construction of new infrastructure
that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the temporary closure
of one side or portions of roadways for a short period of time (i.e., hours or a few days). However, the
construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the
California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the
City’s permitting process. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City’s permitting process would
ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency
access impacts to a less than significant level.
Operation
As described previously, the proposed Project area would be accessed via two ingress and egress driveways
connecting to Live Oak Avenue. The construction permitting process would provide adequate and safe
circulation to, from, and through the Project area, and would provide routes for emergency responders to
access different portions of the Project site. The Fire Department and the Public Works Department would
review the development plans as part of the permitting procedures 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), included as Municipal Code Section 5-425. Because the Project is required to comply
with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City’s permitting process, potential impacts related to
inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.
Also, as detailed in Table T-1, the proposed Project would result in approximately 8,122 fewer daily trips,
617 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 848 fewer PM peak hour trips than buildout of the site pursuant to the
SVSP. Thus, the Project would not generate traffic that would impact roadway capacity in such a manner
that would result in inadequate emergency access. Overall, impacts related to emergency access would be
less than significant.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
186
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding transportation and traffic. There have not
been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe transportation impacts would result from implementation of
the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for transportation.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
187
5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place,
or object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR did not analyze impacts related to tribal cultural resources. SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is Listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation
process for California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural
resources” with significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21084.2). AB 52 requires
that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological
resources, a project’s potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires that lead
agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR for a project. AB 52 does not apply to a Notice
of Exemption or Addendum.
As described in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, the Cultural Resource Assessment conducted for the Project
did not identify evidence of historical resources as defined by CEQA on the Project site. Additionally, the
Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC did not yield positive results for any known tribal cultural resources
within the Project area. Project site soils have been previously disturbed from past grading and past
development and there are no known tribal cultural resources on the site. As discussed in Section 5.5, Cultural
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
188
Resources, above, the records search indicated that one resource (P-36-060221, a prehistoric isolate) has
been recorded within the Project site boundaries. The Project site has been previously disturbed and was
used as a quarry; therefore, there is reduced potential for the Project to impact tribal cultural resources.
With implementation of General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures MM CUL-3, which provides protocols in the
event of inadvertent tribal cultural resources are discovered, impacts would be less than significant.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code section 21074, that is a historical resource as defined
in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines or PRC Section 5020.1(k) and no new substantial
environmental impacts would occur in comparison to the SVSP Final EIR.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As discussed above, there are no known tribal cultural resources that would be affected
by the Project. The Project site has been previously disturbed. Therefore, there is reduced potential for the Project to impact tribal cultural resources because the site has previously been disturbed.
Additionally, the California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are
discovered in the Project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has
conducted an investigation. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, they
shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Therefore, impacts to
tribal cultural resources would be less than significant and no new substantial environmental impacts would
occur in comparison to the SVSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding tribal cultural resources. There have not
been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
(See PPP CUL-1 in Section 5.5)
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
189
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project:
None.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project
(See MM CUL-3 in Section 5.5)
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe tribal cultural resources impacts would result from
implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for
tribal cultural resources.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
190
5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or Additions
No
New
Impact/
No Impact
a) Require or result in the construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to utilities and service systems in Section 6.2.10. According the
SVSP Final EIR, water service in the project area is supplied by the Fontana Water Company (FWC) (serving
the area west of Beech Avenue) and the West San Bernardino County Water District (WSBCWD) (serving
the area east of Beech Avenue). The FWC has a capacity of seven million gallons within its service area and
the WSBCWD has a four-million-gallon reservoir south of Interstate 10 serving its service area. The SVSP
Final EIR estimated that buildout of the 8,800 units would require approximately a water supply of 5.7 mgd.
The SVSP Final EIR notes that the FWC is to provide service to the area. Water service would require major
on and off-site improvements including reservoirs, transmission mains, distribution lines, and well reactivation.
The current SVSP area is not equipped to provide water to service to the area. However, the SVSP’s Water
Master Plan provides a plan of water facilities required by the development. The Water Master Plan
determined that an extensive network of water mains and two reservoirs would be required to serve the
SVSP area, including fire flow requirements. Additionally, existing inactive wells south of Interstate 10 would
have to be reactivated, with new mains extended to the site. With implementation of the Water Master Plan,
impacts related to water supply would be less than significant.
According to the SVSP Final EIR, the Chino Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) provides wastewater
services to the project area. The CBMWD manages two wastewater treatment plants which are impacted
by the SVSP. Regional Plan No.3 is located adjacent to the Beech Avenue and Jurupa Avenue intersection
and has a treatment capacity of 4.0 million gallons per day (mgd) and operates at approximately 72.5
percent (2.9 mgd) of its treatment capacity. Regional Plant No. 3 operates under temporary discharge
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
191
requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and would require and
advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) scheme to continue operating under the terms of the RWQCB.
Regional Plant No.1 is located in Ontario and has a capacity of 26 mgd and operates at approximately
81 percent (19 mgd) of its capacity. Construction of the Fontana Interceptor from Regional Plant No. 1 to
Regional Plant No. 3 is planned to allow sewage flows to be diverted to Regional Plant No. 1, with eventual
deactivation of Regional Plant No. 3. The SVSP Final EIR determined that buildout of the 8,800 units would
generate a total average flow of 2.25 mgd and would require major on and off-site improvements such as
a collection system, pump station, force main, construction of the Fontana Interceptor, and expansion of
Regional Plan No. 1. With implementation of the Sewer Master Plan, impacts to the sewer system would be
reduced to less than significant levels.
The SVSP Final EIR noted that the Fontana Rubbish Collectors, Inc., would provide solid waste removal to the
SVSP area. Development of the SVSP was estimated to generate approximately 15,000 tons of solid waste per year. The SVSP Final EIR determined impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant. The SVSP Final EIR noted that the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas to the area and indicated that no gas lines currently exist in the undeveloped parts of the SVSP area. Development
of the SVSP was estimated to result in consumption of approximately 1.2 million cubic feet of natural gas per year. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to natural gas would be less than significant. Electrical service is provided to the SVSP by the Southern California Edison Company (SCE). SCE maintains a major power line easement along parallel to Jurupa Avenue. Development of the SVSP was estimated to consume approximately 70 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to electricity would be less than significant.
According to the SVSP Final EIR, telephone service would be provided to the SVSP area via the Riverside
exchange and the Fontana exchange. The SVSP Final EIR noted that future development would increase the
demands for telephone service, which would require the installation of new service lines. The SVSP Final EIR
concluded that impacts related to telephone services would be less than significant.
*Note: Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 3 ceased operation approximately 30 years ago and is now used
as a recharge basin (RP-3 Basin).
Applicable SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
Water
The Water Master Plan, presented in section 3.4 of the SVSP Final EIR, provides a complete discussion of
water service facilities required by the development of Southridge Village.
An extensive network of water mains and two reservoirs will be required to serve Southridge Village,
including fire flow requirements. Existing inactive wells south of Interstate 10 will have to be reactivated,
with new mains extended to this site. Water mains will be located under major streets with service lines
added as necessary to serve individual developments. The two reservoirs are expected to be situated at
elevations of 1,160 and 1,200 feet on part of the Jurupa Mountains extending into the central area of the
site. Requirements and options for implementation of the Water Master Plan are described in Chapter 5.0
of the SVSP Final EIR.
Wastewater
A complete discussion of proposed wastewater collection and treatment facilities is included in the Sewer
Master Plan, section 3.5 of the SVSP Final EIR. Treatment and disposal of wastewater from Southridge
Village will be accomplished at RP No. 3 on the interim basis, with ultimate treatment provided at RP No. 1
in Ontario. The Sewer Master Plan recommends construction of the Fontana Interceptor to the maximum size
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
192
permitted under the available grant funding; deactivation and possible future upgrading of RP No. 3; and
connection of the interceptor for treatment and disposal at RP No. 1. An equalization basin could be
constructed at the present Regional Plant No. 3 site to store flow during peak hours of the day and discharge
this flow to the interceptor during low flow periods.
The basic sewage collection system will be similar regardless of the treatment alternative chosen, although
the location of the force mains and need for pumping the sewage flows versus a gravity system will vary
according to the final sewage disposal plan that is selected. Requirements and options for implementation
of the Sewer Master Plan are extensive; these are described in Chapter 5.0 of the SVSP Final EIR.
Natural Gas
The specific locations of gas lines to serve the Southridge Village community will be determined at the tentative tract level of planning. Developers should work directly with gas company planners to ensure that facilities are constructed as needed. Electricity
As tentative tracts and site plans are designed, developers should work directly with Edison Company planners to designate the specific location and configuration of electrical lines and facilities to best serve the Southridge Village community. Solid Waste No mitigation measures are proposed.
a) Require or result in the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to water would be less than significant
with implementation of the Water Master Plan. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts to wastewater
treatment would be considered less than significant with implementation of the Sewer Master Plan. In
addition, the SCSP EIR concluded that impacts related to electricity, natural gas, solid waste and
telecommunications facilities would be less than significant.
Domestic water services would be provided to the Project by the Fontana Water Company (FWC).
Wastewater treatment services are provided to the area by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). As
discussed previously, the Project would construct private domestic water and lines sewer lines onsite that
would connect to an existing 16-inch water and an existing 21-inch sewer line in Live Oak Avenue. In addition,
an onsite storm drain system is proposed which will collect and treat stormwater before out letting to a
proposed retention and infiltration basin and to an infiltration trench. The flow after treatment would be
directed to an existing storm drainpipe in Live Oak Avenue.
The Project would also connect to existing electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities.
Therefore, the Project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities that
could cause environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
193
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to water supplies would be less
significant with implementation of the Water Master Plan.
The Fontana Water Company (FWC) provides water to the Project site. FWC currently utilizes water from
the following sources: local groundwater basins (Chino Basin, Rialto-Colton Basin, and Lytle Basin); local
surface water (Lytle Creek); imported surface water (State Water Project water from Inland Empire Utilities Agency and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District); and recycled water (produced by Inland Empire Utilities Agency) (2020 UWMP). FWC’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) details that FWC has adequate supplies to serve its customers during normal, dry year, and multiple dry year demand through 2045 with projected population increases and accompanying increases in water demand. Furthermore, FWC forecasts for water demand are based on population projections of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which rely on adopted land use designations contained in general plans that cover the geographic area. Implementation of the Project would result in an incremental and less than significant increase in the demand for water. The UWMP detailed a baseline demand of 165 gallons per capita per day to project future water demands from 2025 through 2045. As discussed previously, the Project would result in development of a total of 255 single-family residences on the Project site. Using the SVSP Final EIR average persons per household factor of 2.75 persons per unit, the proposed 255 units would generate approximately 115,665 gallons per day or 129.56 acre-feet per year (AFY),
which is within the anticipated increased demand and supply for water, as shown on Table UT-1 and Table
UT-2 below.
Table UT-1: Fontana Water Company Projected Water Supply (AF)
Water Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Purchased or Imported
Water (IEUA)
15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Purchased or Imported
Water (SBVMWD)
3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200
Groundwater (not
desalinated) (Chino Basin)
9,278 9,983 11,128 12,293 13,183
Groundwater (not
desalinated) (Rialto Basin)
5,865 5,976 6,087 6,199 6,310
Groundwater (not
desalinated) (Lytle Basin)
6,390 6,390 6,390 6,390 6,390
Surface Water (not
desalinated) (Lytle Creek)
4,860 4,860 4,860 4,860 4,860
Recycled Water (IEUA) 1,000 1,500 2,00 2,500 3,000
Total 45,593 46,909 48,665 50,442 51,943
IEUA = Inland Empire Utilities Agency; SBVMWD = San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
Source: FWC 2020 UWMP
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
194
Table UT-2 Fontana Water Company Projected Water Demand (AF)
Water Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Normal Year
Supply Totals 45,593 46,909 48,665 50,442 51,943
Demand Totals 45,593 46,909 48,665 50,442 51,943
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Single Dry Year
Supply Totals 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Demand Totals 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Multiple Dry Years
First Year
Supply Totals 42,886 44,124 45,776 47,447 48,859
Demand Totals 42,886 44,124 45,776 47,447 48,859
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second Year
Supply Totals 41,415 42,610 44,206 45,820 47,183
Demand Totals 41,415 42,610 44,206 45,820 47,183
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third Year
Supply Totals 34,074 35,057 36,369 37,697 38,819
Demand Totals 34,074 35,057 36,369 37,697 38,819
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth Year
Supply Totals 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Demand Totals 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth Year
Supply Totals 36,526 37,580 38,987 40,411 41,613
Demand Totals 36,526 37,580 38,987 40,411 41,613
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: FWC 2020 UWMP Development of the Project site would also be required to comply with CALGreen/Title 24 requirements for low-flow plumbing fixtures and irrigation, which would provide for efficient water use. Therefore, FWC has
sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and
impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to wastewater would be less than
significant with implementation of the Sewer Master Plan.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
195
The City of Fontana owns and maintains six of its own pump stations and 437 miles of sewer lines, however
wastewater treatment services are provided by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The City of Fontana
is within the service area of two of IEUA’s Regional Plants (RP), RP-1 and RP-4. The treatment capacity of
RP#1 is 44 million gallons per day (gpd), and currently treats approximately 28 million gpd, or 65 percent
of its capacity. The treatment capacity of RP-4 is 14 million gpd, and typically treats approximately 10
million gpd or approximately 71 percent of capacity. Based on the IEUA’s estimated wastewater generation
rates of 100 gallons per person per household for residential, the Project would conservatively generate a
total of 25,491 gpd (0.25 mgd) of wastewater8. This capacity is adequate to serve the Project and the
Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. As such,
impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final EIR. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to the generation of solid waste would
be less than significant. Solid waste disposal services for Fontana are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, a private company
under franchise agreement with the City of Fontana. Solid waste is taken to the Mid-Valley Landfill located
at 2390 Alder Avenue in Rialto, California. The current permitted solid waste disposal at the Mid-Valley
landfill is 7,500 tons per day with a design capacity to accept 8,280 tons per day (CalRecyle 2022). As of
July 2022, the landfill's peak tonnage was 4,918 tons (CalRecycle 2022). The anticipated life for the landfill
at its currently permitted capacity is 2045 (CalRecycle 2022).
Project construction would generate solid waste for landfill disposal in the form of construction waste from
packaging and discarded materials. However, Section 5.408.1 of the 2019 California Green Building
Standards Code requires construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the
nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Thus, the construction solid waste that would be disposed
of at the landfill would be approximately 35 percent of the waste generated. The solid waste from the
Project would be taken to the Mid-Valley Landfill. As the Mid-Valley Landfill has a limit of 7,500 tons per
day and currently receives approximately 4,918 tons per day, it has an additional capacity of 2,582 tons
per day (CalRecycle 2022), the facilities would be able to accommodate the addition of solid waste during
construction of the proposed Project.
Operation of the Project includes development of the 255 two-story single-family residences. Based on the
per capita solid waste generation factor for the City of Fontana of one ton per person per year, the Project
would generate approximately 5,436 pounds of waste per day or 2.72 tons per day. Therefore, the facility
would be able to accommodate the addition of 2.72 tons per day of solid waste from operation of the
proposed Project. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
8 Calculated using the IEUA’s wastewater generation rate of 100 gallons per day per household and the SVSP Final EIR’s average
persons per household figure of 2.75. (701 ÷ 2.75) x 100 = 25,491 gpd
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
196
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impacts. The SVSP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to solid waste would be less than
significant.
The proposed Project would result in new development that would generate an increased amount of solid waste. All solid waste-generating activities within the City are subject to the requirements set forth in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste. Development of the Project would be consistent with all state regulations, as ensured through the City’s permitting process; and
impacts would not occur. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related
to potential conflicts with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
pertaining to solid waste.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the SVSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the SVSP Final
EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding utilities and service systems. There have not
been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
None.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe utilities and service systems impacts would result from
implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required
regarding utilities and service systems.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
197
5.20 WILDFIRE Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New Mitigation or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant Effect is Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollution concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines, or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Final EIR
The SVSP Final EIR did not evaluate impacts related to wildfire as the threshold was not included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G at the time the SVSP Final EIR was written.
Final EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None.
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is within an
area identified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CAL FIRE 2022). As stated in Section
5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed Project would not physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project driveways and internal access would
be required to meet the City’s design standards to ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation
pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of
Regulations, Part 9). Additionally, the proposed Project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent
road closures or long-term blocking of road access) that would substantially impair or otherwise conflict with
an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts related to emergency
response and evacuation plans associated with construction of the proposed Project would be less than
significant.
Access to the Project site would be provided by two driveways off Live Oak Avenue. Fire access to the site
would be provided via the emergency use road off Old Live Oak Road and via the two main ingress/egress
driveways. The Project does not include any changes to public or private roadways that would physically
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
198
impair or otherwise conflict with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Further, the
proposed Project would not obstruct or alter any transportation routes that could be used as evacuation
routes during emergency events. Further, access to and from the Project site for emergency vehicles would
be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and the City as part of the Project approval process to
ensure the proposed Project is compliant with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle
access.
Further, consistent with Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-656, the Project includes a Project-specific Fire
Protection Plan (FPP) that has been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the Fontana Fire Department
(incorporated as Appendix P to this Addendum). The FPP provides fuel treatment and fire protection
measures to minimize any potential loss of life, homes, or personal property due to a wildland fire. Figure
5-6, Fuel Modification Exhibit, illustrates the location of all fuel modification zones, fire access roads, property
lines, proposed hydrant locations, and projected fire behavior. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
Fuel Modification Plan
Figure 5-6Southridge
City of Fontana
EV
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
M
MM
MM
M
M
M
5%
0 50 100 200
CITY OF FONTANAFUEL MODIFICATION EXHIBITTRACT NO. 20565
Site
VICINITY MAP
JURUPA AVE
SANTA ANAAVE
VALLEY BLVD
SAN BERNARDINOFWY
SLOVER AVE
MU
L
L
B
E
R
R
Y
AV
E
CH
E
R
R
Y
A
V
E
LIV
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
HE
M
L
O
C
K
AV
E
BE
E
C
H
A
V
E
CIT
R
U
S
A
V
E
CITRU
S
A
V
E
MU
L
L
B
E
R
R
Y
AV
E
SLOVER AVE
CHERRY AVE
VILLAGEDR
SOUTHRIDGE VILLAGEFONTANA, CA
PREPARED BY:UNITED CIVIL, INC.30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 215AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301PH: (818) 707-8648FAX: (818) 707-8649
NH SOUTHRIDGE LLC
DEVELOPER/APPLICANT:REVISION BLOCK FUEL MODIFICATION EXHIBIT
500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 570
TEL: (949) 344-2705NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92600 TRACT NO. 20565
CONTACT: BRYAN AVILLA
EV
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
M
MM
MM
M
M
M
5%
0 50 100 200
CITY OF FONTANAFUEL MODIFICATION EXHIBITTRACT NO. 20565 SiteVICINITY MAPJURUPA AVE SANTA ANAAVEVALLEY BLVDSAN BERNARDINOFWYSLOVER AVEMULLBERRYAVECHERRY AVE LIVE OAK AVE HEMLOCKAVE BEECH AVE CITRUS AVECITRUS AVEMULLBERRYAVESLOVER AVECHERRY AVE VILLAGEDR
SOUTHRIDGE VILLAGEFONTANA, CA
PREPARED BY:
UNITED CIVIL, INC.30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 215AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301PH: (818) 707-8648FAX: (818) 707-8649
NH SOUTHRIDGE LLC
DEVELOPER/APPLICANT:REVISION BLOCK FUEL MODIFICATION EXHIBIT
500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 570
TEL: (949) 344-2705NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92600 TRACT NO. 20565
CONTACT: BRYAN AVILLA
EV
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
M
MM
MM
M
M
M
5%
0 50 100 200
CITY OF FONTANAFUEL MODIFICATION EXHIBITTRACT NO. 20565
Site
VICINITY MAP
JURUPA AVE
SANTA ANAAVE
VALLEY BLVD
SAN BERNARDINOFWY
SLOVER AVE
MU
L
L
B
E
R
R
Y
AVE
CHE
R
R
Y
A
V
E
LIV
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
HEM
L
O
C
K
AVE
BE
E
C
H
A
V
E
CIT
R
U
S
A
V
E
CITRU
S
A
V
E
MU
L
L
B
E
R
R
Y
AVE
SLOVER AVE
CHERRY AVE
VILLAGEDR
SOUTHRIDGE VILLAGEFONTANA, CA
PREPARED BY:
UNITED CIVIL, INC.30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 215AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301PH: (818) 707-8648FAX: (818) 707-8649
NH SOUTHRIDGE LLC
DEVELOPER/APPLICANT:REVISION BLOCK FUEL MODIFICATION EXHIBIT
500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 570
TEL: (949) 344-2705NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92600 TRACT NO. 20565
CONTACT: BRYAN AVILLA
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
200
This page intentionally left blank.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
201
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollution concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As discussed previously, the Project site is within a VHFHSZ. The Project proposes the
development of 255 residential units on the currently undeveloped site. The Fontana General Plan EIR
describes that the City is surrounded by foothills that have steep terrain and fuels, and the predominate
weather patterns feature high temperatures, low humidity, as well as seasonal high speed Santa Ana winds.
These factors together have created a potential for significant damage due to wildfire, especially for homes
and structures built near the wildland urban interface (Fontana 2018).
In addition to temperature and winds, the topography of the site can either hinder or facilitate that spread of wildfire. The Project site contains gentle to moderate slopes from south to north with a component sloping east to west. Implementation of the Project would involve grading activities that would modify site topography such that slopes would be less steep as compared to existing conditions. As such, Project grading would not introduce substantially steeper slopes that would exacerbate the potential spread of wildfire or the exposure of Project occupants to wildfire pollutant concentrations compared to existing conditions. As discussed in Section 5.15, Public Services, fire protection services are provided by the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) through a contract with the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD). The FFPD operates seven fire stations in the City of Fontana, the closest to the Project site being Station 47 located adjacent to the Project site to the west. The Project site’s close proximity to Station 47 would mean the FFPD would be able to respond to potential fires quickly which would help reduce impacts associated with wildfire spread and subsequent exposure of individuals to pollutant concentrations.
In addition, the Project would include new paved roads throughout the Project site, in accordance with
applicable City codes, ensuring all residential areas of the Project site are accessible to emergency
responders as well as improved access to native vegetation to the south and east, thus reducing the risk of
the uncontrolled spread of fire. The proposed Project would be constructed in compliance with the California
Fire Code (CFC) and California Building Code (CBC), and final Project design would be subject to plan check
by the FFPD to verify compliance with applicable fire prevention and protection requirements. Further, as
discussed under threshold a), the Project includes a FPP and a Fuel Modification Plan that would further
reduce the potential spread of wildfire.
Thus, no significant fire hazards are expected to be created on the Project site. Compliance with existing
codes, regulations, and polices would reduce the risk of exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose Project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Impacts would
be less that significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. Although the Project includes a new driveway and fire access lane within the Project site,
the Project does not include any changes to public or private roadways that would exacerbate fire risk or
that would result in impacts to the environment. Although utility improvements, including domestic water,
sanitary sewer, and storm drain lines proposed as part of the Project would be extended throughout the
Project site, these utility improvements would be underground and would not exacerbate fire risk. Adherence
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
202
to existing regulations would reduce risks from urban and wildland fire threats to the City to a less than
significant level. The utility improvements that are part of redevelopment of the Project site would be
reviewed and approved by the City part of the Project approval process to ensure compliance. Therefore,
the proposed Project would not include infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines, or other utilities), that would exacerbate fire risk or that would result in impacts to the
environment.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As stated previously, the Project site is located within a VHFHSZ. According to FEMA’s FIRM Flood Map 06071C8665H, the Project site is classified as Zone X, which includes areas with a minimal or 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard. As discussed in Section 5.7, Geology and Soils, the Geotechnical Report found that the while the site exhibits gentle sloping, the land is not typically prone to land sliding. As established in Section 5.10 of this Addendum, soil would be compacted and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered due to grading during Project construction, and there would be an increased potential for flooding compared to existing conditions. However, construction BMPs would be identified and implemented as part of the SWPPP required for the proposed Project. Implementation of construction BMPs would control and direct surface runoff to prevent flooding. As such, Project construction would not expose
people or structures to significant risks related to downslope and downstream flooding. During operation,
the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing onsite drainage patterns. Compliance with
the proposed operational BMPs would ensure onsite storm drain facilities would be sized to accommodate
stormwater runoff from the Project site so that onsite flooding would not occur. Further, projects in the City
are required to comply with the CBC, which would include 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 structures so that it would withstand the effects of strong
ground shaking. These features would reduce potential impacts related to landslides to a less than significant
level.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding wildfire. There have not been 1) changes
related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the
SVSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
203
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
None.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
No new impacts nor substantially more severe wildfire impacts would result from implementation of the
proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required regarding wildfires.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
204
5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Substantial Change in
Project or
Circumstances Resulting in New Significant
Effects
New Information
Showing
Greater Significant Effects than Previous EIR
New Information
Identifying
New Mitigation or Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is Declined
Minor Technical
Changes
or Additions
No New
Impact/
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As discussed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, the Project site consists of Riversidean
Sage Scrub habitat, disturbed habitat and developed land. The Project site does not contain any special-
status plant species; however, the site has the potential to support special-status wildlife species. Therefore,
the Project would implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3, which would reduce
impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level.
As discussed in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, there are no historic resources located with the Project site. In
addition, due to the development of the Project site and previous disturbances associated with the
construction and operation of the past quarry use, the potential for encountering paleontological and
archeological resources is small. However, the Project would implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2 and MM CUL-3, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the
proposed Project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
205
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. The proposed Project’s potential cumulative impacts were analyzed in the SVSP Final EIR
as part of build out of the SVSP and would not result in new impacts beyond those analyzed in the SVSP
Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe cumulatively
considerable impact under any impact area, including aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, GHG
emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public
services, recreation, transportation and traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, or wildfires. With implementation of existing regulations and the relevant Final EIR’s mitigation measures, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
No New Impact. As described throughout Section 5, above, the proposed Project has no new or substantially
more severe potentially significant impacts and no new mitigation measures would be required. The implementation of the SVSP Final EIR mitigation measures, City standards, and City guidelines would ensure that there would be no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. There would be no new impacts.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to
evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist. There have not been 1) changes related to
development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under
which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the SVSP Final EIR due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant
effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the
SVSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs)
As outlined in Sections 5.1 through 5.20, above.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
As outlined in Sections 5.1 through 5.20, above.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
As detailed previously, the SVSP Final EIR mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project
would be implemented for the Project as intended by the SVSP Final EIR. Upon implementation of applicable
Final EIR mitigation measures, no new impacts nor substantially more adverse impacts would result from the
implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. No
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
206
refinements related to the proposed Project are necessary to the SVSP Final EIR mitigation measures and no
new mitigation measures are required.
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
207
6 Document Preparers and Contributors
Lead Agency:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
CEQA Document Preparer:
EPD Solutions, Inc.
Konnie Dobreva, JD
Megan Rupard
Danielle Thayer
Meaghan Truman
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
208
7 References
California Department of Conservation. Mineral Land Classification Map, Updated Mineral Land
Classification for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production-
Consumption (P-C) Region, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, Special Report 206, Plate 1.
2008.
California Department of Conservation State Mining and Geology Board. Guidelines for Classification and
Designation of Mineral Lands. Accessed September 1, 2022 from:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/guidelines/documents/classdesig.pdf
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor. Accessed on 13 September 2022.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
CalRecycle. 2022. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details - Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055).
Accessed: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662
California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Cal FIRE. Accessed from: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
California Important Farmland Finder. California Department of Conservation. Accessed from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed 21February 2022 from:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=026e830c914c495797c969a3e5668538
CalRecycle. Landfill Tonnage Reports, 2019. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LandfillTipFees/
Caltrans Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-
analysis/noise-vibration/guidance-manuals
City of Fontana. 2022. Code of Ordinances. Accessed: https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana
City of Fontana. 2018. General Plan Update 2015-2035. Accessed: https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035 City of Fontana. General Plan Update 2015-2035 EIR. 2018 Accessed: https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update City of Fontana. 2021. Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Years 2021/2022 - 2022/2023. Accessed:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/35965/FY21-22-and-FY22-23-Adopted-Operating-
Budget
ESA Associates, Inc. IEUA Facilities Master Plan Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH
#2016061064. Page 3.8-24. December 2016. Accessed: https://18x37n2ovtbb3434n48jhbs1-
wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/IEUA-Facilities-Master-Plan-DEIR-PRINT.pdf
Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. CalRecycle. Accessed from
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
City of Fontana The Heights at Southridge Project
209
Fault Activity Map of California. California Department of Conservation. Accessed from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/
FEMA Flood Map Center. Accessed: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home
Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). Accessed:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-
vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf
Fontana Unified School District. 2020. Developer Fee Justification Study DRAFT April 15, 2020. Accessed:
https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/DFJ.pdf
Fontana Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed: https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf Ontario International Airport. 2011. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/pdfs/ALUCP_FULL.pdf U.S. Geological Survey. 2018 (USGS). Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data. Accessed:
https://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/map-us.html#home.
2019 Residential Energy Code Fact Sheet (2019 Fact Sheet). Accessed: https://energycodeace.com/content/resources-ace/file_type=fact-sheet 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Accessed:
https://energycodeace.com/site/custom/public/reference-ace-
2019/index.html#!Documents/section1500mandatoryfeaturesanddevices.htm#mairdistributionandventilati
onsystemductsplenumsandfans.htm